Thousands of climate dignitaries representing almost every national government on Earth flew to Cancun, Mexico, for the great event. Security precautions were extensive: Battleships could be seen from the beach while thousands of soldiers and police lined the jam-packed roads. It was time for the 16th “Conference of the Parties,” or COP16 for short. The annual summit, which was held this year from November 29 through December 10, is an extravaganza of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC. The previous year’s COP15 in Copenhagen was massive — over 50,000 attendees in all, not counting protesters. It was well publicized, too. But after the spectacular failure of COP15 to deliver a binding climate treaty, and with little hope of securing one this time, expectations for COP16 were purposefully set low.
The New American has raised the ire of Britain's University of East Anglia (UEA) with an article that briefly recalled the Climategate scandal of November 2009, in which hundreds of hacked e-mails from the school's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) brought accusations of conspiracy and fraud against scientists there. The story is still making headlines more than one year later because the scientists involved are high-profile contributors to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and usher in carbon-restricting climate policies.
Mother Nature has not been helpful to global warming alarmists of late. The record cold wave she unleashed across much of planet during the recent United Nations climate change conference (known by the unwieldy bureaucratic acronym UNFCCC-COP16/CMP6 — really) extended even to the fabled, usually warm-and-sunny beaches of Cancun, Mexico, as we previously reported (Record Cold at Cancun Climate Confab).
Scientists conducting research at taxpayers’ expense are, says ABC News, “outraged” over the fact that Sen. Tom Coburn’s Wastebook 2010 characterized their work as a study of “cow burps.” The Oklahoma Republican’s report on wasteful federal spending described the $700,000 Department of Agriculture-sponsored project as a study of “greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies, which are cause [sic] by cow burps, among other things.” It quoted the principal researcher of the project from a newspaper report: “Cows emit most of their methane through belching, only a small fraction from flatulence.”