Leading questions on the Paris climate treaty

We should lead from behind – instead of with brains in our behinds – on this new Treaty of Paris

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

What an unpalatable irony. The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War and created the United States. The 2015 Treaty of Paris could end what’s left of our democratic USA – and complete the “fundamental transformation” that the Obama Administration intends to impose by executive fiat.

Meanwhile, as a prelude to Paris, October 24 marked a full ten years since a category 3-5 hurricane last hit the United States. (Hurricane Wilma in 2005; Sandy hit as a Category 2.) That’s a record dating back at least to 1900. It’s also the first time since 1914 that no hurricanes formed anywhere in the Western Atlantic, Caribbean Sea or Gulf of Mexico through September 22 of any calendar year.

Global temperatures haven’t risen in 18 years and are more out of sync with computer model predictions with every passing year. Seas are rising at barely seven inches a century. Droughts and other “extreme weather events” are less frequent, severe and long-lasting than during the twentieth century. “Vanishing” Arctic and Greenland ice is freezing at historical rates, and growing at a record pace in Antarctica.

But President Obama still insists that dangerous climate change is happening now, and it is a “dereliction of duty” for military officers to deny that climate change “is an immediate risk to our national security.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Post intones: “Republicans’ most potent argument against acting on climate change – that other nations won’t cut emissions, so US efforts are useless – is crumbling. The European Union has had overlapping climate policies in place for years. China, the world’s largest emitter, continues to fill in details about how it will meet the landmark climate targets it announced a year ago. World negotiators are set to convene in Paris in November to bundle commitments from dozens of nations into a single agreement that should set the world on a path toward lower emissions.”

Right. A path toward less plant fertilizing carbon dioxide, to prevent “unprecedented disasters” that aren’t happening (except in SimPlanet computer models), by stabilizing a perpetually changing climate that is driven by powerful natural forces over which humans have no control – under a 2015 Paris treaty that will inflict global governance by unelected activists and bureaucrats, bring lower living standards to billions, and initiate wealth redistribution of at least $100 billion a year to ruling elites in poor countries.

For once, President Obama wants America to play a leadership role, through a war on carbon-based energy that his own EPA admits will reduce hypothetical global warming by an undetectable 0.02 degrees 85 years from now. If we slash our fossil fuel use, he insists, the rest of the world will follow. It’s delusional.

For once, we should lead from behind – instead of with brains in our behinds. A brief recap of what other nations are actually doing underscores how absurd and deceitful the White House, EPA and Post are.

European nations and the European Union have long claimed bragging rights for “leading the world” on “climate stabilization,” by replacing hydrocarbon fuels with renewable energy. Their efforts have done little to persuade poor nations to follow suit – but have sent EU energy prices skyrocketing, cost millions of Euro jobs and made the EU increasingly uncompetitive globally. Now Europe says it will make an additional 40% emissions reduction by 2030, but only if a new Paris agreement is legally binding on all countries.

However, two months ago, China, India and Russia refused to sign a nonbinding US-sponsored statement calling for greater international cooperation to combat hypothetical warming and climate change. And virtually all developing countries oppose any agreement that calls for binding emission targets or even “obligatory review mechanisms” of their voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What they do want is a treaty that guarantees $100 billion per year for climate change “mitigation, adaptation and compensation,” plus modern energy technologies given to them at no cost. And that appears to be only the opening ante. India environment minister Prakash Javadekar recently said “the bill for climate action for the world is not just $100 billion. It is in trillions of dollars per year.” Developed nations are “historically responsible” for climate change, he argues, and must ensure “justice” for developing countries by fully funding the Green Climate Fund. India alone must receive $2.5 trillion!

So far, pledges to the fund total just $700 million – and Prime Minister David Cameron has said Britain would provide a one-time contribution of only $9 million. He has called renewable energy “green crap” and plans to end all “green” subsidies by 2025, to reduce electricity prices that have sent millions of families into energy poverty and caused the loss of thousands of jobs in the UK steelmaking sector.

Germany’s reliance on coal continues to rise; it now generates 44% of its electricity from the black rock – more than any other EU nation. In Poland, Prime Minister Eva Kopacz says nuclear energy is no longer a priority, and her country’s energy security will instead focus increasingly on coal.

But it is in Asia where coal use and CO2 emissions will soar the most – underscoring how completely detached from reality the White House, EPA and Washington Post are.

China now gets some 75% of its electricity from coal. Its coal consumption declined slightly in 2014, as the Middle Kingdom turned slightly to natural gas and solar, for PR and to reduce serious air quality problems. However, it plans to build 363 new coal-fired power plants, with many plants likely outfitted or retrofitted with scrubbers and other equipment to reduce emissions of real, health-impairing pollution.

India will focus on “energy efficiency” and reduce its CO2 “emission intensity” (per unit of growth), but not its overall emissions. It will also boost its reliance on wind and solar power, mostly for remote areas that will not be connected to the subcontinent’s growing electrical grid anytime soon. However, it plans to open a new coal mine every month and double its coal production and use by 2020.

Pakistan is taking a similar path – as are Vietnam, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations. Even Japan plans to build 41 new coal-fired units over the next decade. Overall, says the International Energy Agency, Southeast Asia’s energy demand will soar 80% by 2040, and fossil fuels will provide some 80% of the region’s total energy mix by that date.

Africa will pursue a similar route to lifting its people out of poverty. No more solar panels on huts. The continent has abundant oil, coal and natural gas – and it intends to utilize those fuels, while it demands its “fair share” of free technology, “capacity building,” and climate “reparation” money.

During the 2011 UN climate conference in Durban, all nations agreed that the next treaty would have legally binding emission targets and mandatory reviews of emission reduction progress. They also set up the Green Climate Fund wealth redistribution scheme. Now those CO2-reduction pledges are in history’s dustbin, because developing nations believe they have the upper hand in any climate negotiations.

They’re probably right. President Obama told 60 Minutes his definition of leadership is “leading on climate change,” and he desperately wants a legacy beyond his Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia, Ukraine, Bowe Bergdahl and economic disasters. Moreover, Western nations have created a climate monster and Climate Crisis Industry, which must be appeased with perpetual sacrifices: expensive, unreliable energy, fewer jobs, lower living standards and more dead people. No wonder Asian and African countries expect to get trillions of dollars, free energy technology, and a free pass from any binding commitments.

Voters, consumers, elected officials and courts must wake up and take action. House Speaker Paul Ryan, members of Congress, governors, business leaders and presidential candidates need to learn the facts, communicate forcefully, repudiate destructive energy and climate policies – and let the world know the Senate will reject any Obama treaty that binds the USA to slashing emissions and transferring its wealth.

Above all, they must debunk, defund and demolish the mountains of anti-fossil fuel, anti-job, anti-growth, anti-family regulations that Obama & Co. have imposed – or plan to impose before they leave office – in the name of preventing a climate crisis that exists only in their minds and models.


 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
86 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Petschauer
November 5, 2015 7:52 pm

Good post and well said!

emsnews
Reply to  Richard Petschauer
November 6, 2015 5:15 am

The New York Times reports that the Democrats in Congress are going to prosecute the oil companies for not hewing to the ‘we are going to roast to death’ story line! They want to shut down all discussion of ‘climate science’ claiming falsely that there is ‘no debate’.
This attempt at dictatorship has to be stopped.

KO
Reply to  emsnews
November 8, 2015 12:08 am

This might be a good thing. Consider what good cross-examination of pro-CAGW experts is going to reveal…that there is no real science behind the CAGW-mythology.
I only hope that the Exxons etc of this world really lawyer-up with the very best trial lawyers there are, and that the disclosure/discovery exercise is very thorough (think Climategate – all those emails and notes passed between the “scientists” intent on massaging data).
What fun this could be for a legal team intent on destroying the CAGW BS forever in open court.

November 5, 2015 8:05 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
In this age of collective climate change insanity, it is so utterly refreshing to read the sane, rational, informative and forensically researched writing of Paul Driessen.
This post certainly no exception. On the button.

ratuma
November 5, 2015 8:06 pm

First Mr Obama : no war
http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-is-isis/5486603
same for Mr holland and friends

Bryan A
Reply to  ratuma
November 5, 2015 8:16 pm

Know War, no Peace
No War, know peace

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
November 6, 2015 11:08 am

The problem is that those who refuse to wage war, usually find that the only peace they get, is the peace of the grave.

Auto
Reply to  Bryan A
November 6, 2015 3:05 pm

Mark
+ a very serious amount.
Those who seek peace should prepare for war.
A paraphrase of a Greek Logician [IIRC].
It’s too late here to seek the original – but Mark has captured the essence.
I wonder if our Western Governments can read – let alone understand and act on – this truth for the ages.
Possibly.
Possibly not, also.
Auto

Louis
November 5, 2015 8:09 pm

President Obama told 60 Minutes his definition of leadership is “leading on climate change,” and he desperately wants a legacy beyond his Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia, Ukraine, Bowe Bergdahl and economic disasters.

If Obama wants a legacy that goes beyond “economic disasters,” he’s barking up the wrong tree. Aggressively fighting climate change will amount to nothing more than an economic disaster.

Paul Westhaver
November 5, 2015 8:26 pm

This is a column I can get behind. Factual, damaging to the greens, broad in scope, and no built-in kryptonite.

mark leskovar
November 5, 2015 8:28 pm

+1 During his first inauguration speech Obama stated that “wealth redistribution” was necessary but few commented about it. AGW is his vehicle. He has incessantly harped on AGW to the point of being derelict in his overall duties as POTUS. Telling a military school graduating class that their biggest enemy is climate change was the height of stupidity and hubris. The US leads the Western countries in AGW rhetoric and is recognized as the prime mover due to it’s place in world power. We are being recognized as a bully and pariah because of it.

See - owe to Rich
November 5, 2015 8:44 pm

“Sandy hit as a Category 2.”
No, at the time when the eye reached the coast, there were no recorded sustained winds of 74mph on land – I checked all the National Weather Service stations I could find at the time. And I don’t believe there were any before or after that. This is why it is usually referred to as “Superstorm Sandy”. It was a post-tropical storm of huge area which did lots of damage – but probably not as much as if it had been a genuine hurricane.
Rich.

Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 6, 2015 5:43 am

+1 – I noticed that right away. It might have been a cat 2 at sea, but not at landfall.

Editor
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 6, 2015 5:46 am

Sandy wasn’t even a tropical cyclone when it made landfall, the transition to a post-tropical storm (which can still have hurricane force winds) is one reason it was such a broad storm.
I think overall, the northeast has more damage from nor’easters than the much scarcer tropical storms.
See my post on the storm that destroyed my grandparents’ summer home and cut Long Beach Island into multiple pieces – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/06/50-years-ago-the-great-atlantic-storm-of-1962/

Reply to  Ric Werme
November 18, 2015 3:37 pm

It is unimportant what kind of storm it was. This is like splitting hairs.
The WMO (1992) defines climate as “Synthesis of weather conditions in a given area, characterized by long-term statistics (mean values, variances, probabilities of extreme values, etc.) of the meteorological elements in that area“. This means that even the occurrence of a hurricane 5 cannot related to climate.
One of the fundamental requirements of statistics is that the data considered are randomly distributed. This is the reason why a climate period comprises, at least, 30 years. This means that records of, at least, 60 years are required to diagnose a climate variability.
Based on this WMO definition, we may state that a global climate is a contradiction in terms.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 6, 2015 9:13 am

I was in a Disqus argument with some guy a while back about this. He posted the land windspeeds recorded trying to prove it was a hurricane. I pointed out that the speeds he posted were Max gust speeds. Using NOAA’s rule of thumb, I was able to show that none of the wind speeds were hurricane level, and only 2 or 3 were even close.
Obviously Sandy was a serious storm, and caused a lot of property damage. I don’t want to minimize the impact it had on people’s lives. However, it must not be allowed to be used as evidance of climat change. If anything, only poor civil planning.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 6, 2015 9:32 am

Here is a list of the ground based Peak Wind Gusts from Sandy.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim/?section=njcc&target=sandy
NOAA states peak wind gusts are 1.3x that of maximum sustained wind, so you need to divide all the numbers by 1.3. This results in a max sustained wind speed of 70 mph. Cat 1 hurricane is 74 mph, so NO, SANDY was not a hurricane, nor a storm with hurricane speed winds. Infact, only 9 of the 52 stations in the affected area even recorded max sustained wind of over 60 mph.

bw
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 6, 2015 5:02 pm

The National Hurricane Center reported Sandy as a post-tropical cyclone prior to landfall. Recorded sustained winds at two New Jersey offshore buoys showed 25 meters per second. Hurricane winds are defined at speeds of 33 meters per second sustained for one minute intervals at defined heights above the surface. Sustained speeds for land based stations were well below the two off-shore buoys.
Photos of tree damage after the storm were consistent with damage from tropical storms.
Post storm analysis by the NHC in their final report conclusively state that Sandy was a post tropical cyclone and that the storm did not meet the definition for a hurricane.
NOAA archives are in the public domain and can be checked by anyone at any time for New Jersey winds speeds at any station or offshore buoy for October 31, 2012. The NOAA “tides and currents” website had those historical data, with graphs of wind speeds versus time. Recently the links I used have broken for the historical data.

John F. Hultquist
November 5, 2015 9:04 pm

Africa will pursue a similar route to lifting its people out of poverty.
…then
No more solar panels on huts. The continent has abundant oil, coal and natural gas – and it …
Africa would like to be treated as the complex place it is.
Other than that, many good things in this post.

Patrick
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 5, 2015 9:30 pm

Ethiopia is building the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, on the Nile. That has a few countries downstream a little worried (Same potential for “tensions” experienced in places like Israel, Syria, Jordon etc when one country controls water flows). It’s the biggest dam project in Africa today and the dam wall is planned to be finished in 2016 I think. There is another hydro power station. The Blue Nile Falls is a waterfall on the Blue Nile river in Ethiopia. It is known as Tis Abay in Amharic, meaning “smoking water”. Been there 2006. ~75% of the water is diverted to hydro power generation. The Blue Nile flows in to The Nile. What struck me was the images of subsistence farmers with brand new shiny and freshly galvanised power pylons on their land carrying power, mainly to Addis Ababa. But, talking of mud huts. The muds huts were still there, but with a shiny new meters on the hut wall.

Reply to  Patrick
November 6, 2015 10:27 am

Beats the heck out of the charcoal they use and the indoor pollution I imagine (Even at the Addis Hiltion). And those mud huts are a mixture of mud, animal dung and sticks. If you sleep too close to the wall you can get a nice transfer on your face. 🙂
Like the dichotomy of the tin shacks along the rail lines into Bangkok from the air port with all the TV aerials sticking out of them.

Patrick
Reply to  Patrick
November 6, 2015 8:11 pm

Charcoal was banned in Ethiopia years ago (Like that ever stopped anyone there from using it). And the sticks you talk of are mostly eucalyptus. Yes, that’s right an invasive non-native that grows well, long and straight just right for building, but grows like a weed and sucks away ground water like there is no tomorrow.

November 5, 2015 9:04 pm

the less you look at climate data the easier it is to believe every word of the dire predictions of climate science.

Bob Denby
November 5, 2015 9:07 pm

Don’t be passive folks, this piece deserves all the additional distribution we can give it. We’re derelict if we assume that India and China can handle the opposition for us. The President displays his ignorance (on the science) but clearly sees the political advantage of this issue and seems irrationally bent on using it to take this country down. Serious stuff here!

RoHa
Reply to  Bob Denby
November 5, 2015 9:36 pm

“The President displays his ignorance (on the science) but clearly sees the political advantage of this issue and seems irrationally bent on using it to take this country down.”
Which president? Which country?

noaaprogrammer
November 5, 2015 9:42 pm

The current president will bypass congress to “ratify” the climate treaty, but we can hope that the next president will not be a democrat and will rescind the agreement.

Monna Manhas
November 5, 2015 9:45 pm

The last time “reparation payments” were imposed, they led to World War II.

Robk
Reply to  Monna Manhas
November 5, 2015 11:47 pm

Yes, that’s a worry.

Richard Keen
November 5, 2015 10:51 pm

“The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War and created the United States. The 2015 Treaty of Paris could end what’s left of our democratic USA”
Perhaps they should sign it in Versailles, the home town of failed treaties.
Or, if the treaty is never intended to succeed, get two guys named Molotov and Ribbentrop to write it up and sign it.
There’s precedence for flawed treaties written by flawed politicians.

November 5, 2015 11:30 pm

I fear things are about to get worse…. much worse. Downloaded the TPP PDF file. Every legislator who claims to be American MUST vote NO on its passage. Seems every state in the US will be required to fulfill all of the EPA Climate/CO2 regulations and any new regulations the EPA may write depending on the outcome of the Paris Talks. If the US does not enforce the EPA’s rules and regulations we can be heavily fined if a nation claims that our CO2 pollution is causing environmental losses in their country. In addition in order to prevent a future administration from weakening the EPAs rules, the UN Climate panel retains the option to declare the change in EPA rules null and void if they decide that the changes were being made to give America a competitive advantage. Welcome to a new. less America if this passes.

hunter
Reply to  alcheson
November 6, 2015 2:00 am

This President has undermined the Constitutional rule of law to an amazing degree. He kowtows to despots and persecutes his fellow citizens. His abuse of the EPA to do end runs around the Congress and Courts are cynical and transparent.
The time and energy he squanders on his climate obsession is yielding failed policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Patrick
Reply to  hunter
November 6, 2015 3:23 am

So a “King” to fight against? Don’t expect French help this time dudes you are on your own.

Barbara
Reply to  hunter
November 6, 2015 2:23 pm

Cabinet members and all federal judges are subject to impeachment in the U.S. These are appointed positions.

Leo Smith
November 6, 2015 12:24 am

Marx from his March 1850 Address: “it is our task”, Marx said,
“.. to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. – Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League…”
Climate change is just another means to an end

Neville
November 6, 2015 12:30 am

In an article in the WSJ Lomborg stated that solar and wind supplied just 0.4% of world energy and this would be about 2.2% by 2040. What a joke and con job on the planet’s taxpayers. And zero change to climate, temp or co2 levels. Are these people mad or what? Here’s the quote——–
“Alarmism has encouraged the pursuit of a one-sided climate policy of trying to cut carbon emissions by subsidizing wind farms and solar panels. Yet today, according to the International Energy Agency, only about 0.4% of global energy consumption comes from solar photovoltaics and windmills. And even with exceptionally optimistic assumptions about future deployment of wind and solar, the IEA expects that these energy forms will provide a minuscule 2.2% of the world’s energy by 2040.”
And here’s the link to the article——- http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-alarming-thing-about-climate.html

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Neville
November 6, 2015 5:37 am

Yeah. it was observing this reality that lead me down the road of discovering that the entire thing is bullshit.
Back when I genuinely believed that CO2 was mankind’s greatest threat, I started thinking about how the problem would be best addressed.
Clearly, I thought, we have access to finite capital and we want to maximize our reduction of CO2 without bankrupting ourselves.
Having understood then, that clearly we must approach this in such a way that we maximize the reduction of CO2 that we obtain for every dollar/euro spent – I then watched what actually unfolded here in the E.U.
And the policies that have been rolled do not follow this logic at all.
In fact it is hard to imagine how they could have done a better job of making such a small reduction for such a large amount of money.
As time went by, it started to dawn on me that reducing CO2 and saving the planet was not the genuinely motivation behind this massive scheme.
Since, if it had been then we might have expected to see a rational approach to the solution.
Then I started to suspect that the problem itself was purely a political invention in the first place.
Or at least – mostly…

richard verney
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 6, 2015 11:57 am

Well back in the day, there was only one choice and that was the go nuclear.
One only has to look at the per capita CO2 emissions in France to see that that was the only policy response, and obviously so, given that you need 100% backup from fossil fuel generators to cover the situation when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
They missed the boat on that one, but fortunately it does not appear that CO2 is any particular problem; quite the converse in that a richer CO2 atmosphere is bringing with it a greener planet. The present policy response should be use clean coal for base load, and go for shale to cover demand and to heat people’s houses, and spend no more money on climate research but instead invest that money in research into future technologies such as Thorium and fusion etc.

hunter
November 6, 2015 1:57 am

The Obama Administration is notable for its arrogant ignorance posing as sophisticated enlightenment.

Harry Passfield
November 6, 2015 2:58 am

At the risk of being a BOF, I’ll repeat my take on COP21: “Continuation Of Pause (in the) 21st C”

Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 6, 2015 3:10 am

🙂

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 6, 2015 3:44 am

Latest: France is re-instating border controls, that is suspending the Schengen treaty, “for the climate conference this month”. Question: do they want to keep the foreign loonies out or the home-grown loonies in? Any takers on my bet that, given the waves of migrants, they will not re-instate Schengen after the meeting has ended (in failure)?

AJB
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 6, 2015 6:46 am

The probable intent is to keep the various factions of looney apart …
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/france-reinstates-border-controls-un-climate-conference
A culmination of belly aches and control freakishness on multiple fronts – all the ingredients for another tear-shedding watershed moment in the continued history of mass political pendulum swings. Little wonder the interior minister is getting jumpy.

AJB
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 6, 2015 7:03 am

Reaction to WWF graphic artists spoiling for a riot perhaps? …
http://alternatives.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2015/07/43350.jpg

Dennis Bird
November 6, 2015 3:52 am

With the latest headlines about the New York attorney general investigating Exxon Mobil for hiding knowledge of climate change, I fear the insanity is just getting started. I find it hard to believe that rational human beings are on board for the dismantling of our economies to fix a non existent problem. Public support has eroded in this country as the lies have unfolded, but not in the rest of the world, as the destruction of the USA has been desired by many for a long time. Maybe I am dreaming and none of this is real.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Dennis Bird
November 6, 2015 8:44 am

Stop voting them in!!!

Boyfromtottenham
November 6, 2015 4:02 am

Hi from Oz. I have been thinking about this whole CAGW thing in a new light recently, which this article echoes – that maybe the proponents of CAGW are not about ‘saving the planet from CO2, but are all about divide and conquer, setting nation and region against each other, right down to the individual. but for what end?

November 6, 2015 4:14 am

Well said, the drones need to wake up before they find us all I the lobster pot, if we ate not there already. A $ billion a day industry is not going to go away quietly regardless of the facts.

richard verney
November 6, 2015 4:14 am

Of course this is all about wealth redistribution and nothing to do with the science or addressing any problems that might arise from climate change IF the EPA admits that the policy on reducing carbon-based energy and CO2 emissions “will reduce hypothetical global warming by an undetectable 0.02 degrees 85 years from now.” is a correct statement.
That statement should be a killer. It shows how completely pointless all of this is.

pat
November 6, 2015 4:30 am

no need to tell you, as Paris nears, the desperate CAGW zealots are doubling down:
6 Nov: SMH: Tom Arup: How climate change influenced Australia’s extreme weather in 2014
PHOTO CAPTION: Adelaide is the hottest city on the planet
On January 16, 2014, forecast temperatures for Adelaide surpassed all other cities in the world, although Kuwait City experienced a whole month of heatwave conditions with average temperatures above 46 degrees.
Scientists have linked climate change to several extreme weather events that hit Australia last year…
They are part of a series of new studies – published in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – examining the emerging scientific area of extreme weather “attribution”…
The results are largely drawn from computer modelling techniques comparing current climate conditions to pre-industrial times. They are then expressed as probabilities – a reflection that the climate system is influenced by natural and human factors, and that it is a developing area of scientific examination.
But the journal says recent scientific developments suggest that “event attribution that detects the effects of long-term changes on extreme events is possible”…
These studies were undertaken by researchers at the following institutions: American Meteorological Society; Bureau of Metrology; ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado; University of Melbourne; CSIRO.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-did-climate-change-influence-australias-weather-in-2014-20151030-gkmww3.html
American Meteorological Society: Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective
This BAMS special report presents assessments of how climate change may have affected the strength and likelihood of individual extreme events.
DOWNLOAD 2014 REPORT
https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

Ben Palmer
Reply to  pat
November 6, 2015 7:33 am

Your second to last URL leads to an editorial titled “How climate change influenced Australia’s extreme weather in 2014”. We are at a point where a term (climate) that is defined as “the prevailing general weather conditions over some decades” has now become a cause for itself. Climate change influences weather but is at the sam time the generic term for weather conditions over a longer period. In other words, the effect is caused by itself.

emsnews
November 6, 2015 5:23 am

As Europe explodes and burns as the liberal governments collapse due to a multi-million invasion of foreign men, we will have this attempt at destroying Europe’s economy by transferring wealth to warmer countries and cutting energy supplies to Europeans and Americans who will now experience a colder and colder planet as the sun causes a colder and colder climate for people who live in the northern sectors of this planet.
We are already closer to another Ice Age than a longer Interglacial. This information is concealed from the average person by our media that never, ever mentions this dire fact.

Auto
Reply to  emsnews
November 6, 2015 3:26 pm

ems
“cutting energy supplies to Europeans and Americans who will now experience a colder and colder planet as the sun causes a colder and colder climate for people who live in the northern sectors of this planet.”
. . . . cutting energy supplies to Europeans and Americans who will now experience a colder and colder planet as the sun causes a colder and colder climate for people who live in the more pole-ward latitudes of this planet.
Maybe this helps . . . .
Auto

Ron Clutz
November 6, 2015 5:57 am

Climate activists are also going to law courts to advance the cause, including a clause in the COP treaty. It could backfire. Background is here:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/objection-asserting-facts-not-in-evidence/

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Ron Clutz
November 6, 2015 7:31 am

Ron, in your reference you say:

An assembly of international supreme court judges discussed issuing a ruling to establish consensus science as legal fact.

Add that now growing attitude to the exponential rise in fundamentalism and I would guess we are not far from another ‘Dark Ages’. These do seem to appear every so often, when scientific knowledge starts accumulating too fast for the general populace to absorb the filter-down.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Joe Crawford
November 6, 2015 8:18 am

Yes, but it is not only that. Alarmist have not succeeded to convince the public to support their agenda, witness the US legislature in the hands of skeptics. So the alternative is to convince the judges, who are far fewer in number, but with the power to make it happen. We are left to hope that the legal system is able to apply rationality based upon legal precedents.

MarkW
Reply to  Joe Crawford
November 6, 2015 11:16 am

“We are left to hope that the legal system is able to apply rationality based upon legal precedents.”
That stopped being the case the minute the socialists got control of the legal system.

richard
November 6, 2015 6:08 am

in the supposed hottest decade with the largest population ever – the least famines-
http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agriculture/famines/#the-number-of-famine-victims-by-decade-1860s-2000s-max-roserref

Old'un
November 6, 2015 6:43 am

“Prime Minister David Cameron has said Britain would provide a one-time contribution of only $9 million. He has called renewable energy “green crap” and plans to end all “green” subsidies by 2025”.
Too late! The U.K. Electricity supply system is already in deep trouble due to successive government’s blind Green lunacy. This week industry had to shed load, and imports from France, Holland and Ireland maxed out to keep the lights on. The next mind boggling ‘strategy’ is a substantial contract for diesel generators to help out. Third World stuff.
Three of our remaining coal powered stations are due to close next April – heaven help us after that. And our industry already pays the highest price for lectricity in Europe.
AND we are sitting on forty to fifty years of shale gas reserves that the greens are determined to ensure is left in the ground and Government hasn’t the balls to fight for.
Climate Change is truly catastrophic for the UK, but not in the way Michael Mann and Co predicts.

sergeiMK
November 6, 2015 6:52 am

“Meanwhile, as a prelude to Paris, October 24 marked a full ten years since a category 3-5 hurricane last hit the United States. (Hurricane Wilma in 2005; Sandy hit as a Category 2.) That’s a record dating back at least to 1900. It’s also the first time since 1914 that no hurricanes formed anywhere in the Western Atlantic, Caribbean Sea or Gulf of Mexico through September 22 of any calendar year.”
I suppose other parts of the world do not figure in your mind. This seems pretty disastrous for some non Americans!
First system formed
January 2, 2015
Last system dissipated
Currently active
Strongest storm
Soudelor – 900 hPa (mbar), 215 km/h (130 mph) (10-minute sustained)
Total depressions
35
Total storms
25 official, 1 unofficial
Typhoons
16
Super typhoons
8 (unofficial)
Total fatalities
204 total
Total damage
$9.06 billion (2015 USD)

Ben Palmer
Reply to  sergeiMK
November 6, 2015 8:52 am

What’s an unofficial storm? A storm that was caused by unofficial global warming?

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  sergeiMK
November 6, 2015 9:45 am

Without showing those numbers vs. historical numbers, they are meaningless. Fact is ACE continues to show no trend. This year has a slight uptick, but to to record levels or even close. One year can not be used to show or prove anything.
Meanwhile, the “Major storms to hit continental USA is used, not because it is the only place that matters, but because it is the ONLY long term data series available. Pre-satallite, hurricane detection and recording was spotty at best. However, all major hurricanes to hit continental USA have been detected and recorded for well over 100 years.

November 6, 2015 7:18 am

With all this global warming going on, one must wonder…
is Paris burning???

johann wundersamer
November 6, 2015 7:19 am

We should lead from behind –
instead of with brains in our
behinds – on this new Treaty of Paris
Guest essay by Paul Driessen –
– so to say that greenerie in P.is just another pain in the a** .
really could be there’s other priorities in the queue –
Hans

johann wundersamer
November 6, 2015 7:52 am

since Tennessy William’s rainmaker in ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’
why not owing the contemporary world a touch of green shamanistic weathermaking, ClimateMaking based on ‘real Science’.
Regards – Hans

Bruce Cobb
November 6, 2015 8:32 am

Nothing says “leadership” like a gang of serial thieves, liars, and morons leading humanity off an economic cliff.
To stupidity and beyond!

Kurt in Switzerland
November 6, 2015 9:13 am

Looks like Trudeau’s newly-christened Environment and Climate Minister is excited to rack up the air miles and enjoy some foie gras and fine wine while simultaneously saving the planet next month.
http://www.desmog.ca/2015/11/05/canadas-new-climate-change-minister-excited-tackle-emissions-is-this-real

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
November 6, 2015 9:47 am

These new guys we have make me sick! Hopefully by the time any of the ‘due dates’ for this new treaty arrive, we have a new government that will ignor them; like what happend here for Kyoto.

Barbara
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
November 6, 2015 12:15 pm

Check out how the new Minister of Natural Resources got to be where he now is. This includes the Canadian oil and gas sectors. Goal is to shut down the extraction and transportation of Canadian fossil fuels.

Gary Pearse
November 6, 2015 9:24 am

“Developed nations are “historically responsible” for climate change, he argues, and must ensure “justice” for developing countries by fully funding the Green Climate Fund. India alone must receive $2.5 trillion!
This whole idea, invented by guilt-ridden, self-loathing, white, upper class, ‘progressive jerks, keeps coming back to kick us in the backside. A cost benefit analysis would show unequivocally that the third world has been a net beneficiary of the the techno-economic creations of the ‘West’ that produced this CO2. Corruption, tribalism, internal strife and waste prevented most of them from sustaining any momentum they might have derived from help that has been a steady stream for a good part of a century. There should be no undeveloped nations. They should be looking in the mirror.
In the last couple of decades, we have even outsourced most of the West’s manufacturing and even service industries to these countries – i.e. given them modern economies on top of the technological framework, medicines, humanitarian aid, communications, systems of justice and governance, education, sanitation …. that were given to them over half previous century. We even sustained them through incessant famines and plagues. And now I have to listen to one of these ingrates tell me we have to give up our economies to “ensure justice” a concept they even got from us.
This whole concept of “restitution” for what was DONE by the ‘West’ is ridiculous. Should we be going after Italians because of the colonization by the Romans who brought civilization to bands of wild warring germanic tribesman of Europe? Should Italians be suing for compensation for having been enlightened by the Greeks? A politically incorrect rant was well justified for this provocation and that is what such rants are for.

Luke
November 6, 2015 9:36 am

Talk about alarmism! “The 2015 Treaty of Paris could end what’s left of our democratic USA – and complete the “fundamental transformation” that the Obama Administration intends to impose by executive fiat.”
Please provide solid evidence from peer-reviewed research indicating that transitioning to renewables “could end what’s left of our democratic USA”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Luke
November 6, 2015 11:15 am

Even USSR citizens could vote. The only trouble was that there was only one choice. The Euroization of USA is what is being done – there is no difference now between political parties – they are all pretty much modern marxist culture. The UN is essentially and unabashedly anti-American and nearly all of its efforts have been to neutralize American economic and political power – only recently has it become so sucessful because your president puts Americans second and the Agenda first.
Finally American universties have become ever more socialistic – there aren’t many untenured profs around who would be allowed to research this and even fewer peers to okay it. We have seen professors in America and Australia lose their jobs because they didn’t toe the ideological line in climate science, for instance. Sometimes you have to forget about peer review and let some of your own observations tell you the score.

MarkW
Reply to  Luke
November 6, 2015 11:18 am

Because that’s the only way to force the people to accept renewables.

Barbara
Reply to  Luke
November 6, 2015 12:22 pm

No POTUS has the right to circumvent the U.S. Constitution! It’s up to the Congress, House and Senate, to see to it that this does not happen.

Reply to  Luke
November 7, 2015 3:06 pm

The TPP gives the UN power to make the US adhere to all of the EPA’s environmental laws, including anything agreed to in Paris. It also gives the UN power to veto any weakening of the EPA regulations at any point in the future. If we strictly enforce ALL of the current or future EPA regulations in EVERY state then we can be fined BILLIONS for damages and restitution. Below are some of the relevant sections.
Article 20.1: Definitions – Environmental Law
– for the United States, an Act of Congress or regulation promulgated pursuant to an Act of Congress that is enforceable by action of the central level of government;
(EPA currently has this power)
Article 20.12-9. Where a Party has defined the environmental laws under Article 20.1 to include only laws at the central level of government (first Party), and where another Party (second Party) considers that an environmental law at the sub-central level of government of the first Party is not being effectively enforced by the relevant sub-central government through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, the second Party may request a dialogue with the first Party. The request shall contain information that is specific and sufficient to enable the first Party to evaluate the matter at issue and an indication of how the matter is negatively affecting trade or investment of the second Party.
Article 20.15: Transition to a Low Emissions and Resilient Economy
1. The Parties acknowledge that transition to a low emissions economy requires
collective action.
Article 20.4: Multilateral Environmental Agreements
1. The Parties recognise that multilateral environmental agreements to which they are
party play an important role, globally and domestically, in protecting the environment andthat their respective implementation of these agreements is critical to achieving the environmental objectives of these agreements. Accordingly, each Party affirms its
commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements to which it is a party.
No Party shall fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws through a sustained or
recurring course of action or inaction in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties, after the date of entry into force of this Agreement for that Party.
If any country disputes that the US in NOT enforcing it’s climate laws then:
The dispute will be settled under Chapter 29 (Dispute Settlement)
According to Article 28.19: A panel consisting of Three members will determine the amount of compensation and damages to be awarded to the “injured” party.

Zeke
Reply to  alcheson
November 7, 2015 3:31 pm

alcheson November 7, 2015 at 3:06 pm
“The TPP gives the UN power to make the US adhere to all of the EPA’s environmental laws, including anything agreed to in Paris. It also gives the UN power to veto any weakening of the EPA regulations at any point in the future.”
Excellent post alcheson.

mark leskovar
Reply to  alcheson
November 7, 2015 3:36 pm

alcheson commented: “….The TPP gives the UN power to make the US adhere to all of the EPA’s environmental laws…… A panel consisting of Three members will determine the amount of compensation and damages to be awarded to the “injured” party.”
And who will be the enforcer? This is just like the wording in Agenda 21 and just about anything that comes out of the UN. They will make restitution demands and heap shame on those parties that dare break their word. But nothing more. How many countries really,….REALLY… will give up their sovereignty to the UN? It’s nothing but agreements between bureaucrats trying to force their will past the people because it’s their only chance. Look what’s happening with the grand EU experiment. Economic chaos and border fences being erected in direct violation of the “promises”. Wealth redistribution and ending class struggle are idealistic clap trap straight out of Marxist ideology that we’ve allowed to slowly creep into our lives because so far it’s been “no harm no foul” and the perpetrators have stealthily hidden under the protection of and operated from the UN.

Zeke
Reply to  mark leskovar
November 7, 2015 4:47 pm

Mark Leskovar
In the US Constitution treaties with foreign powers cannot trump the Constitution but they do trump the laws of the states. This is called the “Supremacy Clause.” This means that because of treaties signed with other nations, laws and domestic policies set by voters in states can be overridden by terms of treaties signed with hostile powers such as the UN.
The domestic state policies which have been affected by treaties with foreign nations are fishing and mining of our own coastal waters (Law of the Sea Treaty), energy and agriculture (current environmentalist treaties), educational policy (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ) and even abolishing gender differences and roles (The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)).
Now you can ask your own question again. Who would enforce these worthless agreements with UN countries which are not economically, religiously, or politically free? The courts will enforce it. They sometimes enforce treaties which have not been ratified, and rulings are often rendered as if they are common international law. And we do have vicious, rogue courts to do this job.

mark leskovar
Reply to  Zeke
November 7, 2015 7:36 pm

Zeke commented: “…In the US Constitution …. And we do have vicious, rogue courts to do this job.”
That’s a popular interpretation and I know the courts can make it even worse than you projected. But, your examples are what I would call ‘no brainers’ for the people to accept because they agree. Now tell those same people they must pay reparations for being successful, or take it to an extreme…that they must give up their guns…and what do you think would happen? In the last voting for climate agreement both parties had non supporters and supporters and the supporters far outweighed the dissenters. I think it will stay the same on the next vote. The state representatives don’t want to surrender national sovereignty to the UN. Why would they?

MrBungled
November 6, 2015 10:07 am

WOW, bravo, Mr. Driessen!

johann wundersamer
November 7, 2015 12:31 am

Gary, ‘they should’ –
A cost benefit analysis would show unequivocally that the third world has been a net beneficiary of the the techno-economic creations of the ‘West’ that produced this CO2.
Corruption, tribalism, internal strife and waste prevented most of them from sustaining any momentum they might
have derived from help that has been a steady stream for a good part of a century.
There should be no undeveloped nations. They should be looking in the mirror.
____
Gary, they won’t.
They cross diesel droven the mid terraninien sea
to seek
for their ‘former colonisators.’
advertising their last child workers volume generated.
Theyr type of ‘development’.
____
Regards – Hans

Mervyn
November 7, 2015 5:03 am

It has been blatantly obvious that these climate change charlatans do not even bother about the science on climate anymore. It’s been all about the ideology of environmentalism pushed by the United Nations. It’s about a redistribution of wealth. It’s about replacing the “economic model of the last 150 years”, as UNFCCC’s Christine Figueres put it, and imposing the UN’s AGENDA 21.

Kevin R.
November 7, 2015 12:05 pm

This treaty reminds me of the Treaty of Versailles. It’ll probably lead to a world war as well.

Zeke
November 7, 2015 4:23 pm

“What an unpalatable irony. The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War and created the United States.”
The Treaty of Paris was the Treaty which recognized the United States after the War of Independence was fought with England.
The use of the term Treaty of Paris is indeed a mockery of the birth of the US.
In other words, some ancient, vindictive and vengeful foe wants to return the past to a time before the US existed.
And the terms of the treaty will also, coincidentally work to set back the clock to the technological development of the 1700’s, which the Roman Pontifex Maximus informs us is “environmentally sustainable.” Not only the Pontifex Maximus but also the Academics, environmentalists, hippies, and other assorted fans of the medieval period.
Because the few free, open Protestant countries will now be brought back under the economic, religious, and political control of foreign interests, which we broke from.
There are plenty of podunk, dysfunctional little Catholic Colonies in the New World which will show you exactly how history played out for the places that did not break free in thought and rights from European powers and the Roman Church. Not much technology has come from those abusive little peonage systems. But they do produce more and more cocaine paste for the Cuban socialist dictators to sell to rich brats in the former free, open Protestant countries.

November 8, 2015 11:02 am

I just hope that they will also discuss the oceans, not only the emissions…. Here’s what COP21 means: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/100-000-000-000-us-per-year-for-waste/!

%d bloggers like this: