As we know equivocally from the website of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), the cabaret in Cancún, Mexico (29 November to 10 December 2010),
encompasses the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), as well as the thirty-third sessions of both the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), and the fifteenth session of the AWG-KP and thirteenth session of the AWG-LCA. To discuss future commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) established a working group in December 2005 called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). In Copenhagen, at its fifth session, the CMP requested the AWG-KP to deliver the results of its work for adoption by CMP 6 in Cancun.
Christopher Monckton writes this about the work occurring at the “sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), as well as the thirty-third sessions of both the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), and the fifteenth session of the AWG-KP and thirteenth session of the AWG-LCA. To discuss future commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) established a working group in December 2005 called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).”:
A multitude of long, inspissate, obfuscatory, obnubilating, obscurantist draft agreements are circulated, always a day or two late for delegates to find out what they have actually agreed to. The daily timetables for the various “working” sessions of the conference are never available until breakfast-time on the day, allowing no scope for planning the day. By these means, most delegates are kept permanently and completely in the dark.Here is a typical paragraph from one of these leaden documents:
“The SBSTA welcomed the report (FCCC/SBSTA/2010/INF.10) on the second workshop of the work programme on revising the “Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories” (hereinafter referred to as the UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines), held in Bonn, Germany, from 3 to 4 November 2010, which was organized by the secretariat as requested by the SBSTA at its thirtieth session.”
Try to read several hundred pages of this stuff. It simply isn’t possible. And that, of course, is the idea. This is the Mushroom-Growers’ Management Method writ large: keep them in the dark and feed them plenty of sh*t.
He concludes that the purpose of such sessions is job creation–for bureaucrats, “No one has yet managed to discover just how much these hundreds of new supranational climate-change bureaucracies are costing us. That is an international state secret – until Wikileaks gets hold of the figures, of course.”
In the video below, delegates unwind after day of “long, inspissate, obfuscatory, obnubilating, obscurantist draft agreements”:
Nullius in Verba 
I like that of “… draft agreements are circulated, always a day or two late for delegates to find out what they have actually agreed to.” Bureaucrats must have some ultraspecialized brain lobe.
I´ve just seen this one (hope not to be spammed): Lord Monckton Presents CFACT’s Kook of the Week
He is definitely amusing (and @AI_AGW must be absolutely nutts right now).
I think that may be the nature of conferences everywhere. Yet, they are agreeing to some (presumably) big stuff.
I saw that kook, probably chases chemtrails when he’s not in Cancun.
CFACT has a new post on YouTube about their petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide (H2O). It’s not that people are ignorant but that they don’t stop to engage their braincells. So much of what I hear about AGW is correlation. The CFACT petitioners present the facts: dihydrogen monoxide is a major part of the greenhouse effect, it’s used in pesticides and animal research, etc. All the correlations are correct. That doesn’t mean water should be banned.
Oh yes, watching that one of yours this tactic is shown quite childish. Here´s another one from 2007 I discovered yesterday, nothing to do with Monckton: CHEAT NEUTRAL.
But maybe it´s the only way to draw people´s attention to what´s happening as they won´t care/be able to deal with e.g. backradiation and the 2nd principle of thermodynamics. I also appreciate some circus to rest from tree-rings.
A friend of mine told me yesterday, very concerned because ain´t gonna be a deal to save the planet, “you skeptics are *!$^8%#@\|#*`/#%@^Ç$(&”. This is very sad because means that he believes not only there´s something wrong with the planet but also with me myself and/or my intentions. CO2 is not poisoning the atmosphere but is wrecking personal relations.
BTW, I forgot to say the blog´s new look is great!
Environmentalism has become a belief system. And, religion is a topic to be avoided, but the new acolytes still see it as their duty to save you or shun you. “Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary,” said Michael Chrichton, “because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.” – Michael Chrichton at the Commonwealth Club (Environmentalism as Religion)
Thanks for your noticing and commenting on the new look, I’m thrilled you like it.