Recommended by the billblog:

Check out the free pdf of Chapter 1 of Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan. You can download it HERE. Seems that there's a massive disinformation, misdirection, manufactured doubt campaign waging. It's a battle for your mind and you might as well know about it. By the same author and associates, there's the Desmog Blog.

Feeling a bit gobsmacked in the gloom of post-COP15? Why not take a gander at a rallying blog post by Johann Hari. It's entitled After Copenhagen, it's all down to us.

Finally, a treat for the nerds. This is a fun read and interesting.

Why not post your reading recommendations in the comment section?

You wouldn't have seen this on CBC, CTV, Global or other mainstream media. You wouldn't know of it by reading your newspapers. If you heard about it, it would have been a quick sanitized word about a few protesters misbehaving and police having to arrest them. In fact, pre-emptive arrests were made by Danish police constantly. There was a Danish law, recently passed, that allowed this. Pre-emptive arrests and violent striking out at peaceful protesters was part of the control plan. Why does mainstream media cooperate with this plan?

Copenhagen was rife with police brutality. Copenhagen police initiated violence frequently. I read tweets from eye-witnesses constantly throughout COP15. It wasn't pretty reading. This isn't a pretty video.

Here is Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians speaking about the police brutality in Copenhagen on December 16, 2009.

I'm back after having taken a few days off blogging to follow the moment by moment spasms of the last days of COP15, Copenhagen, the biggest COP-out in history. I've attended a protest at the office of the Member of Parliament for this riding of Saanich and the Gulf Islands, Gary Lunn and have become sleepless in Saanich.

A brief opinion:

COP15 is the biggest cop-out in history. Never before were more powerful people gathered in one spot with clearer evidence of peril facing our planet, clear and present danger directly in front of living children & grandchildren, their descendants, and large groups of mostly African people yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Never before was there a greater opportunity to veer away from the tipping point at which global warming and climate change become so severe that they are unstoppable, that they become entities which can only gather strength, grow and complete their own life-cycle, transforming our earth into something very different, one without us and without many other terrestrial life forms.

Instead of steering humanity from the brink, the richest and the most powerful have settled for playing a game of chicken, hurtling into the future and carrying an entire planet in the backseat. Risky business. Risky, risky business.

Here's what it's all about: It's about hanging onto the right to blast CO2 into the atmosphere as long as they can get away with it, about playing tactical, diplomatic games to one-up neighbours and reserve more of the atmosphere for more of their very own GNP, the Grossest of National Products, CO2. It's about political bullshit at its most rank.

Listen. If the human race has a horseshoe up its almighty yingyang, it might just stop short of the killer tipping point and settle for severe degradation of the biosphere, the elimination of many island nations, the flooding of major coastal cities, the inception of climate, water and food wars, the creation of billions of climate refugees and a few other choice odds and sodds.

But it won't leave much wiggle room. For instance, what if a slew of volcanoes spewed volcano innards for a year — would that be enough propel us into the end-game? If the atmosphere is chock full of greenhouse gases how much more can it take? The atmosphere has an upper limit on the amount of CO2 it can hold and still have a human race living in its lower bounds, the surface of the earth. We are almost kissing cousins with that upper limit right now. Species of life are dropping like flies. Pay attention. Due diligence is your responsibility.

Risky business.

What does it take to be considered treasonous against a planet?

Gag me.

The following is entirely from democracynow.org with enormous gratitude. The transcript of Naomi Klein's word are below the vid.

Author & Journalist Naomi Klein: Fate of Planet Rests on Mass Movement for Climate Justice

Hundreds of activists from across the globe are gathering every day in downtown Copenhagen for the people’s climate summit, the Klimaforum. On Thursday night, Shock Doctrine author and journalist Naomi Klein addressed a packed hall at a panel on ecological debt and climate justice. [includes rush transcript]
Filed under Copenhagen Climate Summit
Email to a friend
Help
Printer-friendly version
Purchase DVD/CD

WATCH

Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download
More…

LISTEN

Real Video Stream

Naomi Klein, Author and journalist. She is blogging from Copenhagen for The Nation. Her recent articles include Climate Rage.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

RELATED DEMOCRACY NOW! STORIES

• Naomi Klein and Martin Khor on the Growing North-South Divide in Copenhagen over Kyoto, Climate Debt and Emission Targets (12/9/2009)

AMY GOODMAN: In this exclusive broadcast, we are the only daily global news hour that is broadcasting on television, radio and the internet daily from the Bella Center, from inside the COP15, the climate change summit.
But we’re going to go right now to the People’s Climate Summit, the Klimaforum, that’s taking place in the heart of Copenhagen, where activists from across the globe are gathering every day. Concerns being raised at the people’s climate summit include reparations, justice, models of alternative development, sustainable consumption, non-market solutions, climate refugees, indigenous rights.
On Thursday night, Shock Doctrine author and journalist Naomi Klein addressed a packed hall at a panel on ecological debt and climate justice.

• NAOMI KLEIN: Over at the Bella Center, a particular model of dealing with climate change is dying. It is revealing itself before the world as nothing more than a final scramble for the remaining resources of a planet in peril. That’s what’s going on at the Bella Center. And when you’re in there, you can feel it. It feels really ugly.
  
  There was a protest yesterday of people from Tuvalu, and they were making themselves visible. They were—I see all you nodding, because it’s been very odd in there. They were talking about the absence of their future, the disappearance of their country, which is a form of genocide. It meets the UN definition of genocide, which is the acts that lead to the disappearance of a people. And as they were staging this protest, you watched people in business suits file by and look at their shoes and try not to meet their eyes, in the way that you see people in the streets avert their eyes in the face of a homeless person. But this was a country that was disappearing. And that’s what it feels like over there.
  
  Here, another model is finding its voice. And this is a historic gathering. It is a historic gathering, because Jubilee South has been organizing these types of gatherings in the South. There was a climate debt tribunal in Bangkok during the negotiations. This discussion has been happening. But I don’t think there’s ever been an event this large in the Global North.
  
  We are seeing a redefinition of environmentalism, which has always been a bit of a kind of, sort of touchy-feely movement here in the North. “We’re all in it together. Let’s hold hands,” right? There’s nothing wrong with holding hands, but the fact is, we’re not all in it together in the same way. There is an inverse relationship between the people who created the problem and where the effects of those problems are being felt. There’s an inverse relationship between who created the problem and who can afford to save themselves from the problem, and it isn’t only in the Global South. Think about New Orleans. Right? It’s also the South in the North. The people who had resources could drive out of the disaster zone; the people who depended on the state were left on their roofs, a kind of a climate apartheid, in the United States.
  
  So we have this discussion of reparations. In the United States, when you talk about reparations, it’s not about the stealing of resources as much as it is about the stealing of people. So this movement that we are talking about today is part of that movement, as well. In fact, at a conference in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, the Conference on Racism, the issue of ecological debt was one of the issues on the agenda, but so was reparations for slavery. And I think there are some people here from N’COBRA from the United States, which is the national coalition calling for reparations for slavery. And they deserve to be acknowledged, because this movement is building on their work, as well.
  
  I want to tell a little story about how—what we’re up against in terms of reparations. I’ll try to be brief. The other people, of course, who are owed reparations in the Global North are First Nations people, or indigenous people, whose land has been stolen. And I had this experience a few years ago. It was 2004. I remember because it was a presidential election in the United States, and I was in New York for protests against the Republican convention, where George Bush was being reelected. And a couple of First Nations activists from Canada were also in town for those protests.
  
  And as part of that, they—we went on a side mission to Moody’s. Moody’s is, as you know, a credit agency. It gives countries their credit ratings. And I was with the very powerful First Nations spokesperson for the Haida, named Gujao, and Arthur Manuel, who is a former chief for the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation in British Columbia. And Arthur had decided that one way to get Canada to acknowledge the debts that it owed to First Nations people was to meet with the credit agencies that give Canada its triple-A credit rating, which is the highest possible credit rating, and explain to Moody’s that actually Canada carries a huge unpaid debt in the form of the lands that it stole, without treaties, from First Nations peoples. So Arthur managed to get a meeting between him and Gujao—and they let me tag along—with the person at Moody’s who issues Canada’s credit rating. So we went on up to like the thirty-fifth floor, and we got the meeting with this guy and one of his colleagues, who was from Argentina and fell asleep in the meeting.
  
  But what was interesting—so Arthur and Gujao presented all the documents, the writs, the legal rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, that proved their case that this land was stolen and that they were owed billions in unpaid—in unpaid debts. And they said, “Canada is not a great place to do investment, because what if we called in these debts?” And it was very interesting, because the guy from Moody’s nodded, and he said, “You’re right. We’ve been following these court rulings, but we have decided that you are not going to collect on these debts. So it is not affecting our credit rating.”
  
  And that’s a very important thing for us to remember, because debt is political. Right? You can make your argument. And when we make these arguments, frankly, no one even bothers arguing with us, because it’s so obvious. The science is there. The legal treaties are there. But really what they’re saying is, “You and what army? How are you going to get this money out of us? You are not powerful enough to get the money out of us.” And this is where social movements come in, because, you know, we can talk as much as we want about debt, and we can talk as much as we want about reparations, but they’re going to laugh at us, until there is some movement muscle behind those concerns, behind those demands. And that’s our task.
  
  Now, I think there’s all kinds of things we can do. You know, as the only person from a debtor nation on this panel, I have to acknowledge that Canada, boy, we owe a lot. We are the climate criminal of all climate criminals here in Copenhagen, because we signed the Kyoto Protocol, unlike the United States. They didn’t sign. Canada, we signed, so we are actively breaking a legally binding agreement when we increase emissions by 26 percent. Now, we know when people break their WTO commitments, they sure as hell hear about it. We know when Bolivia decided that they didn’t want Bechtel to steal their water and make it illegal to collect rainwater and threw Bechtel out, that they were sued by Bechtel for $26 million for breaking a contract. What happens when Canada breaks its contract with the world, with Kyoto? So we need to start putting pressure on governments that say that they do care about these issues to do things like launch trade retaliation, kick Canada out of the Commonwealth, things like that. There has to be some muscle. There has to be some consequences. And so, these ideas are on the table.
  
  We can’t get to all of that right away, but I just want to talk a little bit about what we can do this week. Angelica asked us to make our voices heard, and I think we really do need to do that. We need to really show the face of this counter-movement here before this summit is done.
  
  I said at the opening of Klimaforum that there’s a place for rage and there’s a place for civil disobedience. I was not saying, as some news reports claimed, that Copenhagen should be trashed. I really don’t think so. I think that’s a very bad idea. And I’m going to say that explicitly, even though people are always telling me, “Don’t say it’s bad. Don’t say it’s bad.” Listen, the reason why it’s bad is precisely because of what we’re seeing here. This conversation that has started here about the real face of environmentalism, as a class war that is being waged by the rich against the poor, has never happened before. There has never been global media attention on this discussion. If we allow the media to change the discussion into broken windows in Copenhagen—which is the boringest discussion in the world, OK?—we have truly failed.
  
  But I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be direct action. There should be direct action. And I want to call on all of you to support, participate in the terrific action that is being designed for December 16th. There is going to be a march to the Bella Center. And hopefully there’s going to be a march out of the Bella Center. And it’s an opportunity for the groups that are inside the Bella Center who are so frustrated, who want to say no to all of these market mechanisms, who know that there isn’t going to be a deal that is actually going to solve the climate crisis, to not just issue a press release after the fact to say, “Actually, we really don’t like this,” but to go out, sit in the streets with the people who have come to the Bella Center, and make our voices heard together.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, and also tenth anniversary edition of her No Logo is just out. She was speaking at the Klimaforum. She’s also blogging from Copenhagen at thenation.com.
Related stories

• Naomi Klein on Climate Debt: Why Rich Countries Should Pay Reparations To Poor Countries For The Climate Crisis.
• Amidst Uncertainty on US Role in Upcoming Climate Talks, 350.org Holds International Climate Action Day in 170 Nations
• Climate Countdown: Largest Climate Summit in World History Opens in Copenhagen
• Voices from Africa: Drought, Crop Shortages, Deforestation and Increasing Number of Climate Refugees Linked to Climate Change
• Climate Change and the Global South: A Roundtable Discussion

Thanks to everyone who showed up at the downtown climate rally today — corner of Fort and Douglas Streets in bustling downtown Victoria BC, Canada. The re-written "12 Days of Christmas" lyrics were sung several times. You'll catch on when you look at some of the following photos.

This rally took place in the context of thousands of rallies being held this weekend all around the Good Ship Earth. No one wants to see the global ecosystems / web of life go to hell in a shopping cart. Let's change our ways.

The sign in the photo below is the one that the billblog designates "Best of Rally".

Peter Mansbridge will be interviewing Dr. David Barber on CBC's Mansbridge One On One on Saturday December 12. See THIS PAGE for times and dates.

Dr. David Barber is a climate scientist — Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Environment, University of Manitoba and Canadian Research Chair, Arctic System Science — Résumé HERE.

Dr. Barber has recently discovered that arctic sea ice is indeed melting faster than was previously thought. As it turns out satellite photos didn't tell the real story. This is not good news for the planet though it blows a big hole in some of the self-aggrandizing statements by the not-so-know-it-alls of the climate change denying persuasion.

I hope you'll catch this interview. In these days of flagrant, half-baked science and opinion being thrown so carelessly by so many who know so little of science, we have here a lengthy interview with a real scientist.

Thanks Peter Mansbridge and CBC. A tip of the hat from the billblog.

Here's a vid of Dr. Barber from the end of November 2009.

We are halfway through the Copenhagen Summit. It's time to let politicians and negotiators know that we want them to do better. Go to THIS PAGE to find a rally, protest or vigil near you. Don't forget to submit your photos so that they can be given to negotiators in Copenhagen.

Looks like on a per capita basis that Canada may be leading the globe. Damn shame our PM is a not-so-reformed climate change denying guy.

Get your very own pdf copy of Tarnishing The Maple Leaf - How The Tar Sands Drive Canada's Climate Positions. It's just been put out by the Climate Action Network Canada and 3 other organizations. Why not print a few and pass them out?

And here's a look at Copenhagen today.


Feel free to use the comment section of this blog to share news. In Victoria BC tomorrow I will be attending two events, a rally and a vigil:
12:00-1:00 pm Rally at Corner of Douglas and Fort Streets 
6:00-6:30 pm Candlelight Vigil at Bastion Square

[Bob McDonald of CBC Radio's excellent science show Quirks & Quarks has written an article which puts the climate controversy into context. I invite you to read the extract below and to follow the link to read the whole article. Used with permission.]

350 years of science, now under siege
Monday, December 7, 2009 | 12:28 PM ET
By quirks
By Bob McDonald, host of the CBC science radio program Quirks & Quarks

Bob McDonald

The world’s oldest scientific institution, the Royal Society in London, is celebrating its 350th anniversary this year with the online release of original documents from its more famous members, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and even Benjamin Franklin. Meanwhile in Canada, 500 scientists have sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying that their voices are not being heard as he heads to the climate talks in Copenhagen.
When it comes to climate change, science seems to have taken a back seat.
The Royal Society was formed to promote scientific discoveries through weekly meetings and discussions, assembling a library and publishing of the world’s longest-running journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Read the rest of Bob's article ...

1. Climategate TV? WTF?

Someone with very deep pockets is desperate to spin good science into the compost pile. I'd laugh if it wasn't so malevolent. Might laugh anyway.

2. Canada - Fossil of the Day Award.

Oh the shame. CBC today has a bit of fluff coverage of an article by George Monbiot in The Guardian. The article says Canada sucks when it comes to the global effort to reign in CO2 emissions. It would be good if CBC reported the FOD Award and consulted with real scientists to provide substance to its smart aleck commentary of the climate issue. Yesterday Mark Kelly did a snarky piece on the carbon footprint of the Copenhagen Summit. Okay. Fine. Is that it? Got anything of real value, CBC, like why is this such an incredibly huge issue for the next generation and for many countries right now?

3. Canadian Olympic Athletes deliver a letter to Harper's Office asking for action on the climate.

Olympic athletes are concerned about shorter skiing seasons. Oh my. From the letter: "Winter activities across Canada, from Olympic sports like skiing and snowboarding to iconic Canadian pastimes such as ice fishing and pond hockey will be at risk if we don't take international action to reduce global warming." What? No more avalanches on the skidoo jockeys?

CBC, I beg you, interview climate scientists.

4. Africa falls out of love with Obama.

Naomi Klein writes from COP-15 that while the rest of the world is giving room for Obama to manouver, room that wouldn't be granted so willingly to his predecessor, Africa is becoming disenchanted with the US President. "... when it comes to climate change, Africa has emerged here as the conscience of the world– and its best hope of avoiding a disastrously weak deal."

5. Bolivians love our planet

Robert Eschelman of The Nation interviewed Bolivian Climate Change Ambassador Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza who said this:

"We are asking, first, to discuss the main issue, which for us is Mother Earth. We think that is the key issue. Second, we are asking for a goal that will allow that will save all of humanity. We think the goal that they have put on the table is going to save probably only half of humanity ..."

In contrast, the Canadian delegation is completely at the mercy of vested interested in the Canadian oil and gas industry.

President Morales of Bolivia is advocating for an International Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth.

President Morales — Bolivia

Updated throughout the day ... check back.

Elizabeth May spoke to an audience of a thousand at the Countdown To Copenhagen event at the Victoria BC Conference Centre on November 17, 2009. I've mentioned this rally in a previous blog post. Since Elizabeth's speech was remarkable, the billblog has all of it below. Today Elizabeth is en route to Copenhagen. This speech is worth listening to in full.

Naomi Klein at the opening of Klimaforum in Copenhagen — the alternate forum to COP-15.

Recognizing that the science education of the public is deficient, Jeffrey Simpson, a columnist with The Globe & Mail, puts on his science teacher duds and carefully explains a concept of climate science in THIS ARTICLE from yesterday's edition. The article's title is: "Climate Change Is Not Weather Change".

This is elementary school stuff. Mr. Simpson has recognized that one way to restore order from the chaos stirred up by the mere existence of the Copenhagen Summit and fallout from the East Anglia stolen email is to provide the most basic of ideas of climate science. Some very bright people appear to have missed this simple point, that is, climate and weather are two different things.

He begins with jab at the Harper government. If members of Harper's cabinet have such big holes in their science education we are in worse trouble than we thought. Here's the quote in question:

"At a reception a few weeks ago, a senior minister in the Harper government stated as fact that the atmosphere was cooler today than in 1998, the inference being that climate change was a hoax, or at least not what it's cracked up to be. It's scary to have a senior minister believe such stuff, but this is the Harper government, after all." — Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail December 7, 2009

Evidence has been found that there are covert operations acting to discredit climate science and this will be covered in future blog posts. This kind of discrediting is not the same as the usual debate and revision of scientific inquiring that is continuously developing. This is subterfuge with a hidden agenda — most likely being to protect oil and gas interests in a similar way to the actions of Big Tobacco in past years.

Here is an article from the National Post about the break-in and computer attacks at the University of Victoria — incidentally about 15 minutes by foot from my front door.

The manufactured dissent industry needs public faces in order to actually manufacture dissent. The following vid shows a few of these. Their yammering fails in the face of thinking and fact-checking.

Time Magazine has a summary of the stolen email controversy. It's worth reading. What did the scientists mean when they wrote what they wrote? That is the question. There is divergence between the answer to that question and the assertions of many climate science skeptics and the beliefs of those who have fallen prey to manufactured dissent initiatives.

If I was skeptical of climate science would I be happy about the email stolen from the University of East Anglia? If I obstructed initiatives to limit carbon dioxide emissions, how certain would I want to be that I am right? I can answer that question easily. I'd want to be absolutely certain that I knew that I was correct. Because the stakes are so high in this controversy, there's no room for error. Being wrong would mean I bet on a horse charging over a cliff.

If by chance I am mistaken, the lives of future generations are made hellish, starting with the lives our children here and now. I would not want to parade about smugly announcing that climate science is bogus only to find out that I have misjudged and opposed carbon reduction — ensuring a living hell for future generations.

I am clear that my impact upon generations that follow should not be based upon my whim, a political loyalty, an economic plan or a crap shoot based upon my ego. If I was skeptical of climate science I am certain I wouldn't want to be anything less than absolutely certain of my stance. Are you? Or do you just feel lucky?

At the recent Munk debate on climate change, George Monbiot asked, "How lucky do you feel?"

Time Magazine is not final arbiter of climate issues but it is a decent starting point for the truly curious and represents an approach that uses reason and evidence as opposed to hysterical political posturing. It's a starting point for those wishing to investigate with an open mind, that is, to prove or disprove the viewpoint and evidence offered by Time. It is not a voice from the fringes, from the left or the extreme right. It's not a hippie rag nor is it, I suspect, completely unfettered from the call of its advertisers. In short, it is ordinary mainstream media. Take a look and use it in your own thoughtful inquiries.

It's not too late to think.

It has never happened before. The following editorial appears today simultaneously in 56 newspapers. The billblog joins from the blogsphere, under Creative Commons license.
This editorial is free to reproduce under Creative Commons
***************************************************************************************************************
Copenhagen climate change conference: 'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'
This editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate change is published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languagesCopenhagen climate change summit - opening day liveblog

• Comments (832)
  

• Editorial
• The Guardian, Monday 7 December 2009
• Article history

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.

• How the Copenhagen global leader came about• Write your own editorial• Bryony Worthington: How to make an impact• In pictures: How newspapers around the world ran the editorial

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.
This editorial is free to reproduce under Creative Commons
'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation' by The Guardian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Based on a work at guardian.co.uk. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/02/guardian-environment-team (please note this Creative Commons license is valid until 18 December 2009)

If you live in Canada, you are familiar with CBC personality, Rex Murphy. Often he is entertaining, if just a wee bit full of himself. Rex has been loudly and regularly dismissing the climate science that points to global warming and does so in the Globe and Mail as well as on CBC TV in a prime spot as part of the CBC National news program.

Rex Murphy makes cleverly worded, articulate, well-honed proclamations, trashing all of this foolishness about climate change, foolishness coming from actual climate scientists. Rex is not a scientist. He is a professional Rex Murphy. Seriously, he is a brand of sarcasm, wit and entertainment.

I have no idea of his motivation other than the fact that his gig is to produce opinions. Mind you, Mr. Murphy seems to be snarlier than normal (for him) about the climate change issue. As usual he seems to want you to think his opinions are good enough for you to have, or else you are stupid.

However, as we all know, thinking for one's self is a better idea. All we are saaaaayingggg is think for yourself. Catchy, non?

Rex says a number of things in the following video. One of these is that the raw data used by the East Anglia climate scientists has gone missing. Funny that they have said they will release all of their raw data once permissions are secured. This video of Rex in action is below. It is followed by a second video showing another way to approach the stolen email situation. I encourage you to watch both.

Here's an opinion: Allowing Rex to have any influence upon your thinking is a serious error in judgement. If you've made this error, you may not consider it to be one. I suggest that you at least ask if it might be. For me, Rex Murphy is the Don Cherry of the news world, a cartoon, if you will.

The second video is from an individual calling himself "potholer54". It doesn't really matter who he is because he advocates for critical thinking and he demonstrates how to think critically using a couple of the more popular stolen emails, popular among the hysterical climate change denying set that is. He asks you to think for yourself and to check the facts of what he has offered.

Just three days before the Copenhagen Summit, CBC gave more time to this Rex Murphy diatribe than to a real climate scientist speaking about the incredibly fast disappearance of Western Arctic multi-year ice. Bias? You think?





A nod to the DeSmogBlog for pointing to this vid from potholer54.

On the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, CBC reports that a new poll says Canadians are more concerned about the economy than about the environment . This is no surprise. It would be a surprise if it were not so.

Canadians have been getting slim pickings in the headlines about the Copenhagen Summit and the huge global movement focussed upon and now moving toward Copenhagen. Most Canadians can't tell you the day that the Copenhagen Summit begins. Pssst. It begins next Monday — December 7.

The Canadian media has fed Canadians a diet full of headlines about the economy, with a minimum about the environment, the warming of our planet and the potential consequences of failing to reach agreement for radical emissions control in Copenhagen. There is little in Canadian news about the copious amount pre-Copenhagen activity on every continent and almost every country of our world.

Canadians have been dumbed down unless they have taken it upon themselves to find climate information or to follow-up on the morsels of environmental news provided by new media, that is, if they haven't been sidetracked by Rex Murphy and other non-scientists who blather and obfuscate so merrily.

On the other hand, news of the economy and profound pronouncements by pundits, politicians, bankers and other assorted whiz kids, is a daily ritual in the news and the headlines, even though the survival of life on the planet may well be hanging in the balance if we do not reign in our out of control carbon-based, toxin-spewing, unsustainably gluttonous ways of living.

Canadians are notoriously dumbed down and poorly informed by CBC, CTV, Global and the US media. The poll shows what's been in the headlines. Nothing more.

That doesn't mean that Copenhagen is not the most important event of this year, this decade or this century in the opinion of many people. Some think it is the most important meeting in human history since failure could lead irrevocably to the CO2 tipping point, the point at which climate change and all of its consequences cartwheels chaotically, wiping out species, ecosystems and maybe your descendants, not that far into the future. By the time the next Copenhagen-like climate summit occurs, we as a species may be behind in the game so far that we could never catch up.

The results of this poll illustrate of the lack of education of the populace. It tells of the failure of mainstream media to inform and to educate. It's what's in the headlines. Duh.

I toured the web looking for the opinions of scientists on the hacked and revealed emails of East Anglia's climate researchers. Scientists can find nothing untoward in the emails. A few non-scientists are having orgasms taking quotes out of context though.

I spoke to one person who has read all of these emails. That would be Elizabeth May and I hereby refer you to her blog post on the topic.

I spoke with Elizabeth May about them last Saturday before, yes it's true, going in the Sidney BC Santa Claus parade. Elizabeth was in a convertible Smart Car with a single string of LED lights strung around it. There was a bristol board hand-lettered sign on each side, "Merry Christmas from Elizabeth May". A decision had been taken prior to the parade not to mention The Green Party and use the event as a political stage. My gig was to walk beside the car and shine a flashlight on the bristol board sign so it could be seen — the parade began in the darkness of 5PM. So that's that. Do read her blog about the emails.

You might want to look at this Nature editorial on the stolen emails.

The DeSmogBlog is another useful resource about the climate controversy. Here is its RSS feed.

We are into the homestretch of the Copenhagen Summit. Keep the pressure on the politicians because the unfortunate thing is that this critically important event will be a political poker game rather than a united search for a solution to a killer problem. Killer indeed.

Has anyone noticed that CBC is not covering Copenhagen and the climate controversy very well, with the exception of Bob McDonald of Quirks and Quarks and Anna Maria Tremonte of The Current? Is it just me or have I missed some excellent coverage. Has Peter Mansbridge been doing items that I have missed? Certainly, the amount of reporting on the CBC website does not reflect the prominence of the climate change crisis for humanity.

Write in with your views. The comment section is open to all who can be reasonably couth, or if that is not a real word, not uncouth.

as you were,
bill

Last night’s Munk debate had great potential with the lineup of those promoting the view that climate change is mankind’s defining issue and those saying that view is hokum. There was the following warning displayed on the website “Expect Colourful Language”. This is going to be good, I think to myself.

George Monbiot and Elizabeth May spoke for the proposition while Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson opposed. Read the details and get any background you wish on the Munk Debate Website. For me, it was an opportunity to have the climate change deniers speak in a forum in which they would be challenged. It was not Fox News. It was not a free ride. It was to be a debate. M & M versus L & L.

And then there was the moderator/host, Rudyard Griffiths.

In short, Mr. Griffiths prevented good debate and colourful language. He obviously prefers biege.

When the debate got lively he interrupted it, re-directed the energy of the encounter and placed the debate into sterile territory -- and once even a timeout for goodness sakes.

The most exciting part of the debate lasted a mere couple of seconds. It was between Elizabeth May and Bjorn Lomborg, a.k.a. “Mr. Smoothie”. Griffiths called a halt at that point, creating a timeout when there was no need for one. He also framed limiting questions for the debaters to respond to and guided the debate away from pertinent issues. He was not a neutral player. For a while Elizabeth May was cut out of the debate completely. Am I the only person who thought, “Jeepers it’s been a while since Elizabeth had a turn.”

Because Mr. Griffiths was so controlling, the debate was chunky and resembled a series of rehearsed sound-bytes. I heard the same debate between Monboit and Lomborg on CBC’s The Current earlier in the day. It was a perfect match. Same sentences. Same rebuttals. Same wording. So I ask, was this a play? And was it by design that Elizabeth May was corralled enough to keep her from opening up with all cylinders or was that unconscious?

It was a skewed debate. It is the opinion of the billblog that the moderator was immoderately involved in manipulating the proceeding so that good debate could not flourish. Was he favouring one side over the other? Was he joining Rex Murphy, The Globe & Mail and The National Post in pooping on climate change proclaimers (one of whom is your faithful billblogger)?

At the end of the debate portion of the show, Griffiths asked the audience if they wanted a Q&A or would they like to let the debate continue. There was clapping and he let the debate continue as before, no Q&A. Just like that. I know that one. It's an old joke. “Coffee or tea?” “Yes please.”

There was vague similarity to a weird theatrical courtroom. The prosecution (May and Monbiot) presented their case and the defense (Lomborg and Lawson) did anything to introduce doubt — reasonable doubt not required. L & L provided grounds for doubt by a dance of obfuscation, unprovable assertion, theatrics, misdirection and pomposity. Monbiot seemed lethargic and May’s energy and presence were corralled and interrupted. She must have walked away frustrated.

Who won? It matters not a whit to reality. If a million people are mistaken, reality doesn’t care. It is what it is. No hurt feelings or hangups. Reality just is. CO2 will continue to be added to the atmosphere faster than it is utilized by plant life. A tipping point is coming. Just saying ...

That was the first Munk Debate that I have viewed. Not impressed. Thumbs down.