Obama Expected to Bind US to CO2 Reduction at Paris Climate Meeting This Year

Cop21-parisGuest essay by S. Fred Singer

Much ado about nothing. I expect very little from the much-ballyhooed Paris conference: maybe a White-House claim of a “breakthrough” climate accord – but nothing of substance.

In his State-of-the-Union address, president Obama again confirmed that “saving the climate” remains one of his top priorities. Yet an official December 2014 confab in Lima, Peru didn’t really conclude anything — certainly no binding Protocol to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) — but it “kicked the can down the road” to the next international gabfest in Paris, scheduled for 2015.

The world is looking forward to the 21st annual COP (conference of the parties to the global climate treaty), which will be held in Paris in December of 2015. It is hoped by many that Paris will end up with a climate protocol that will continue and even surpass the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which expired in 2012 and achieved practically nothing except to waste hundreds of billions that might have been better spent addressing genuine world problems — without accomplishing its main goal of reducing global emissions of the much-maligned greenhouse gas CO2. On the contrary, emissions rose — mainly from greatly increased industrial growth in China, which was fueled primarily by coal-fired power plants. At the same time, of course, global agriculture benefited from these higher levels of CO2, which is a natural plant fertilizer; the starving of the world really owe a vote of thanks to China.

Three “big guns” billionaires –Tom Steyer, Hank Paulson, Mike Bloomberg — have already pledged their support for Paris; various scientific groups have already issued alarming Statements, without even the pretense of agreement from their memberships; even the Vatican’s Pope Francis plans to get into the act.

The Paris pattern

It is not at all difficult to predict what will happen in Paris; in fact, it is a “no-brainer.” There will be an agreement of sorts, but it will be essentially meaningless. Yet it will be hailed as a “breakthrough” by the White House and thus form an important part of the “Obama Legacy.”

The basic pattern for Paris has been set already by the US-China agreement of Nov 12, 2014. China agreed to do nothing until at least 2030 — just continue to emit ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, with a peak at around 2030 (they say). By that time, it can be safely predicted that energy demand in China will have been saturated. Population may have stabilized and every household will have accumulated all of the gadgets they need to make life pleasant: Television, refrigerators, air conditioning, and the other baubles common in the wealthy countries. Has China finally decided to “fight climate change”? My personal opinion is that China is taking advantage of White House science ignorance and anxiety about future climate change, hoping thereby to gain commercial and strategic advantages against the United States.


Other nations

Following the China example, India may decide to adopt the China pattern and let their emissions peak around 2050, let’s say; other countries will choose their dates accordingly. In other words, everybody will be doing their own thing, but there will be some kind of “agreement” that they will all be happy to sign — or be bribed into signing.

Significantly, Japan, Canada, and Australia, will no longer follow this pattern and will likely refuse to have anything to do with the Paris accord

At the same time, the US and European Union will undertake to seriously reduce CO2 emissions by another 26-28% in the next 10 years. For the US, a 40% reduction by 2030; for the EU, at great cost to their economies and to the standard of living of their populations.

President Obama has already signed an Executive Order March 19 directing the federal government to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent from 2008 levels over the next decade, and to increase the share of renewable energy in the government’s electricity supply to 30 percent over the same period. The New York Times reports the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions are less than one percent of total US emissions, although the federal government is the single biggest user of energy in the U.S.

Obama’s war on coal is indeed making electricity prices “skyrocket” — just as he promised in 2008, when he ran for president. Voters were beguiled by the vision of “slowing the rise of the oceans” and of “saving the climate.” Little did they realize that they were being fed nonsensical science and that high energy prices would instead lead to the growth of poverty. Had they had the good sense to look at the European experience, they might have rejected Obama’s siren song. Blame, if you will, the mainstream media, TV, Hollywood, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the rest of the green lobby. George W. Bush could have saved the situation but he didn’t.

Meanwhile, many of the States are banding together to fight EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” in the courts. In addition, Congress is reminding the White House that any US commitment in Paris can be cancelled by a future president.

The question is whether such an agreement is binding on the United States. The White House will attempt to argue that this is an international agreement and not a Treaty that has to be sent to the Senate for ratification. However, Congress will argue otherwise and will announce that any Paris agreement is an executive one, not binding on the United States, revocable by future presidents.

The US Senate will recall that in 1997 they voted unanimously for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against any unilateral US restriction on emissions — if it results in economic damage. Senator Byrd (D-WV) wanted to protect coal mining; Hagel (R-NE) wanted to protect the US from unfair economic competition. It is interesting that our Secretary of State, John Kerry, voted for Byrd-Hagel at that time, as well as some other senators, like firebrand Barbara Boxer. Chuck Hagel is no longer a US Senator but we hope he will step up and remind people of his 1997 Resolution.

No significant warming for past 18 years

Meanwhile, the climate continues to plateau; no significant warming has occurred in nearly 20 years — in spite of a greater than 10% increase in CO2.

Scientists, both alarmists and skeptics, are still trying to explain this “pause” — as it is sometimes called. The word Pause denotes an expectation that the climate will again warm — although no one has any acceptable hypothesis as to when the warming might resume, if ever.

But since climate has historically moved in cycles, and since we expect a recovery from the Little Ice Age of 1400-1850, we expect to see some natural warming in the next hundred to two hundred years. On the other hand, since the present interglacial (“Holocene”) period has now lasted 12,000 years, longer than the average interglacial within the last million years or so, many predict the onset of another full glaciation.

It would be extremely ironic if another such a glaciation were to start shortly after a Paris agreement that is trying to prevent a global warming.


S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 16, 2015 12:10 pm

Which of course would be unconstitutional,
“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”
-U.S. Constitution

Reply to  RWturner
April 16, 2015 9:01 pm

More importantly or at least as important, 2/3 of the Senate has to agree to any treaty. They would never do that. At least they wouldn’t have until this week when they seemed to vote to relinquish that power when it come to a treaty with Iran.

Reply to  RWturner
April 17, 2015 12:43 am

Wasn’t author Fred Singer prominent in denying cigarettes cause cancer?
He is mentioned frequently in the new book on climate denier’s links to the fossil fuel industry. (Merchants of Doubt)
[Nope, he pointed out the exceptionally poor statistical treatments that attempted to link second hand smoke with cancer. He was concerned that the mathematics used did not stand up to scrutiny but did not hold a position at all regarding the health issues being investigated. He simply argued for better and more rigorous statistics . . . mod]

Brian H
Reply to  gaia.sailboat
April 18, 2015 4:00 am

Anent which, Stanford research indicates no increase in cancer attributable to SHS, except a possible small effect on spouses of smokers after 30 years or so.

April 16, 2015 12:11 pm

Even if US representatives agree to painful limits I’m sure the US Congress will protect us from egregious EPA regulations.

Reply to  Mikey
April 16, 2015 12:14 pm

You forgot the sarc tag.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 16, 2015 3:13 pm

You’ve been paying attention.

Janice Moore
April 16, 2015 12:16 pm

Barack Hussein Obama (f.n.a. Barry Soetoro) cannot bind the U.S. to a treaty. He can only sign it. The U.S. Senate must ratify it. They will not. Clinton signed the Kyoto deal to get the political (with his Envirocult Dem voters) points, but just essentially stuck it in his desk drawer. It was never ratified by the U. S. Senate.

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 16, 2015 2:03 pm

I believe Gore signed Kyoto on Clinton’s behalf. Clinton was a good enough politician not to want his name associated with that thing.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Janice Moore
April 16, 2015 2:04 pm

My very first act as our next President will be to go through those drawers.
Can we even imagine . . . ?
Plus, I’m really handy with a shredder, but less so with wiping hard drives.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 16, 2015 2:44 pm

I’m not touching Clinton’s drawers with a nine foot pole.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 16, 2015 3:49 pm

or a six foot Romanian.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 16, 2015 4:14 pm

@Bubba Cow:
An easy “wipe” is to delete what you want deleted, then copy something (my favorite is Micro$oft software) into a folder. Then copy that into 2 folders in another folder. Then copy that back into the first folder, that gets copied back into the 2nd folder, that… In very short order this doubling fills all ‘free’ disk space with trash. You can repeat it twice if worried about the NSA….
The other thing you can do is boot a Linux “rescue CD” and format the disk (alternately as two different formats, say EXT2 and FAT32) and then do the “copy until full”…
Or just take it out of the machine, remove the screws, and “inspect” the nice oxide covered disks with a handy pocket knife before putting them into the fire place…. for the really really paranoid… (well…. the really really paranoid would do all three, then put the ashes into an outgoing tide at a remote bridge over an ocean channel… not that I’ve done that, well, not very often 😉
“Systems Admins aren’t paranoid. They ARE out to get us!!” …
BTW, my favorite “soft” wipe is to delete everything, fill the disk with M$ stuff, then delete it, then make a large file full of spaces (call it a MB). THEN, edit that, and put in it the encryption key you will use to encrypt the file. Something like “Aren’t you happy to know the decryption key is “FROGSdontHAVEballs”? Yes, you got it right!”
That, then gets encrypted with that key. Now replicate that encrypted file a few dozen times (but not to disk fullness… you want them fishing out repeated copies of MS Word and Excel from at least 1/2 the disk, then finding the encrypted file and spending weeks cracking it… ) Then do a simple “delete” of the encrypted file so that they “find” it in the free list and get ‘hooked’ into trying to crack it. Don’t use too hard an encryption cipher… you want them to get the message 😉
Hey, if I’ve got to wipe a disk, nothing says I can’t have a little fun while I’m at it … ;-0
(Never annoy the sysadmin…. I have a keyboard and I know how to use it… 😉

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 16, 2015 7:59 pm

There is plenty of software that will do multiple writes to the disk, finally rendering it useless to criminals or governments seeking evidence.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 17, 2015 5:12 am

Wiping a hard-drive?

Please note that shred relies on a very important assumption: that the file system overwrites data in place. This is the traditional way to do things, but many modern file system designs do not satisfy this assumption. Exceptions include:
Log-structured or journaled file systems, such as those supplied with AIX and Solaris, and JFS, ReiserFS, XFS, Ext3 (in data=journal mode), BFS, NTFS, etc., when they are configured to journal data.
File systems that write redundant data and carry on even if some writes fail, such as RAID-based file systems.
File systems that make snapshots, such as Network Appliance’s NFS server.
File systems that cache in temporary locations, such as NFS version 3 clients.
Compressed file systems. …
If you are not sure how your file system operates, then you should assume that it does not overwrite data in place, which means that shred cannot reliably operate on regular files in your file system.
Generally speaking, it is more reliable to shred a device than a file, since this bypasses the problem of file system design mentioned above. However, even shredding devices is not always completely reliable. For example, most disks map out bad sectors invisibly to the application; if the bad sectors contain sensitive data, shred won’t be able to destroy it. 11.6 shred: Remove files more securely

I’m sure that you’ll that NTFS is on the list, that’s all Windows since WindowsXP, as well as most linux systems, which means the only way to wipe data off a hard drive and be sure it’s really gone is to physically destroy the drive!

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 17, 2015 5:45 am

E.M.Smith — or take a powerful magnet & swirl it overtop the drive.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 19, 2015 9:52 pm

Easier solution: #2 Philips screw driver and 5 lbs. sledge. Use the screw driver to remove the drive. Use the sledge to break it into pieces. Dispose of the pieces at various fast food drive thrus all over the county.

April 16, 2015 12:19 pm

Add the earth’s precession into it & I’d say we are about halfway through the 26,000 year cycle since the last ice age. The earth’s been warming for the last 13,000 years & now I’ll bet it will tilt the other way. Pun intended.

Reply to  Bobby Davis
April 16, 2015 12:58 pm

There is going to be so much CO2 that the earth will tilt upside down like Guam??

Reply to  ShrNfr
April 16, 2015 1:05 pm

I thought CO2 was well distributed, I don’t see how it could cause a flip?

Reply to  ShrNfr
April 16, 2015 2:04 pm

It’s certainly causing a lot of politicians to flip out.

Reply to  ShrNfr
April 16, 2015 2:59 pm

Nice Hank Johnson D-GA reference!

April 16, 2015 12:22 pm

I don’t have any problem with the US government reducing its CO2 emissions 40% below 2008 levels. Just get rid of about 40% of the government employees we had in 2008 and close the un-needed facilities.
Go for it President Obama! Show some real leadership.
/crack hallucinations

Reply to  H.R.
April 16, 2015 1:54 pm


Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  H.R.
April 16, 2015 6:21 pm

D.O.D. dwarfs all others in Federal use of energy, but if we cut 50% of the rest of fed government we might make a good dent in the mess. FYI: The feds are GM’s single biggest customer, next largest is State of California.

April 16, 2015 12:37 pm

Perhaps we are focused a bit too narrow here? Obama’s interest is in “income re-distrubition”
He doesn’t know the first thing about climate except that Hawaii has nice weather.
Obama’s veiling himself in the mantle of “enviro-champ” is far more about his vision for a “New World Order” than anything to do with climate, science or the benefit of the American people……

Joe Civis
Reply to  Scott
April 16, 2015 12:59 pm

oops “chump” has a “u” not an “a”….. he he

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Joe Civis
April 16, 2015 2:59 pm

The only vowel that doesn’t work is “e” – enviro-chemp.

Reply to  Joe Civis
April 16, 2015 3:39 pm

The only vowels that do work, in the given context, are “u” & “I”.

Reply to  Joe Civis
April 16, 2015 6:13 pm


Reply to  Scott
April 16, 2015 1:00 pm

Ironically, Hawaii is the only state to generate a large amount of its electricity with diesel fuel. Puerto Rico does also.

Gerry, England
Reply to  ShrNfr
April 17, 2015 4:56 am

The UK will too whichever bunch of lunatics wins next month as they are committed to intermittent power generation that requires back-up. This will be in the form of banks of diesel generators scattered across the country.

April 16, 2015 12:43 pm

I am a dutchman and a physicist. I realize that the global warming business is about power and money. Reality is that if I calculate the temperature increase (using the log formula from the IPCC models) for a world that doubled its industrial activities this increase would be 0.2 degrees celcius. For me as a dutchman it is surprising that an american president can get away with being an amateur salesman of the globalwarming business, if a Dutch prime minister acted as your president he would out of his job very quickly. I like americans very much but could you please stop voting for guys with a nice voice or corrupt frustated ladies with too much money?
What is wrong with a proven professional person? Or better don’t give too much power to a president. Make it a cerimonial function. Thanks to your Obama, Hillary and Kerry we in Europe are facing now the possibilty of a nuclear war starting here . Thanks a lot . Henk

Reply to  Henk
April 16, 2015 1:58 pm

Well a Dutch prime minister may not act that way, but Europe is much farther along the silly walk path than Americans…

JJM Gommers
Reply to  Henk
April 16, 2015 3:34 pm

I agree with Henk, the budget of NATO is 5 times the budget of Russia. When I came in the late eighties in the Soviet Union I quickly came to the conclusion that they could not carry out an offensive war and still can’t, nuclear retaliation was the only option and Russia still has at this point in time.
There is more concern about the desperate foreign policy of the USA, so many cases of misjudgement.
Now the BRICS are closing the ranks economically and the USA tries to drag the EU in a TTIP treaty as a counter measurement.

Reply to  Henk
April 16, 2015 3:43 pm

I apologize, on behalf of those of us that recognize that we are responsible, for foisting the three stooges on the rest of the world.

Reply to  DonM
April 16, 2015 5:51 pm

We Americans are not responsible for Tony Blair or Angela Merkel, Don. Or Kevin Rudd.

Reply to  Henk
April 16, 2015 5:48 pm

The American president is much less powerful than a Dutch Prime Minister, Henk. Your PMs also typically own your parliament, because their party and its allies always control it. Separation of powers in the US means the president has to accommodate Congress to get anything done. Presently Congress is in the hands of the opposition. So, whatever Obama does in Paris will almost certainly come to nothing here, unless Congress ratifies it — a very unlikely proposition.
Regarding nuclear war, if you’re talking about Russia and the Ukraine, that rumble largely was the EU’s doing, in trying to suck the Ukraine into their fold. If you’re talking about Iran, I tend to agree, except that the EU has also been involved in those negotiations. If the EU didn’t like the way things were going, they could have forced a change. Maybe you should send a letter expressing your disapproval to Catherine Ashton.

Reply to  Henk
April 16, 2015 5:55 pm

The Soviet Union had a huge army in the GDR, JJM. The Soviet military got all the money it wanted. Contemporary military thinking was that, absent theater nuclear weapons, in the event of war the Soviets could push to the channel in weeks.
As to US foreign policy, who’s done better?

April 16, 2015 12:48 pm

His signature on anything mean’s absolutely nothing. He can’t bind this nation to anything past his term. It’s all show. Chill out people.

Reply to  Bobby Davis
April 16, 2015 2:06 pm

He’s in office for almost 2 more years. He can do an awful lot of damage in that time.

Reply to  MarkW
April 16, 2015 2:50 pm

And the bureaucracy WANTS to do this. That’s a beast you don’t want to get the bit in its teeth. As long as the EPA, DoA, DoE, and DoJ want to go this direction, the devil will take the hindmost.

Reply to  MarkW
April 16, 2015 4:22 pm

spetzer86: And that will be true no matter who the next president is.
Short of firing everyone in those agencies and shutting them down, they have a lot more power than the president and congress combined.

Village Idiot
April 16, 2015 12:59 pm

“….since we expect a recovery from the Little Ice Age…”
Just why should we expect to see a recovery? Does the earth have some sort of ‘normal’ temperature?

Reply to  Village Idiot
April 16, 2015 2:25 pm

true….if the normal temperature was 10 degrees warmer…we would be complaining about this ice age

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Village Idiot
April 16, 2015 5:43 pm

“Does the earth have some sort of ‘normal’ temperature?”
You work it out but whatever it is, it’s a lot warmer than now.comment image

Ian H
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 16, 2015 8:20 pm

What I find interesting about this graph and other similar ones is the flatness of the tops of the peaks on the temperature graph. You could lay a ruler across those peaks and draw a lovely horizontal line. The persistence of that feature over the immense history of the planet is quite striking. It must be something quite fundamental and basic
This suggests that Earth’s temperature has a strong upper limit most likely enforced by some kind of phase shift in the climate system. The temperature can go up to that limit and hit it and even stick there for a while, but in the whole history of the planet it almost never goes above that limit for very long.
Consequently tipping points of the calamitous “we are all going to fry” variety can’t exist. The absolute worst case scenario on the warm side is for temperature to go up and hit that limit.

Village Idiot
April 16, 2015 1:06 pm

“…no significant warming has occurred in nearly 20 years..”
You mean atmospheric warming? – must be a typo. The ‘global earth system’ continues to warm relentlessly

Reply to  Village Idiot
April 16, 2015 2:07 pm

The atmosphere isn’t warming, and neither are the oceans. Where is this so called warming hiding?

Joe Civis
Reply to  MarkW
April 16, 2015 3:18 pm

haven’t you heard it is hiding in the deep oceans just above the earth’s core of “millions of degrees” so sayeth the goreacle!

Reply to  MarkW
April 16, 2015 10:18 pm
Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2015 12:09 am

Stop repeating the Guardian’s bogus propaganda. Ocean heat content (OHC) is not rising fast.
Since 2000 OHC has been flat.
And don’t trust government data: after adjustment:

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Village Idiot
April 16, 2015 10:23 pm

The only thing relentlessly increasing is the absurd noise from village idiots.

Reply to  Mac the Knife
April 17, 2015 1:45 am

dbstealy, why did you post a graph of the SH ocean temps and not the Global ocean temps hmm?

Reply to  Village Idiot
April 17, 2015 12:02 am

Please help me answer some questions, Village Idiot.
1. Isn’t your correction also incorrect? Should it be worded as “… no significant land or ocean surface atmospheric warming?”
2. What made a portion of incoming heat radiation suddenly go into hiding? Is there an ‘on-off’ switch for hiding and releasing this heat? Has this heat ever been reflected in the formula for Earth’s energy budget? If not, when will it?
3. Since there is an obvious need for the general public to have some sort of simplified global temperature indicator, can you tell us what a new indicator will look like that accounts for the hydrosphere as well the atmosphere?
4. If we’re going to have a new heat indicator for changes in the atmosphere and hydrosphere, doesn’t logic also require an accounting of heat gains and losses in the lithosphere?

Reply to  Gerald Wilhite
April 17, 2015 1:48 am

And just for giggles here’s the NH ocean temps…

April 16, 2015 1:10 pm

What Australia does will depend on whether our current Prime Minister is still in charge. One attempt has been made to unseat him already, and his nearest rival has form as a supporter of GW alarmism.

April 16, 2015 1:11 pm

Make it a triple play with a giveaway to get an agreement on binding CO2 commitment, Iran framework, and Cuba all at once. What could go wrong? None of these deal outcomes are a threat to a rich family in a beachfront mansion in Hawaii.

Stephen Richards
April 16, 2015 1:14 pm

It would be extremely ironic if another such a glaciation were to start shortly after a Paris agreement that is trying to prevent a global warming.
I would love to see the UKMO, NOAA, NCDC and GISS all trying their darndest to adjust (manipulate) away a little ice age let alone a full glaciation. I guess by the time that happens no-one alive today will be around to laugh.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
April 16, 2015 4:20 pm

The best immediate irony would be if the delegates had to wade through a waist deep snowfall to the meetings.
Ohhh wait, that still proves globull warming……

April 16, 2015 1:20 pm

It would be nice if our narcissist in chief would at least consider binding the country to doing something to reduce the massive debt we’ve incurred under this administration. It would be encouraging if he would, JUST ONCE acknowledge our massive debt actually exists. Now there would be something useful.

Kevin Kilty
April 16, 2015 1:22 pm

Prof. Singer gave a talk at UofUtah in 1981, or maybe 1980, about where the world was headed in terms of oil consumption. Many in the audience had other agendas that colored their perception of the topic, and they dismissed his predictions as “wishful thinking.” His predictions were dead-on for the next two and a half decades. Very impressive. I would say he has the various strategies of participants to this farce scoped-out equally well.

April 16, 2015 1:29 pm

Looking on temperature graph from ice cores it is simply visible, that Earth temperature is not stable. Normal Earth mode is slow decline in temperature.We are currently in this mode. Number of total carbon in biosphere is slowly declining, CO2 sinks in oceans storing CO2 underground in form of limestone. After reaching around 260ppm lower threshold there is shutdown of most of photosynthesis, life is vanishing from Earth. Earth is in dry, cool mode and cooling faster. Hydrological cycle is affected. This is increase of dust during ice ages. From this mode Earth is suddenly pulled out by external trigger, it can be close pass of another star providing extra energy, some sun cycle increasing solar output. Earth jumps out of ice age very quickly. Increased volcanic activity will replenish CO2 from underground back to life supporting levels. Life spreads again, Earth is back in warm interglacial level.
By current CO2 emissions we are still in slowly cooling phase, but we reverted threshold of 260ppm and switch to quick cooling and life vanishing.
So we simply reverted coming of ice age which is already due, but not by warming with CO2, but keeping biosphere spread by increasing total carbon available for life.
On the end we will loose this battle, ice age will come, temperature will go down to plant unbearable levels, but not in 500-2000 years as it was due, but maybe another 10000 years.

April 16, 2015 1:41 pm

“It would be extremely ironic if another such a glaciation were to start shortly after a Paris agreement that is trying to prevent a global warming.”
They will persist in their believe and they will keep blaming non-believers. And the coming iceage will make ‘the heat is hiding on the ocean’s floor’ turn into ‘the heat is hiding in the earth’s core’.

David S
April 16, 2015 1:42 pm

I find it interesting that you even bother discussing whether the US is bound by what happens at Paris or whether it can be overturned by another president. The reality like every other country in the world you can do what you like. Only idiotic naive ignorant countries will bind themselves to something so stupid. Who’s going to police it ? Who really cares ?

April 16, 2015 1:51 pm

Will there be a blessing of the over-priced rooftop solar panel or the French nuclear plant at the start of the meetings?

April 16, 2015 1:52 pm

Do-it-yourself climate science:
Fundamental math using existing temperature and CO2 data can prove that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
The CO2 level (or some math function thereof) has been suspected of being a forcing. The fundamental math is that temperature changes with the time-integral of a forcing (not the forcing itself).
Existing data includes temperature and CO2 determined from Vostok, Antarctica (or any other) ice cores for several glacial and inter-glacial periods. The temperature should change as a transient following CO2 level change instead of the two going up and down in ‘lock step’ as reported.
Existing temperature and CO2 (Berner, 2001) assessments for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) are graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Additional proof showing that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identification of the two main factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 16, 2015 8:33 pm

Cool web sites. Thanks!

Reply to  Jon Jewett
April 17, 2015 6:43 am


Robert of Ottawa
April 16, 2015 2:47 pm

This is the Potemkin President.

R. de Haan
April 16, 2015 2:50 pm

The West already took a poison pill, in fact four times the dose needed to bring down civilization.
1. The debt trap of over 100 trillion USD in bonds keeping a global casino a loft of 555 trillion USD.
With 10 year bond rates going negative now the collapse of the entire financial system is around the corner.
2. obligatory CO2 reduction and the adoption of UN Agenda 21
3. Endless war mongering, first in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, now with the Russians and the Chinese. The chance that one of the parties starts throwing nukes is increasing by the day.
4. The deplorable birth rates among the western population.
Everything reached the paris Meeting is overkill.

Reply to  R. de Haan
April 16, 2015 4:25 pm

As soon as Iran gets a nuke, the odds of a nuclear war in the middle east goes up astronomically.
Can you imagine what will happen to the world economy if the Saudi, Kuwaiti, etc oil wells go off line, at the same time, for 50 years?

April 16, 2015 3:21 pm

It’s almost comical that we will spend the next 19 months in fear that our president might at any moment make some backroom commitment which will take a lifetime of sacrifice to overcome.
If you consider “Doctor Zhivago” comical.

April 16, 2015 3:29 pm

The US can only sign treaties with sovereign nation-states. Any other treaties are unconstitutional and thus illegal, and null and void.

April 16, 2015 3:35 pm

If I may be permitted a non sequitur here … I was out for a run on an absolutely glorious spring day here on the northern Oregon coast, and while running I was really letting in how much I appreciate Anthony, WUWT, and all the fine people of all spots and stripes who post here. Thank you very much everyone. It’s an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to learn from and interact with all of you.
P.S.: And thanks to all the mods for their thankless but vital efforts 🙂

April 16, 2015 3:35 pm

” At the same time, the US and European Union will undertake to seriously reduce CO2 emissions by another 26-28% in the next 10 years.For the US, a 40% reduction by 2030; for the EU, at great cost to their economies and to the standard of living of their populations..”
People who vote for the politicians that support this insanity take note!

JJM Gommers
April 16, 2015 3:44 pm

The last alinea is interesting. The forecast of cooling as expected by many scientist is short term and the Paris topic is a long term issue. It would be more wise to spend money and time to figure out how climate works for that short term period and put all these fancy plans to curb CO2 on hold.

April 16, 2015 4:17 pm

I’m sorry, I guess I missed the lecture. Can you fill me in?
A couple thousand people who want to be humanity’s parents are going to each generate tons of CO2 flying to Paris and home on low-human-density plane-space (first class, business class, and some in executive jets), ride around in 8 mpg limos, stay in large hotel suites, that are heated even when the occupants are absent, eat feasts comprised of gourmet foods flown in from all over the world, cost and carbon burning no object. In sum, in three weeks each of them is going to put more CO2 into the atmosphere than an average Earth human does in a year.
They do this, as opposed to teleconferencing with a 98% CO2 savings, because they A) love living high on the hog, and B) they hate most of humanity, i.e. the unwashed masses. It’s a fact that the UNFCCC Paris attendees could stay home, and show that they believe human-generated CO2 is a problem that they will not flamboyantly and obnoxiously over-contribute to. But, by their actions, they’re sending a message that, “If we few generate huge per capita CO2, it’s not hurting the earth, because we are few, but if you peasants generate 10% per capita, as much as we few do, it’s a problem, because there are so many of you.”
It’s difficult to argue against this, the proposition that “the best people” enact and enforce rules that do not apply to themselves, but do apply to the masses. In other words, plutocracy. “Meet the New World Order, Same as the Old World Order.”

Tom J
April 16, 2015 4:25 pm

Well, there’s only one thing I can say as all our Cock Rooster brave global warming warriors waddle and gobble over to Paris:
They are most definitely not Charlie Hebdo.

April 16, 2015 4:31 pm

Politicians ought to take note of what happened in California when a Democrat Governor decided to have the State play with the electric power market. We ended up with rolling brownouts, occasional blackouts, and ENRON sprung up to take advantage of the insane requirement that the main distributor (PG&E) could not have either generation or long term contracts. Dennis Miller had the best description of this as buying power “at mini-bar prices” as everything had to be bought on the “spot” market.
The end result was a recall of Gov. Gray (out) Davis. Oh, and a restoration of stable electricity in the following years, when I sold my larger generator (both bought during The Gray Years…)
Screw around too much with the electric power supply and cause “problems” and you WILL be looking for a new job. That’s the lesson of (for those political animals too dim to see it on their own…)
So while I hate giving advice to the opposition… and I’m fully aware of the dictum to never interrupt your opponent when they are shooting themselves in the foot… I really would rather avoid the carnage… so…
Let me make it perfectly clear: IF you interrupt the TV and watching The Game with friends for Dad, or cause Mom to miss the daytime TV, or cause the rest of us to need to find another way to cook dinner because our All Electric Kitchen does not work at peak times: YOU will be hunted down and driven from office. I can say this as it happened in California, and there are few places more Left Wing Nut than Kalifornia… So even “your true supporters” get cranky when their dinner is NOT staying cold in the fridge at 3 PM, and can not be cooked at 6 PM, and nobody can watch the TV so have to actually talk to each other… oh, and the internet is unreachable…
Talk about a group looking for someone to lynch…

April 16, 2015 4:47 pm

I would just love it if no one showed up. It won’t happen in Paris, I’m sure, but at some point the numbers to these meetings will start dwindling as countries wake up and decide to save the cash. I’m looking forward to that day.

Mike Maguire
April 16, 2015 4:56 pm

Thank you professor Singer.
Another outstanding article with many relevant points. CO2 at 280 parts per million or so over a century ago was very deficient for life on this planet. We also know that life does much better with warmth, than cold.
A group of humans have decided that they know what the perfect CO2 level and temperature of the earth should be………….and it was when the Industrial Revolution began(or at least at whatever point that they theorize that humans effected the CO2 and temperatures).
What if CO2 was had dropped from 520pm to 400ppm because of humans using up atmospheric CO2 for energy and the global temperature had fallen almost a degree bit but was 1 degree C warmer than today?
Without a doubt, these same people would be fighting to get CO2 back up to 520ppm and add that 1 degree of warmth back…………….because humans were to blame.
Ironic, that this hypothetical example of the opposite of today actually makes sense.
I would agree with those who were trying to get CO2 back up to 520ppm and to increase the temperature back up 1 degree C……………..life on this planet would agree with that too.
This is not to say that it’s ok to have another 2+ degrees of warming(even though CO2 can still double and most life would benefit). Most legit skeptics believe it’s warming……..but are skeptical of that much warming.
Other than busted global climate models used to project, that are weighted with equations based on 2 decades of accelerated warming (1980’s/90’s), there is no evidence that warming will exceed another 1 degree C this century.

April 16, 2015 5:58 pm

Excellent essay by S. Fred Singer. Few words, strong impact.
” …. Yet it will be hailed as a “breakthrough” by the White House and thus form an important part of the “Obama Legacy.” That legacy may well go down with the rest of his. It will be difficult to rewrite history in the digital age. Unintended consequences seems to be the current norm.

Aaron smith
April 16, 2015 6:52 pm

When a president literally tries to reduce its nation’s power……….. Need I say more?

April 16, 2015 8:54 pm

Thanks for the political forecast, Dr. Singer.
Your articles are always interesting and I offer links to the 15 or so that have made the most impression on me. Your sense of humor and clarity are also appreciated.

April 16, 2015 9:25 pm

Obama is expected to “bind” the US…..?” I doubt that this guy really cares. The only thing that really matters to him is how things APPEAR. Whether any of his “agreements” actually lead to anything binding or enduring is much less important to him than how it can be “spun” by the liberal media to his benefit. He is, after all, the only president to receive a Nobel Peace Price by doing absolutely nothing to earn it.

Jorgen F.
April 17, 2015 12:32 am

Dear US of A,
We are glad that the meeting is held in Paris this year. Because we’re not quite sure whether Vienna or Rome has been seized by ISIL before December. We know that we in Europe haven’t been spending enough on building guns since the 40’s – and we are sorry – however the man with the big stick also has some responsibilities in our view.
But perhaps not in Obamas view – so If ISIL succeeds before December we will be happy to announce in Paris that the European Co2 emissions will be dropping significantly in the coming years.
Otherwise – if you guys just lack money to stop the ongoing genocide in the Middle East and North Africa – please charge us for our use of the Internet and GPS through the NSA billing center.
Kind Regards Europe.

April 17, 2015 3:19 am

‘I expect very little ‘ Well I expect some serious hotels bills being run in some nice but expensive Parisian hotels , a lot of fine dinning and death of small forest printing out the ‘report ‘ that comes out of this . Although tits size will make difference to its total lack of value .
Meanwhile the good news is that Paris should have enough capacity to handle private jets so VIPs, such has St Gore , should not have to worry about mixing with the normal folk.
And the good thing is I can do this without ‘models ‘

Coach Springer
April 17, 2015 4:44 am

Sooner or later, they will be telling us that Kyoto stopped global warming and all we need is much more of it to keep it that way. The point being, they aren’t going to stop using the issue as a reason to rule. They are not done, They are convinced of their rectitude. They are not at all phased by the evidence of much lower sensitivity and the extraordinary length of time necessary to double CO2 in producing a largely beneficial result based on the unproven assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of climate now – or ever.

April 17, 2015 5:37 am

Observations regarding the foundation of concerns regarding global warming.
The Earth has a Surface Temperature
On any given day, or for any given month or year, the earth has a single global mean surface temperature. Climate scientists do not know that global mean surface temperature, though they have developed a working estimate, because they do not have sufficient properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained sensors, properly distributed across the entire surface of the earth. The satellite era has allowed climate scientists to improve the estimate by improving both accuracy and coverage, but they are still dealing with an estimate. The global mean surface temperature of the earth has increased, over the period of the instrumental temperature record, by less than 1oC.
Climate science deals with temperature anomalies, rather than actual temperatures, in part in recognition of the limitations of the current temperature measuring stations and their geographic coverage, as well as because the focus of climate science is on the change in global mean surface temperature. Each producer of a global mean surface temperature anomaly calculation selects temperature measurements from among the thousands of temperature measurements taken across the globe each day. Those temperature measurement data are then “adjusted”, in recognition of the known and suspected data quality issues,
thus converting those data into estimates of what the data might have been, had they been collected timely from properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained sensors. Some of the producers of the anomaly products also “infill” estimated temperatures for locations where no sensor is installed, or where the installed sensor is non-functional.
The three principal producers of global mean surface temperature anomaly products are NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the Hadley Center / University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). The global mean surface temperature anomalies from the three primary producers of global mean surface temperature anomalies differ, as the result of the climate periods covered, the temperature data selected to be “adjusted” and included in calculating the anomalies, the “adjustment” approaches used and whether or not temperatures are infilled. The NASA GISS global mean surface temperature anomaly at the end of December, 2014 was reported as 0.72oC; NCDC was reported as 0.77oC; and, HadCRUT was reported as 0.63oC. Each of these differing anomalies refers to the same single global mean surface temperature at the end of 2014; and, is the estimated difference between the “adjusted” temperature at the beginning of the anomaly period and the current adjusted temperature.
The month of December, 2014 is an interesting case study regarding these anomaly products. At the end of November, 2014 the earth had a single global mean surface temperature. At the end of December, 2014 the earth also had a single global mean surface temperature. The difference between the global mean surface temperature at the end of November, 2014 and the global mean surface temperature at the end of December, 2014 is a unique value. However, the change in the global mean surface temperature anomaly, and thus the change in the global mean surface temperature, reported by the three primary producers of global mean surface temperature anomaly products for December, 2014 is not a unique value. GISS reported an anomaly increase of precisely 0.06oC; NCDC reported an anomaly increase of precisely 0.12oC; and, HadCRUT reported an anomaly increase of precisely 0.15oC.
It is possible that the global mean surface temperature anomaly change, and thus the temperature change in December, 2014 was precisely 0.06oC, or precisely 0.12oC, or precisely 0.15oC. However, it is clearly not possible that the anomaly change, and thus the temperature change, was precisely 0.06oC and precisely 0.12oC and precisely 0.15oC. It is certainly possible that the anomaly change was somewhere within the range of values reported by the three primary anomaly product producers. It is also possible that the actual anomaly change was not within that range. It is interesting, however, that each of these disparate anomaly change estimates was just large enough to permit the producer to claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record, even if with less than 50% certainty.
[But that makes it hard to use the descriptive term “precisely” difficult though, doesn’t it? .mod]

Reply to  firetoice2014
April 17, 2015 6:16 am


April 17, 2015 7:13 am

I believe they are just lying about using anomalies.
The problem is if they come out and say:
“It’s been the hottest year evah…The average temperature of the earth is 56.5°F.”
Then next year claim:
A new record temperature has been set…The average temperature of the earth is 56.53°F.”
They need the lie or else, who’s gonna care?

Reply to  mikerestin
April 17, 2015 8:02 am

Arguably, in “adjusting” data, one creates anomalies. 😉

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
April 18, 2015 3:41 am

A report from New Delhi states that “When world leaders are hosting meetings and discussions to cope up with global warming, energy crisis and depleting resources, a group of students at Indian Institute of Technology here attempt to find a single solution to all the three environment issues. This involves electrochemical conversion of CO2 and thus CO2 has been used to generate methane and other valuable products. The conversion of carbon-dioxide into methane has been using renewable sources of energy like sun or wind. Conventionally the gas is dissolved into a solvent during conversion. The team instead captures the gas directly in a reactor where it is converted into methane and other products like formic acid and hydrogen gas.” This shows, the need more research in this direction instead of spending billions of US$ each year on Carbon credits and global warming and its PR & research. Thus become IPCC a redundant organization that wastes public time and money. Let the UN direct its energies in this direction.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Climate Pete
April 18, 2015 6:31 am

Singer’s article is about what is going to happen at the Paris climate change conference in November and what the national governments are going to commit to. His text contains some very significant inaccuracies.
Singer says :

“The basic pattern for Paris has been set already by the US-China agreement of Nov 12, 2014. China agreed to do nothing until at least [my emphasis] 2030 — just continue to emit ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, with a peak at around 2030 (they say). ”

This is just plain wrong. Here is what China said it committed to http://en.ccchina.gov.cn/Detail.aspx?newsId=49296&TId=98 – straight from the Chinese Government’s Climate Change own web site http://en.ccchina.gov.cn/ .

“China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.

To install 20% renewables or nuclear generation by 2030 means most new installations have to be commissioned well before that time – nuclear generating stations typically have a planning, constructing and commissioning lead time of around a decade and installing a lot of wind and solar takes years too.
To start reducing CO2 in 2030 China needs to reduce coal use from about 2020. Subsequent to the US-Chinese agreement China published http://en.ccchina.gov.cn/Detail.aspx?newsId=49434&TId=96 in which it committed to peak its coal use in 2020 at a peak no more than 13% above current levels.
You might doubt China will start reducing coal use from 2020, apart from one very significant fact. In 2014 Chinese coal use dropped by 2.9% while at the same time GDP grew by 7.4%, so it is clear that China is already making significant progress in detaching coal use (and also CO2 emissions) from GDP growth.
The current Chinese November 2014 plan to address climate change is documented here – http://en.ccchina.gov.cn/archiver/ccchinaen/UpFile/Files/Default/20141126133727751798.pdf . If you thought they were intending to do nothing before 2030 then you had better read it.
China is big, so it takes a little time to get all the ducks lined up and change course. But let us not forget one simple fact about China. It is not a democracy. It is a centrally-controlled communist dictatorship. What the leaders say goes – or you get put in prison or shot when your disobedience is found out. When they say “fix climate change” then 1.5bn Chinese start marching in lock step (well not quite, but you get the idea). There is no room for public debate, like there would be in the USA.
As far as the Paris commitments of other countries goes, see http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx . That contains the commitments made by countries or regions which so far have been formally submitted prior to Paris in November. China has not yet submitted. CO2 emissions from countries who have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), plus China, constitute just under 50% of current CO2 emissions, so, with the exception of India, the major players are already on board.
Mexico’s INDC is interesting. It unilaterally commits to certain CO2 reductions, but says it will go further if other countries plans meet certain criteria. That provides a carrot for others.
In summary Singer seems to be ignoring a lot of the facts when talking about Paris in November, as can be seen by going back to the source documents above.

%d bloggers like this: