Talk:2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aid[edit]

I want to than the organisers of this talk page for doing a tremendous job,as most issues will be adressed right here, im a university student in Zambia, Africa where climate change effects are suffered the most as well as other developing countries and islands, i would like to know how the developed countries will help the undeveloped countries as they only pollute about 3% of carbon dioxide emission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-climate change (talk • contribs) 17 May 2011‎

Add something to the effect: An outcome of the COP16, a plan for the Green Climate Fund is to be presented.[edit]

Add something to the effect: An outcome of the COP16, a plan for the Green Climate Fund is to be presented. 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if there were a source and the Green climate fund were considered notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Climate change fund in general, and COP16 specifically. 99.181.130.6 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks like a WP:COATRACK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Green Climate Fund. 99.190.85.17 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More "See also" links.[edit]

The anon has proposed addition of:

to the "See also" links. The first is unsupported, and the latter two only supported through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last two should be added since they are supported by the convention. Until the other one is, it should not be included in this page.MilkStraw532 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China resource, WSJ[edit]

China Pushes Clean-Energy Agenda Ahead of Summit November 22, 2011, 6:33 A.M. ET. by Zhoudong Shangguan

See Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation and Politics of global warming

141.218.36.43 (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT resource, John M. Broder[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/science/earth/nations-meet-to-address-problems-of-climate-change.html 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt ...

Rajendra K. Pachauri, director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global body of scientists and statisticians that provides the technical underpinning of the United Nations talks. He noted that the group had recently released a detailed assessment of the increasing frequency of extreme climate events like droughts, floods and cyclones, and of the necessity of moving quickly to take steps to reduce emissions and adapt to the inevitable damage.

See Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#potential resource.2C new report. 99.181.134.134 (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:List of extreme weather events or unusual weather. 99.109.124.130 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall[edit]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-25/fossil-fuels-beaten-by-renewables-for-first-time-as-climate-talks-founder.html Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall by Alex Morales November 25, 2011; excerpt ...

Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis and an impasse at the United Nations global warming talks. Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.

99.181.134.134 (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Carbon neutrality Clean technology more important than Renewable energy? Couldn't one renewably put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? 99.181.134.37 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add wikilink?[edit]

Add Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions? 99.181.131.33 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this removed?[edit]

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased by half in the last 20 years.[1]

99.181.136.135 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this article. The editor is using this article as a WP:COATRACK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil and India resources[edit]

99.190.82.160 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Dirty Business Leaders[edit]

Arthur Rubin You have correct, I could include better reference to show the connection to 2011 Durban climate meeting. With this change your deletion [2] deserves in my opinion place in this article. According to WP:ALIVE Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources in line with Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fixing refs [3][4] to:The Dirty Dozen in Durban list gives the selection arguments. Report includes background data. Watti Renew (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Hansen#Trials for energy company executives (2008) Hansen called for putting fossil fuel company executives on trial for crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming, in the same way that tobacco companies tried to hide the link between smoking and cancer.
Based on the statement of James Hansen#Trials for energy company executives I find it logical to list the responsible business leaders of the climate change, which Greenpeace has addressed. This deserves place in the article. Watti Renew (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Watti Renew (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:William M. Connolley [5] in my opinion your removal deserves place in the article, since it lists the contributors who are responsible for the climate change and responsible for preventing to stop it. I take this very seriously since all of us are in the risk to be killed by the consequenses of the climate change. Therefore, Wikipedia should not hide any information connected to the conference. Sorry for not pointing clearly out the connection. The conference took place from 28 November to 11 December 2011. Greenpeace report was published for the participants and followers of this conference on November 23, 2011. Greenpeace challenged President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Head of the European Commission Manuel Barroso and South African President Jacob Zuma in Durban to Listen to the people, not the polluters.
Watti Renew (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that has nothing much to do with the conference. Its a constant. Many organisations doubtless wrote "to" the conference but had no, or only peripheral involvement William M. Connolley (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent that you bring this to our knowledge. When this is the case, I find it even more important for the neutrality that the opinion of the NGO’s is expressed in the article. Watti Renew (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population growth[edit]

Arthur Rubin, what are you disputing in the population growth? [6] WP:EDIT Instead of deleting text, consider to fix problems. Since Population growth of the world population should be among the core negotiation issues in Durban it deservs also place as core data in the article. Watti Renew (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deserves place with reference:
Experts[who?] have warned that the climate change may increase the number of global climate refugees from 150 million in 2008 to 800 million in future. International agreement of refugees does not recognize the climate change refugees.[citation needed]
Watti Renew (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Obviously totally unsourced, but fascinating. Is this being discussed at the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance[edit]

Any data, information, or propaganda included must be relevant to the Conference, not just to what the Conference is trying to do. See WP:COATRACK. I think more things need to be taken out, rather than added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

Also, the sections I tagged as confusing are either sufficiently ungrammatical, or have a paragraph which contains independent sentences with no connection, so as to be incomprehensible to someone who knows English. Perhaps they are comprehensible to one who does not, but that is not our target audience. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to the CONFERENCE[edit]

These reports, published just before the conference,give a message to the leaders in the conference. Watti Renew (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, Climategate II should have top billing. And there, we even have a source for the connection; although I may question the source's reliability, it's allowed in that article.
But I really don't buy the argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have the technology. Who is Holding Us Back?[edit]

Arthur Rubin in my opinion this[7] deserves place in wiki since it has sources that can be verified and independent environmantal organizations, like Greenpeace critics is important in democracy. Grammar is not in my opinion a valid reason to delete important text. In my opinion criticism of expert James Hansen of the fossil fuel companies is even more demanding and it confirms the critics trustiness. Therefore this should be reverted.

According to James Hansen CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. ref [8] Watti Renew (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original report: Whos Holding Us Back Watti Renew (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financing coal 2005-2011[edit]

Coal is core problem. This is confusing. Therefore I write in Wiki to make it clear. Please help someone with grammar or so. This deserves place. According to James Hansen the single most important action needed to tackle the climate crisis is to reduce CO2 emissions from coal. ref True Cost of Coal p.66-69. We have more energy resources than the environment can cope with. Finance is essential. Bill Clinton agreed with it. Correct me if I quote wrong. I remember James Lovelock writing that we are like a persons who celebrate in a yacht without considering the river where they celebrate, while the yacht is on its way to the Niagara falls.

Report Bankrolling climate change Watti Renew (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is responsible?[edit]

Fat&Happy and Arthur Rubin thanks for pointing out resposibility[9][10]. WP:NPOV demands to show all significant fact of the issue and not hide unpleasent truth. Many points of view can be measured, and it is essential to show them in a good dictionary. The Guardian published a new interactive map on 8th of December 2011, during the conference confirming the connection. This map deserves in my opinion attention:

Which nations are really responsible for climate change - interactive map Guardian 8.12.2011 It says e.g.:

A) In cumulative emissions from FUEL use in the PERIOD 1850–2007 the US and the EU countries dominate, accounting for more than half of the total, followed by China and Russia, with around 8–9% of emissions each. (In my opinion period 2008-2011 needed for China data)
B) In CONSUMPTION FOOTPRINT PER PERSON are in the top: 1. Singapore, 2. Luxembourg, 3. Belgium, 4. the US and 5. Canada 6. Ireland 7. Estonia 8. Malta 9. Finland 10. Norway 11. Switzerland 12. Australia 13. Hong Kong 14. Netherlands and 15. Taiwan.


Watti Renew (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private persons, companies or politicians?[edit]

Hi Fat&Happy. You made a deletion in 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference [11]. I do not doubt that this can be improved, but in my opinion it deserves place in the article. In short, professor Christian Azar is an expert in climate change calculations. He has actively participated in the debate of climate change in Sweden and has received a price for it from a local professional organization. According to Swedish Professor Christian Azar it may be even dangerous to accuse the private persons of their emissions if this discussion will focus the problem solution away from the political responsibility. This is also common sense. Most solutions need governmental support: e.g. energy efficiency in heating, lighting and transport.

E.g. Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs would save 470 million tn CO2 emissions in the world - more than half of the Kyoto agreement. Climate change and the cryosphere UNEP 5/2007. IEA estimated in 2007 the total electricity consumption due to lighting at 2,650 TWh, ca. 19 % of world total electricity. GHG emissions in 2005 of lighting electricity were 1,900 MtCO2, equal to ca 8 % of world emissions, or 70 % of the passenger vehicle emissions. This is an example of a political decision. Finland wanted to postpone the timetable in the EU. There are plenty excuses: warming effect (better warming methods exist), mercury (extra energy fuel demand contribute to a higher mercury load than the lamps), light intensity (I get more light from a 18 W lamp than 40 W lamp, max for my lamp) and price (Compact fluorescent lamp are cheaper in long run and now the interest rate is low, if loan is needed for investment).

Since politicians and media tend to move the responsibility to individuals, it deserves to be reminded that the political decisions are more effective than voluntary efforts. Politicians have responsibility to enact needed laws and that appropriate control is in place. Watti Renew (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a specific conference, one that occurred in 2011. It is not the place to coatrack in every statement on "global cooling", "global warming", or "climate change" ever made by any "expert". If there is reliably sourced criticism of this particular conference; if secondary reliable sources widely report specific topics and debates from this particular conference; if a report issued by this particular conference is covered in secondary reliable sources; then some mention may belong in this article. Otherwise, probably not. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fat&Happy, I admit that this may need more arguments of the link. I will return to it later. I was somewhat supriced I had added it already. If you have no arguments of the other chapters I ask to return them. Anyone can help in returning them, but in my opinion it would be kind of you. Watti Renew (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resources[edit]

  • At Climate Talks, a Familiar Standoff Between U.S. and China by John M. Broder published December 7, 2011 New York Times, excerpt ...

    China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has once again emerged as the biggest puzzle at international climate change talks, sending ambiguous signals about the role it intends to play in future negotiations. This week, the nation’s top climate envoy said that China would be open to signing a formal treaty limiting emissions after 2020 — but laid down conditions for doing so that are unlikely ever to be met.

99.190.87.173 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable economic needs of developing countries, China?[edit]

1.05 John Vidal asks whether China and India are still developing countries – or have they now joined the ranks of the advanced developed countries? What is the difference between a Chinese energy billionier to any other nationality? Does climate agreement give guarantees of the national wealth distribution? Watti Renew (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese by net worth may be of interest. 99.181.136.158 (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then see List of Indians by net worth too. 99.19.45.187 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship to the conference? Sorry, if John Vidal is a notable commentator, then Watti's comment might be relevant. The anon's comments are not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polluter pays principle[edit]

Polluter pays principle is supported by public to cover all climate change caused external costs. The climate gas emission have been proposed to be calculated from the year 1750 or 1950. ref. State of the World 2009, Robert Engelman Worldwatch Institute According to Stern Report the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs. ref. Sir Nicholas Stern: Stern Review : The Economics of Climate Change, Executive Summary,10/2006 Coal-fired power stations have been estimated to cause world wide €356 billion minimum damage in 2007 and €356 trillion in ten years. ref Delf 2008 p.9

WP:FAITH Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it.

You have removed my start of the article about Polluter pays principle etc. [12] As it was, I made a start for everybody to continue and made better. Noone could reedit them or add data, since you removed them and I was stuck on discussions of the removals. I find this negative for the article development.[13][14][15][16]

Polluter pays principle is not necessarily included in the conference but it should be of core influence for the participants. This is in my opinion about Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its demands for all countries. Law is independent from politics. In most countries judges are independent of politics Separation of powers. Therefore, if a country is responsible of killing people in the other country by climate change it can in my opinion be sued in the international court even if the politicians would decide different. The external damages are in my opinion a juridical issue. Watti Renew (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law
Article 15. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
Article 17. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. etc.

Watti Renew (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is the source for the relationship to this conference, or for the claim that countries can be sued for damage caused by pollution (by residents of ? citizens of ? ) the country in an international court. (I think the court you are referring to is the World Court, rather than the "international court".) In addition, Article 17(2) would, in a rational world, apply to the alleged polluters, as well to those alleged to be damaged by the polluters.
I didn't think the Court recognized the concept of a class action suit, where the defendants are all countries or entities. That would be the only "just" way for such a suit to be brought. But that's my personal opinion, and this statement is yours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential WSJ resource[edit]

Nations Chart New Course Toward Climate Pact by PATRICK MCGROARTY 11-December-2011, excerpt ...

Major industrial and emerging economies set a course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade and beyond, even as poorer nations warned it wasn't enough to shield them from the worst potential impacts of climate change. Following marathon negotiations that stretched past dawn on Sunday, two days after the conference's scheduled conclusion, delegates from almost 200 countries agreed to draft a new international emissions treaty by 2015. Under the agreement, most industrial nations currently bound to reduce emissions under the so-called Kyoto Protocol will extend their commitments beyond their current expiration in 2012.

See Adaptation to global warming 99.181.141.143 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resource here?[edit]

China, India, U.S. Take Steps Toward Emissions Deal by Patrick McGroatry December 12, 2011; exceprt ...

Major industrial and emerging economies set a course to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions over the next decade and beyond, breaking a logjam between China, India and the U.S. that has stymied international climate talks. Following negotiations that stretched past dawn on Sunday, two days after the two-week United Nations-sponsored meeting was scheduled to end, delegates from almost 200 countries agreed to draft a new global emissions treaty by 2015. Under the agreement, most industrial nations currently bound to reduce emissions under the so-called Kyoto Protocol will extend their commitments beyond their current expiration in 2012.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and carbon trade[edit]

Canada withdraw Kyoto protocol as its emissions rose over 30 %. Canada's emissions have been high: 9th top position in all greenhouse gas emissions 2005, 9th in all cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007 and 16.15 tonnes per capita fossil fuels in 2009. In respect to the conference main objective, which was or should have been to prevent climate change, the key question is: What will Canada do with the emissions? What energy strategy Canada has in the future? What efforts Canada will do to reduce its emissions? Since Canada is among top ten polluters its strategy will concern also the next conference.

China blamed Canada of its decision. [17] As I understand China has been a big winner in the carbon credits. Is there a sustainable change if Canada pays China £8.7bn for to continue the tar sand business in Canada and China has no cap in its own coal emissions? I feel myself stupid, but I have been tought that all questions deserve their place. How much emissions declined in China or India during the time the Kyoto agreement countries have bought own emissions rights from them? As I understand emissions from China or India have not declined and some nations may have been able to increase coal carbon emissions with the carbon trade. How corruption have been prevented and ensured that carbon trade has been independent of the other business contract agreements and prices? I have no information, but according to the psychological theories if a country gets one billion euros for carbon credits it may be tempted to give some financial advantages to the company in return. Therefore, in my opinion, the receiver should have no knowledge or control of the origin of funds. More data or links to other articles would be needed. In my opinion tax payers suffer if companies wash coal business with carbon credits abroad instead of making at home the needed sustainable changes in own energy strategy. In my opinion Canada's statement awake multiple key questions and therefore deserves analyses in the article.

Connection to the conference? Yes, good point. Please include in the article: What was decided of the carbon trade and why? What core arguments were? Watti Renew (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to post-Kyoto? Probably. Relevant to the article on Kyoto? Almost certainly.
Relevant to this conference? Not unless discussed at this conference or in a discussion about this conference.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Conference was about to prevent climate change, was it not? According to Australian Jeremy Leggett oil sand processing demands large amounts energy and water and produce large amount waste. [2] According to Canadians Elisabeth May and Zoé Caron extraction of oil from the oil sand demands 30-50 % of its energy content. Also the large demand of water for processing has awaken concern in Canada.[3] According to James Hansen now is a critical moment in the history of our planet. The US and Canadian governments must agree that the unconventional fossil fuels, tar sands and tar shale, will not be developed. [4]
  1. ^ Carbon dioxide emissions show record jump Guardian 5 December 2011
  2. ^ Jeremy Leggett, Viimeiset pisarat, Hupeneva öljy, lämpenevä ilmasto Like 2007 Page 78, 49 Half Gone – Oil Gas Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis 2005
  3. ^ Global Warming for dummies, Elisabeth May and Zoé Caron, Wiley 2009 pages 66-67, 84
  4. ^ [1] Guardian 18.2.2009

Watti Renew (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect connection, at best. Perhaps it could be summarized with a pointer to Kyoto. Considering your previous WP:COATRACK inclusions, it would probably best to seek advice before adding additional material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arthur Rubin, this is not the most relevant article for discussing Canada's past and present emissions record. The Kyoto Protocol is already linked, and the topic is discussed there. What would belong to this article is the role Canada played at the Durban negotiations. Did Canada help reach a meaningful agreement? Did they influence the final text; did they take sides with other countries? etc. --Elekhh (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Talk:Politics of global warming. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably appropriate there, but not here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ok, I will see the links before reply. Please take notice to the James Hansen’s winning reasoning. Watti Renew (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


James Hansen has also commented the Cap and trade: A carbon fee, including in China and India, is the only realistic path to global action. Governments talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests and system that invites corruption. Cap and trade is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe. As our governments turn a deaf ear to the science, the judicial branch may provide the best opportunity to redress the situation. Guardian 26.8.2010 Watti Renew (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Is there a clarification for carbon fee, such as Fee and dividend, Carbon tax, or Carbon pricing? Also Energy policy of Canada may be of interest. 99.181.147.68 (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction of American opponents[edit]

Today I restored the following paragraph, which I had added yesterday to the Reactions section:

Leading American opponents of efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions hailed the outcome of the conference as a major success. U.S. Senator Inhofe cheered what he called the setting aside of "any remote possibility of a UN global warming treaty" and termed "the complete collapse of the global warming movement and the failure of the Kyoto process." Senator Inhofe noted that the message from Washington, including from President Obama and the Democratic leadership of the U.S. Senate, to the delegates of the conference was that they are being ignored.U.S. Senate website, Press Release, 7 Dec. 2011, "Inhofe on Durban UN Climate Conference: Kyoto Process Is Dead," http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=18d950be-802a-23ad-463c-00218cbecc56

In today's restore, I changed the text to Leading American "opponents of efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions" from Leading American "deniers of industry-caused climate change." The deleter deleted the entire paragraph with the explanation that "leading American deniers" requires a source, per BLP. One can quibble with those three words. Senator describes himself as THE leader of the anti movement. But even if one disagrees with it, it is unaceptable to delete an entire paragraph because of one's disagreement with three words, provided the rest is OK per WP. I am not going to name the editor, but I don't think this is appropriate WP editing practice.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Inhofe accurately characterized as an "opponent of efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions"? Because what he describes himself as is a leader "against global warming alarmism and cap-and-trade". The two descriptions are not synonymous.
Beyond that quibble, I see the question as being one of sourcing. The other paragraphs in the "Responses" section are sourced to the BBC, a secondary RS; the Inhofe statement is sourced to that grandaddy of all self-published primary sources, a senatorial press release. Don't we need something besides Inhofe's self-promotion to demonstrate his opinion is at all meaningful or widely accepted? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "meaningful" in your last sentence. Do you mean "widely accepted" among deniers/anti-response takers? If so, your comment seems to be primarily addressed to the "leader" words again about which you quibbled in the first portion of your comment. If you want to change it to something like "self-described leader" it's OK with me.
If your question is about RS, there are many other sources for this Inhofe speech on the web (here is one: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/9/lauding_collapse_of_global_warming_movement) but many of them are video clips and I didn't want to burden editors with having to watch. WP rules don't prohibit primary sources however and many WP articles have them.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT resource[edit]

U.S. Envoy Relieved by Climate Talks’ Outcome December 14, 2011, 8:51 AM New York Times by John M. Broder

99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential resource[edit]

Durban: Where the Climate Deniers-in-Chief Ran the Show by Mark Hertsgaard December 14, 2011. This article appeared in the January 2, 2012 edition of The Nation. 99.181.153.29 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference&oldid=1196600780"