Six climate headlines from 2009 that tell us something important about the run-up to the 2015 Paris climate conference

Same old scare stories, different decade.

By Larry Kummer, Editor of the Fabius Maximus website, from which this is reposted.

Summary: This is the first in a new regular feature on the FM website showing the best of the propaganda headlines that fill our news. Today we have six headlines telling an important story about us and climate change. Post your thoughts about these in the comments. Get your favorite headlines posted (past or present, mocking Left or Right) by emailing them to PropagandaHeadline at G mail dot com (anti-spam spelling). Enjoy!

When we again see the world clearly, we can start the reform of America.

Six years ago began a new chapter in one of the most incompetently run campaigns ever, the preparation for the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009. The following snippets show one theme from that massive bombardment of stories intended to arouse people’s fear and so create a stampede for far-reaching public policy measures to save the world. These headlines warned that the end was near and time was running out.

(1) President ‘has four years to save Earth’” says climate scientist James Hansen in The Guardian, 17 January 2009.

(2) Global warming has reached a ‘defining moment,’ Prince Charles warns” in The Telegraph, 12 March 2009. “The world has “less than 100 months” to save the planet.

(3) ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster” by Elizabeth May (Member of Parliament and leader of Canada’s Green Party) in The Star (Toronto), 24 March 2009. This was run as news, not an op-ed.

(4) Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles” in The Independent. 9 July 2009. “If the world failed to heed his warnings then we all faced the ‘nightmare that for so many of us now looms on the horizon’.”

(5) Five years to save world from climate change, says WWF“, Australian Broadcasting Company, 18 October 2009 — Excerpt…

“Karl Mallon, a scientist with Climate Risk and one of the key authors of the report, says 2014 has been calculated as the point at which there is no longer enough time to develop the industries that can deliver a low carbon economy. ‘The point of no return,’ he said.

“’If we wait until past 2014 or that’s what modelling shows, then simply put, it will be impossible for industries to grow to the scale that has to be achieved in the time that is available.’”

(6) Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.“, BBC, 19 October 2009. Brown was the UK PM.

The result

It was a fantastic success — for the attendees, most of whom enjoyed an expense-account funded vacation with their peers in picturesque Copenhagen. Here’s the word salad they produced. Three journalists at the Guardian evaluated the Conference in terms of its accomplishments: Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure.

Typical results from one of the most incompetently conducted campaigns ever.

Flash forward to now

Six years later we’re still in the pause — the hiatus or slowing of the atmosphere’s warming (see papers about its causes) — with most forms of extreme weather at normal levels (details here, more here).

Doubling down on proven failed tactics, climate activists have began a fear bombardment to produce a stampede of panicked people into November’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (Paris! No global climate conferences in Chicago or Birmingham, where events are cheaper). Each week brings new papers confidently predicting that climate change will produce new horrors (odd that it produces not one good thing).

As the cherry on the news we get “His Royal Highness {Prince Charles} warns that we have just 35 years to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.” in the Western Morning News, 18 July 2015.” Nice of Charles to grant us a reprieve from his original June 2017 deadline.


A parallel on the right to this campaign is the series of confident predictions since 1984 that Iran will have nukes in a few years. The common element of info ops by Left and Right: activists understand us. They know we care only for tribal truths, that we seldom learn from experience, and care not that our leaders lie to us.

When we change so that these things are true no longer then we will have begun to regain control of America. For more about this see, these posts about Reforming America: steps to new politics.

For More Information

See all posts about information and disinformation, about The keys to understanding climate change, and My posts about climate change.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bloke down the pub
August 8, 2015 2:40 pm

You’ll not find many politicians who’ll credit the punters with any intelligence.

August 8, 2015 2:40 pm

These people are just making s### up. 100 months, 95 months, 35 years? Can I have a go please? ummmmm……22 years, yea, that’ll work! Maybe I should duck over to David Appells or Miriam O Briens websites to seek confirmation of my analysis….oh wait, what analysis? How I forget, it’s about the money and screwing the plebs over.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Craig
August 8, 2015 9:03 pm

Just like speed limits in Oz, where they’re separated by 10km/h, nature cares not for the human decimal system and accidents will happen at any speed. Likewise, how the bloody hell can they prognosticate doom with such “accuracy”, for lack of a better word, and yet still demand to look believable?
Just pushing goal posts, forget accuracy, let alone the concept of being correct about anything.

Reply to  Olaf Koenders
August 9, 2015 2:00 am

We can go very much further back with dire predictions of our changing climate
“Saint Cyrian was Bishop of Carthage around 250AD.* He was talking about the huge increase in Rome’s population which had caused wars against Carthage and the building of 500 towns in North Africa to satisfy the eternal city’s ever increasing needs for timber, cereal, and exotic animals for its gladiatorial contests. Here is an account of lack of sustainability and climate change caused by a variety of factors, with the hints of a decline in the warm climate that had sustained Rome now starting to work against them as it intermittently turned cooler
‘The world has grown old and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the suns warmth are both diminishing. The metals are nearly exhausted the husbandman is failing in his fields. Springs which once gushed forth liberally now barely give a trickle of water.’
Around 1560 the Rev Schaller, pastor of Strendal in the Prussian Alps wrote;
“There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earth’s crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.”

Reply to  Craig
August 9, 2015 1:32 am

“The timetable extends until it is short enough to sound worrisome, but long enough to ensure that those making the predictions are safely retired or dead by the time their predictions can be disproved”(Sage’s Law?!)
Warmists originally made predictions that were too short term, so now they look silly. They won’t make that mistake again, hence 35 to 50 years now seems to be the optimum timescale for warmists’ scares.

Reply to  Craig
August 10, 2015 9:24 am

I hadn’t looked at Appell’s site previously but was prompted by your comment to have a look (quiet day).
The current top post as of August 9 is
He’s rather depressed. I’m rather amused.

Peter Miller
August 8, 2015 3:09 pm

I wish I had thought of this, but all those attending the expensive, pointless jamboree in France later this year should be known as Paris-ites
Because that is exactly what they are, parasites on society and taxpayers, doing no good and sucking their hosts dry of funds which would be much better spent elsewhere. Say goodbye to the western world economies if Paris is ‘successful’.

Reply to  Peter Miller
August 8, 2015 5:55 pm

Alot like the Heavens Gate UFO goofballs. This whole climate change thing is just stupid and i am embarrassed for these people.

Reply to  Peter Miller
August 8, 2015 8:49 pm

Haha. Paris-ites, how very appropriate. I’ll probably be using that term in some conversations. Thanks very much.

Reply to  nzrobin
August 9, 2015 2:44 am

me too!

Reply to  Peter Miller
August 9, 2015 2:53 am

Thanks for that new nickname indeed. I will probably use it too!

August 8, 2015 3:11 pm

Maybe the tide is turning….
What a shower! The more money the Met Office gets, the more ludicrously inaccurate its doom-mongering on climate change
By Christopher Booker For The Daily Mail
Very surprisingly and somewhat boldly, on Wednesday morning Radio 4 put out a programme by the Mail’s Quentin Letts which ran flatly counter to the BBC’s normal party line on one of its very favourite subjects, global warming.
Under the title What’s The Point Of The Met Office?, Mr Letts focused on the way our national weather service has long been known to share with the BBC an obsession with climate change.
Indeed, the way this has in recent years tended to skew so much of its forecasting —remember the infamous promise of a ‘barbecue summer’ in 2009 just when the rain was set to fall for weeks? — has made it something of a national joke.
One of the guests interviewed by Mr Letts was the veteran Tory politician and climate-change sceptic Peter Lilley, who proceeded to poke fun about how Met Office officials would lobby for ‘more money for bigger computers to be more precisely wrong in future’.

August 8, 2015 3:12 pm

I often wonder how far into the future we must go before looking back and thinking how could we have been so stupid to believe that the world was being destroyed by CO2 produced by man.

Reply to  John Buttel
August 8, 2015 4:26 pm

When the money runs out….we could have 15 years of cooling and the fear mongering will continue as long as it’s funded. Why else would it stop?

Patrick C
Reply to  John Buttel
August 9, 2015 12:54 am

My constant thought. I dearly hope I’m around to see it !!

August 8, 2015 3:22 pm

Thank you for recognising that both sides make ludicrous exaggerations to try and sway the disinterested majority.
You are right.
We all should be more thoughtful and considered.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 8, 2015 6:44 pm


Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  MCourtney
August 8, 2015 8:04 pm

Yes, there has been a tendency of the skeptic side to wallow in hubris. Perhaps time to step back and let the believers swamp their own ark.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
August 8, 2015 10:00 pm

I’ll bring the popcorn.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  MCourtney
August 9, 2015 12:02 am

There aren’t just two sides. That is a comforting fallacy that prevents people from thinking about the complexity of the world and trying to understand why so many of the bad ascendant ideas are supported by so-called liberals and so-called conservatives and so-called left-wingers and so-called rightwingers. All four of those terms are obselete and worse than useless.

David, UK
Reply to  Philip Arlington
August 9, 2015 4:14 am

Absolutely right, Mr Arlington. Left and Right are just mindless tribal flags that prevent original thought and remind the masses who to look to for the next order. Libertarianism and individualism are on the rise though. Who would they vote for in an election? Mr None-of-the-Above.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 9, 2015 2:46 am

Both sides? Where precisely are the exaggerations of the CAGW critics?

Reply to  Amatør1
August 9, 2015 8:09 am

He’s referencing the note at the bottom of the article in which observers noted that Iran was trying to get the atomic bomb and a belief that someday they would succeed. He’s taking the fact that Iran has not yet succeeded, thanks to the actions of many people over the years, in getting the bomb, as proof that the original observation was in error.

Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 3:34 pm

Iran doesn’t have a great many nukes now only because of sabotage attacks by the US and Israel.
I can’t comment on the veracity of reports of Israeli hits on Iranian nuclear physicists, engineers and skilled production workers, nor Iranian claims of attacks on power sources and the Bushehr reactor by Arab and Kurdish separatists.

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 3:37 pm

Unfortunately the present US administration is pro-Iranian and anti-Israel, so our former fruitful cyberwarfare collaboration has ended.

george e. smith
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 6:28 pm

I would have said pro-Islamic, rather than pro-Iranian.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 7:15 pm

Guys lets take reality check.
We are talking about 1940s tech.
If someone wants to make one they can. The question is what you are willing to do to stop it?
Note bombing the production facilities is a bad idea. EVERYTHING INVOLVED is toxic and airborne.
The equipment used in the refinement process are made of metals that OXIDIZE! They will burn.
Think about it…
We missed our chance to deal with this years ago. before this administration. People kicked the can down the road. Now we have a mess.
Everyone has 20/20 vision in hindsight. (me too)
Let’s just elect someone who will deal with it, and accept the costs. They will be high.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 8:37 pm

I would have said just plain Islamic.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 8:38 pm

Note bombing the production facilities is a bad idea. EVERYTHING INVOLVED is toxic and airborne.
OK then Arc Light Tehran?

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 8:49 pm

Bush Snr.
News Conference, September 12, 1991
“Just months ago, American men and women in uniform risked their lives to defend Israelis in the face of Iraqi Scud missiles. And indeed, Desert Storm, while winning a war against aggression, also achieved the defeat of Israel’s most dangerous adversary. And during the current fiscal year alone and despite our own economic problems, the United States provided Israel with more than $4 billion in economic and military aid, nearly $1,000 for every Israeli man, woman and child, as well as with $400 million in loan guarantees to facilitate emigrant absorption.
My request that Congress delay consideration of the Israeli request for $10 billion in new loan guarantees to support emigrant absorption is about peace. For the first time in history, the vision of Israelis sitting with their Arab neighbors to talk peace is a real prospect. Nothing should be done that might interfere with this prospect. And if necessary, I will use my veto power to prevent that from happening.”
Bush – “I won the war against your enemy. Now I just want a little peace conference”
Israel – “First we want another ten billion dollars”
Who can afford to have a friend like that?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 8:59 pm

Rd forgive, there are so many terms. “Arc light”
please define. note anything done to the the Iran gov. is a plus to me. I was going to high school when these animals took our people.
Like Imus said back then, I want the weather report for down town Tehran to be 5,000 degrees and cloudy.
Bad me and on this day no less.
I just do not want a radioactive cloud covering innocent people.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 9:28 pm

Arc Light = Nuke Them

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 9:43 pm

Khwarizmi remember the time frame. Israel, had been a asset to Nato war plans in the Med. Israel’s air force was able destroy any Soviet incursion to the eastern Med. Money well spent.
Saved us a carrier task force. We could earmark it (the task force) elsewhere and the Soviets Knew it.
Every little bit helps.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 10:17 pm

@ Mike the Morelock. Which will cause more devastation, a bombed-out nuclear weapon production installation or a fully operational bucket of sunshine? Think about it.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 11:59 pm

I don’t know how we got on to nuclear Iran on this site, but, from a purely scientific standpoint, this “1940’s tech” canard flies in the face of the fact that there is no good proof that North Korea ever detonated a nuclear device, and Pakistan’s tests were failures, albeit with proof of at least some fission. Oak Ridge saw the worlds largest concentration of geniuses, and every other successful effort only succeeded with a large element of stolen technology.
Producing a working nuclear device is very difficult, and there is no reason to believe that North Korea or Iran could produce a deliverable fission device in the next decade or two. Maybe they could stuff one into a seaworthy container and explode it – but that might be well after the seas start to boil under a similar, and equally laughable, end of the world scenario. So long as the few nations with a demonstrated ability to deliver nuclear fission weapons play nice, the end of the world ain’t coming from nukes in my lifetime.
Apres moi, le deluge. N’cest pas?

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 9, 2015 12:46 am

Mike Morlock,
My country, Australia, does whatever the United States says without question or public debate.
We joined the “coalition of the willing” that destroyed Iraq for the second time on false pretexts, helping to carve it up into ethno-religious warring states according to Oded Yinon’s plan outlined in “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” (read it if you haven’t already)
We even joined the unpopular war in Vietnam, unlike most “allies,” because we never say no to Uncle Sam.

Yet we don’t seem have a powerful “Australia lobby,” or a large section of your electorate that demonstrates more loyalty to my country than to their own, and so we don’t get the billions of dollar in charity each year for being loyal, obedient allies.
Unlike Israel, we’ve never once repeatedly attacked one of your military ships in international waters killing 34 of your people and injuring 172 in an attempt to get your people to destroy our enemies.
We don’t even go out of our way to make enemies, which your role as our ally a lot easier!
Why can’t Australia, your greatest friend an ally, I reckon, have billions of dollars each year from your taxes to help resettle all the immigrants that our governments keep importing?
Why can’t we monopolize your foreign policy, like Israel does?
“When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see.”
-Richard Dawkins, 2009

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 9, 2015 3:59 am

Mike the Morlock August 8, 2015 at 8:59 pm
Rd forgive, there are so many terms. “Arc light” please define.

SMC August 8, 2015 at 9:28 pm
Arc Light = Nuke Them

Arc Light was conventional, not nuke. Just lots and lots and lots of conventional.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 9, 2015 8:10 am

So what if it’s toxic. It will only contaminate the area immediately surrounding the facilities.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 9, 2015 8:13 am

Khwarizmi, in your “opinion” the fact that we support Israel is because of the Jewish lobby.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 9, 2015 10:46 am

Mike, yes, one could build a bomb, but first you have to get the necessary uranium. Which is why all the fuss over the number of centrifuges and monitoring of the same.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 3:45 pm

Lets not forget the Stuxnet virus that completely crashed their centrifuges for several years.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
August 8, 2015 8:12 pm

Reply to  RD
August 8, 2015 8:15 pm

Jews are men.

Mike from the cooler side of the Sierra
August 8, 2015 3:43 pm

His eminence Prince Charles and I are about the same age. I wonder who will be first to kick the old bucket ? 35 years is a long time in the future for either of us. I’m not holding my breath. I’ll pass on Paris this winter. paris-ites, excellent!

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Mike from the cooler side of the Sierra
August 8, 2015 9:06 pm

Personally, I would like if we figured out some way to skip Charles in the line of succession. He has been a complete embarrassment since the mid 90s.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 8, 2015 10:23 pm

Check on the history of the heirs to the British throne. Those who were complete arses as the Prince of Wales actually became reasonable monarchs. For example, the totally dissolute Prince Regent was actually a sober and responsible King George IV.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 9, 2015 4:05 am

You must be too young to remember the cherry brandy incident.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 9, 2015 4:11 am

I agree, Jeff, but look at the big picture. He’s got a flunkie job, kissing babies, backslapping dictators, opening shopping centres (note U.K. spelling), going to funerals, etc. He didn’t volunteer for it, now, and who would want a job where you don’t get a promotion until your mom dies?
They keep him on the run, too – hundreds of appearances a year. His schedule is online:

David Chappell
Reply to  Mike from the cooler side of the Sierra
August 8, 2015 9:19 pm

Well, without knowing anything about your state of health, my money would be on Charlie-boy. He doesn’t lead a very stressful life, his grandma popped her clogs at 100+ (OK his grandad smoked like a chimney and checked out early), his dad is 91 and his ma is getting on a bit.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mike from the cooler side of the Sierra
August 8, 2015 10:03 pm

His eminence oral flatulance Prince Charles…
– there fixed it for ya.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 9, 2015 5:45 am

It’s hard to soar with eagles when surrounded by ones self.

August 8, 2015 3:44 pm

One difference is that there have been many doing what they can to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Without those efforts it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they would have reached that goal long before now.

R Taylor
August 8, 2015 3:45 pm

Really? Prince Chicken Little has moved the end of the earth from 2017 to 2050? Obviously, we just have to wait a few years and the end of the earth will once again coincide with the sun becoming a red giant.

Chris Hanley
August 8, 2015 4:07 pm

When I clicked onto “ The keys to understanding climate change” I got a message to the effect that the link was not secure.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 8, 2015 4:57 pm

The link goes to a website (i.e., hosted by WordPress), among the most secure websites on the Internet. Perhaps something to do with your browser settings or security software.
I used to get that message when going to Dept of Defense websites. Stopped getting them eventually.

August 8, 2015 4:08 pm

Isn’t that the same Prince Charles who wished to be reincarnated as a deadly virus so he could infect humanity? Pretty sure it is!

Reply to  fossilsage
August 8, 2015 4:40 pm

Think that was his Dad … HRH Prince Philip. Not sure what caused that little outburst but it’s the Royal Family – they’re required to have at least one loon per generation. 🙂

Reply to  Jeff
August 8, 2015 5:06 pm
Yep … in 1988 at age 67. Early onset bizarre i imagine.

Reply to  Jeff
August 8, 2015 6:10 pm

He also said that he wanted to live in Camilla’s underwear .

Reply to  Jeff
August 8, 2015 6:10 pm

Charles that is.

Reply to  Jeff
August 8, 2015 6:12 pm

You would need to knock off the crusty bits first.

Reply to  Jeff
August 8, 2015 6:27 pm

They have loons all around.

Reply to  Jeff
August 8, 2015 6:32 pm

You mean Charles’ Dad right. How far from the tree do you think Charles fell? It is the royal family after all.

Reply to  Jeff
August 8, 2015 6:35 pm

You bet!.
He’s also been the head of the World Wildlife Fund.
I’m old enough to remember when environmentalists cared for wilderness and all of God’s creatures, including people!
Now, not so much.

Reply to  Jeff
August 9, 2015 8:17 am

RD, a few years back it was revealed that a number of animal shelters run by PETA were killing animals rather than force them to suffer the humiliation of becoming pets and having to be subservient to their owners.

Reply to  Jeff
August 9, 2015 12:34 pm

MarkW, re peta, shocking but not surprising.

Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2015 4:11 pm

No matter how disasterous, it will be pronounced a “trimphant success”!

August 8, 2015 4:21 pm

good ol’ Andrew Simms is still running The Guardian’s “100 months to save the world” monthly blog! he has 16 months to go. what will Andrew & The Guardian do then?
his latest:
4 Aug: Guardian: Andrew Simms: Our environmental deficit is now beyond nature’s ability to regenerate
We are heading fast in the wrong direction despite the world gearing up to approve new sustainable development goals and a new climate accord…
***16 months and counting…
Nasa climate scientist James Hansen recently warned graphically that without radical and fast emission reductions, many of the world’s major cities including New York, Miami, and Los Angeles would, sooner or later, share the fate of Atlantis…(LINK FROM ABOVE)
Andrew’s starting point:
1 August 2008: The final countdown
Time is fast running out to stop irreversible climate change, a group of global warming experts warns today. We have only 100 months to avoid disaster. Andrew Simms explains why we must act now – and where to begin.

Reply to  pat
August 9, 2015 6:39 am

Well, the blog will run to perpetuity (or until the left gets distracted by another cause “look … butterfly”).
The “100 months to save the world” is like the “50 years to fusion energy”. It was “50 years from now”, 50 years ago. It is “50 years from now”, today.
Climate science isn’t the only branch of science that has prediction problems. We should just accept that predictions of the future by scientists are no better than anybody else’s guess.

Reply to  PA
August 9, 2015 8:18 am

Fusion energy is 30 years off, and has been for the last 50 years.

Reply to  PA
August 9, 2015 9:53 am

ITER doesn’t start fusion reactions until 2027. They then have to reliably break even for a while, say 10 years, they then have to build an engineering prototype commercial reactor and test that.
ITER will take almost 20 years from start of construction to fusion. After that is a commercial prototype, then after that the first commercial reactor. The numbers say the first commercial reactor will be on-line in 2060-2070 at the earliest.
That is about 50 years.

Reply to  pat
August 9, 2015 1:12 pm

He probably picked the number of months he had to go until he could get his pension and set the number of months to that. That way he can just head off into the sunset of retirement.
Indeed, a cunning plan.

John M. Ware
August 8, 2015 4:55 pm

The thing that’s hardest to predict is the future; the thing that’s hardest to explain is the past; the thing that’s hardest to endure is the present. . . . What was the movie about the humanoid robot, Johnny 5, who became alive? I remember watching the movie (most entertaining) and marveling at how voraciously J5 lapped up data, data, and more data. That’s what we need–data. Yes, there already is a lot of data; but there’s lots more of it that we don’t have, about past, present, and future. The Paris-ites will likely not acknowledge that lack.

James Francisco
Reply to  John M. Ware
August 8, 2015 6:19 pm

Short Circuit

Reply to  John M. Ware
August 10, 2015 8:37 am

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”, Yogi Berra

August 8, 2015 5:57 pm

“A parallel on the right to this campaign is the series of confident predictions since 1984 that Iran will have nukes in a few years.”
Retarded comment. Many groups have been actively attacking iran nuke programs for years…blowing up buildings, killing scientists, putting virus in computers and so on, also maybe you’ve never heard of this country called north korea that people had been warning about for years was getting nukes and o look they got nukes…. right after a very successful deal to prevent the nuke program… a deal that is almost exactly like the current iran deal.

Reply to  temp
August 8, 2015 10:28 pm

Both US and Israeli gov intelligence believe Iran has not been working on nukes sonce at least 2003. The strikes you refer to are ostensibly to retard the breakout capability if they were to later decide to work on fission weapons. In reality the strikes are a bone thrown to the rabid right wings of the US and Israeli politics.
And the USA gov is the only government ever to use fission weapons in anger (and against an enemy making inquiries for peace). Also the USA gov started the Iranian nuclear program to benefit its quisling the Shah. So maybe the USA gov should go mind its own business instead of spreading a mess of its own making into an even bigger disaster.

Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 8:21 am

So, you are actively engaged in talking with members of both the US and Israeli intelligence services? And you are allowed to tell us this without both of them trying to kill you?
All I have to go by is govt actions, and neither govt is acting like they believe Iran has given up it’s desire for the bomb. For that matter, the Iranian govt also does not act like it has given up that desire.
As to the rest of your comments, they just go to show that you are a complete idiot who substitutes hatred for actual facts, of which you have none.

Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 8:23 am

BTW, the Iranian govt is running 10 times the number of centrifuges it would need to produce uranium for a domestic nuclear power program. They are also, in their own admissions, enriching to a level not needed for a nuclear power program.
Yet you believe that they have no interest in building a bomb, because someone you want to believe said so.
Sad really.

Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 8:58 am

“Both US and Israeli gov intelligence believe Iran has not been working on nukes sonce at least 2003. The strikes you refer to are ostensibly to retard the breakout capability if they were to later decide to work on fission weapons.”
Nice bit of double speak here… your argument that just because they are stockpiling materials, building fabrication facilities and training techs to make all the required part for making a nuke…. that just because they are not researching on how to make a nuke that they clearly have zero interest in nukes.
Made better by this later comment “Also the USA gov started the Iranian nuclear program to benefit its quisling the Shah. So maybe the USA gov should go mind its own business instead of spreading a mess of its own making into an even bigger disaster.”
Which all but admits that they may have all the needed knowledge to make nukes just need the parts and crafters to get it done.
” In reality the strikes are a bone thrown to the rabid right wings of the US and Israeli politics.” By rabid right wing I assume you mean everyone thats not a rabid socialist.
“And the USA gov is the only government ever to use fission weapons in anger (and against an enemy making inquiries for peace).”
Yeah true shame that one…. that we only had 2 bombs to drop they really needed to work on that stockpiling materials, building fabrication facilities and training techs part of the equation back then… seems some people have learned from those mistakes.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 10:39 am

Scott, “And the USA gov is the only government ever to use fission weapons in anger (and against an enemy making inquiries for peace).
That’s Howard Zinn’s story. Samuel Wineburg at Stanford assessed that story, and has shown that Zinn fabricated his narrative. Zinn used the usual method of choosing to report only what fit his story and leaving out whatever showed it false; imbuing it with a false certainty.
It appears that, like Noam Chomsky (whose scholarly integrity I have personally checked in the Stanford University libraries), Howard Zinn was not above lying for the sake of his political fantasies. Both of them it seems, Zinn and Chomsky, would qualify as colleagues of certain consensus climatologists.

Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 10:51 am

Pat, it is true that Japan had made inquiries regarding peace, however what they wanted was a cease fire, with Japan being allowed to keep most of the territory it had already captured, keep it’s current govt, and nobody punished for war crimes.
The US position was unconditional surrender. That Japan was unwilling to accept until after the second bomb, and even then the emperor had to over rule his generals. (I have read claims that the generals were considering a coup against the emperor to prevent him from issuing an acceptance of the surrender terms.)

Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 12:43 pm

against an enemy making inquiries for peace
Tough cookies.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 12:54 pm

Mark, check out Robert Maddux’ 2007 essay here on the historical validity of Japanese peace overtures. The notion is mostly a latter-day invention, ; a pastiche of wishful thinking inspired by political tendency.
Maddux’ essay was originally published in Passport, noted in Wineburg’s reference 31, but is unavailable at the magazine because Passport archives don’t extend to 2007.

Reply to  Scott
August 9, 2015 7:01 pm

“That Japan was unwilling to accept until after the second bomb, and even then the emperor had to over rule his generals. (I have read claims that the generals were considering a coup against the emperor to prevent him from issuing an acceptance of the surrender terms.)”
I’m not sure how many attempted coups there were but I do know that one was stopped by a fire bombing raid on tokyo.
Japan has had massive amounts of propaganda made by both the US and jap government later on to cover up the huge amount of stuff they did during the time frame. Japan was way way more evil then the nazi ever were yet you never hear about the war crimes they committed. Further more everyone blames hitler for the holocaust yet their is not a single piece of proof that he ordered or even knew(though being a socialists he knew and loved it). On the other hand old emp hirohito personally signed off on just about any war crime known to man at the time and invented a whole host of others.
Its laughable how retarded and ignorant of history people are… like blaming the US for “provoking” “peaceful” japan who’d been waging war across china, vet, korea, and host of other places for years before pearl harbor. For claiming that the US was somehow racist against the superior jap race when japan is a god damn country not a race and that much like the nazi with their fake aryan race and the mexician fake superior race of hispanics its a completely fake but supremacist ideology that is still pushed to this day why supporters of these groups. People simple refuse to read history…. and when they do it has to be 8th tier opinions of stuff never direct documents.

Reply to  Scott
August 11, 2015 4:04 am

Scott wrote: “Both US and Israeli gov intelligence believe Iran has not been working on nukes since at least 2003”.
In the past decade, Iran has assembled 19,000 centrifuges and built a stockpile of 20% enriched uranium capable of yielding about a dozen atomic bombs beginning in several months. Isn’t that “working on nukes”? In 2003, Iran supposedly abandoned their effort to build an explosive device capable of triggering a nuclear explosion from a critical mass of weapons grade U-235, but they have refused to tell the IAEA how much progress they made. (Perhaps they stopped because they had made adequate progress given their negligible enrichment capacity in 2003 or perhaps they were concerned about the 300,000 troops that had overrun Iraq in three week that same year due to fears of WMD.) Iran has missiles capable of delivering an atomic bomb to Israel and is working on missiles that can reach the US.
Scott wrote: “And the USA gov is the only government ever to use fission weapons in anger (and against an enemy making inquiries for peace)”.
The Japanese never asked the US for peace terms, but a faction in the Japanese government hoped that the war could be ended by an armistice similar to the one that ended WWI: no occupation of Japan, “self-disarmament”, no foreign trials of war criminals, and preservation of the current government, especially the Emperor. The Japanese realized that such a peace could only be obtained after defeating the US invasion of Kyushu, or by killing enough American soldiers there. They had five times as many men and equipment on Kyushu as Okinawa, where 20,000 Americans died, 55,000 were wounded, and 26,000 were too stressed to continue fighting. There were six million men in the Japanese army.
The Japanese ambassador in Moscow was told to explore the possibility of having the Soviet Union mediate peace talks, but was also warned that the Japanese cabinet had never discussed possible peace terms. When the Ambassador suggested that the only terms likely to be accepted were unconditional surrender while retaining their Emperor, he was unambiguously informed such terms were totally unacceptable. The US decoded all of these messages between Tokyo and Moscow and knew beyond any doubt that an acceptable peace was not at hand.
As horrible as the atomic bombs were, far more Japanese civilians died during the Russian occupation of Sakhalin and ethnic Japanese sites on the mainland than from the two atomic bombs. If the war had continued, starvation would have killed even more Japanese in the home islands. Meanwhile about 100,000 Asians civilians ruled by the Japanese were dying every month.

August 8, 2015 6:23 pm

The purveyors of this gagfest have had a few years to design a way to prevent Monckton of Brenchley from crashing the party. I’m betting on M’Lord.

August 8, 2015 6:31 pm

“It’s déjà vu all over again”.

August 8, 2015 6:43 pm

“Doubling down on proven failed tactics, climate activists have began a fear bombardment to produce a stampede of panicked people into November’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris”
“Climate activists” and newspapers…
I’ve been watching the tone of the ‘articles’, they really are pushing for this deal in Paris. i think its an orchestrated effort to give the left the power they’ve always wanted.
The people who Jonathan Gruber referred to in those videos (too stupid to realize that the health ins. companies would pass on their cost to consumers) is that companies who have to pay more for energy are going to ALSO pass on the cost to us.
Another thing these stupid people don’t realize is that if there is a national tax put on fossil fuels (or cap-and-trade), its going to bring in so much revenue that the rich could very well be off the hook to pay higher taxes. It’ll fall on the middle class to fund government social programs and pay down the debt.

Reply to  kramer
August 9, 2015 12:26 pm

Why don’t they just send the documents to be signed by FedEx to all the Capitols and let the leaders
( lackeys, dictators religious nuts etc) sign them and sent them back to the UN? We already know the out come of the vote and so we would reduce the output of CO2 by slowing down the printing presses to support this folly ( and save on trees to print the money) and we could then just move on.
Dang I just woke up.

Louis Hunt
August 8, 2015 6:59 pm

It is true that there are alarmists on both the left and the right who promote worst-case scenarios. It’s often because they’re biases cause them to make assumptions about unknowns that they couldn’t possibly know. But in the case of global warming, it goes further than that. They have insisted for years that “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.” Even after their predictions fail to come true, they still insist beyond reason that the science is settled. The fact that they have to constantly revise their alarmist predictions should be a hint that they didn’t have the science right to begin with. But it never occurs to them. They remain closed to any suggestion that the climate might be more complicated than current science can model. How much of that is sincere belief, and how much is a desire to achieve a certain political outcome, is anybody’s guess.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 8, 2015 8:24 pm
The problem the global warmers have – is any time the rate of emissions increase flattens – the rate of CO2 increase starts to decline.
The rapid 21st century emissions increase has managed to keep the annual CO2 increase around 2 PPM/Y.
But now with China easing off emissions – the CO2 increase will start falling below 2 PPM/Y again. Emissions doubled between 1977 and 2014. Most of that increase didn’t make it into the air.
This is problematic for global warmers. RCP 8.5 says 2.6 PPM CO2 increase this year and 3.0 PPM increase 2020 – and these estimates were made in 2011 and updated in 2013.
It is pretty clear that 2 PPM/Y or less CO2 increase to the end of the century isn’t going to fuel any global warming fairy tales. The 1/3 TSR rate of surface forcing (downwelling IR) is just icing on the cake.
Unlike the IPCC I predict 2 PPM or less for 2020.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  PA
August 8, 2015 10:09 pm

Agree. The M-L CO2 daily readings will show it as stronger summer CO2 uptake (faster weekly decreases) kinetics as the sources slow down. There may be the beginnings of that now. Just very maybe (first week of August).
If the NH climate is entering a modern climatic optimum, the biosphere sould respond with stronger sink kinetics to pull the pCO2 overshoot back down. Nature doesn’t know where the CO2 is coming from, but photosynthesis no doubt will respond to it.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  PA
August 9, 2015 7:38 am

I would like to see this graph going back to about 1930. The activities of WWII devastated an awful lot of vegetation (and released a lot of CO2 presumably), but still – how much of the 20 years post war does low CO2 figures represent enhanced uptake…?

Reply to  PA
August 9, 2015 11:47 am

There’s the fossil fuels. Remember 9.86 GT of carbon equals 36.2 GT of CO2.
CO2 levels (295 PPM in 1900)
The CO2 level seems to be driven by warming/rainforest burning prior to about 1950.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 9, 2015 2:50 am

Doesn’t seem to slowdown, despite the crisis:
2010: 2.42 ppmv
2011: 1.87 ppmv
2012: 2.64 ppmv
2013: 2.05 ppmv
2014: 2.15 ppmv
and July 2015 is 2.30 ppmv over July 2014…
The increase is going up and down with temperature, but if the average over these 5.5 years remains the same for the full decade, that gives 2.24 ppmv/year, again 12% up over the past decade…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 9, 2015 6:18 am

All this is fine and good… but the during the 90s the CO2 emissions were increasing 10% per decade and the rate of annual CO2 atmospheric increase dropped below 2 PPM. Once the rate of emissions increase hit over 30% per decade in the 21st century the rate of atmospheric increase climbed to just above 2 PPM per year.
It looks like we are back to a 10% or less per decade.increase in emissions. Just to make the point clear – the first time we hit 2 PPM the rate of annual atmospheric increase was around 1.7 PPM/Y and the emissions were 1/2 of what they are today. The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase should be 3.4 PPM/Y, not hanging around 2 PPM/Y.
The record 1998 2.93 PPM increase may indicate a correlation with the ONI index. If so global warmers will have fun this year – but the rate of CO2 increase in 2016 may be be difficult to explain given the largest volume of annual emissions in history. We could have a fractional component only rise in CO2 in 2016 – just like 1999. And of course the skeptics and “not warmers” will “party like it’s 1999”.

August 8, 2015 7:14 pm

For those not yet up to speed with the newest terminology and assuming it has not been reported on WUWT previously, the newest term for the wannabe “Savers of the World from Global warming / climate change [ or what ever it will be tomorrow] and a Fate worse than Capitalism” attendees at Paris is
Originator is commenter Tom Harley on JoNovas blog site.

Tom Harley
Reply to  ROM
August 8, 2015 8:27 pm

Thanks ROM, Paris-itics need to be held to account:

Tom Harley
Reply to  Tom Harley
August 8, 2015 8:34 pm
August 8, 2015 7:23 pm

Who is going to save the planet from those who are trying to save the planet?

Reply to  Stephen Heins
August 8, 2015 7:51 pm

Oddly enough, it will be the most odious nations on earth.
I believe firmly in the selfishness of nations. The Arab nations will huff and puff about their commitments, while selling oil as fast as they can pump it. In fact, expect a price war when the sanctions come off Iran that will drive the price down even further, and the price of everything energy intensive with it. The likes of China and Russia will make well meaning sounds, and do as they d*mn well please. After the odious regimes of the world come the developing countries like India and Brazil, and the entire 3rd world who will argue it is not they who created the problem and will do as they please barring someone paying them handsomely not to (in which case the money will disappear into the pockets of the corrupt leaderships and they’s STILL do as they please). Left will be the 1st world nations who will face bankruptcy if they carry the whole load themselves, and so will make high sounding commitments that are long term and will be inevitably delayed from year to year until they become meaningless (sorta like, I dunno, have you heard of the Kyoto Accord?).
Some countries will be dumb enough to sign something incredibly stupid, but not the poor ones nor the odious ones. It takes a country that is both well off and well meaning to be truly fleeced by the climate charl*tans. Pray that the country you live in isn’t one of them.
On that note my dear friends in the United States, you may have more to fear than any other country on earth from this nonsense. Your country is well off, your well meaning president has proved more dangerous as a lame duck president than at any other time in his presidency, and he intends to go down in history as the man who saved the world.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
August 9, 2015 12:44 pm

Who is going to save the planet from those who are trying to save the planet?
You win with that, thanks!

August 8, 2015 7:30 pm

I just have to say that the love fest the American media has going with the British Loyalty is beyond comprehension. An honest artist would do what Goya did for the Spanish nobility and construct portraits that demand revulsion. Can anyone believe that Charles as a slack jawed, receding chin, witch nosed, nebbish could have possibly been attractive to Diana except for the power involved.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  fossilsage
August 8, 2015 10:13 pm

Same reason young coeds get crushes on their ugly boorish professors. Power, authority, on the immature young 20ish mind.

Jeff in Calgary
August 8, 2015 9:18 pm

The funniest news story I read recently was about a polar bear who set a new world record by swimming underwater for 3min10sec. Oh, it was seen in 2014, but only now reported in the leadup to Paris.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
August 8, 2015 10:51 pm

This is my latest note on: “Carbon Dioxide v Pollution” — “Global Warming v Climate Change”
In the context of Climate Change, India needs to give top priority to control pollution mechanism and not Carbon Dioxide associated with fossil fuel use in the global warming context. Why? Let us see this:
Carbon Dioxide is looked at Global warming component of Climate Change. India is affected by natural variations present in climate change – in the past, at present and in future. The extremes in rainfall and temperature are part of this phenomenon. This is not in our hands and thus we have to adapt to them. Our forefathers did this in agriculture and water resources use. With new agriculture technologies, we lost this and thus drought conditions are amplified.
Now with the growth of population and infrastructure development under new technological innovations/revolutions along with urbanization we introduced another aspect to climate change. This not only affects the natural variability but also creates a trend in climate parameters – this is known as ecological changes associated with land use and land cover changes. This has been affecting not only climate but also intensification of natural disasters impact on nature and life forms. An official from Asian Development Bank presented a lecture at State Bank of India staff College in Hyderabad. The title of his presentation relates to natural disasters “intensification of destruction” by climate change. He presented around 40 slides. All his slides clearly show that it is not the climate change but it is human actions to meet his greed on nature that helped increased levels of destruction with natural calamities — In fact this was seen at J & K and Uttarakhand devastations associated with the floods. It has become a common knowledge that to attract the audience they invariably use the word climate change. Many a time climate change is used as defacto global warming.
Groups argue that global warming is a settled science and yet they go on changing the factors in the basic equation that relates temperature change with CO2 change. If global warming is settled science then why the sensitivity factor in the basic equation is monotonically declining from SAR to AR5? Why, IPCC decreased feedback sum sensitivity factor from AR4 to AR5? All these say one thing that IPCC was not sure on what is the correct sensitivity factor that relates the anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase in atmosphere to temperature rise. So they are following trial and error method and not physical process path. Because of this, it can be seen from AR5 that “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period”. They all are qualitative inferences but we need an answer in quantitative terms to postulate the associated impact on glaciers retreat, ice sheet melt, ocean rise, extremes rainfall and temperature, etc.
The global temperature curve shows a hiatus for the last around 19 years. Instead of looking this as a part of natural cycle, people started telling the temperature is hidden in the Ocean and now NOAA manipulated the data to erase the hiatus. All this was carried out with the COP 21 meet at Paris and as to get weightage to collect 100 billion dollars. Though observed temperature data covers 20-25% of the area of the globe, and the rest is estimated through back door methods, interpolation and extrapolation from such data series. We got satellite and balloon data but they are also tried to manipulate. The original data shows a trend of 0.25 oC from 1951 to date. Around half of this is global warming component as per AR5 but in qualitative terms only.
Historical sea temperature shows a relationship with the changes in atmosphere carbon dioxide – when temperature raises the Oceans releases carbon dioxide and when temperature cools the carbon dioxide is absorbed by the Oceans. Also, USA average measured temperature present a 60-year cycle since 1920 with no trend but the same data as reported by NOAA presents not only cyclic variation but also trend. So, the trend is a manipulated pattern. We need virgin data to prove whether there is a trend; and if it is there, what are the factors causing such trend. Like this there are so many localized issues that need detailed studies. This must be done by meteorologists with the global knowledge.
With the USA President’s emission cut proposal, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency of USA] Administrator Gina McCathey admitted that the steps being taken would only prevent 0.01 oC of warming for a reduction of 34% over 2005 by 2030. All these mean the hiatus seen in the last nearly 19 years is correct to the core and the data manipulation to show there is no hiatus in global temperature pattern by the agencies is erroneous and illogical. Scientists must look in to these and come up a correct forecast on the future temperature and impacts on nature. However, all these support my postulation that “The temperature v CO2 curve reached a plateau for energy windows of CO2” – energy window is limited and not unlimited in nature. Water vapour energy windows cause maximum variations with seasons and years. Advection plays major role in temperature extremes like cold waves and heat waves depending upon the seasons and general circulation patterns. Local temperatures may go up with ecological changes but with reference global warming there is no chance that it will cross 0.2 oC by 2100. In view of these the Government of India should put forth at the coming Paris COP 21 meet in December 2015 and at the same time take action to implement them in India.
 UN must instead of wasting public fund on global warming, look in to pollution [air, water, soil & food] and food adulteration that is affecting billions of people globally;
 UN must give more emphasis on discouraging urban growth and related infrastructure development – the latest survey results of Swachh Bharat ratings of municipal areas [total 476] shows the conditions in urban India, “how filthy they are”;
 UN must give more emphasis on discouraging the developmental activities along the coastal zones and instead encourage the focused development in greenery along the coastal zones that protects from the fury of tidal waves;
 UN must give more emphasis on discouraging the chemical input – GMO agriculture technology — more than 30% of food produced is going as waste — and instead encourage organic traditional system of agriculture.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
Fellow, Andhra Pradesh Akademy of Sciences
Convenor, Forum for a Sustainable Environment
E-mail:; Tel Hyderabad (040) 23550480

Warren Latham
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
August 9, 2015 3:00 am

“In view of these the Government of India should put forth at the coming Paris COP 21 meet in December 2015 and at the same time take action to implement them in India”, … and also your four bullet-point paras, each of which start with “UN must”.
Dear Mr. Reddy,
I should be pleased if you would reconsider your bullet-point paragraphs: I respectfully suggest the use of only ONE bullet-point, as follows:-
U.N. must be dismantled.

Reply to  Warren Latham
August 9, 2015 3:32 am

U.N. must be dismantled.

Eyal Porat
August 8, 2015 11:52 pm

The difference between CAGW and Iran Nuke is that Iran is actively pursuing it and openly threatening.
So comparison is quite weak.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  Eyal Porat
August 9, 2015 12:11 am

It is a totally unnecessary conflict rooted in Anglo-American blunders going back to 1953 and beyond. It is about time our so-called leaders had the courage to admit that. Shiism has been fundamentally on the defensive throughout its history and remains so today. Bluster from a weak adversary is not a portent of imminent doom.
Meanwhile, what are our leaders doing about Saudi Arabia, the heart of the Sunni militancy which actually is a threat to the future of Western civilisation? Selling it bombs for a disastrous attack on Yemen.

Reply to  Philip Arlington
August 9, 2015 8:30 am

Ah yes, the old, everything bad is the fault of the anglo-american argument.

August 9, 2015 12:37 am

Prince Charles.
The imbecile who chartered an entire train to travel the country preaching about sustainability.
So, shall we all travel about in private trains, henceforth, your highness?
Here is everything that I might wish to say about the involvement of the topmost homeopathy adoring dullard in this debate. Courtesy of Delingpole:

August 9, 2015 3:31 am

August 9, 2015 at 12:46 am
Mike Morlock,
My country, Australia, does whatever the United States says without question or public debate.
We joined the “coalition of the willing” that destroyed Iraq for the second time on false pretexts, helping to carve it up into ethno-religious warring states according to Oded Yinon’s plan outlined in “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” (read it if you haven’t already)
We even joined the unpopular war in Vietnam, unlike most “allies,” because we never say no to Uncle Sam.
PLUS MANY MANY MANY K’s well said 🙂 🙂
frankly with allies/alliances like this..we may as well go back to colony days n let the poms screw us over again.
far better we stand up for ourselves and say NO!!!! F off a LOT more often!

Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 9, 2015 8:31 am

There were no false pretenses, but a lot of liars keep trying to claim that there were.

August 9, 2015 3:46 am

A better analogy for climate is probably the mostly right wing preoccupation with unfunded government liabilities. Certainly better than Iran, even if its scope for media hyping is quite limited. The issue of welfare based on increasing liabilities passed to future generations (who have no say) deserves detailed analysis and debate for sure. But, it is most unlikely to end in some kind of ‘debtonation’. A bidding war on the size of future unfunded liabilities, particularly popular in the US at times, is rather in the Hansen et al climate tradition.
The outlines of the way this particular issue will likely be resolved are already apparent in some European countries. Previously promised entitlements are simply reduced. This, of course, prompts a political backlash and young adults (always likely to be the main losers) flocking to opportunistic politicians. Governments have great power to void entitlements, not available to corporations etc.
It is amusing however that most of those who profess such concern for future generations on climate matters are those most indifferent to those same generations being likely short changed on welfare entitlements (barring dynamic growth from technological advance).

Reply to  basicstats
August 9, 2015 8:34 am

basicmath: Payment on the debt is already the largest single budget item, and that’s with today’s artificially depressed interest rates.
SSI is going to run out of money next year.
SS itself is going to run out of money sometime in the next 20 years.
They are either going to be massive tax increases to pay for these things, or a lot of people are going to have to do with way less than the govt promised them.
Either scenario is going to be a disaster both politically and economically.
Just because the machine hasn’t fallen apart yet, is not evidence that the machine can’t fall apart.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  MarkW
August 9, 2015 9:39 am

basicstats was talking about unfunded liabilities, not the national debt. Unfunded liabilities are effectively “off the books” in the formal federal budget.
Back in 1976 or so I attended a symposium on “The Economics of Financing Government” where the main draw was Milton Friedman, who had just been awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics. One of the other speakers had formerly been with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW as it was known, later split into several new Cabinet departments). He related how he an his colleagues there amused themselves by estimating the total unfunded liability for Social Security. The values were in the neighborhood of $800 Billion (USD). Keep in mind this was 1976, when the total federal expenditures were $1.1 Trillion.
I don’t know what the estimates are today, but we also have unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare. A quick search reveals several claims around the figure of $128 Trillion, and I don’t know if that includes pension liabilities for state and local public employees (Detroit teachers for example).
You say:

They are either going to be massive tax increases to pay for these things, or a lot of people are going to have to do with way less than the govt promised them.

Quite true. Now lets talk about the need for a carbon tax to save the planet.

August 9, 2015 4:03 am

Earlier this morning I was reading this:
If this is true, and I think it is, then the following is also true:
1) Renewable energy, is unreliable and expensive and will hit Western economies badly. GDP’s of all countries who subscribe to a treaty will suffer and suffer badly.
2) Destroying capitalism is the true reason for the AGW scare, any idiot with a brain cell can see that none of the predictions have come true and are highly unlikely to in the future.
3) Look at the organisations who support action on AGW, Our Labour Party (Ed Millband drafted the Climate Change Act), the EU, Obama, Greenpeace, the UN etc. Without exception all are left leaning organisations. Prince Charles has always supported stupid ideas, I don’t think he realises that in the socialist utopia (sarc) that we are heading for, the Royal Family will become only a family.
4) Why are India and China refusing to sign anything and expanding coal fired power stations? Because they are on the list of debtors and they need cheap plentiful energy to strengthen their economy. Why are the Russians keeping very quiet about AGW and at the same time making Europe dependant on their gas?
5) Why is fracking and nuclear power so reviled by the left wing?
In my view the Paris Treaty will be worded to put forward measures that will act as the catalyst for the destruction of capitalism, to be replaced by a whole new socialist world order by driving up energy prices, and national debt, which will precipitate a global stock market clash and make the current situation in Greece, the norm in the Western World.
Parisites indeed!!

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  andrewmharding
August 9, 2015 5:21 am

” I don’t think he realises that in the socialist utopia (sarc) that we are heading for, the Royal Family will become only a family.”
Or they could end up like the Romanov’s

August 9, 2015 7:35 am

The reality is the warmers like other shaman actually do not believe their own tripe and there is a high probabability that the predicted sun cycle may cause cooling. If they are unable to get some sort of massive program passed to limit CO2, their real concern is when the cooling starts they will be unable to claim responsibility for stopping the warming.

James Francisco
Reply to  Billyjack
August 9, 2015 8:31 am

They are acting like it may be their last chance to bring about their utopian dream.

August 9, 2015 7:42 am

You can’t make this stuff up,
Defies the imagination,
Yet so many taken in
By this extraordinary exaggeration,
And now Paris is coming,
A chance for another jamboree,
And yet more wild claims,
Yet more hypocrisy.

August 9, 2015 9:50 am

Somewhat O/T – whatever happened to that Papal Encyclical – Laudato Si?
I think there are some practicing Catholics that post on the site – any insight as to its continuing effect on the faithful? Is it still getting air time at the parish or diocese level?

August 9, 2015 1:03 pm

Apples and Oranges….
The sun/earth complex define our temperature.
Nukes in Iran however are defined by the Mullahs – creating, buying, stealing technology.
In 1984 they may have been years away. Now, they are only a few months if that away.
Keep you apples with the apples and your oranges with the oranges…..

August 9, 2015 6:29 pm

There is a limited amount of time for the politicians of the world to “do something” so they can claim to have “saved the world.”

August 9, 2015 10:12 pm

They should re-name it ‘Move the Goalposts Paris 2015’.

Argiris Diamantis
August 10, 2015 12:17 pm

“Con Nuestro Peru” of August, 10, 2015 has the following article:
A catastrophe has led to the cold in the herd camels, sheep and cattle in the country. The National Civil Defense Institute (INDECI) reported on 5 August that cold dead animals reach 912 300. At the time of writing can be as one million. Most are fine alpacas. There are also 508 000 sick animals.
This is a disaster unparalleled in our history. Of course, Ollanta Humala and his court seem to have been unaware. The presidential message of July 28 said iota about the tragedy.
Frightening is the situation created by the snowfall that hit especially the poor peasants. The regime cares only for transnational mining poor things.
The problem also affects the national pantry means less meat and less milk for the population. But Palace and the palaces are well supplied.
The eight injured Andean regions makes us see, backlit, what happens in other agricultural regions of the world: Argentina and Chilean Patagonia, Alaska, northern Europe, the Russian Siberia, where frost and snow lasts on average six months, but They do not cause any deaths.
A few years ago, when the television showed children of Puno, just shod with sandals, walking on snow and many of them died of cold, a European friend said: “In Sweden there is a more intense cold in Puno, but no child dies of cold. ”
The secret is food, warm clothing, adequate housing. In other words: the forecast.
But our governments believe enough welfarism. They lack vision and foresight. Do you have ever wondered what it would cost to protective footwear for children height of the cold?
It happens that governments, scientists, technologists, consultants and producers of cold countries have developed strategies that our bureaucrats should study. Before the cold spell in 2013, the magazine Agronoticias recommended:
-Selection and adaptation to extreme cold resistant breeds.
-Improving Massive natural pastures for greater nutritional value, as well as combating parasites that thrive in the cold.
-Reforzamiento Herds with vaccines, vitamin and minerals.
Defence of fodder and water, when snow covers the sources, places the same field.
Special -Refugios for most valuable player.
Attendance permanent technique to farmers.
Lord government: height farmers are not the big mining, but also deserve attention.
Reader’s comment: Sorry for the not always correct translation from
Ollante Moises Humala Tasso is since 2011 the president of Peru.
One lion killed in Zimbabwe has got a lot of attention in the Main Stream Media. One million cattle dying from the cold,
“a disaster unparalleled in the history of Peru”, gets no attention at all. Even the President of Peru chooses to ignore this disaster. Because this news might disturb the new Global Warming religion.

johann wundersamer
August 11, 2015 2:02 am

in the wake of Paris, after the upcoming elections – scenario:
no one will know who was ‘Obama’. Perhaps
there is a H.Clinton, a A.Merkel.
Wich are overhelmed by the unsolved problems their predecessors left piled up.
Really no time for perpuated climate alarm.

August 11, 2015 5:51 am

The UK’s The Guardian published an article by Damian Carrington and Suzanne Goldenberg titled “Gordon Brown Attacks ‘Flat-Earth’ Climate Change Sceptics” (4 December 2009), in which Gordon Brown stated:
“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics…. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal.”
and Ed Milliband stated:
“The approach of the climate saboteurs is to misuse data and mislead people. The sceptics are playing politics with science in a dangerous and deceitful manner. There is no easy way out of tackling climate change despite what they would have us believe. The evidence is clear and the time we have to act is short. To abandon this process now would lead to misery and catastrophe for millions.”
and Nick Cleg stated:
“it would be disastrous for the planet if sceptics were able to undermine support for a climate change deal. Ideological dinosaurs, whether in Saudi Arabia or in the Conservative party, who deny climate change must not be allowed to hide behind some leaked correspondence to support their outdated theories.”
Looking back to 2009, the comments by these three British politicians now make them look delusional and insane..

August 11, 2015 7:42 am

Oooo, headlines of deadlines to doom.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights