Ironically, Change Catches Up With Climate Change Alarmists in Lima

Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

The outcome of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 20 in Lima was ironic, which is defined as “happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement.” The tragic thing is, there is nothing amusing about the damage being done to climatology, science, environmentalism, economies and worst, people’s lives. However, it was totally predictable. It’s also inevitable when you predetermine an outcome, both economically and scientifically, in a world of feedbacks. As my grandmother warned, “Your sins will find you out”.

Organizers struggled to come up with a communiqué. Why? Mostly, it was because they had to justify doing nothing, or worse, appearing to fail. But failure was inevitable, given the history leading to that point. They continued to accept without question all the lies, deceptions and failures of previous gatherings of the COPs and the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They bypassed the corruption, collusion and malfeasance carried out to produce false science, as exposed in 2009 by the leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails. They ignored and deflected from the continuing and growing gap between IPCC predictions (projections) and reality. They had to keep the politicians and media fooled, to ensure continuation of funding.

At the last minute, they cobbled together a four-page document that simply, in today’s cynical political phrase, they kicked the can down the road. They did what most political meetings do; they met and agreed to meet again. It is what politicians always do, regardless of their politics. As Soviet era Russian politician Nikita Khrushchev said,

“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.”

 

The problem is that, in the case of the COP, there is no can to kick. It is the scientific equivalent of the Emperor with no clothes. Purportedly, the can is the work of the IPCC presented to the politicians in their Summary for Policymakers. But the corruption of that document, designed to hide the truth and exaggerate the threat, is well identified. What happened in Lima is not surprising because it was all orchestrated to play out this way. The irony is that almost everything else has changed, since the play was written. The warming trend has stopped as CO2 levels continue to increase. Countries have changed their economic and political status. Left are moving to the right and right to the left, richer to poorer and vice versa. Alternate energy and green economies touted as the solution are failing. The claim of “peak oil” has been completely shattered. Despite all this, the only things that haven’t changed are the goals, procedures and denials of reality by the COP. The goal has not and cannot change, without admitting the fraud. Blindly pursuing a goal was also the pattern of the IPCC research. They established the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis and set out to prove, rather than disprove it. The fiasco in Lima is a result of all these changes being ignored, in a desperate attempt to maintain the indefensible. The COP was set up for change, but it wasn’t the one they expected.

Organizational Structure Designed to Pre-determine An Outcome

 

Everything I’ve read and everybody I’ve spoken to who worked with or for Maurice Strong, acknowledges his organizational skills in setting up the necessary political and science agendas. In 2001 Neil Hrab wrote, Strong achieved this by:

Mainly using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups…

It began in 1977 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference. As Hrab notes:

The three specific goals set out by the Secretary General of the Conference, Maurice F. Strong, at its first plenary session—a Declaration on the human environment, an Action Plan, and an organizational structure supported by a World Environment Fund—were all adopted by the Conference.

After spending five days with Strong at the UN, Elaine Dewar concluded in 1995, that

Strong was using the UN as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

The Conference of the Parties (COP) on Climate Change and the IPCC were creatures of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The COP is the top body of the UNFCCC and meets once a year to review the progress, but is dependent on the “science” the IPCC created. In years when the IPCC Report is due, it is always released before the COP meeting, but not the critical part, which is produced by Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. It identifies some of the serious limitations of the science, but just in case somebody reads it, the release is always delayed until after the COP. The Summary for Policymakers, which appears before the COP, is distorted and manipulated to justify what the COP is going to do.

This is why the timing of the release of the leaked emails from the CRU in November 2009 was so important. COP 15 was scheduled for December 2009 in Copenhagen. The Kyoto Protocol, which only survived because of the blackmail by European nations of Vladimir Putin, was in trouble. COP 15 was not sidelined but seriously diverted. Despite the diversion, the plan to redistribute wealth continued. It involved collecting money from the 43 developed nations (Annex I), a global carbon tax, and giving it to the developing nations through the World Bank. The next year in Cancun (COP 16), the now contentious, Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established. A GCF Board, based in Incheon, South Korea, governs this money, which is supposed to be $100 billion by 2020. Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC says the amount is nothing and should minimally be $1 trillion.

What were the problems that culminated in Lima?

The world has changed since the AGW hypothesis was created to prove that human CO2 was causing global warming. It hasn’t changed as the UNFCCC planned, the global temperature has gone in the wrong direction, and major developing and developed nations are reversing positions and roles.

Since the first COP in Berlin in 1995, China has increased CO2 production and its economy, so now both are the biggest in the world. India has also increased CO2 production and its economy significantly. Neither is listed in the 43 nations in Annex I, defined as “industrialized countries and countries in transition”. Many of them are now in trouble as their economies fail, especially those who fell into the green hole of alternate energy plans.

Nations like Russia, India and China, originally listed as developing nations, wanted the money promised in the transfer plan. They had no intention of cutting back on development and as the Indian Prime Minister said, they had people starving to death, which was a much greater priority than a slim possibility of a slight warming 50 years ahead. Here is how the Indian government state it.

•Prime Minister has stated that India’s per capita emission levels will never exceed that of the per capita emission levels of developed countries

• India cannot and will not take on emission reduction targets because:

· –  Poverty eradication and social and economic development are the first and over-riding priorities

· –  Each human being has equal right to global atmospheric resources (i.e., Principle of Equity)

· –  “Common but differentiated responsibility” is the basis for all climate change actions

I have worked with Russian, Chinese and Indian climatologists and learned they know and understand climate better than western nations. Remember, it was Yuri Israel, President of the Russian Academy, who refused to issue a public statement about global warming in the campaign organized by Lord May of the UK Royal Society. As a reward at a climate meeting,

The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was “incompatible with IPCC policy”.

Chinese and Indian politicians chose to play Maurice Strong and the IPCC gang at their own game. India and China paralleled what they did with the Montreal Protocol, which was a test run for the Kyoto Protocol. They said, you’ve reduced food losses by 30% with refrigeration, now you are saying we can’t do the same with CFCs. They proposed the west reduce their use while they increased theirs. The response was no. Now they are told to reduce their CO2 levels by a west that has already built its industries and economies. They were subtler this time. They didn’t say no. They counter-offered by agreeing to lower their levels proportional to those achieved by the west.

Another measure of the shift is the change in attendees at the COP meetings.

It appears that, as the political and scientific evidence fails, a hard-core group of environmentalists don’t want to face reality. One of the masterstrokes of Strong was to resurrect the concept of the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) to participate in the political activity. It began with their attendance at the Rio 1992 UNEP conference under a Consultative Status designation. The increasing political nature of the COP is apparently reflected in the attendance data. In a recent article by Till Neeff titled “How many will attend Paris? UNFCCC COP participation patterns 1995-2015” he says,

The COPs to the UNFCCC (the Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) have evolved into environmental mega-conferences (Gaventa, 2010). They have become the key networking opportunity for environmental professionals of all colours, and attract increasingly large numbers of diverse participants (Okereke et al., 2009). Beyond the negotiations, it seems to be the desire to network, to exchange information and to be part of a larger climate change constituency that drive attendance (Schroeder and Lovell, 2012).

Figure 1 shows the statistical analysis and the significant increase Neeff identifies.

clip_image002

Figure 1

clip_image003

Figure 2

Figure 2 shows some of the same statistics but illustrates more clearly the dramatic change in attendance.

Further evidence of the shift was the fact that only 119 of 190 sent ministers to Lima. As one commentator observed,

Political interest in the UN’s climate talks has shrunk this year, in spite of increasingly urgent scientific warnings and a tight deadline for signing a new climate deal.

The ranking of the delegates sent by a country to the UN negotiations can be seen as a barometer of how seriously the country regards the threat of climate change.

All 190 countries sent delegates, but it is clear, the persuasion of the urgency of the threat, is shifting. Different priorities depend on the economic trend. If the economy is declining it and jobs are top. If the economy is growing they want that to continue, as India identified. No doubt, they are also finally, paying attention to the polls that consistently show global warming/climate change, and spending money for alleviation, are not a priority for the public. We are back to irony again, because the UN produced one of the polls. As Willis Eschenbach said,

The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important.

This is consistent with findings of the Pew Center polls (Figure 3).

clip_image004

Figure 3

Notice that the priority, at least for the US public, was at the bottom five years ago in 2009. Despite this politicians have paid no attention for five years. Almost all of them continue to put it high on their list of concerns. It is part proof that they don’t care what the public think and are more afraid of being accused of not caring about the planet.

Lima’s failure is a culmination of the deliberate attempts to predetermine the science and the politics overtaken by reality. Neeff summarized what went on there in a heading that says, “COP participants are part of a climate-change – club.” The public knew a few years ago, but the politicians continued to punt a non-existent can, at enormous costs. The real lesson from Lima is that once government takes up an issue it will expand and never be resolved. There is nothing ironic about the fact that, as always, the people will pay the price and the politicians and deceivers will not be held accountable.

It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit. – Noel Coward

Advertisements

85 thoughts on “Ironically, Change Catches Up With Climate Change Alarmists in Lima

    • Yes – excellent commentary, and especially coming from an escaped Mann-slaughter victim, even more so. But NOTHING will change until the MSM comes around to reality and then the public will go from not caring to revolt over the deception, and that get’s reflected in the market place, (remember free markets??), then real “change’ happens.

      • Notice that graph #2 is a HOCKEY STICK! See? ‘Global warming is creating infinite numbers of people at meetings’! This will, of course, destroy our planet and must be stopped! :)

      • Notice that graph #2 is only up to COP 15 – Copenhagen.
        I guess Dr Ball’s paranoia about the UN can’t be justified with honest graphs.
        The fight isn’t worth winning if you have to Mann up.

      • M Courtney

        re your derogatory comments on Bell’s Graph #2 (the general take-away is COP has become a tax payer funded party…)

        Yes, it would have been nice to see data thru COP 20; however, since you accuse Bell of dishonesty, the least you could do is explain exactly what “truth” you think Bell has distorted.

        Omitting COP 16-20 data is not prime facie dishonesty; your accusation looks awkward (actually stupid) without further substance.

      • Chip Javert, look at figure 1.

        Copenhagen was better attended than every other COP. Including the more recent events.
        By choosing to stop at the high point, figure 2 displays a hockeystick.

        But that is faked. It is an artefact of picking the end date.

      • M Courtney

        Like I said, I agree it would have been nice to see data thru COP 20.

        However, his general point was COPs have become a party gravy train; I think Bell intended to enlighten, not deceive.

        I agree with your observation that “Peak COP 15” of about 28,000 is definitely higher than the COP 16-20 run-rate of about 20,000; what I object to is the strong and unfortunate language accusing Bell of dishonesty (implying intent).

      • Fair enough.
        My concern was that, having posted Figure 1, we knew that Dr Ball had the data and yet he presented Figure 2 in the most favourable way for his case – rather than the most accurate way.

        I happen to agree that the COP conferences are self-perpetuating junkets.

        But that’s no reason to manipulate a graph by choosing to hide the decline. Which is exactly what figure 2 does (OK – it excludes the decline and doesn’t paste on something else but…)

        Bad practice is bad practice. It doesn’t matter who’s side it is in aid of.

    • Well whenever there is a climate conference of some merit, I expect that The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, should make an entry surpassing the arrival of the Queen of Sheba.

      Apparently Christopher did a wave off on Lima, so it can’t have been of any major importance.

      Apparently shepherding the 18 year two month RSS Hiatus to increasing longevity, is far more important than going to Machu Pichu, to look down on the world’s idle ambassadors.

      So on to Paris; maybe his Lordship, can come up with an entry plan on the scale of a de Gaul triumph.

    • Despite the apparent decline we had a hockey stick rise of that sinister stuff called co2!

      U.N.’s Lima Climate Talks Have Biggest Carbon Footprint Ever
      …..One big reason for that footprint, about 1.5 times the norm: The venue was built from scratch. Eleven football fields of temporary structures arose for the 13-day negotiations from what was an empty field behind army headquarters. Also, unreliable sunshine in Lima is one reason solar panels weren’t used……
      http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/u-n-s-lima-climate-talks-have-biggest-carbon-footprint-n264836

      Can’t these people see the irony.

      • Very dangerous for us if these pushes stay out of the limelight and we treat these conferences as expensive, annoying boondoggles.

        Indeed – the flat stone has got to stay lifted or they will develop treaties, unjustified by science, that will be enforced without any democratic input from the people affected. By the EU in Europe and by an Administration end run around Congress in the EU (Etats Uni)

  1. They had to keep the politicians and media fooled, to ensure continuation of funding.

    You know, I think it’s deeper than that. What it is, I think, is that like all scientists (and fringies like me), most of all, they want to be right.

    I think that is harder to let go than the funding.

    And I think they are correct when it comes to raw CO2 forcing. Where they went badly wrong is the feedbacks. And that is two thirds of the projected warming.

    • I agree and might add:

      More than they fool the media and the politicians do they fool – first and foremost – themselves!

      • Yes, I think so. They are a victim of their own confirmation bias, that Great Enemy of the scientist. Instead of leaning away from it, they lean into it, fooling themselves.

    • Evan wrote;

      “And I think they are correct when it comes to raw CO2 forcing.”

      The only “radiative forcing” entering the system comes from the SUN, the only REAL radiative source (i.e. it consumes fuel, emits radiation, and does not cool in the process). Any other object (rock, water, ice) emits radiation and cools while doing so,

      All of the other elements in the system (oceans, rocks, gases) are just passive (IE not radiative sources) elements “along for the ride”.

      The climate science community has it all WRONG, but as you say they might never “get over it” and admit it. It is very hard to admit to this level of “wrongness”.

      Cheers, KevinK

      • When considering PDO/SO, the correlation between temps and (raw) CO2 forcing since 1950 is pretty good. But it is only 0.7C. Lukewarming. No net positive feedback. And those fedbacks account for two thirds of model-projected warming.

    • Said that some time ago but with slightly different emphasis.
      Eco-warriors know they’re right. The most important thing for them is to be seen to win. Just winning or being right is not enough. It is essential for their ego and self-belief that their victories and their “rightness” are acknowledged by the lower orders, ie us!

  2. The next year in Cancun (COP 16), the now contentious, Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established.
    ============
    $10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution

    The Green Climate Fund, (GCF) a United Nations-affiliated piggy-bank intended to finance climate change projects around the world, is determined to win sweeping U.N.-style immunities from prosecutions for its global operations–even though the U.S., its biggest contributor, opposes the idea, and the U.N. itself says its own diplomatic immunities can’t cover the outfit.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/18/10-billion-un-linked-climate-change-fund-wants-immunity-from-prosecution/

    • Yep, just what Dr. Tim Ball stated above, to wit:
      ————-

      There is nothing ironic about the fact that, as always, the people will pay the price and the politicians and deceivers will not be held accountable.

  3. The public narrative holds that the biological life on this planet “could” be extinct in 2100. But no governmental agent is prepared to commit real dollars or real social, economic or political disruption to avoid this possibility. Even a small, real possibility of everyone dying should drive some solid action. Yet, as shown in Lima, nothing by nobody is fixed for the next 12 months except committees talking to each other.

    You cannot fail to suspect that nobody really believes super bad things are going to happen, or if they do happen, they will be regional in extent only, i.e. to other people. The take-away from COP 20 has to be that things will turn out “right enough” to warrant inaction.

    CAGW is a fact only in the minds of the ideologically entrenched. McKibben recently chose to spend more time with his wife than on the 350.org workhorse. The eco-green are no longer convinced CO2 is the voracious dragon the likes of Gore said it was, and they are voting with their feet.

    But …. there is always ocean “acidification” to be worried sick about, so don’t expect the David Suzuki Foundation, the WWF, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth to stop waving the placards. The de-industrialization, the anti-capitalism, the anti-democratic ideal of having intellectual elitists run the world is not ending.

  4. The stakes are higher for next years’ Paris COP21 though. For the first time in 20 years they are seeking a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world.

  5. “It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.”
    – Noel Coward

    We saw an example of that in the US recently when recordings of Jonathan Gruber surfaced. I was very discouraged to see how Democrats were more shocked and dismayed by Gruber’s honesty than by his admission of deceit.

    • I was very discouraged to see how Republicans were more shocked and dismayed when the evidence of torture and rendition was published than by the criminal acts themselves

  6. Tim,
    It’s hard to reconcile how erudite and knowledgeable you always are and your beliefs, in a previous post, about college educations. I think everyone needs knowledge of history, literature, and science, which your posts demonstrate, and not just a technical education.
    The IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” is a political document disguised as a scientific one. How would one with only a technical education figure that out. I agree that most Yale and Harvard graduates can’t figure it out, but I bet Socrates, Machiavelli, Erasmus, and most of the Enlightenment thinkers could. Reading 1984, Brave New World, and Lord of the Flies when in college were an important part of learning critical thinking, no?

    • You appear to have misunderstood what he was saying. It was more about the disconnect between academia and reality, as illustrated by Gruber and his utter contempt for the American citizenry. It was also about what amounts to a lack of teaching, by those only interested in furthering their careers and feathering their nests. It was an excellent essay, and I suggest you re-read it.

      • Bruce,
        I understood it. The criticism of ivory tower insulation and elitism is an old one, and I agree with it. I’ve been there. However, not all departments and individuals are nasty as portrayed, most aren’t. And most colleges do not have graduate students teaching like in many of the big universities. Let’s get real and offer solutions that include a well rounded education.

    • A college education does not make one educated unless accompanied by a desire to become educated. And if that desire does exist there are endless opportunities to do so outside of academia.

      • As Mark Twain said…. One has to be careful not to ruin a good education by getting too much schoolin’

      • Perhaps its time to prune the universities and make entry exams meaningful, the new debased degrees are stealing from the students! make all teachers spend time in the real world, they are the ones spreading their knowlege and most have no clue as they have spent their adult lives in the shelter of schooling!

  7. “They did what most political meetings do; they met and agreed to meet again. It is what politicians always do, regardless of their politics.”

    What they really mean:
    They did what most political meetings do; they me and partied and agreed to meet and party again on someone else’s dime. It is what politicians always do, regardless of their politics.

  8. Reblogged this on SasjaL and commented:
    While one of the Green Party leaders here in Sweden earlier this week talked about success “and we need to take action NOW …!

    The (pseudo) Green Party drops like a rock in water here and hopefully they end up like their sister party in Australia, in the reelection we should have next year …

  9. Chairman Mo self-described as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology” understands the instincts of the bureaucrat and has been incredibly successful in pulling off this scam.

    • Took the words right out of my mouth. Amazing, isn’t? As the earth grows colder, the number of attendees increases. At the rate the globe is cooling, by 2020, the number of attendees will approach a half-million.

      • These half-million attendees – will they be considered the ‘climate refugees’ … that we have been told about?

      • See Parkinson’s law entry in Wikipedia: “increase in the number of employees at the Colonial Office while Great Britain’s overseas empire declined (he shows that it had its greatest number of staff when it was folded into the Foreign Office because of a lack of colonies to administer).”

    • Indeed! Presumably, Dr. Ball’s reference to “How many will attend Paris? UNFCCC COP participation patterns 1995-2015” is to Neef’s 2013 Environmental Science & Policy (Impact Factor: 2.98). 31:157–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.04.001.

      Neef’s graph is interesting, and it gives me no small measure of satisfaction to see that it mirrors my own work (with the invaluable assistance of Peter Bobroff) – and the “hockey stick” results that we had found in March, 2012. Our data was limited to the growth of UNEP/ECOSOC “approved” NGOs, and as I had noted at the time:

      in 1946, four NGOs were granted “consultative status”. Between then and 2011, there were six years during which no NGOs were accredited: 1958, 1965, 1968, 1982, 1988 and 1992. Although it is within the realm of possibility that during each of these years a number of NGOs – who acquired their accreditation by virtue of their affiliation with other “UN agencies or bodies” – were added. The total of such NGOs, as of Nov. 2011, was 412

      But, don’t take my word for this! Check it out for yourself! Our data, which includes all 3500+ “accredited” organizations (along with their year of “accreditation” and their status as of 2011) can be found in this (Excel 2003) spreadsheet.

      Another thing one might want to keep in mind – as I had inadvertently discovered a few months ago – is that:

      The UN Charter does not specifically mention the environment or sustainable development. However, there has been increased activity in the area over the years. [my bold -hro]

      Amazing, eh?!

  10. Ed King at Responding To Climate Change provided a couple of Lima laughs:

    12 Dec: RTCC: Ed King: Lima climate talks into overtime, delegates hopeful deal can be struck
    Earlier on Friday campaign group 350 presented a petition with 53,000 signatures to the UN climate body, calling for fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists to be banned from future meetings.
    Activists were angered by the presence of representatives from oil giants Shell and Chevron earlier this week, accusing them and other business interests of having too much influence in Lima.
    “This process needs to hear the voices of the people, not polluters,” said Hoda Baraka, 350 communications manager.
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/12/un-officials-release-new-smaller-set-of-proposals-for-climate-deal/

    when & how & by whom did the CAGW activists become “civil society”. it’s been around a while, but became a significant meme at COP20:

    3 Dec: RTCC: Ed King: Civil society returns to UN climate talks, but for how long?
    12 months after bailing on COP19 in Warsaw, green groups are back, but with the same concerns
    Whisper it quietly, but civil society is back at the UN’s climate change negotiations.
    Last year Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam and Friends of the Earth were among a coalition of NGOs to walk out of Poland’s national stadium in Warsaw, the scene of the main climate conference of 2013. Accusing the Polish organisers of allowing its coal lobby and other business groups to influence the meeting, they left many wondering what the future of these tortuous talks would hold, stripped of the scrutiny green groups can offer…
    But 12 months later, and the same faces are back, looking more energised and chipper than before. The holiday did them good…
    For Tasneem Essop, leading WWF’s team in Lima, the Warsaw exodus was never about abandoning the process…
    “We made a commitment that we would be back,” she says. “What we have witnessed after Warsaw is that the hard work is done.
    ???We have seen citizens across the world, across all countries, demanding stronger actions from governments.”…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/02/civil-society-returns-to-un-climate-talks-but-for-how-long/

  11. Dr. Ball, I agree with most of your essay, except for the single sentence peak oil assertion. The many earlier predictions concerning regiomal and global conventional oil proved correct, as even the IEA has admitted. Extrapolations about the additional offsetting annual production rate contribution of unconventional oil (really just Orinoco tar sands, Athabascan bitumen sands, and source rock shales) are often misguided/ just wrong geophysics. Exhibit A being fracked shale oil well decline curves and TRR potential. Several educational illustrated essays in Blowing Smoke. You cannot let the extreme quarterly supply/demand price volatility of an inelastic commodity blind you to the longer term geophysical extraction rate (NOT total extraction potential) realities. Again, laid out in several essays in the energy section of Blowing Smoke.
    You would do well to counter those facts with counter facts, rather than a blanket assertion based only on the recent Sunni Saudi decision to punish Shiite Iran, Russia (who supports Shiite subsect Alemite Bashar in Syria), with mindful (deliberate)collateral damage to OPEC rogueVenezuela, all the while showing the US how ever increasing shale oil depends on the Red Queen hypothesis.
    My own view is that in 18 months (thanks to the Saudis) Russia will be in dire economic straights, Venezuela will be in unsustainable turmoil, and lack of ‘Red Queen’ drilling plus existing US shale well decline curves will have removed the yemporaryglobal supply/ demand imbalance, returning benchmark crude prices to at or above previous 2013 levels, and reminding everyone who os the OPEC boss. As good a futures ‘long’ as I have ever seen. All geophysics, no speculation.
    Regards and respects for the rest.

    • Rud,
      I think there is a difference. Prior to fracking, the concern in the US was that we were running out of accessible oil (except perhaps off-shore). Low oil prices will likely stack some (not all) rigs. But the location and geology of the plays are now known, as are the techniques needed to recover oil. When the price goes back up, rigs will go back to work.

    • More likely to be wars and revolution incited by various parties who feel slighted. Not smart to poke a sleeping bear. A good friend once said: “You might think you are leading a horse but always remember that a 1200 pound animal has YOU on the end of a 6 foot rope.” Be careful if what you wish for, it might come to pass.

    • 400 Years supply at current extraction rates, usage and technology. Yep its Peak Oil. Does it matter if you need 10 wells to produce the same as one. Does it matter if you have to explode 500 grams of TNT down each well every 3 years. The ultimate proof of the pudding is PRICE. Deny that and you might as well close all economics classes.

      It is not really hard to comprehend. Saudi shutting the valves does not change the supply, its just fixing the market.

  12. Dr. Ball, you have reminded me of the first Habitat conference that was held in Vancouver in 1976. I did not attend the conference, as I was still in school at that time but I still retain a poster from that event. This event predates the 1977 event you mention :

    The conference was largely framed by one of the founders of the field of sustainable development, Barbara Ward, and it was attended by such names as Margaret Mead, Mother Teresa, Buckminster Fuller, Paolo Soleri, Maggie and Pierre Trudeau and many others.

    http://habitat76.ca/

  13. Can a couple of people forward this and similar things to the Governor’s Office of the Great State of Washington? I live in the eastern (dry side) part and they pay no attention to us.
    http://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/climate/waleg15.aspx

    In his 2012 campaign Inslee said he wouldn’t raise taxes. Now, (my bold)
    Another new tax proposed by the governor this week would raise an additional $380 million for the state’s general fund by charging polluters for carbon emissions.
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Gov-Inslee-proposes-new-state-capital-gains-tax-286253161.html

    • My friend, you have my sympathy and solidarity. I’ve been stuck in Seattle for a few years now due to work demands and, save for a few friends, hate every moment of it. I am applying for work in Spokane left and right. I’m getting back there and out of this looney bin once and for all.

      They are proud, unabashed Kool-Aid drinkers here on the “wesside”. I should know since I am a public servant and hear this insanity happily trumpeted every day.

      If that’s not bad enough, the looks I get when I say I’m trying to get back to the other half (read: sane half) of the state: smugness, disbelief, “pity”, bewilderment. I’m beyond sick of these arrogant, twig-chewing, far left hippies. Split the state! Free Eastern Washington!!!

    • So long as they’re only charging “polluters” … CO2 not being pollutin’ should exempt most from the tax /sarc

  14. So far, CO2 has produced a slight mostly beneficial warming to life on this planet and a massive, one sided benefit from atmospheric fertilization.

    How the truth of this has not crushed those stating the opposite by now is amazing.

  15. Dr. Ball,

    You really should think about writing columns. Your writing style is very easy to read and your narrative is very easy to understand. Almost every narrative of the COP I have read has been good enough to put me to sleep. Except yours!

    THanks for a very enjoyable read.

  16. “A GCF Board, based in Incheon, South Korea, governs this money, which is supposed to be $100 billion by 2020. ”

    2020, AND EVERY YEAR AFTER. This sum shall be given to the less-developed nations every single year, that’s what they said in Cancun. So even if by some miracle 100 billion will turn up in six years, they must be repeated in 2021, and so on indefinetly. This is clearly nonsense, and one must ask if anyone ever believed in this vision? Or was it just a phantasy figure meant to install even more guilty feelings in the west, when it became obvious that the target could not be met?

  17. India vs USA power production source-wise at the end of August 2011:
    Source — % of total production [India — USA]
    RES — 11% — 3.8%
    Nuclear — 2% — 21.5%
    Hydropower — 21% — 6.0%
    Diesel-gas — 11% –19.8%
    Coal — 55% — 48.9%

    Indian government brought out an action plan on Climate Change and in this the major thrust is put on energy saving — energy saved is energy produced –. But unfortunately, the renewable energy equipment suppliers are cheating public in several ways. So, we must take in to account the practical problems including the Western pressure on Indian government. Indian population is around 17% of global population with around 2% of the global area. Indian government is under Western pressure and adapting poor technologies and as a result affecting natural resources.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • The “energy conservation” argument is the equivalent to telling a hungry man that the solution to his hunger is to eat less.

      • Sorry, it is not so. Energy auditors found around 30% of the energy is a wasted in industry sector and with proper minor modifications this could be saved. In domestic sector people put on lights, fans , AC, etc without caring. Just because they got plenty of money. Another major issue is transmission & technical losses & pilferage in India are very high. Also, in thermal power plants around 30% of energy could be saved through solar power use, etc, etc.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • The problem with the concept of “saving energy” is that you have to be aware of the ultimate goal, which is to save money without sacrificing other things. You say that energy saved is energy produced, which is fine, but you have to consider the cost of that energy, otherwise, what is the point?

    • I have to agree that energy conservation is important in the long run. So much energy is wasted at present because it is cheap. In hundreds of years, fossil fuels will become more and more expensive to extract. Humanity will eventually need to switch to other alternatives. To me solar energy, which is largely wasted at present, is likely to be a major factor in the future. Humanity will need to harness solar power both to avoid catastrophic glacial periods in the future, but also in the very long run, to delay extreme global warming as the sun gradually grows hotter and hotter. Ultimately, the Earth will be burned to a crisp by the red giant and then nova Sun. So if humanity is to survive that long, humanity will have to leave the Earth.

  18. Lima’s failure is a culmination of the deliberate attempts to predetermine the science and the politics overtaken by reality

    Correction: Lima is the culmination of politics taking over science in the attempt to enforce an agenda.

  19. Thanks Dr Ball, another fine post.
    I have changed my mind on CAGW, I now support government action on climate change.
    As in action by the Justice Department.
    Criminal investigation of this scheme and all who enable it.
    This shameless abuse of the public trust and treasure must be investigated for the orchestrated theft and destruction that it is.Particularly the activities of our bureaucrats.
    The nastiest abuse of all is the government policies imposed, claiming to be science based, yet no bureaucrat can produce that science.
    That is cause for summary dismissal in my book.

  20. Thanks Dr. ball.

    That reads like a good novel, unfortunately this one is nonfiction.

    We now enter into the “Name and Shame” era of climate, as the POTUS has directed.

    Rud, I invite peak oil. That would free the hand of innovation.

  21. The petty tyrants, bureaucrats and petty eco tree huggers who’re obsessed over ‘sustainability’ have to see the writing on the wall and worry they won’t be able to sustain their game of ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ and beach parties much longer. And they thought desecrating the sacred Nazca land was a good idea.

  22. Yup, well done! Carry on calling a spade a spade.
    Maurice Strong, the 85 year old evil spirit, isn’t going to live for ever. What is going to happen to his underground networks when his final day has come? Can they then be torn apart or has that ill-disposed bunch of CAGW followers gained enough momentum to carry on with their charade?
    They are accumulating so much money that they can pay almost any scientist for results THEY want…

  23. Tim Ball, Figure 2 in your post above is the first genuine climate hockey stick I’ve ever seen. I’m now quite convinced that the world is faced with runaway climate conferencing and it’s worse than we thought.

  24. Bell says “…They [scientists] had to keep the politicians and media fooled, to ensure continuation of funding….”.

    I suspect politicians are not fooled (most are too shallow to understand or really care); rather, politicians simply view “climate scientists” as useful fools – give them a few dollars and high-visibility conferences and they gladly sell their souls producing garbage science that is useful only to increase taxes and political control.

    Politicians will easiy throw science under the bus as soon as the voting public gets tired of being told the world will end TOMORROW!

  25. @EdwardDaveyMP is hitting the twitter block button on anyone who contradicts him on Lima. He thinks it met the UK expectations.

  26. /general rant inspired by the seeming hopelessness of addressing climate change nonsense
    Jerry Pournelle’s “Iron Law of Bureaucracy” comes to mind.
    And certainly Eisenhower’s warning of government “in bed” with military/industrial/now-academic complexes. And now we are living in Obama era where this is God-speak, with seemingly no way out. And he is now racing to the bottom! If you don’t want to take care of all your neighbor’s needs (including countries it now seems…), no matter what he is like, or deserving, or if we can afford it, you are a racist, a homophobe, anti-woman, anti-progressive, anti-. Liberal angst rules the world. Everybody is a victim. You know who the oppressor is! And our children are being taught this from birth now. And lecturing us….
    How in the world do we get out of this box!!! Has any country successfully done it yet?
    Am I just being cynical, having reached near 70 years now?
    Somehow communism and nazism were overcome, cannot we overcome this?
    /general rant off…
    John

  27. “Almost all of them [politicians] continue to put it high on their list of concerns. It is part proof that they don’t care what the public think and are more afraid of being accused of not caring about the planet.”

    It’s the other way around, they’re using the charge of not caring about the planet against the public. They appear to rank caring high because it allows them the power to do almost anything in the name of saving the planet. True the public doesn’t really care and won’t on their own champion saving the planet but they don’t want to appear uncaring and so won’t oppose politicians who say they’re doing this thing or that thing to save the planet or the eco-system or even the sage grouse. It’s like racism. Most people aren’t racist, don’t see much racism around them and won’t be activists against it but they’ll suffer any indignities from the racial activists who do in order to avoid being branded a racist. That makes such shibboleths a great source of power for politicians.

  28. The claim of peak oil hasn’t been completely shattered. Please refer to this data

    http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-oil-section.pdf

    Refinery Throughputs table, page 16. If we look at the refinery inputs we can see growth averages 0,8 % per year (2003 to 2013). This figure is much lower than the data for liquids supply. What seems to be happening is a gradual filling in of demand by liquids which don’t go to a refinery. And if we see growth in these products then we are seeing the gradual disappearance of oil. From a purely technical view, peak oil is a certainty. If you want to call a fuel by the name oil when it’s not really crude oil, suit yourself. Cornucopia is a self deception.

  29. Mr. Ball comments are pertinent. However, the warmists are still winning because AGW has become a meme that is constantly repeated in the MSM and taught in school. Even targets of Warmists, such as car companies, are on the bandwagon, touting reduced CO2 emissions of their new cars.

    It’s most likely there will be a political, non-binding, climate agreement in Paris to ensure that the AGW meme goes on. And then governments will have to live with pressure from the green lobbies and the press to honor their commitments.

    Despite all the skeptics, despite all the science refuting AGW, the charade will go on.

    • BernardP December 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm says “…the warmists are still winning because AGW has become a meme that is constantly repeated in the MSM and taught in school.”

      You are right, AGW has become a meme. We must spread the word that the science behind it has been proven wrong. You obviously don’t know that, so I will have to explain. First, there is no warming at all today and there has been none for 18 years. At the same time, carbon dioxide keeps increasing. The entire AGW argument is based on the assumption that increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes global warming by the greenhouse effect. IPCC even has a greenhouse theory based on the work of Arrhenius in 1896. This theory says that adding carbon dioxide to air causes warming because it absorbs infrared radiation and thereby generates heat. This theory of Arrhenius has been predicting warming for each of the last 18 years and getting nothing. If your theory predicts warming but nothing happens for 18 years in a row you know it is because it does not obey the laws of physics. That is grounds for declaring that theory invalid. An alternate greenhouse theory that does obey the laws of physics is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It predicts what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to air does not cause warming. It differs from the Arrhenius theory in being able to handle more than one GHG absorbing IR at the same time. Arrhenius can handle only one, carbon dioxide, and is incomplete. IPCC takes advantage of that and out of thin air claims that feeedback by water vapor will double or triple the warming that carbon dioxide alone would produce. MGT proves this wrong. According to it, carbon dioxide and water vapor jointly establish an optimum absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The newly introduced carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming takes place. With that, the greenhouse effect is made impossible and AGW is proven to be nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up by climate workers wishing to support their greenhouse hypothesis. The same effect also explains why the global temperature has been constant all these years despite a steady increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. That fact so bothers the warmists that one peer-reviewed article after another is published to try to explain it away. They have not succeeded. By November 9th the number of such articles was 66. I am greatly fascinated by the ones that look for the missing heat in the ocean bottom.

  30. Evanmjones wrote in reply to my assertion that there is no “radiative forcing” from CO2 (12/19/2014 3:19am);

    “When considering PDO/SO, the correlation between temps and (raw) CO2 forcing since 1950 is pretty good. But it is only 0.7C. Lukewarming.”

    Correlation is not causation.

    There is no “radiative forcing” from passive components (rocks, water, gases) in the system. The interior of an optical integrating sphere exhibits what a climate scientist would term “100% radiative forcing” but the light bulb (by itself without tertiary interactions with a power supply) does not get “brighter” or “warmer”, or more energetic.

    The whole “radiative greenhouse” hypothesis has been debunked about every 25 years since it was first foisted on the world. It is the longest lasting HOAX ever.

    Cheers, KevinK

  31. Didn’t get around to reading this until today. Seeing as Dr Ball didn’t include it here is the donate page if you wish you help his legal defence from what can only be described as a punitive lawsuit.

    http://drtimball.com/donate/

    Merry Christmas everyone

  32. The 800-yr lag in ice cores between temperature change and parallel CO2 change flatly disproves all Warmist and Lukewarmist assertions about the latter’s effects. They are negligible — which means they can and should be neglected. All versions of the GHE speculation are, in Feynman’s delicate turn of phrase, WRONG.

    Deal [with it].

Comments are closed.