The Air Comes Out of the Climate Change Talks

Rupert Darwall writes in “Real Clear Politics”

cop15_balloonTuesday’s climate summit at the U.N. may well mark a turning point in the long-running talks as the reality sinks in that they are heading nowhere. For sure, the rhetoric is unchanged. Recently appointed U.N. peace messenger Leonardo DiCaprio is the show’s newest star, telling the meeting that it was “humankind’s greatest challenge.” But the older acts sounded stale. Former Vice President Al Gore demonstrated his green credentials when he said that political will was “a renewable resource,” recycling a line he’d first used at the 2007 Bali climate conference.

Underneath the overheated rhetoric and the U.N. platitudes about acting together, the signs of failure are already apparent. The original intent of the summit was to put world leaders on the spot. With the eyes of the world upon them, they would feel compelled to make ambitious pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions that could be inked in to a legally binding text. Instead, the leaders that came were let off the hook. Now they are only expected to submit their proposals by March next year. All the talk was of reaching “agreement” in Paris, which is a long way short of agreeing to a treaty. Countries were going to agree to make contributions to tackle global warming, not hard and fast commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Contributions are much weaker than commitments. For developing countries, it means listing the sorts of things they are doing anyway – a bit of reforestation here, some solar panels there.

All these are signs of slippage.

There were quite a number of empty seats in the chamber as the president spoke. Secretary of State John Kerry played with his BlackBerry. Many looked bored. At the end of the president’s remarks, the most enthusiastic applause came from DiCaprio. Perhaps that’s because he’s good actor. The climate change talks might be attracting dwindling audiences. But there’s one thing you can bet on: the climate change show will run and run.

h/t Bill Hough
Advertisements

127 thoughts on “The Air Comes Out of the Climate Change Talks

  1. Don’t miss
    “I’m the president, BRING ME MY SIPPY CUP!” one wrote, in reference to a shot of Mr. Obama’s edge-of-seat pose in a oversized chair, right before his speech.
    And another wrote, about the same photo: “Thank you — and now I’ll sit in a huge chair that makes me look like a little boy.”
    Still one more: “Tiny Obama back in the huge chair at UN.”
    And again: “Sums up Obama, little man w/small mind & big ego sitting in a to[o] big chair.”
    http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/09/24/un-general-assembly-obamajpeg-0c8c3_s877x659.jpg?bba74a8a38aa142cf32c215cbf742961833aa192

      • I doubt it, Bob.
        They’ll slide right into the Water Justice issue.
        Certainly CAGW will remain in the background but they don’t mind shifting gears.
        Look what happened to the protests against the wars.
        Put a democrat in office and they stop protesting the government and go after people.
        By name and address when they want to.
        It’ll resurface when the leadership changes parties.
        But for now, CAGW will quietly take a back seat to water, the next crisis to not “go to waste.”
        Maybe that’s where Eric is headed? To spearhead the water issue?
        imho

    • Sorry I watched a middle class, North London, metroplole chundering on (AUS) about nothing. gag

    • “we would all get together and discuss, for instance, what would we do to prevent the Netherlands from flooding”
      Well I though the Netherlands have solved that problem themselves quite well in the 210th century, and seem to be well prepared to continue tackling it. The catastrophic floods were BEFORE the age of the big Global Warming swindle…

      • And that’s why you won’t find the Dutch too concerned about floods and sea level rise. They have had centuries of practise in tackling it. They know they can cope. They have reclaimed a large part of their country from the sea. They have experienced disastrous floods, like in 1953, when 1800 were killed. Not much talk about co2 in those days.

  2. I promised I will reduce my CO2 emissions to nil and even start absorbing some of it myself, as soon as possible…
    …which might as well be never, if that’s not possible.
    I didn’t realize how easy it was to become a champion of green values!

    • Sacrificing a limb or two might help save the world. If all mankind had at least one wooden leg, think of the carbon sink effect! (Or something) Where are the Greenpeace surgeons? The cutting edge of environmentalism?
      And in winter, you could keep warm by the cosy heat from your thigh-fire.

  3. Is that the same Leonard0 who owns 5 homes and partied on a super yacht (which burns hundreds of litres of fuel per hour) during the World Cup?? No hypocrisy there.

  4. Leonardo DiCaprio: another multimillionaire Hollywood star determined to use his money and celebrity to get a platform his climate propaganda. But he’s also a hypocrite – although he’s far from alone, sharing that dubious honour with the likes of James Cameron (film director), George Clooney, Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett and so on, ad infinitum. Hollywood – showbiz in general on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond – cannot breed rabid, unimaginably wealthy CAGW eco-zealots fast enough, it seems.
    Still, besides their rampant hypocrisy, they at least share one other thing in common: none of them – not a single one – is a climate scientist. Funny that. Because I thought it was only ‘climate scientists’ who are qualified – permitted, even – to make utterances in public on the subject of ‘climate change’. That’s what the BBC believes, anyway, and it is doing its level-best to ensure that’s what happens – you’ll not find one climate sceptic being given the time of day by the hateful Biased Brainwashing Comintern here in the UK.
    Still, what harm could there possibly be in allowing an unqualified, albeit immensely wealthy, thespian to take to the platform inside the UN building (no less) to address the world, apparently unchallenged – applauded, even – on the subject of climate change?
    Who knew he understood all this stuff? The UN, apparently.

  5. All of this – all of it – will one day, hopefully soon, be the subject of a mini-series along the basic structure of ’24’. It all starts out like things are under control, and we think we know who the bad guys are. And then, slowly, with increasing tension, the drama unfolds and the unexpected happens and continues to happen, just barely below the threshold of collapse.
    It would be a very cool show.

  6. What’s up with the Bern Model?
    I guess this is covering ground covered before on WUWT by Willis, I think we reach the same conclusions. But I hopefully add something new by looking at what is sequestered instead of what is left behind in the atmosphere. The T173 and T∞ processes do nothing on human time scales. 0% decline doing nothing may come as a surprise to some.
    http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bern_sequestered_2.png
    And there’s lots more….

  7. There is an endless stream of Hollywood global geo-political wannabees queueing at the door to the UN.
    DiCaprio, Watson, Beckham. The place is turning into a circus.

    • Don’t forget Angelina Jolie. NWO Globalism campaigning seems to be an important source of income for actors these days.

    • “The place is turning into a circus.”
      The UN has *been* a circus since the 1960s. Self important tyrants have used it as a platform to taunt the United States and other civilized countries about their general ineffectiveness in reigning in tinpot dictators and their bloody purges. The inmates have long been running that asylum.

    • Victoria Beckham is married to David Beckham. Together they have at least:
      • FOUR homes (at least 3 are mansions or villas)
      • A vineyard
      • 5 cars (1 SUV)
      http://www.bornrich.com/victoria-beckham.html
      http://www.bornrich.com/david-beckham.html
      The same website says that her husband (some jointly owned) has
      • NINE homes.
      • TWENTY TWO cars only (Hummer, SUVs, sports)
      I hope these two nice people steer clear of making pronouncements about climate change.

    • My favourite is the South Park episode where everyone is driving av hybrid car (called “Pious”), creating a disastrous cloud of feel-good atmospheric disorder, which connects with the permanent morally superior cloud hanging over San Francisco, AND the better-than-thou cloud from George Clooney’s Oscar speech. San Francisco is never seen again….

  8. I was just thinking: Leonardo could take two versions of the yacht he rents, line both up end to end, and it would make a ship longer than the Titanic.
    Didn’t he play a poor boy in that movie?

  9. Climate change experts … failed politicians and movie stars.
    What?! … no used car salesmen in the mix?

      • Used Car Salesmen are a step above Lawyers on the evolutionary ladder.
        Lawyers (or is it properly spelled liars?) are a step above Politicians.
        For comparison, the Ebola virus is several steps above Used Car Salesmen.

  10. You know, I’m no spring chicken. I look around and the climate is pretty much the same as it was 50 years ago. Yet it’s now “humankind’s greatest challenge.”
    Right.

    • Don’t you see, that’s just the greatest challenge. To find the change. Sisyphos is nothing compared to our heroic climate change fighters.

  11. If climate change really IS the ‘world’s greatest challenge’, but intelligent, informed leaders of responsible, developed nations are still unable to deliver lasting, contractual reforms, then the question to ask is ‘Why’?
    The answer is blindingly simple: observations have NOT supported the rhetoric, the hysteria, the claims of planetary Armageddon. CO2 is not causing catastrophe. These people aren’t world leaders without at least some good reasons, and they can see with their own eyes that shouty AGW advocacy is not being matched by our relatively benign climate. The theory is failing before all our eyes, and there are only a few who refuse to see.
    If AGW had catastrophic consequences we would be seeing them now. We’re not. So we don’t need stupid, harmful, expensive decarbonisation policies to not solve a non-problem. Hence, world leaders are not playing ball. It really is that simple.

    • I submit that world leaders are indeed “playing ball”–lured in by the UN with their visions of global domination supported by their taxation scheme. Chances are slim that any of that tax revenue will go to so-called “climate-change-impacted” countries.
      No, it will stay in the coffers of the UN where it will be used to establish a One World Order that dominates humanity. And with such chaos in the world, what laws will be the basis of this new Order? Likely it will be Sharia law–which alone is brutal enough to bring all factions under control.
      Climate change is the ruse they use and power-hungry politicians see it as a brilliant way to control the masses. Whether temperatures go up, down, or stay the same, it doesn’t matter. Political control is the beast they worship and global domination is their end game.

  12. The New York thingy had two goals:
    1. Garner supportfor the Dems in the mid-terms from the eco-millionaires and other watermelons that support Obomber.
    2. Polish Obomber’s credentials to be the next UN king.

    • @Robert
      Regarding point 2., that can only happen if BHO renounces his US citizenship. Citizens of nations with permanent seats on the Security Council are not eligible to sit as Secretary General of the UN.

      • Whilst I am sure the good community organiser was born in Hawaii, might he not be able to claim Kenyan citizenship, through his late father?
        Kenya – population some 45 million, and growing at >2% per year.
        Just asking [Not original, but not inappropriate, either].
        Auto

  13. I’ve become very interested in the pathology and prognosis of such great delusions. The CAGW construct is a rare and complete global experiment in social and psychological science that, ironically, seems unlikely to be studied or even noticed by social scientists themselves. This is sadly a measure of the disciplines’ complete corruption. Lewandowski and students of his, or indeed graduates of any of the world’s universities are simply oblivious of the E=mc^2 moment this represents for their otherwise thinly served sciences. They are part of the pathology.
    Forgive a geologist, but the gross stages of this pathology would seem to be:
    1 A quiet, sincere science has been working at understanding climate with modest success.
    2 A soshulist elite are looking for a vehicle to put their political agenda across.
    3 They recognize that the environmental movement is well developed and organized and has wide support globally. They define a problem for the science to solve, starting with the premise that the problem is caused by humans and is a product of western capitalism and its productive industry.
    4 They create a uniting organization in the UN with the mandate to study the problem as defined by them.
    5 Governments recognize a huge opportunity to expand tax revenues to control the “problem”. They provide huge sums of money for research and universities and other research institutions, including government agencies respond by creating and expanding departments to take advantage of the money and career building (knowing that only preordained results are acceptable). The new faculty grows and attracts huge numbers of students. Scientific journals expand, fill editorships with facilitating staff and reduced standards to publishing.
    6 Other disciplines jump on the bandwagon – the social sciences, life sciences, medical sciences…
    7 When results start to come out, a small, dedicated and unorganized group of sceptics develop to criticize the work being done, unfailingly, demonstrating the poor quality of this mission oriented science.
    8………I leave the rest for homework.

    • Gary Pearse
      Although I agree much of what you say, I dispute this

      2 A soshulist elite are looking for a vehicle to put their political agenda across.
      3 They recognize that the environmental movement is well developed and organized and has wide support globally. They define a problem for the science to solve, starting with the premise that the problem is caused by humans and is a product of western capitalism and its productive industry.

      Margaret Thatcher was NOT “soshulist” but as is explained here she started the scare as a vehicle to put her political agenda across.
      Richard

      • No, Margaret certainly wasn’t a soshulist and I think, that although she took advantage, apparently temporarily, of the AGW opportunity politically, she wasn’t the real deus ex machina in the global warming story. Check out Maurice Strong – real “Goldmember – Doctor Evil” type of guy. I would be surprised if you haven’t heard of him. He created the whole framework for this in his UN environmental agency creations and even laid out the problem that needed scientific support – that man is responsible for warming and the system has to be changed. He wasn’t particularly interested in biological diversity and other such boring subjects – but in the ready made organization, broad appeal and endless supply of useful idiots of the environmental movement that could be re-purposed, essentially without their knowledge of it. He’s loved in China where he has lived for a number of years and admires how they promulgate policy.
        Now here is what I mean by a soshulist elite. Soros, Strong, Steyer, just to look at the ‘Ss’ These guys actually use both CAGW and socialism as a tool for their plans. I can well understand why you would reject them as socialists, but socialist elites are something different. They imagine themselves exempt from the need to contribute and share. They just believe that ordinary folks can’t rule their own affairs (down to simple details) but require a wise elite to do this for them. When it comes to the need to reduce population, who better to manage this? Redesign their diet. Ration their travel, etc. They are rich and powerful already, although not powerful enough in their eyes, and in no way are they beholden to Marxian principles for themselves.
        As an aside, is it any surprise that the lofty humanist goals of the first major experiment in socialism – USSR- wound up corrupted by the same kind of thing giving us Uncle Joe. Churchill’s remark about how lousy a system capitalism is, but… is apropos here. All systems – benevolent dictators, socialism, capitalism all work wonderfully well in theory. It’s in practice that we run into problems because individuals are basically predisposed to do what’s best for themselves. I guess Churchill’s choice and mine seems to recognize this human failing (?) and prefer more of a freedom of action, controlled by regulations. It at least is the best for generating wealth so that there is something to redistribute.

      • Gary Pearse
        You say

        No, Margaret certainly wasn’t a soshulist and I think, that although she took advantage, apparently temporarily, of the AGW opportunity politically, she wasn’t the real deus ex machina in the global warming story.

        Sorry, but Margaret Thatcher was “the real deus ex machina in the global warming story”.
        Many people – including those you mention – had tried to start the scare but she did. And she needed both motivation and opportunity to be successful: she was the first person to have both and she deliberately started the scare.
        Please read my account which I linked, and please note that my account was originally a prediction that the global warming scare would occur and that prediction was considered to be fanciful at the time.
        Revisionist history may suite the agenda of those who want to pretend the global warming scare is a left vs. right conflict. But the actual history demonstrates it is not and never was a left vs. right conflict.
        The global warming scare is a useful tool for totalitarians of all political persuasions and they are all using it to further their objectives.
        Richard

      • Gary Pearse
        You also assert

        As an aside, is it any surprise that the lofty humanist goals of the first major experiment in socialism – USSR- wound up corrupted by the same kind of thing giving us Uncle Joe.

        That “aside” reveals your true intent.
        The USSR was communist, not socialist. And if you think the USSR had “lofty humanist goals” then I suggest you read the excellent parody “Animal Farm” by George Orwell.
        Revisionism is malign propaganda.
        Richard

    • Gary; good summary.
      Important part though: Bored, depressive unproductive Westerners kept afloat by abundant industry output look for a meaning in their useless lifes and rally around the offered “problem”, making it their personal cult (and therapy). Leading to imitation of the religions they left, inventing new sins, a saviour, and indulgences, even new pseudo gods (Gaia).

    • Gary Pearse on September 26, 2014 at 6:12 am
      – – – – – – – –
      Gary Pearse,
      Are you maintaining that their political beliefs is the fundamental motivation for the scientists whose works are essential in supporting the premise that the earth needs to be saved from CO2 from fossil fuels?
      If you do maintain that, why?
      John

      • John, this is what Gary said; “Governments recognize a huge opportunity to expand tax revenues to control the “problem”. They provide huge sums of money for research and universities and other research institutions, including government agencies respond by creating and expanding departments to take advantage of the money and career building (knowing that only preordained results are acceptable). The new faculty grows and attracts huge numbers of students. Scientific journals expand, fill editorships with facilitating staff and reduced standards to publishing.
        6 Other disciplines jump on the bandwagon – the social sciences, life sciences, medical sciences…”
        =================================================
        In essence he stated that humans have universal qualities, good and bad. Just as some on the left note the bad behavior of some capitalists (The Robber Baron era for example) and blame their behavior on the system of capitalism, instead of on the human failure and greed of the individuals involved.
        The truth is that scientist are human, just like the “greedy capitalist” and most succumb to the pressure of government driven political agendas; especially when their house payment depends on it. The dark side of human nature does not stop with any system. Devising a system wherein all power is ceded to central authority only consolidates the dark side of human nature into one venue. “Government is a necessary evil” Thomas Jefferson. The US system of “necessary evil” was devised to protect individual liberty from the most prevalent forms of group power prior to its formation, mostly political or religious. Sadly the world has forgotten this lesson and more and more looks to Government to be the savior.

      • John, “Group Think” “Peer pressure” and “Confirmation Bias” comingled with the necessities of feeding one’s family and paying the mortgage, all have combined to create the social phenomena we call CAGW.
        As someone up thread commented, the social scientist in their failure to really address this have been missing a golden opportunity to study the “quaint human spectacle” Mark Twain.

      • David A on September 27, 2014 at 4:51 am
        – – – – – – – – –
        David A,
        I do not see where Gary Pearse (Gary Pearse on September 26, 2014 at 6:12 am) addressed my subsequent question (John Whitman on September 26, 2014 at 9:03 am). My subsequent question was whether “their political beliefs is the fundamental motivation for the scientists whose works are essential in supporting the premise that the earth needs to be saved from CO2 from fossil fuels”.
        He posits that a large number of scientists flock to the government’s beck and call for the climate change cause implying either money or career advancement or political advocacy is why they did it. He does not address why the core group of scientists whose work is at the very foundation of the scientific support of the climate change cause are pursuing the cause with scientific work that I think has been recognized in the broader culture as having been bent to the cause.
        Are you suggesting that it is money or career advancement or political advocacy that are the fundamental motivations for the scientists whose works have been essential in supporting the premise that the earth needs to be saved from CO2 from fossil fuels?
        This is important to understand very clearly, because to make a precise and effective strategy to intellectually remove their impact on our society then we need to have the right assessment of the source of their actions, premises and beliefs.
        John

      • Well, certainly liberal progressive would net most of them, but really, no. These guys have been corrupted by the huge influx of cash that this “position” gives them. Any reticence they may have had was rationalized out of them and the cashflow, exotic meeting locales and rock star status suborned them. They are, in effect, elite useful idiots. I’m speaking really of their masters that they are unlikely to be aware of – the socialist elites, the types that meet in Davos every year or two. See my reply above:
        Gary Pearse
        September 27, 2014 at 7:03 pm
        “… Check out Maurice Strong – real “Goldmember – Doctor Evil” type of guy. … He created the whole framework for this in his UN environmental agency creations and even laid out the problem that needed scientific support – that man is responsible for warming and the system has to be changed. He wasn’t particularly interested in biological diversity and other such boring subjects – but in the ready made organization, broad appeal and endless supply of useful idiots of the environmental movement that could be re-purposed, essentially without their knowledge of it.”

      • Gary Pearse on September 27, 2014 at 7:17 pm
        Well, certainly liberal progressive would net most of them, but really, no. These guys have been corrupted by the huge influx of cash that this “position” gives them. Any reticence they may have had was rationalized out of them and the cashflow, exotic meeting locales and rock star status suborned them. They are, in effect, elite useful idiots. I’m speaking really of their masters that they are unlikely to be aware of – the socialist elites, the types that meet in Davos every year or two. See my reply above:
        . . .”

        – – – – – – – – –
        Gary Pearse,
        I take it that you basically think even the core group of scientists, who are the creators of the founding and continuing scientific basis of the climate change cause, are opportunists. If that a fair statement of your assessment of the nature of what drives the climate focused scientists involved in the climate change cause?
        It appears, based on what I think you are saying, that we disagree. My thinking is they are pure idealists who are profoundly motivated by a sincerely held self-created heroic mythology. A mythology which involves them having a firmly believed story involving a self image of having incorruptible faith while on a self-righteously heroic crusade through skeptic infested badlands to achieve a self-evidently true cause to save the earth from fossil fuel created CO2. Their idealistic myth requires that they as scientists are, in the context of their work product and behavior as scientists, willing to sacrifice anything and everybody that risks their myth.
        John

    • Mob psychosis.
      Like RC I don’t think socialist covers it, more like phoney socialists, statists, bureaucratic parasites?
      As in people who seek to use the force of government to seize power.
      They use the socialist messaging because it resonates in the welfare societies of the West. (Where the money and power was)

  14. “But there’s one thing you can bet on: the climate change show will run and run.”
    Just like the Energizer Bunny.

  15. “Recently appointed U.N. peace messenger Leonardo DiCaprio is the show’s newest star, telling the meeting that it was “humankind’s greatest challenge.”
    Hmmm…aren’t actors always parroting something that somebody else wrote down?

  16. ‘The Air Comes Out of the Climate Change Talks’ by Rupert Darwall at Real Clear Politics.
    Rupert Darwall said,
    “. . . The climate change talks might be attracting dwindling audiences. But there’s one thing you can bet on: the climate change show will run and run.
    . . .”

    The clear reason the climate change*** cause will run and run is that it can so easily influence scientists to make their published science bend to the profound belief in the cause.
    Without that bending by some published scientists, there is no climate change*** cause. This whole show is attributable to those scientists’ willingness to forgo objectivity for subjectivity to the cause in their published science. Seek their philosophy of science principles and you will understand why they can so easily be bent into subjectivity.
    *** climate change*** cause is the belief that they are saving the earth from C02 produced by using fossil fuels.
    John

    • Hopefully Dr. Curry and her co-authors are in the vanguard of a reform desperately needed in science in general and climate science in particular.

    • hunter on September 26, 2014 at 8:23 am
      Hopefully Dr. Curry and her co-authors are in the vanguard of a reform desperately needed in science in general and climate science in particular.

      – – – – – – – –
      hunter,
      I agree with you. I think there is a energetic and growing vanguard that is making progress to correct a lot of climate focused science that was bent to support the climate change cause.
      John

      • ConTrari on September 26, 2014 at 10:17 am
        And that is precisely why alarmists can claim that so-and-so many scientists support the CAGW scare. I if were studying the break-stick-beetle, for example, I would probably not get much funding for the beetle itself. But wrap the insect up in a “break-stick-beetle climate change challenge” package, and the money would flow. Now, I would not start my research by questioning the basic claims of CAGW; I just want to study my beetle. And if kow-towing to some theory of which I have no interest is what it takes, then so be it.

        – – – – – – – – –
        ConTrari,
        Are career advancement and money the fundamental motivation of any scientists who bend their science in support of mythologies created by the climate change cause?
        Or are such scientists fundamentally motivated by a belief in the mythologies created by the climate change cause and in doing so they then, secondarily, try to make a living and get career advancement while pursuing their primary motivation to aid the cause?
        I think the later motivational scenario fits with the idea that the subject scientists really believe that they are saving the earth from fossil fuels. It fits with the idea that it isn’t politics or gain that is motivating them; those things are just expedient practical means for them. I am making the case that they have an ethical ideology motivating them which influences the outcome of their science.
        John

    • And that is precisely why alarmists can claim that so-and-so many scientists support the CAGW scare. I if were studying the break-stick-beetle, for example, I would probably not get much funding for the beetle itself. But wrap the insect up in a “break-stick-beetle climate change challenge” package, and the money would flow. Now, I would not start my research by questioning the basic claims of CAGW; I just want to study my beetle. And if kow-towing to some theory of which I have no interest is what it takes, then so be it.

      • ConTrari on September 26, 2014 at 10:17 am
        – – – – – – – – –
        ConTrari,
        I responded to your comment above at ‘John Whitman on September 26, 2014 at 11:07 am’
        Sorry that I did not post it immediately following your comment.
        John

  17. “But there’s one thing you can bet on: the climate change show will run and run.”
    If it were just the “show”, we could live with (i.e. ignore) it. The climate taxes and regulatory bureaucracies, not so much. And those will still be going strong long after even the zealots have ceased pretending to care about the show.

    • Dav09
      You wrote

      If it were just the “show”, we could live with (i.e. ignore) it. The climate taxes and regulatory bureaucracies, not so much. And those will still be going strong long after even the zealots have ceased pretending to care about the show.

      Yes!
      The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
      Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
      Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
      As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
      Richard

      • Richard,
        The lunatic governor(D) of Washington State has promised to inflict a draconian “carbon tax.” Informed commentary from insiders suggest he is contemplating the equivalent of an executive order because at least one of the legislative chambers would vote such a thing down.

  18. Anyone see the picture of DeCaprio’s yacht? My guesstimate is ten gallons per mile, running at is most economical speed.

  19. ‘The Air Comes Out of the Climate Change Talks’ by Rupert Darwall at Real Clear Politics.
    Rupert Darwall said,
    “. . . Impressed by Sunday’s climate marches in New York and other cities around the world, France’s President Hollande, who will preside over next year’s climate conference in Paris, told a press conference that he was encouraged by the “mobilization of society. . . .”

    A broader interpretation than France’s President is that skepticism appears to be dominate and growing in the general culture outside of the axis of the politicals and activists with their mythology serving scientists in tow. That means it isn’t the politicals and activists advocating climate change causes that are the ones doing a realized “mobilization of society”, it is instead those critical of that cause.
    John

  20. I need some help. I’m just starting to learn this side of the debate and I’m looking to understand how high the future atmospheric CO2 level could be. not in one hundred years, but say 200 and beyond. I am also curious about fossil fuel reserves, and how these two will play out.
    I understand we have gone from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm, and I don’t suspect there is much issue going to a few thousand ppm, (As a horticulturalist, I’m good with higher CO2) but I don’t know what the upper limit of CO2 will be in the long term. What are the predicted fossil fuel reserves? how high can we (or natural systems) drive CO2 levels before we simply run out of the reserves?
    I suspect much of the carbon will find home in the biomass of increasing plant matter, but what happens after the fossil fuels have all been depleted? What could the CO2 levels fall to after that? Will the CO2 levels decline to a point that it can’t support the biomass that was increased with higher CO2 levels?
    I find it amazing that humans have such a short fossil record on this planet, yet nature has so quickly conspired to turn us into its little carbon miners. It’s like the plants and animals all got together and said, “look at these guys, they’ll never make it here unless they dig up our ancestors remains and use it for fuel and energy, lets farm them like ants and use them to put all our carbon back into the cycle…”

  21. Well, as far as I am concerned, there is little to choose between movie actors, and criminal defense lawyers. In my book of rules, there are NO exceptions to the applicability of one’s set of moral principles. You ARE what you practice. “I am just an actor, playing a role.” is not a defence. Nor is, “everyone is entitled to legal representation.”
    Well I do accept BOTH of those rationalizations. And that’s what they are.
    I have seen precisely one de Caprio film. In that he portrayed Howard Hughes, in some fashion. Well Hughes himself, became a bit of a nut job; but he DID accomplish many things; some totally invaluable.
    His money came from the Hughes Tool Company; world renowned for inventing the tools, that make drilling for oil through solid rock, a practical reality. So de Caprio gets a fail, for putting aside his “water melon” aberration, just to make money by glorifying an accomplished genius, who is responsible for the nemesis of de Caprio’s green nirvana.
    I’m not sure, but I think, he also sat astride the bow of the Titanic, while it was about to nose dive to the ocean floor; or something along those lines. Totally silly imagery of a great tragedy. (caused by “MMCGWACC”)
    Didn’t see that flick. I remember the original one; “A Night to Remember.” (I think). And the ship still sank, so why redo it ??

  22. In marketing, one tries to draw attention to unique aspects of one’s product or service that consumers will make decisions against. Things like lower price, or longer lasting products, or unique features that the competition doesn’t have. Anything and everything that will differentiate you in the market. And what does the marketing department do when they have nothing of substance to bring to the consumer’s attention?
    Answer: Celebrity endorsements.

  23. I do wonder about all these multimillionaire climate activists. The hypocrisy of many homes and big cars and private jets is one thing, but it’s so obvious that they know “Climate Change”TM is not happening the way they claim. I mean, if the world is going to be dangerously hot, and we’re all going to be inundated by extreme sea levels, why are they not buying homes on mountains in the Northern Territories or Tierra del Fuego?

  24. So the proposals are delayed until the next meeting in March. That’s GREAT! There will another winter under our belts and it’s shaping up to be a bruiser. Excellent chance that as they complain about all the warming and how everyone’s going to flagellate themselves about it, winter will hammer them. Might even get a notable Gore Effect. Can hardly wait.

    • I do hope that this coming ‘bruiser’ of a winter doesn’t cause too many deaths of poor pensioners in UK or elsewhere.
      They are, of course, conditioned by the wonderful so-shall-eests to believe that they will be looked after to the end of their days.
      Out of the tax payers’ money, which the said lefties slashed in 2008-9.
      AND.
      Unless it follows natural cycles, and gets cold . . . . .
      Thought this needed to be opined.
      Auto

      • Hey, no one wants ‘Global Warming’ ™ more than I do! I lived in the Yukon for the better part of a decade. Trust me, warm is better than cold.

    • Michael,
      Please remember that, according to the alarmists, the cold winter in the US was caused by global warming and it was irrelevant anyway because everywhere else it was hotter’nhell.

  25. “…
    With the eyes of the world upon them, they would feel compelled to make ambitious pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions that could be inked in to a legally binding text. Instead, the leaders that came were let off the hook. Now they are only expected to submit their proposals by March next year.
    …”
    Meanwhile, the leaders probably had many nice partys in the Big Apple – at our expense, mind you – so, not a total failure.
    /sarc

  26. “Oh, you are one of those.” – Bernie Sanders
    Thanks a lot Bernie. But if I must be one of “those”, I must say, you must be one of “those” typical politicians; blissfully ignorant and full of dishonest rationale.

  27. Leonardo DeCaprio is a brilliant,intelligent actor. I like him alot as an actor. As a scientist/politician he is making terrible decisions and to me looks like an idiot.
    Kind of like Micahel Jordan, greatest there is at basketball, sucked at baseball.
    I will still watch DeCaprio movies.

  28. U.N. peace messenger Leonardo DiCaprio is the show’s newest star, telling the meeting that it was “humankind’s greatest challenge.”
    By ‘humankind’ perhaps he meant environmental activists. Their greatest challenge is to convince the world of climate catastrophe and that our salvation lies in eliminating fossil fuels. Like it or not, the reality is the whole world including the politicians and activists who attended the UN conference is happily burning fossil fuels. Words are cheap. Actions are harder. They should stop using cars, airplanes and electricity. Until they do that, it’s all a big joke and showmanship. The show is a waste of money and it isn’t even funny.

  29. DiCaprio is such a little twit, flying to Rio during the world cup to party on his billionaire giant yacht, emitting more co2 in a week than the rest of us do in a lifetime. He can take his arrogance and shove it.

  30. Not that enamored with DiCaprio and his movie, The Titanic. I was raised by folks who became acquaintances with the celebs on the Titanic that survived the trip. Decidedly less glamorous than the movie.

    • Maggie (the name Molly was a Hollywood movie invention) was in New York working with young actresses the same time my grandmother was trying to make it in the entertainment industry. It was because of Maggie’s work with young actresses that grandma strongly advocated for a move to Hollywood out West in California. So she and her new husband (my grandpa) drove out West. It wasn’t long before she began working for Cecil B. DE Mille. She conveniently forgot to tell Cecil that not only was she married, she was 5 months pregnant when they eventually fired her for getting “fat”.
      Seems the women folk in my family have a habit of doing that. My great-grandmother got fired as the Principal of the Lostine High School in Oregon. Why? She got married.

    • I liked Titanic the movie quite a lot, well, Kate Winslet who I thought was perfect for her role. DiCaprio I hardly noticed but at the time thought competent. I thought DiCaprio was good as Hughes in Aviator. But then I never knew Howard Hughes personally so I could be wrong.

  31. Anthony writes about “the signs of failure” in the Climate crusade, but it is important to keep in mind what makes these folks tick. In two words: moral posturing. It is not necessary to successfully pass legislation to gain status as someone who cares more deeply than the rest of us,. You get to win REGARDLESS of the outcome.
    Think of the death penalty protesters. They are protesting to prevent punishment of the vilest sort of murderers, even though society MUST punish murderers if we are to maintain civil order.
    The key is that we are supposed to judge these protesters, not by the true outcome of their recommended policies on society, but on whether they, personally, 1st person singular, mean well.
    DiCaprio’s very public preening is a perfect example.

  32. Leo DiCrapio says it all. A dunce of a stool. It’s getting near Xmas; DiCrapio to audition for Mr. Hankey role.

  33. richardscourtney
    September 28, 2014 at 1:37 am
    Gary Pearse
    You also assert….etc.
    Hi Richard, I have a towering respect for you as an intellectual and a person of high integrity. I want you to know this so that argument doesn’t get yellowed with wrong nuances. Moreover, I also have socialists in the family whom I love dearly and respect. They of course get some argument from me, you can be sure. Despite divergence in our political philosophies, probably you wouldn’t suspect that, although I believe the best course for humankind is a freedom to do and compete with regulations that keep things as fair as possible without killing the golden goose, I’m also a believer in political competition. Both ends of the political spectrum and the middle, without free and fair competition to form the government, WILL drift inexorably to totalitarianism because of an innate trait to do as we would like – the selfish part of human nature.
    To me, socialism has the upper hand in attractiveness of message – “you aren’t getting your fair share” and ready demons to point to – those who make a lot of money (although there is disingenousness and opportunism in it). They also have the upper hand in education K to Grad School, the UN, nearly all NGOs and most public institutions. Indeed, it is a miracle that the right wing survives at all – I think this is a measure of the strength of self-interest in the individual that I alluded to.
    Re- who was first in the climate change business. Surely Margaret didn’t do some sensitivity calculations in her off time? My man, Maurice S was away ahead in spotting the opportunity in the environmental movement meet his Dr. Evil type goals. Dr. Evil failed because he didn’t have Moe’s networking skills.
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong#Stockholm_Conference
    Read his biography. He is the definition of socialist elitist – wealthy and a seeker of ways to effect world government. He used the environmental movement cynically in an effort to achieve his goals. Here’s a quote:
    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    • Gary Pearse
      I suspect we may have more in common than you think.
      Elitists are wrong whatever political philosophy they claim to espouse. And elitism is a denial of socialism in that it assumes the desires of some are more important than the needs of others.
      And it is plain evil to assert
      ““Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
      No political ideology can excuse that.
      Richard

Comments are closed.