By Ross McKitrick
EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt has argued that the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is a bad deal for the U.S. because it doesn’t bind China and India. But that implies it could be fixed by imposing the same ruinous terms on developing countries—which would in fact just spread the damage. The real reason for pulling of the Paris Accord is that it is a futile gesture based on empty and dishonest premises.
The first thing to note is that the same computer models that say global warming is a problem also say that Paris will not fix it. If one were to graph the standard warming projections over the next century with and without Paris, the two lines overlap almost exactly. Whatever greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration we would have reached in the year 2100 without Paris, we will reach it shortly thereafter with. For all its costs, the Paris treaty will have almost no effect on global warming, and by depleting global income it will make it harder for countries to adapt and innovate in response to whatever changes occur. Thus not only does Paris not solve the problem, it arguably makes it worse.
This, by the way, was equally true of the earlier Kyoto Protocol: all cost and no benefit. Under current technology and economic realities we have only two options: do nothing and adapt to whatever changes the climate will undergo over the next century, or take a lot of costly and futile actions today and adapt to whatever changes the climate will undergo over the next century. There has never been a third option involving costly actions today that stop the climate from changing.
Paris binds countries to meet their self-imposed Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs. The Obama Administration submitted an NDC that committed the U.S. to a twenty six percent reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2025 through specific regulatory measures, all of which were enacted by Executive Order rather than by passing laws in Congress. It amounts to an attempt by one Administration to bind all future Administrations despite lacking legislative warrant. If the U.S. NDC was supposed to be legally binding then it should have gone through Congress. And now that some of those measures have been repealed by the current Administration, it is dishonest to keep the existing NDC as part of the Paris Agreement.
Paris embeds an inconsistency between calling for the use of the “best available science” while also prejudging what that science is allowed to say. The Accord’s preamble calls climate change an “urgent threat” even though mainstream climate science and economics does not imply this, instead placing global warming rather low on the list of problems confronting the world. The Agreement enshrines the ill-defined and arbitrary target of holding “the” global average temperature to 2oC above pre-industrial levels while completely ignoring the critical question of how it should be measured. Nor does it say how much of the warming is natural and should not be counted against the 2oC limit. This omission alone makes the overall target absurd, since it could bind the world to taking actions to prevent the sun from shining brighter.
The Paris Agreement also veers into absurdity by its political and ideological language, requiring countries to address extraneous themes like gender equity, biodiversity, poverty eradication, migrants, disabled persons, a “just transition of the workforce,” “creation of decent work,” and so on. Having larded the treaty with social justice slogans, its authors cannot be surprised if they become points of contention. It is not surprising that conservative governments will dislike these items, and if the authors respond that they can simply be ignored, then they should not have been in the treaty to begin with.
Finally, a proponent might acknowledge all these problems yet still defend Paris as a “good first step” in the expectation that later steps will yield big benefits. But this is flawed reasoning. In any well-structured policy transition the first step yields the highest benefits at the lowest cost—the so-called low hanging fruit. Subsequent steps cost more and yield less, until the point is reached where costs exceed benefits and the process stops. Paris, like Kyoto, cost too much to implement while yielding unmeasurably small benefits. Subsequent steps will only be worse. It is a bad first step on a road to nowhere.
Pulling out of the Paris treaty would send a signal that the U.S. will not bind itself to bad deals based on hype and empty slogans. If this is the best global climate diplomacy could come up with then it is time to pursue other options.
Via the Cato Institute
Problem here is Trump caving;
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35176754/us-may-stay-in-paris-climate-accord-with-caveats/#page1
Look at the green blob stock prices, zero fear of Paris unwinding. Some deep in swamp subsidies are booming.
I don’t happen to think he’s caving, so much as playing the field.
UNEP
Scroll way down to:
‘The CIGI-UNEP Workshop: ‘Exploring Options For A Sustainable Global Financial System’, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
“…discuss options for a sustainable global financial system.”
The link to papers leads to: “403 is forbidden.”
CIGI/Centre for International Global Governance Innovations, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
http://wp-projects.usol360.com/unepinqu/events
CRA/Canada Revenue Agency
CIGI/Centre for Global Governance Innovations, founded 2001.
Tax return information 2002-2016
At:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/lstngs/menu-eng.html
Search enter: The Centre For International Governance Innovations
And follow the links to: Complete T 3010 returns and Completed Information Returns.
UN News Centre, 9 Aug 2010
‘Ban announces high-level panel to tackle global sustainable issues’
Scroll down to: “They will be joined by…”
Included: Jim Balsillie, Chair of the board of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) ; …
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35567#.WQPpgNQrJkg
Institute For New Economic Thinking, Inc., New York City, USA
Co-Founders: Jim Balsillie, William Janeway and George Soros.
http://www.ineteconomics.org/about/leadership-staff
FindTheCompany
Institute For New Economic Thinking Inc., founded 2010
Private operating foundation.
U.S. IRS registered tax-exempt foundation.
http://nonprofits.findthecompany.com/l/1637602/Institute-For-New-Economic-Thinking-Inc
UN, Press Release, 9 Aug 2010
‘Secretary-General Launches High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability to Create New Blueprint for Achieving Low-Carbon Prosperity in Twenty-First Century’
Press release includes panel members.
http://www.un.org/press/en/2010/envdev1149.doc.htm
CIGI – INET
‘Partnership with the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)’
CIGI – INET partnership announced January 2011.
https://www.cigionline.org/activity/partnership-institute-new-economic-thinking-inet
Gov. UK, Charity Register
INET Foundation (UK): Registered 27 Apr 2016
Operates: England, Wales and the United States of America.
Three trustees listed including Lord Jonathan Adair Turner
http://www.gov.uk
Search enter: chairty information > Search the Chairty Register > INET Foundation (UK) > Contact & Trustees.
UN
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
Partnerships & Commitments
Listing of all partnerships and voluntary commitments where the Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is listed as a partner in the Partnership for SDGs online platform.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/water/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=332&menu=139
IISD, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Jared Kushner and Malania Trump are true green warmust believers . . . .
Daddy Trump won’t duck out of the Paris Accord as in might hurt daughter Malania’s business interests.
In short nepotism wins over election promises, I hope I’m wrong but think not.
Melania Trump is the First Lady. Ivanka is the daughter. Both are a generation younger than Donald.
gregfreemyer, you are correct sir my mistake it should have read . . .
. . . Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are true green warmust believers . . . .
Daddy Trump won’t duck out of the Paris Accord as in might hurt daughter Malania’s business interests.
In short nepotism wins over election promises, I hope I’m wrong but think not.
sigh . . .. . . Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are true green warmust believers . . . .
Daddy Trump won’t duck out of the Paris Accord as in might hurt daughter Ivanka’s business interests.
In short nepotism wins over election promises, I hope I’m wrong but think not.
Well, we’ll see, won’t we? And I think everyone got your point after the first post.
Why is it so hard for regulators and legislators to understand these several valid and important points that Ross makes? Can anyone here dispute them?
Geoff
Because the “system” is “broken”. There is usually one result from a “broken system”, and we are rapidly heading towards it.
All other signatories to Paris will dispute them, that’s for sure.
The US does not make a good impression on the rest of the world which backs Paris and supports the science of climate change with this sort of thing…
The current US govt is massively out of step with world opinion
Citing “world opinion” is a new low in the appeals to authority.
Last I checked the “rest of the world” often doesn’t have our best interests at heart, and that’s putting it mildly. Funny how the biggest backers of the Paris atrocity are those who stand to gain financially from it. As far as “world opinion” goes, there is no such thing other than in the fevered brains of Leftists and those who hate America anyway.
“Join us in our leap off this cliff!”
So the other country’s politicians will throw a hissy fit.
Who cares?
In the mid & late 1800s, carbon based fuel replaced horse-power in cities and then in the countryside, as well. A treaty was not required. This is a well documented and fun read. Give it a try.
Before Trump there was Obama and gas was already replacing coal as a fuel for electrical grids, despite Obama’s attempt to destroy all carbon based fuel sources.. China and India will close old power sources and replace them with new ones. India will use a lot of coal. Bangladesh intends to use coal.
Carefully read the Paris non-treaty thing and about the Green Slush Fund
Well, okay, it is named the Green Climate Fund, and it is the $100 Billion per year that others want the USA to provide – they don’t give a carp about the US making a good impression.
So what?
Didn’t your mother teach you to think for yourself?
Griff – That is the BEST reason to pull out of the Paris Accord. Thanks for making such a succinct, and powerful argument.
“The current US govt is massively out of step with world opinion.”
And we are massively proud and supportive of the principled stand of the current US government!
God Bless America!
“All other signatories to Paris will dispute them, that’s for sure.”
You are SURE that China & India, and Iran & Saudi Arabia are on board with the “extraneous themes like gender equity, biodiversity, poverty eradication, migrants, disabled persons, a “just transition of the workforce,” “creation of decent work,” and so on.”?
Funny how Grift speaks for the ‘rest of the world’. I think he speaks for blood-sucking parasites.
Exiting and doing nothing changes nothing. However spending container ship loads of money on this ‘problem’ essentially changes nothing….I vote for the less expensive solution
I’m assuming “world opinion” is greenspeak for people who think like us.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/un-poll-shows-most-people-dont-care-about-fighting-global-warming/
Griff wrote: “All other signatories to Paris will dispute them, that’s for sure.
The US does not make a good impression on the rest of the world which backs Paris and supports the science of climate change with this sort of thing…
The current US govt is massively out of step with world opinion.”
Well, maybe not. It looks like some Europeans are getting on the Trump Train.
https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/call-for-trump-to-dump-the-paris-climate-deal/
MEPs call for Trump to dump the Paris climate deal
Griff, please if you can refute the meat of the post. Your appeal to statist ideology is not cogent to one word in the article.
Understand ?! … Why is because this does NOT involve “understanding”; it involves feeling and believing based on a thought process that can very effectively exclude “understanding”.
Somebody needs to write a rap song that puts CO2 climate alarmism to shame. Call the song … De Bunk. Play this song incessantly all over the world. Hype its underlying motivation. Watch the fan base grow.
Yeeah, so I hee ya,
CO2 is pollution,
yuh wanna fin’ a solution,
Paris iss thuh ansuh,
but I tel ya it’s thuh cancugh…
etc.
… or something.
This reminds me of a quote: “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
from Ronald Reagan
Hadn’t seen that one Dan, thanks.
Besides all these valid points, there’s also the law that the U.S. cannot be a member of the UN’s Climate Change Framework organization because it has admitted the Palestinian terrorists as a member. The U.S., by its own law, is required to withdraw, and this will automatically pull us out of the Paris accord. Is this not correct?
Not sure if it will pull us out of the Accord. The law says we can’t give $ to the UN bodies who admit Palestine, but I don’t know how that would affect agreements. In any case, the US should definitely enforce that law.
w.
“Besides all these valid points, there’s also the law that the U.S. cannot be a member of the UN’s Climate Change Framework organization because it has admitted the Palestinian terrorists as a member. The U.S., by its own law, is required to withdraw, and this will automatically pull us out of the Paris accord. Is this not correct?”
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt was asked today on Fox News about withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, and if that would adversely affect the ability of the U.S. to deal with other nations involved, and Pruitt said any dealings between the U.S. and other nations could take place under the UNFCCC framework, in place of the Paris Agreement.
In other words, Pruitt was for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and dealing with any climate issues through the UNFCCC. If the U.S. is planning on pulling out of the UNFCCC anytime soon, they ought to tell Pruitt, and I assume they would have, so maybe they are not planning on pulling out of the UNFCC. That wouldn’t preclude them from pulling out of the Paris Agreement however.
We may have to wait for the “final” decision on that point to come from the Judges of the Ninth Circuit, as it may offend their anti-Trump prejudices.
“We may have to wait for the “final” decision on that point to come from the Judges of the Ninth Circuit, as it may offend their anti-Trump prejudices.”
LOL! Isn’t that the truth! No doubt they can make up some law to temporarily stop Trump, like they have the last two times.
I think Congress should pass a law saying that any judge who gets overturned more than 75 percent of the time should be removed from Office and replaced by a judge who understands the U.S. Constitution.
The Ninth Circuit currently has an overturn rate of about 80 percent.
Leftists only care about good intentions, symbolism, and power. Hard results never factor in, because they are never accountable for results. If Paris doesn’t work, who cares? The important thing will be that they successfully asserted their agenda at other people’s expense, and will excitedly promote their new and improved climate plan.
Ross McKitrick:
That is an excellent summary of the issue that I and others can refer to, cite, copy and disseminate.
Thankyou.
Richard
I second richardscourtney’s sentiment.
As importantly, it is written so laymen like me can make sense of what the Paris treaty, and Kyoto, for that matter, actually mean to us.
Well said!
As far as I can tell, ‘they’ are doing their best to ignore that fact.
One hardly needs a computer model. An excell spreadsheet with emissions versus temps gives a pretty clear idea of the futility of cutting back CO2 to make it colder! Challenge all your warmist friends to graph the two variables themselves for the last 20 years and watch the cognitive dissonance in action!
Heck, have them graph the two variables for the last 100 years. The further out you make the time frame, the less correlation there is.
Trump needs to publicly tear up the climate agreement, and immediately. What is he waiting for?
The other option is to put it before Congress. Treaties, by law, must be ratified by a 2/3rds majority. Obama never did this because he knew it wouldn’t pass. If Trump takes this action, the treaty will surely not pass.
The treaty goes away and no one will accuse Trump of over reaching his bounds. Time for the conservative in congress to earn their pay.
I agree with this assessment, which is let Congress kick the Paris Agreement to the curb. In doing so, a lot of the misinformation that the alarmists proclaim will be brought out into the open, which will assist in tearing down the pillars of alarmism. Once the alarmists are exposed on a larger scale, the MSM will have to report the news and hopefully the narrative will change as to the degree (no pun intended) of warming being caused by the AGW hypothesis.
That is what Christopher C. Horner and Marlo Lewis Jr., senior fellows at the Competitive Enterprise Institute are recommending –
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/paris-climate-accord-eyed-as-treaty/
“Trump needs to publicly tear up the climate agreement, and immediately. What is he waiting for?”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/27/delingpole-trump-will-use-art-of-the-deal-to-kill-paris-climate-treaty/
“President Trump’s latest moves on the Paris agreement are – depending on your point of view – either a masterstroke of realpolitik by a consummate dealmaker [put TA in that category] or a shameful fudge: he has decided to kick the can down the road by leaving the decision up to the Senate.
This isn’t, of course, what he promised on the campaign trail.
In May last year in North Dakota he was quite explicit:
“We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to UN global warming programs.
What he probably wasn’t banking on, though, when he made that commitment was that it wouldn’t just be the liberals and greenies he’d be battling – but also a significant chunk of his own administration.
Though his EPA chief Scott Pruitt and his advisor Steve Bannon were all for pulling out, everyone else in his inner circle – not just the inevitable Jared Kushner and Ivanka, but also Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and even Energy Secretary Rick Perry – were keen to stay in.
The compromise – declare the agreement a treaty then send it to the senate to be killed – was in the event, probably the best skeptics could have hoped for.”
end excerpt
Trump reportedly may wait until the end of May to make a decision. Sending the Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate is the best way to handle it, imo. I don’t see that as going back on a promise to cancel it, since it ends up cancelled in the end. That’s all I care about.
Staying in the Paris Agreement for any reason lends credibilty to the notion that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change by burning fossil fuels, and there is no evidence to back up that notion.
I also saw Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Fox News today, and he did makes noises about staying in the Paris Agreement, but I would hardly describe him as “keen” on the idea. He sounded a little sheepish to me.
But, it doesn’t matter what Perry or anyone else thinks, it only matters what Trump thinks.
A serious question:
Assume the Judith Curry is right and the ECS to 2x CO2 is 1.5C and the 60-year quasi-stable oscillation is real:
– what will the AGW component of climate warming look like for the 60 years surrounding 2100 with the Paris agreement, and without?
Note that is an answerable question and does NOT depend on knowing what the natural variation is. I don’t actually know the answer, but it is answerable with current knowledge, so could someone just answer it?
It is answerable but it’s not testable. As the observations will include the unknown natural variation.
So is it meaningful?
It’s not testable now. Perhaps in a couple of thousand years we will have enough data to determine what natural variability is.
I didn’t ask if it was testable.
I think there is increasing evidence that the ECS to 2x CO2 is 1.5C. At this point I think it is highly likely between 1.5 and 2C. What I simply don’t remember seeing is what that would mean for AGW over the next century or two based on various CO2 emission profiles.
It is a relevant question.
Maybe not. The situation is too complicated for definitive answers. Judith Curry says:
Even James Hansen seems to have come around to the realization that long term processes are important. link
Even if we’re getting a handle on some of the short term stuff, the long term is largely a mystery.
CommieBob,
Climate = natural variation + AGW (Or so I am stating)
I’m fully aware of the vagaries of natural variation. I asked specifically about AGW.
I am asking about the climate’s response to CO2 levels increasing.
Curry has repeatedly said she thinks the ECS to 2x CO2 is in the 1.5 – 2.0C range.
So 2x CO2 means AGW is 1.5 – 2.0 C.
My question is what is AGW in the absence of the Paris Agreement. What is it with the Paris Agreement.
Given observations we can calculate a value for climate sensitivity and get your value for AGW. Over time the values have been decreasing. That doesn’t suit the alarmists.
The alarmists tell us that what is being measured is transient climate sensitivity. They say that what matters is equilibrium climate sensitivity which is what you get once the oceans have fully absorbed the heat due to AGW. In other words, the oceans are keeping things abnormally cool, but they will eventually warm up and their cooling effect will be lost. link So we’re back to very long term effects.
That simple answer you’re looking for … it doesn’t exist.
Greg’s serious question is a good question and leads to other questions;
Without going back and reviewing the climate assumptions that the Paris agreement is based upon, its my recollection that there was agreement on the notion that we can’t take enough action quickly enough to affect warming much for the remainder of this century, but that dividends will accrue in future centuries if we take serious action now. In other words, a certain amount of warming is “baked in” at CO2 levels that will be difficult to avoid for the remainder of the 21st century.
Thus, is it entirely fair to criticize Paris because the actions to be taken now will not result in a change in warming for this century. Rather the actions taken now will avoid the supposedly catastrophic warming that may occur in future symphonies. If the IPCC is correct in assuming we avoid more drastic consequences later, then actions taken now are justified even if the short term temperature trajectory is not affected much.
Also, climate sensitivity estimates are all over the map, and while I would like to think Prof. Curry’s estimates are right, she also admits that we don’t know very much now about climate sensitivity and that there are wide error bars associated with any estimate.
My skeptical instincts cause me to doubt the alarmist scenario, but on the other hand honest scientists say that there is huge uncertainty once you get 50 or more years out. If that’s so, what is the appropriate action for us to take now – no action, minimal action, drastic action, and all other possible actions in the spectrum?
In other words, unless Paris Agreement assumptions are absurdly alarmist, then at least some emission reductions over and above BAU are called for. Whether the Paris Agreement is the right approach, or if some other mechanism would be more appropriate, we know enough now to do something to prepare ourselves, and we know that doing nothing is irresponsible.
So, what do we do?
“catastrophic warming that may occur in future symphonies.”
My God, CO2 is now impacting orchestral music? Is there nothing that demon gas won’t ruin?
Actually, we do not know that doing nothing is irresponsible.
A simple review of climate history over the last 100 million years shows that there is precious little correlation between CO2 and temperature. Heck, just reviewing the last 100 years shows that CO2 is at best a bit player when it comes to climate.
Let’s hold of on condemning billions of people to life of misery and starvation until we know for certain that CO2 is going to be a problem.
MarkW
I don’t know where you’re getting 100 years of data you trust. I trust UAH.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah5/scale:125/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-360/from:1975
It looks like we are about 0.5C of warming over the last 40 years with a general upward movement for both.
fyi: I’m obviously a lukewarmer so I expect there to be a correlation, I just think the ECS response is where Judith Curry is saying it is most likely. Numerous other scientists are also starting to come out with papers putting ECS in the 1.5-2.0C range.
greg, there’s a general movement, however temperature goes up, it goes down, and it stays constant, all while CO2 goes steadily up.
That alone disproves the belief that CO2 is anything more than a bit player.
Not at all. First, you have to discount the supposed benefits that are over a century out. Then you have to compound the hit to economic growth over the same time frame. Finally, making a prediction about anything, including the human condition, desire, needs, or technology over 100 years out is pointless. It’s not unfathomable that people in the year 2150 or so have learned enough to control weather, cheaply remove CO2 (if necessary) or WANT the world to be warmer. Assuming that they haven’t been wiped out by something we don’t know about, or haven’t moved to another world. Or any of a thousand other possible scenarios. We have no idea, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
Imagine where we’d be if people a century ago decided to “help” us by not using fossil fuels in the first place.
Mark W – was listening to Mahler’s 9th so symphony was on the brain.
“(C)ondemning billions of people to life of misery and starvation” is a bit of a red herring, don’t you think?
Let’s leave over-the-top hyperbole out of this.
How confident are you of 1.5 – 2.0 sensitivity? It may be that we can’t measure such a thing anyway. How do you isolate CO2 sensitivity from all the other stuff that affects climate? Right back into wicked complexity.
If someone held a gun to my head and said “I’ll blow your brains out unless you give me a number for climate sensitivity and stake your life on it”, then I guess I would give them a number. Curry and others simply don’t believe the high numbers embodied in climate models, and my inclination is to agree with them, but Curry herself would place a wide error bar next to her own number.
The question, of course, is should we do more than nothing (although now we are doing more than nothing, but really not through an application of policy). For example, I wouldn’t mind leaving closing coal generation plants, but I wouldn’t say we shouldn’t sell coal to other countries. India is going to burn somebody’s coal. We would see higher prices for gas but that would be the price we would pay.
Should we make drastic changes? No, the proof that we need to isn’t there, and it’s not politically possible anyway. But I’m in favor of moderate measures while we figure out climate better – such as subsidies for renewables (and for nuclear). Subsidies have a moderate cost and we subsidize other forms of energy anyway.
craft1, no it’s not hyperbole at all, it’s the logical result of the plans being pushed by those who claim they want to solve this non problem.
I am 100% confident that the climate sensitivity is below 1.5C, it’s probably in the range of 0.2C to 0.5C.
My God, CO2 is now impacting orchestral music? Is there nothing that demon gas won’t ruin? …
==========================
Wikipedia says atonal music began with Liszt’s ‘Bagatelle sans tonalité’ in 1885 which is about the time atmospheric CO2 started its inexorable rise — coincidence?
We don’t make policies based on lies
scraft1,
A year ago Curry blogged that based the latest research:
The ECS best estimates fall in the range 1.65–1.75°C
The ECS 95% upper bound is 2.38°C
She didn’t discuss the lower bound.
That is apparently a lot smaller range than the AR5 95% range of 1.5-4.5°C
If they wish to remain in the Paris agreement they should argue that they have the same commitment as the Chinese and Indians . The failure of the top 3 emitters to commit to reducing emissions before 2030 should send a pretty strong massage to all other governments that spending any money to meet their own commitments is an exercise in futility. ( which it was even if the US kept its commitment.) Of all the swamps that exist in the US the climate swamp is the one that needs the most urgent cleansing. Hopefully trump can hold his nerve and resist the mournful songs of the Warmist sirens live in the climate swamp.
I think that Mr Pruitt may well have figured out that if he argues that “…the same computer models that say global warming is a problem also say that Paris will not fix it etc etc “ there will be a cacophony that he’s denying the science blah blah and most people will think “probably something in that. 97% can’t be wrong.”
But you don’t need to have an opinion on what credibility should be given to unvalidated computer models to recognise that it does not make sense for the USA to make sacrifices where others do not. He has picked a standpoint that is likely to go down well even with those who have swallowed the “97% agree” nonsense. He’s not daft.
“ut you don’t need to have an opinion on what credibility should be given to unvalidated computer models to recognise that it does not make sense for the USA to make sacrifices where others do not.”
That’s exactly right. I expect that argument to figure prominently in the U.S. Senate hearings on the Paris Agreement. I want to hear the Democrats defend this nonsense. And all the rest of the nonsense in the agreement that ends up putting the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for Trillions of dollars. No more Uncle Sucker!
The point was made in the wake of Kyoto that if the agreement was implemented to the letter then the cost would be billions (I can’t recall the precise figure) and that the effect would be either to reduce global warming by about 0.2° or to delay the “dangerous” level by something under five years depending on what direction you approached from. (2100 being the “deadline”.)
That (wasted) expenditure would have been several times what it would cost to provide the whole of sub-Saharan Africa with clean drinking water, western standard waste disposal and guaranteed cheap and reliable energy.
Many of us argued this at the time and were roundly vilified for our pains, especially when we pointed out that it was their own figures we were quoting. 20 years the collective insanity persists.
And now we have a paper reported by Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone that argues that even burning all fossil fuels would not raise the atmospheric CO2 level beyond (at its highest) 800ppm. I leave it to those better qualified than I am to see whether their argument holds up.
But whether it does or not we are not doing anything effective on the climate front (and it is increasingly doubtful that anything needs to be done anyway), we are doing nothing effective in terms of redistributing the world’s wealth (which Edenhofer admitted seven years ago was what the climate change scam was really about)’ and insofar as we are moving wealth around we are moving it from the poor to the rich.
Meanwhile the “green blob” — masters of mendacity and control-freaks par excellence — continue for some inexplicable reason to dictate how the other 99% of the world must live their lives. Surely sanity must return eventually?!
Trump needs to show something in the win column very soon. He is fast losing the support of his base. Getting out of Paris, or at least announcing that intention, would be an easy win. He needs to do this for his base and for his credibility.
As I said, well before the elections, and also on Breitbart: Trump has no principles, and therefore, cannot be held to them…
IIRC the US has a standing law that any UN agency that recognizes Palestine as a state is to be defunded by the US. Did they not apply this once already (UNESCO?). If so, Trump doesn’t have to do anything if UNEP has recognized Palestine – the Congress simply has to enforce the existing law, withdraw from and defund UNEP and the whole climate issue collapses from the US point of view. A “nation of laws” should have no recourse – IIRC. Skeptical Canucks that I know respect Pruitt but have big questions about Tillerson and Perry.
UNFCCC, not UNEP.
To the contrary, Trump’s “base” knows that Trump has taken numerous steps to keep his promises; they (we) are still loyal to the principles on which he ran and which he continues to enunciate and implement. Trump would win the election now by a wider margin than he did in November; including the popular vote, though in Nov. that included perhaps millions of illegal votes by illegal aliens, dead people, people voting multiple times, people traveling across state lines to vote again, and other violations. He is doing what he was elected to do. He is, of course, not perfect; but he is way ahead of what anyone else would have done by this time, and he is so preferable to Hillary that thinking of an HRC presidency still makes many people shudder. Add in all the “fifth column” “deep state” underhanded activity by Obama holdovers (e.g., 9th Circuit Court), and it is a wonder Trump has accomplished what he has. No previous president had to put up with all that, at least to that extent.
I do hope Trump aids the US exit from the Paris mess; but if he does, he’ll do it his own way. I’m not worried.
What flavor is the Kool-Aid.
“Trump needs to show something in the win column very soon. He is fast losing the support of his base.”
I saw a poll today that said 98 percent of Trump’s supporters are happy with what he has done and what he is doing. Trump is far from losing his base, he is increasing his base. Another poll showed that if the presidential vote were taken today, Trump would not only have beaten Hillary, Trump would have gotten the majority of the votes, too.
The MSM is presenting a competely false picture of the Trump presidency. It makes some people think Trump is losing the support of his base, which is of course, the whole point of the MSM’s lies. They want to undermine Trump in every way, and if you listen to their opinions, you are not listening to reality.
Listening to Fox News will help with this constant brainwashing being put out by the MSM. Don’t be one of its victims. Get some perspective instead.
Well, you know, most of the US CO2 reduction was to come from closing coal power plants and they are still closing even now Trump is in office.
China and India look like they are going full out for their committments… so I guess it will all work out..!
http://emagazine.com/paris-without-clean-power-plan/
Griffie, good to see you’re still delusional. Warms the cockles of my heart.
” China and India look like they are going full out for their committments “…..Good Grieff ! Easy as pie when your your commitment is BAU .(business as usual)
@Griff:
Seems my /blockquote did not close the quote. The second ‘quote’ is me.
Yes, India and China are still telling everyone that in 20 years they are going to do something.
Dr. Bob April 27, 2017 at 7:20 am
China is pushing development of alternative energy. The reasons for doing this are not clear to me as I do not see renewable energy being profitable for any energy company. There are reasons for having solar and wind power in very remote locations when other forms of power production are not available, but for major countries such as China, this doesn’t make much sense.
Days like this:
http://breakingenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/159915008.jpg
It really is amazing to me how warmunists keep repeating the same lies over and over again.
1) The problem with emissions from coal plants was solved in the west 40 years ago. The new power plants all have scrubbers.
2) The haze problem in the major cities isn’t caused by power plants, it’s caused by industry and residential power and cooking.
Memo to Phil. April 27, 2017 at 10:50 am:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colourless and odourless gas, you can’t see it nor can you smell it and in concentrations up to about 2000ppm and more, it is totally harmless.
The haze in that picture is not due to CO2.
Chris, concentrations of CO2 can go over 20,000 ppm without problem.
China is pushing development of alternative energy. The reasons for doing this are not clear to me as I do not see renewable energy being profitable for any energy company. There are reasons for having solar and wind power in very remote locations when other forms of power production are not available, but for major countries such as China, this doesn’t make much sense.
There is a long article about Chinese investment in renewable energy in OilPro Daily titled “Why China’s dominance in renewables could hurt the US job market”. http://oilpro.com/post/31017/why-chinas-dominance-renewables-could-hurt-us-job-market?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=2017-04-26&utm_content=Article_3_txt
“Having invested a staggering $190bn into clean energy over 2015/16, this year the Chinese government followed up with a pledge to spend more than $360bn on renewable sources by 2020 (1). To put this into perspective, in recent years China has invested twice as much as the US into renewables, and over five times as much as the UK.:
I cannot see a return on investment for this effort. Having worked in alternative energy for 18 years and in energy for 36 years, I have developed a sense for what is viable and what is not. Wind, Solar and Biomass derived energy simply do not have the ability to produce either enough energy or reliable energy for them to be part of modern society, and the environmental cost for deploying these technologies is going to be staggering. Think of one 5000 bbl/day algae field requiring $32B in construction costs and taking up 64 sq mi of land in a fragile desert environment. Top that off with consuming 10 vertical feet of water per year in a water starved environment. This is what the impact of renewables will be on society and the environment.
So YES, we need to get out of the Paris Accord and let those that think they know better invest their resources into this area. There is naturally a risk that China will develop some new and wonderful technology based on research in this area, but I do not think that risk is worth the cost of following along that path. There are far more productive areas to spend $190B than renewables.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I hope China spends even more on Renewable Energy and fails to realize that this is a money pit of incredible proportions with little prospect of gain.
China is pushing development of alternative energy. The reasons for doing this are not clear to me as I do not see renewable energy being profitable for any energy company.
Here is why China needs cleaner energy…
It’s not about CO2, it’s about real air pollurion. When people have to wear masks, and airports cancel flights due to low visibility from smog, you know it’s bad. Think “London England Killer Smog, Dec 5-8, 1952”, repeated as a common event. China has a real problem on its hands.
1) All they need are clean power plants, such as the west has been using for 40 years.
2) Most of that pollution is coming from residential sources and factories, not power plants.
London’s killer fog was to a large degree caused by home heating that used coal.
China slapped a ban on any more windmills.
Anyone who posts a picture like this and then implies this pollution is due to electricity generation is a fool. Chinese households use coal briquettes for cooking and heating. Not to mention most of the trucks, cars and motorcycles in major cities are un-tuned, unmaintained, particulate emitters.
Here is the culprit:
https://goo.gl/images/FToB7d
Anyone who posts a pic like that and then draws a link to electricity generation is foolish. Here is the real culprit: household coal briquettes for heat and cooking:
https://goo.gl/images/FToB7d
Not to mention their dirty vehicle emissions. Especially diesel trucks.
AP, they are either an idiot or a liar.
China has invested twice as much as the US into renewables, and over five times as much as the UK.:>>
which means ,on a per capita basis, the UK is shaming china and the US in renewables..
Not exactly a point I would be bragging about.
What is the electricity rate in the UK? Isn’t it about twice as expensive as the U.S.? I feel no shame at paying less for electricty here in the good ole USA. In fact, I’m happy about it. May it ever be so.
Per your numbers China’s per capita investment in wind and solar is not as significant as the US or the UK.
China is still developing far more coal and nuclear then wind and solar. They receive international benefits for playing the renewable game.
Ross wrote: “Finally, a proponent might acknowledge all these problems yet still defend Paris as a “good first step” in the expectation that later steps will yield big benefits. But this is flawed reasoning. In any well-structured policy transition the first step yields the highest benefits at the lowest cost—the so-called low hanging fruit. Subsequent steps cost more and yield less, until the point is reached where costs exceed benefits and the process stops. Paris, like Kyoto, cost too much to implement while yielding unmeasurably small benefits.”
Ross, could you comment on the idea that efforts to achieve inadequate emissions reductions today could drive the development of the new technology and infrastructure? When the supply of fossil fuels is no longer capable of meeting demand at at anything near today’s low cost, such technology and infrastructure will be needed. I anticipate that part of your response will begin with recognition that wind turbines and some forms of PV are mature technologies whose levelized costs are unlikely to drop much in the future. Nor do those levelized costs reflect the cost of dealing with the problem of dealing with intermittency and the current high cost of storage. On the other hand, electric vehicles are looking more practical (despite the limited infrastructure) and I’m intrigued about the possibility of storing power underground as compressed air.
The biggest problem with storing compressed air is that the act of compressing the air heats it. Then when that heat is lost to the environment, the pressure of the air goes down.
And that’s assuming you can get a perfect (or pretty close to one) seal.
Then there are compressor and turbine losses.
All in all, batteries are likely to be cheaper. (And they aren’t cheap)
EOS (a grid scale battery manufacturer) announced recently they were taking orders now for 2022 battery deliveries at $95/KWh. That is for the DC component of the solution only.
That is below what many consider the magical $100/KWh threshold of mass usage in grids.
They are claiming 10,000 cycles and 75% efficiency, so that is $0.0125/KWh delivered. We may soon see a massive move to large scale batteries in the grid and associated with wind/solar.
Yes, I am not sure about how efficient compressed air is. I thought the efficiency was something like 50% for the complete cycle. Perhaps if there was a use for the waste heat, but then we don’t even use all the thermal waste heat that we currently have with cooling towers, water bodies etc.
I have been reading about compressing air in ‘ballon’ bladder bags about 250-300 feet under water. Because of the water pressure, the bladder doesn’t expand as much as it would at normal atmospheric pressure allowing for a higher density storage efficiency. I assume it also still subject to the same overall efficiency once utilized as an energy source, but please correct me if I am wrong about this.
I think as far as efficiency goes, probably hard to beat pumped storage. Infrastructure can be designed to last centuries and the equipment has a very long life span needing only pump and motor which can be reversed for each cycle. Plus any new precipitation at the upper pond is free energy in so far as the closed loop is concerned, as long as it exceeds evaporation. Which assists with overall losses a bit. Instead of expensive batteries that have a relatively short life span and degrade with each cycle, hard to beat pumped storage over a long time frame.
When you factor in the building and safety systems, I suspect the batteries themselves will be one of the smaller factors when it comes to cost.
Beyond that, in this case they are talking about load shifting. Pretty much the batteries absorb a portion of a regular power plant’s output when demand is low, and feed it back when demand is high. This permits regular fossil/nuclear power plants to be run at a more or less continuous level throughout the day, which both makes them more efficient and can help delay the building of new power plants.
In terms of using batteries to back up wind and solar, let’s examine solar first.
Max output for solar (unless your panels track the sun) is only for a couple of hours per day, with capacity dropping rapidly on either side of the peak, dropping to nothing when the sun goes down.
During the winter, in more northern parts of the continental US, night can be as much as 17 or 18 hours. So you would need at a minimum 4 times as much battery capacity as the face plate capacity on your solar generators. And then what happens when it’s cloudy during the day.
Wind is even worse since you can’t predict when it will start or stop.
Wind and solar are already way more expensive than fossil/nuclear, adding enough batteries to the mix is going to increase costs by at least an order of magnitude.
PS: A thought just occurred to me. We have talked about the problem with the sun traversing from east to west during the day and how this impacts total amount of power that can be generated at any given time.
The sun also moves north and south as the seasons progress. Do you set up your panels to get the most power during the equinoxes and just accept a drop in power during the rest of the year?
Given the fact that you get less sunlight during the winter, perhaps you would want to angle the panels so that you get maximum power during the winter, to help even out the seasonal differences.
On the summer/winter orientation in NZ peak loads are winter morning and evening. PV isn’t much value regardless, but where tariffs reflect seasonal and time of day costs, grid connected installations are advised to orient for the winter months in an attempt to minimise the loss 🙂
On the wider issue of batteries vs PV the evidence here is you’ll lose money on grid connected PV but come close to breakeven on batteries. Low duty cycle EVs will give a positive return.
Electric cars may be possible for people who live in or near cities and have short commutes.
The biggest problem with electrics is that everyone gets home about the same time and wants to plug theirs in when they get home.
First off, to load balance you are going to have to invest in a smart grid so that charging stations can be cycled. I suppose it would be possible that if you needed your car for something important and had to have it charged now. You could press a button on the charging station and you would get a priority rating in the charging algorithm, at a cost.
Beyond that, it’s been estimated that if everyone were to convert to electric cars, and even if we were to assume all night to charge those cars, We would have to increase power generation capacity by something like 5 to 10 times what we have now. We would also have to upgrade the grid all the way from the power station to every individual home to handle the extra demand.
Not easy, and certainly not cheap.
We would have to increase power generation capacity by something like 5 to 10 times what we have now.
That’s ridiculous. This is a decade old, but even then more energy went to electricity than transportation.
Certainly we would need more electricity generation capacity, but not 5 or 10x.
You are forgetting to factor the fact that we won’t be charging cars 24/7. Most of that charging is going to happen in the few hours after people start getting home.
I can’t speak for the US but some factors to take into account from the NZ context.
First it is a mistake to think the grid needs to be the smart one. If the car knows the current tariff (and you have time of day tariffs) it can be the smart one. In NZ the assumption is that the bulk of charging will be in the early morning when there is surplus capacity throughout the system. That will be when you’ll get the cheap energy. Not sure if this applies in the US.
Second in public charging there is thinking going on as to how to have short term storage at your recharging site (capacitors, flywheels) with the dual advantage of allowing trickle charging within the current distribution capacity to the site (avoid upgrade) and impulse charging to reduce the wait time.
Finally in doing the replacement calculations for electricity vs fossil fuel, remember the relative efficiency of electric transmission and motors compared with liquid fuels and ICEs. The former gets as much as 2.5-3X more energy onto the road.
It’s not a fair comparison to just take gas tank to road vs battery road comparisons.
You have to add in the energy required to get the gas into the tank, vs the energy losses from power plant to to battery.
When everything is added up, the difference completely disappears, in some cases, the advantage goes to internal combustion engine.
The comparison includes the transmission/transportation losses. If you are generating electricity using fossil fuel (and in NZ we aren’t) you do bring the two closer together. Another example is the FC case where the losses from electrolysis onto the road are similar to ICEs.
You need to recheck your sources.
The claim of 2 to 3 times efficiency is for tank to tire (about 35%) vs. battery to tire (about 90%).
Your tank to tyre efficiencies look too high. Are you sure you aren’t quoting theoretical peak efficiencies rather than those over a typical driving cycle range?
On the distribution losses electricity T&D for NZ and the US are around 6-7%. In the US liquid fuel is around 1% I think. So a bit of a bias to liquid fuels but not a game changer.
As I noted, after the engine conversion efficiencies, the difference all comes down to where you get your electricity from (and quite how you deal with efficiency issue when it comes to renewable generation like hydro, wind and geothermal as in NZ forces one to think more clearly about what one is exactly trying to demonstrate).
One problem with electric cars that is often overlooked is that while they are generally somewhat more efficient well-to-wheel than gas cars (something like 30% vs. 20%), what people always forget is that on average a car carries about fifty-sixty pounds of fuel around while you are driving … a car battery weighs about nine hundred pounds.
So you have a car that is very efficient with a 850 pound weight penalty …
In other words, efficiency is simply not enough to measure the actual utility of the energy source.
w.
Just all drive this:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Ksti8Ed5MupGYkKHMqGjplsMr59nESRwM2j8YAfMKphPZ6lOrJbc6TV23hXN10M5rWJWJFPXWbkIrPLYPVdBQjrgCKoIvFNuKyZwXqz_6CsPwpDBhr0KcprP=w313-h470-nc
Willis
In the end the test is the comparative life time costs of similar vehicles for the same kms. Future fuel costs and what externalities to include make that non-trivial, but down here it looks as though the EV is as good as a comparable ICE if you are happy with a light duty cycle (NZ$5/tCO2, oil price US$40/bbl, 10,000kms p.a.).
Of course being a frugal lot around half our passenger vehicles are bought second hand from Japan so we’ll need then to stop flirting with FCs and up the EV supply.
The Paris Accord is nothing but another wealth transfer agreement. It obviously will do nothing to affect the climate, now or in the future.
Well, yes. If the proponents of wealth transfer were just upfront and honest about their goals there could be an intelligent adult discussion and some compromise. But they can’t, so there isn’t, and the result is all the nonsense we see these days.
The automation problem sh*t is going to hit the fan soon and here we are wasting time with climate obsession.
We have been through many automation waves over the last 100 years or so.
The solution is to allow competition to make the products made by automation to drop in price.
People used to work 10 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week in order to be able to earn enough to buy what their family needed.
Automation made it possible to earn enough to supply your family with only 40 hours a week.
Further automation should continue that trend.
PS: It was automation, not government regulations that eliminated child labor.
Farm work > factory work > office work > ?
Even knowledge workers are being replaced now. Ask me how I know (although offshoring is doing its own damage, but the offshoring is enabled by – tah-dah! – software, reliable 3rd world energy and internet and automation).
Not everyone can be a robot maintenance technician or software programmer. Those who do remain will still experience intense competition for work, depressing salaries.
It’s the transition that’s going to cause the problems and there’ll be ~3 new jobs created for every 10 lost.
The notion that retiring baby boomers would open up all kinds of well-paying jobs for follow-ons is toast.
It is going to be risky times, ripe for unrest and worse. Then again, maybe government can just implement those suicide booths as seen in Futurama and that’ll solve at least part of the problem.
http://s18.postimg.org/nab0mcnmh/futurama_suicide.png
PiperPaul, it wasn’t long ago that 99% of the population worked on farms.
Now about 1% does. Are the other 98% unemployed?
It was a combination of new jobs and those people who did work did not need to work as long, which allowed job sharing.
If everyone in the country were to go back to the hours of work that was common at the turn of the last century, unemployment would jump to close to 50%.
But MarkW, do you think job-sharing is just going to pop into existence? Job-sharing would translate to being two part-time jobs instead of one full-time? Then no benefits need to be paid – correct?
Factories are more efficient than other forms of production.
Child labor in factories had been eliminated long before the laws you cite were passed.
PiperPaul, if government regulations permit the price to fall as efficiency rises, you wan’t have to work 40 hours to buy everything your family needs. Just like people no longer have to work 70 to 80 hours a week.
enargpia, you don’t read well, do you?
Your post merely shows that child labor was permitted by law. It says nothing about how prevalent it was.
Until you can actually refute my point, I do love to see you squirm.
As always, enargpia has to distort what others say to make itself seem relevant. I stated that child labor had all but disappeared prior to laws against it being passed.
The troll comes back with a demand that I prove it was gone altogether.
Also, his proof that child labor was a big problem, a paper showing that child labor was legal in a couple of states. Nothing about how prevalent it was.
I don’t know why I bother trying to educate the troll.
Your definition of automation is ridiculously narrow, as is your wont, to redefine everything in a vain attempt to make it sound like you are saying something intelligent.
As to laws vs. automation, 99% of child labor was gone before the laws were passed. Of the 1% that was left, they were excluded from the laws.
They wouldn’t have passed the law if there was no need.
That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read this week.
gunsmithkat,
“But that implies it could be fixed by imposing the same ruinous terms on developing countries”
If fixed means to destroy healthy economies in order to reduce emissions, which in fact the goal of the Paris accords as it relates to the developed world, then it can be ‘fixed’. However; as you say, the goal is not reducing carbon, but is a massive redistribution of wealth under the guise of climate reparations, which can never be ‘fixed’ since the premise is broken in the first place.
Ross McKitrick,
Very well done. Thank you.
[E.M. Smith ~Chiefo~ has written at some length on the topic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and how it would, if implemented, also “veer into absurdity, as you have written.
Your wordsmithing talent directed at the TPP would be of interest.]
* 20,000 years ago, 2-kilometre-thick ice sheets covered almost all of Canada, and some CONUS “northern tier” states.
* Then temperatures rose 5 to 7 Celsius (9 to 12.5 Fahrenheit) degrees
* The ice sheets melted and sea level rose 120 metres.
* And, oh yeah, CO2 was at half of today’s levels… oops
MODEL THIS.
If you look at the past billion years of CO2 concentration and temperature fluctuations, you will see that there is NO correlation. http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html CO2 concentration has almost always been higher than today.
Thanks for that link, dan. Great chart. I’m making a copy. 🙂
Ivanka and Jarred want to hob nob with the elites in Davos years from now after Dad is done with politics (e.g. Ivanka sitting w Merkel et Al yesterday). They have 50 years of this stuff left in their lives and Dad has 4-8. She doesn’t want to be booed everywhere she goes so Trump will help her out as long as it doesn’t hurt the US, which it won’t as Trump won’t enforce it (until 4-8 years from now when it will be used as a noose around our neck again). Trump was superb in the campaign, but now he’s worried about other things apparently. It’s too bad, he could have been great.
OK all well and good but rather than just criticising the best option sitting on the table, you should also offer some alternative workable solutions. The IPCC is currently the best organisation on this planet at trying to knock nation state heads together, and it is better to take action now rather than just sitting on our hands and waiting for the calamities to happen – and they most definitely will.
Individual organisations are already voluntarily responding to climate change e.g. Miami is building up its defences. America is slowly waking up to the fact that there are going to be huge economic costs and no better incentive than the prospect of losing huge amounts of money.
You assume that climate is a “problem”, and further assume that we could do anything to change the climate even if we wanted to. Neither assumption is warranted, and is based in pseudoscience and fear-based propaganda, aka “climate koolade”, which you’ve obviously been guzzling.
+97 for Bruce.
Since there is no problem that needs to be solved, why should we consider any option?
PS: Since when is it a requirement to come up with a better solution before you are permitted to point out that the emperor has no clothes?
Come off it; you must be joking … anyone who says there is no problem is living on planet Mars. 99% of scientists agree about man-made climate change. If you deny it is taking place then don’t bother to continue this discussion .
Ivankinsman say 99% of scientists agree.
If the statement is “The ECS response to 2x CO2 is greater than zero”, then I think we can move that to 99.9%.
99% of all scientists?
That lie gets bigger every time it’s told. By the time 2030 rolls around, it will be up to 110% for sure.
PS: I love how the warmunists think. Either agree with me, or you are to stupid to listen to so shut up.
We should take action now! Knock heads at the UN-IPCC and fire them. That will avert the huge economic costs of trying to alter natural climate change, as well as many other calamities ‘waiting to happen’ from embedded socialist wealth redistribution schemes.
Sorry but your are moron if you take that attitude.
Come off it; you must be joking … anyone who says there is a natural climate change problem is living on planet Uranus. If you deny it is taking place then don’t bother to continue this discussion .
I notice how ivankinsman can’t even be bothered to form a coherent argument. He’s the perfect warmunist.
Who was it that called them ‘useful idiots’?
(I’m now fully expecting to hear the term, ‘useful idiot’ used in the media by an alarmist when referring to climate realists. Projection once again.)
“We should take action now! Knock heads at the UN-IPCC and fire them.”
J Mac knows which heads need knocking. Thanks for straightening that out, J Mac. I think someone else was confused about who is the problem, and you put it right.
ivankinsman:
You say
Oh, that is easy.
I invoke the Precautionary Principle and thus assert that the appropriate “option” is to take no action.
Stopping greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activity would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the ‘oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.
The precautionary principle says we should not accept the risks of certain economic disruption in attempt to control the world’s climate on the basis of assumptions that have no supporting evidence and merely because they’ve been described using computer games.
Richard
What a beautiful first paragraph! Succinct and Enlightening. Well done, Ross.
“The real reason for pulling of the Paris Accord is that it is a futile gesture based on empty and dishonest premises.”
Second! There’s not enough lipstick in the universe to even start glamming up this progressive pig of a faux treaty. Please, Mr. President, make it stop!
Ross McKitrick,
A concise and excellent summary of ‘The Case for Pulling the U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Accord’.
Well Done!
I’ve just revisited some of the older threads and I’ve noticed that Griff has started to go back to old threads, after everyone else has stopped reviewing them to repost all of his old propaganda. I guess he’s hoping to signal his virtue by getting the last word.
Well he’s pretty good at being busy like that. It appears he has nothing else to do besides bird watching in the UK according to documents I’ve found.
Right, Ed?
If you think you have identified me, then presumably you are quite happy whoever you found is not a paid agent of communism/banks/greenpeace/the left, etc, etc and is a private individual.
Whether that’s me or not, please have the decency not to identify individuals posting to your site. It does say ’email will not be revealed’ or similar, I think?
Not everyone in the skeptic world is as polite as yourself and frankly anyone you ‘out’ would be likely to be subject to abuse beyond these columns in the real world. A sad fact, but that’s life in the 21st century.
[Quite certain I have, no worries as long as you behave yourself. I make it a point to know all regular posters here – Anthony]
Anthony, thank you for your reply.
Off on holiday… catch up here next week.
Aren’t comments usually closed after a short period, so hows he able to go back?
Maybe Anthony can answer that, but I thought the period was closer to a month. Sooner if a thread gets out of hand.
Maybe Griff’s fantasies about being a dimensional time traveler have become reality.
“Aren’t comments usually closed after a short period, so hows he able to go back?”
I thought it was 14 days, but I’m not sure. There are so many articles on WUWT, that I’m lucky if I can keep up with one thread for more than a day or two, before moving on to newer articles. One can only open so many browser windows at one time.
I’ve been wondering if their is a way to make suggestions to the word press people.
A new feature that I would like to see, and it shouldn’t be difficult to implement, would be a text box where you can type in a date and time, and all posts written after that date and time could be highlighted. Making it easier to find new posts on long threads.
A way to highlight new posts is a very good idea, MarkW.
Wordpress could set it so whenever you refresed a page, it would highlight all posts that were not there the last time you visited.
The only thing is I would have to allow WordPress within my NoScript add-on because otherwise, no cookies are put on my computer so the website would not have a way of indentifying me from a previous visit.
But that’s not a problem at all. Allowing WordPress doesn’t mess other things up on this website, like allowing some others will.
Yes, if we could arrange to get new posts highlighted in some way, then it would be easy for a person to keep up with what’s new in each thread, and would be much more user friendly, and no doubt, would increase the participation and number of comments.
Let’s face it; life without Griff would be less fun!
What a kind thought!
Well it doesn’t help that all my comments sit in moderation when I enter them… not sure why I get this special treatment.
so I am in the habit of going back to see if it got posted yet.
In other words my comments don’t appear in real time.
Good point, Griff.
From the work that has been done with models and considering what has happened the past, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of then. But even is we could stop the climate from changing we would still be experiencing extreme weather events because they are part of our current climate. In terms of climate control, the Paris Agreement is a useless jesture. The USA is now a poor debetor nation with a huge national debt and huge annual trade deficits. We do not have money to waste on a useless jesture.
“In terms of climate control, the Paris Agreement is a useless jesture. The USA is now a poor debetor nation with a huge national debt and huge annual trade deficits. We do not have money to waste on a useless jesture.”
Yes, the USA has to borrow money for half of every expenditure it makes. Obama and the Republican Congress went insane for eight years on spending and doubled the US national debt. The US currently spends almost as much on interest payments on the US national debt as it spends on national defense (600+ billion dollars annually) Bush spent a few Trillion on his watch, too, but at least he had an excuse, he was prosecuting two wars at the time. The Republican Congress has NO excuse. Obama’s excuse is he is a Liberal and that’s what Liberal’s do: spend other people’s money as fast as they can.
At long last the US armed forces are back to defending the world against the enemies of humanity rather than fighting “climate change”.
Under Obama, the admiral commanding Pacific Command said that climate change was the enemy. Now the Navy and other services recognize that our opponent is North Korea, rather than CO2.
I think most of the military establishment know who the real enemies are. They were just playing Obama’s climate change game while he was in charge. No doubt Obama put some like-minded climate change people in the Defense Department, but they will probably be weeded out eventually.
Why would the US ever back out of the Paris climate accord? Coal is never coming back and renewables accounted for 65% of generating capacity last year. Fossil fuels are dead because they are no longer competitive with wind and solar.
Except these renewables are nuclear and hydro, not wind and solar. And if fossil fuels are dead, what’s powering all the cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships out there? In addition, it’s natural gas that’s providing the US with most of its heating and electrical generation capacity, and isn’t natural gas still a fossil fuel?
jtrobertsj April 27, 2017 at 5:46 pm
I do love how alarmists post their green fantasies as if they were obvious truth. Does this look like coal is dead?
Globally coal has never died. It is still a huge energy source in the US, and now that Trump is rolling back Obama’s misguided attempt to kill the industry via regulatory strangulation, it is rebounding.
Golobally, both India and China are building new coal-fired power plants as fast as they can. Plus of course the huge demand for coking coal worldwide will only increase … but then perhaps you don’t know what coking coal is …
Best regards,
w.
Well coal power plants are still closing in the USA.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/24/us-coal-plant-closures-likely-eliminate-30-million-tonnes-annual-coal-demand/
“The United States is closing 46 coal-fired generating units at 25 electricity plants across 16 states over the next few years, transitioning to natural gas or intentionally closing them, and a new report shows that this will likely result in eliminating about 30 million tons of annual coal demand by the end of 2018.”
So coal is certainly a decreasing power source in the US and since 90% of Us coal goes in power plants, then it is certain there aren’t going to be any new mining jobs
China and India are not now rolling out coal power plants at the old rate.
china has cancelled over 100 in the last year and India’s are running at 55% capacity.
And the draft power plan from the Indian govt says it needs to start no new power plants till 2027. It is also shutting older coal plants and the plant proposed may never get built.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/12/16/india-to-halt-building-new-coal-plants-in-2022/
Willis this is a good graphic, but it misses a few things. Coal is also used to manufacture cement, and has a range of other uses, from electrodes through to cosmetics. It also supplies the electricity for the manufacture of a good percentage of the world’s aluminium supply.
Perhaps true Griff, at least in the US, but why are they closing? And is there any potential for the circumstances driving closure decisions to change? Of course there is and let’s hope it happens!
I am privy to know the details of one planned closure (mothballing actually) that is the direct result of blatant sue and settle coercion involving the EPA, a once great state, the Sierra Club, and misguided and poorly supported regional haze regulations. The generating unit and associated transmission infrastructure in question will remain totally viable and ready to fire up should the day come that once again sane leadership prevails. It’s hardly sustainable to prematurely shutter perfectly good generating assets before their design lives are realized. A waste of resources really. Not to mention the complete lack of meaningful effect premature closure has on anything other than the guilt stricken collective consciences of all too prosperous eco justice warriors.
jtrobertsj April 27, 2017 at 5:46 pm
In addition to Mr. Katz’s comment about these being nuclear and hydro, it’s a classic newbie mistake to conflate generating capacity with actual generation. A windmill that is not turning may have a generating capacity of 3 megawatts … but if it is not spinning but sitting dead as it is most of the time, the amount generated is zero. As a result, generating capacity is a meaningless figure.
Next, the total ACTUAL generation globally from solar, wind, and biofuels in 2014 was about 1400 TWh … and total generation was 23536.5 TWh. So your much vaunted renewables provided a pathetic 6% of global electricity supply. And in the US it’s not much more, 6.6% of the total from wind, solar, and biofuels.
Finally, your claim that solar and wind are economically competitive is a sick joke. They only exist at all because of the billions of dollars that green folks like yourself have taken from the taxpayers and put into the pockets of the owners of the wind turbines and solar panels. You think this makes you noble.
I think that this makes you a common thief. You are stealing tax money from the poor and middle class to give it to the rich. Not impressed, amigo, taking money from other people’s pockets for your green fantasies is not something to boast about.
JT, you need to get much more skeptical and start turning over the rocks. You’ve been sold a bill of goods.
w.
Great contribution Willis. Please add me to your mailing list mrmichaeldarby@hotmail.com
Always good to look at actual TWh generated and then what percentage of total yearly generation that is.
Michael darby April 28, 2017 at 12:59 am
Thanks, Michael. Not sure what you mean by “mailing list”. My blog is here. You can subscribe to either blog to get an email each time there is a new post.
w.
What a hilarious and ignorant comment. Fossil fuels are essential raw materials that MAKE wind turbines and solar panels. Moron.
Where do you think all that concrete, steel and aluminium comes from? The frigging sky fairy?
65%??? What color is the sky in your world.
It’s closer to 1%.
Richard M April 27, 2017 at 6:38 am
Richard, while you might WISH that President Trump is “fast losing the support of his base”, in fact the polls show that if the election were held today he’d win again, including the popular vote.
As to “something in the win column”, if he were to never do anything more than what he’s done, killing the TPP, getting Goresuch on the court, installing the “remove two regulations for every new one” order, revitalizing the coal industry, bringing thousands of jobs back to the US, and banning lobbying for five years, for me and I suspect many others that would mark his as the most successful presidency in years … and he’s just getting started.
So … keep dreaming that Trump is failing. You seem to have no clue how his base views him. They look at the above list and they know he’s already won big. If you do wish to know what his base is thinking, my suggestion would be to read Salena Zito.
w.
Trump just keeps rolling right along despite all the obstacles being thrown in his path. It’s amazing to watch. He said today that the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada (both good friends, he said) called him and asked him to please renegotiate the NAFTA agreement, and Trump said he would be happy to as long as the US got a good deal. That’s just what Trump wanted. The art of the deal. 🙂
Trump is the Man.
Sure, that explains why he has the lowest approval ratings of any modern day President at the 100 day mark.
Chris April 28, 2017 at 9:54 am
Actually, that is explained by two things.
First, the media has been successful in demonizing him. For example, to date there is exactly zero evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians … but the media has convinced some 40% of the populace that the case is totally proven.
Second, ALL politicians have low ratings these days and guess what?
Trump’s approval rating is better than that of the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the House Majority Leader, or the House Minority Leader.
Considering that he’s polling BETTER than the leaders of both parties in both Houses, I’d say in the current anti-politician climate he’s in doing quite well.
w.
Once Gorsuch is in place, could a Supreme Court challenge to the Paris agreement be launched? Seems to me there could be plenty of valid grounds for such a challenge.
Speaking of low hanging fruit. Tearing up the Paris paper should have been an easy first win for a president Trump. A low cost, high yield presidential action. Why is this even being discussed now??
Excellent question.
Because corporate America doesn’t want Trump to tear it up. He may well still do so, but that is not what the corporate world wants.
The only urgent threat is to the sinecures of the sinful
I recently read a news report suggesting the president may declare the agreement a treaty, then send it to the Senate for carrying out the death sentence. That should make it harder for the remainers” to say it wasn’t given a fair chance.
“That should make it harder for the remainers” to say it wasn’t given a fair chance.”
Yes, and a U.S. Senate rejection will make it impossible for the Left to successfully blame the killing of the Paris Agreement all on Trump.
HAS April 28, 2017 at 1:22 pm
While I wish that were the truth, several things change that. First is the widespread subsidization of electric vehicles, from keeping Elon Musk rich with $4.6 billion in stolen taxpayer money to subsidizing rich buyers. Talk about a ripoff, taking tax money from the middle class to subsidize someone wealthy enough to buy a $100,000 car is a damn eco-crime.
Then you have all the people who are happy to ignore the fact that currently a used Honda gasoline car gets ~ 50 miles per gallon and has much lower lifetime costs, just so that they can brag to their friends just how wonderful and green they are.
Then you have the wildly market distorting “cap-and-trade” and “CO2 tax” scams that make inefficient EVs appear to the polloi to be efficient …
But yes, if you squint real hard and ignore all of that ugly reality, you’re right, an EV is almost “as good as” an internal combustion engine …
w.
Oh and did I mention running out of gas a mile from a service station and getting out with my gas can to walk for fuel, versus running out of electricity a mile from a charging station and getting out with my electron can to walk for fuel? …
w.
Cut the crap, just put it to a vote. Obama was to cowardly to do it because Kyoto had already been voted down .
“But as I said, Scott Adams was right. The meme of “Trump is Hitler” is indeed being replaced by the meme “Trump is an idiot”, and you are exhibit one in support of Adams’ claim.”
This is standard procedure for the Leftwing MSM. They characterized all Republican presidents in this way, with the exception of Eisenhower.
Yes, we are seeing the standard MSM/Left propaganda attack on a Republican president, with the exception that the attacks on Trump are especially intense, because there is a lot more leftwing media today taking potshots at him, than there was in the past.
But, Trump is getting the job done, and increasing his support, despite the MSM and the Left and their dishonest, undermining, half-truths and lies.
And you should always keep in mind that when our president is undermined, we as a nation are undermined. The MSM and the Left are not just attacking Trump, they are attacking us, too.
Through this storm of lies from the MSM and the Left about Trump, what kind of picture of Trump do you think the fattest man in North Korea has of Trump?
Perhaps Kim Jung Un has a distorted picture of Trump and perhaps that will cause Kim to miscalculate and cross a line he didn’t think was there because of those lies. If Kim had been shown the truth about the resolve of Trump and the American people (53 percent favor military action against North Korea), perhaps he wouldn’t have chosen to commit suicide.
MSM lies have big consequences. They are dangerous to our personal freedoms for many reasons. Their delusions hamper us from dealing with the real world in the proper way. Don’t believe their spin on *anything* if you value your freedoms.