After viewing over 100 online reports, news items, snippets, and blogs, the popular conclusion is that because of squabbles over just about everything, there will be no definite long-term agreement reached on CO2 emission levels, who will pay for them, and even how they can be reached, at the UN’s Poznan, Poland, climate conference.

The UN’s worldwide regulatory efforts to reshape and direct the economic future of businesses and countries through climate change initiatives, with the possibility of plunging many countries into recession and repression, looks rather dismal at this time.

However, expect the UN to never give up. Ban Ki-Moon, like a sales pitch on a late-night TV informercial, is keeping up the pressure saying, “If we take action today it may not be too late. But if we take action tomorrow, we may have to regret it for not only us, but for coming generations and even for planet Earth.”

Spiegel Online International reports that the first draft by Yvo de Boer, secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), of a protection treaty for 2012 and beyond consisted of lists of demands by the Americans, Europeans, and developing countries, all in contradiction to one another.

The biggest stumbling block according to a senior fellow at the CFR, Michael A. Levi, to what he described as stalled negotiations, are the classifications of poor countries vs. rich countries. Because the wealthier nations of the world would cap their greenhouse-gas emissions and would be paying for poorer countries economic problems resulting from emissions caps, re-development, and emission credits, the classifications really matter -- the devil is always in the details.

The parameters for distinguishing wealthy from non-wealthy nations was established in 1992. Well, a lot has changed since then. Countries such as Qatar, China, Singapore, and Peru were listed as Third World countries then -- very poor. But of course they are very wealthy now. Truly poor Portugal, with an average income of $22,000 per year, is still listed as wealthy. China and Singapore are doing everything they can to maintain their poor status, lest they have to ante up as they want the United States to do. They would rather be on the receiving end, than the paying end -- imagine that.

Originally expecting 8,000 people to attend the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), December 1-12, several days before the meetings commenced, the UNFCCC had already registered 10,657 people.

Taking into account the travel methods, heat, and lighting for the convention center and hotel rooms, etc., estimates for carbon dioxide release are in the 13,000-ton category.

But the UN wants you to know that their own UNFCCC members who traveled from Bonn, Germany, to Poland for the event were traveling by bus or train, considered more “carbon friendly” by the global warming theory enthusiasts. That leaves at least 10,457 who used more carbon-producing transportation methods.

Not to worry, however, because Poland "plans to offset the total emissions resulting from the conference once a final calculation has been made," the UNFCCC said. Carbon offsets will be offered for anyone who wishes to invest in a scheme that mitigates the pollution by the same amount, through reforestation projects, or using cleaner technologies. 

Any takers? We’ll probably never know, but odds are not many, if any.

The only thing stopping the bloatacrats from ramming this junk science agenda down this hapless planet's inhabitants is the fact that we are currently staring at an impending global economic depression, added to the fact, that as always, they waaayyyy understimated the costs of their "save the earth" scheme.

With another convention being planned for Copenhagen in December 2009, these greenies-in-name-only should be encouraged to stay home.

Perhaps banning all UN conventions -- they hold a ton on a variety of topics each and every year -- will greatly contribute to a cleaner world -- and definitely one less controlled by elites.

Even though evidence continues to mount against the blather coming from global-warming agenda-seeking enthusiasts, the president-elect plans to establish strict limits that would reduce emissions to almost impossible levels.

A Reuters article entitled, “Obama vows climate action despite financial crisis” really should have been entitled, “Despite evidence to the contrary, Obama will force U.S. to enter new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

Because that’s what the nation’s new leader plans on doing. "We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them by an additional 80 percent by 2050," he said.

This is exactly what France’s Sarkozy called for and Great Britain has called for, right down to the last little detail. The only thing he didn’t mention was personal carbon ration cards, where one’s gasoline, plane tickets, and heating fuel consumption are tracked. When one’s carbon allotment is used up, one could opt to stay put, freeze to death, or trade with others on the black market.

Team Gore Update:

Journalist Christopher Booker of theTelegraph in the UK has owned two members of Al Gore's team of global warming alarmists:

Dr. James Hansen - head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and chief scientific supporter of Al Gore's weather forecast: Booker reports that last week Hansen's group announced that this October was the warmest on record.  Independent researchers, not part of the global warming propaganda campaign, found this somewhat suspicious in light of unprecedented cold weather reports from around the globe during the month.  They investigated the GISS data - and shock!  It was defective.  Seems that all the data for Russia in the October report was rolled forward from the previous months(s).  An astronomer by training, it appears that Dr. Hansen is somewhat challenged by terra firma data.  (Comic irony footnote:  Hansen's GISS outfit in New York City occupies the building whose first floor tenant is the diner used in the TV comedy Seinfeld.  Apparently, some of the elaborate deception schemes cooked-up by George Constanza in the famous eatery may have been able to ride the local thermals at least as far as the upper floors of the building.  Life imitates art.  Who said Team Gore wasn't working off a script?)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri- head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):  The IPCC is the outfit that promoted Al Gore's movie Inconvenient Truth to the point where the committee that hands out Nobel Prizes for Peace decided he just had to be given one; a ridiculous choice, but unfortunately not unprecedented.  At the end of his article, Booker notes that Dr. Pachauri himself was recently caught in Australia claiming that in the last decade global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever.  While Dr. Pachauri may also be working off of data produced in Russia, even global warming fans know that global climate data over the last several years is mixed and not capable of justifying such a statement.   Like Dr. Hansen, Dr. Pachauri is not a climatologist by training.  He started out his professional career in India as a manager in a diesel locomotive firm.  He then went on to pick up a masters and PhD in industrial engineering from North Carolina State University.  (Disclaimer:  Editor has one son at NC State and another at UNC Chapel Hill so he can't elaborate on the prowess of NC State graduates.)

With Dr. Hansen's group having slipped up on the data being produced in Russia and Dr. Pachauri having to manage beyond his areas of expertise, we thought it would be good time to recap the background of other Team Gore members that made Inconvenient Truth the scientific wonder that it is.  From a review of the movie in January 2007:

[A] telling aspect of the Gore film:  An entire documetary on a scientific issue with not a single scientist speaking on camera to support Gore's arguments.  OK, so the directors maybe used artistic license there.  Watch their credits at the end of the film.  Under image acknowlegements, because Gore displayed a picture of the Earth taken from space, you can be impressed by a credit for NASA, ditto for some other image-source combinations.  What you will not find is a single acknowlegement of thanks to any scientist or scientific organization.  No, not even a single scientist as an advisor to the director or editor.

You can note that the film had six [obscure] researchers  [Here are the closest matches for a web search of their names in January 2007]:

Lynda Hayden - other research credits include Surf Girls and Sorority Life III.

Keith Relkin - If [this is] the right guy, being a Scientologist makes him the closest thing to a scientist on the Gore team.

Marianna Yarovskaya - cut her investigative journalist teeth with Russian State Televison. Also worked on the documentary KAL007

Stephen Ruskowski - ranks no more than a below the line credit for [the movie's] Director Guggenheim

Gwen Cassidy - noted on only one other production: Travel Channel's Made in America.

Carey Ann Strelecki - one generic reference: "production supervisor - broadcast media"