Final draft of #COP21 reached – with a 1 year "opt out" clause

Opinion by Anthony Watts

The COP21 clown show near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Image via 350.org Flickr account

The COP21 clown show near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Image via 350.org Flickr account

A final draft of the Paris climate agreement has emerged after days – and years – of negotiation. Laurent Fabius, the president of COP21, called the final draft text “differentiated, fair, dynamic, durable, balanced and legally binding.” French President Francoise Hollande urged leaders to accept the text, calling this an “historic day for mankind”. and adding “This would be a major leap for mankind.” Apparently, it’s a bigger moment for him that the moon landing in 1969, which was “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Of course, I’m not allowed to quote that, because Professor Lewandowsky thinks I think the moon landing was “faked”.

Climate delegates in the hall reportedly were breaking out in applause and standing ovations. I haven’t bothered to look for the predictable videos.

The final draft says countries will aim “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.

Right, I don’t think anyone will ever remember this agreement 100 years from now, we have bigger problems. The final draft will be brought up for discussion and a vote during a session starting at 3:45 p.m. Paris time.

If adopted, the agreement would constitute the first “universal climate agreement in history”, which sounds better than “galactic climate agreement” I suppose, probably because every time I hear the word “galactic” I think of that line from a Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise delivers a rant that seems apropos here:

Thank you for playing “should or should we not, follow the advice of the galactically stupid!

 

Even Dr. James Hansen, the “father of global warming” has picked up on the stupidity of the whole thing:

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Yep, it’s all just empty promises and speculation, even their wording pays homage to the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) models: (bold mine)

Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C,

Article 2 1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change

Oh, but wait, we may not make it, so let’s express some concern about it:

Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ˚C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below;

It will be interesting to see how this upcoming vote goes and who comes to their senses and says “no” to this toothless agreement that will accomplish nothing other than lining the pockets of some corrupt third-world regimes, likely resulting in the death’s and suffering of thousands that a little bit of warming could not accomplish on its own.

Oh, but let’s not dwell on negatives; there’s lots of patting themselves on the back going on right now, via the Guardian, some quotes from the parasitic rent seeking organizations NGO’s that attended:


Avaaz

“a turning point in history, paving the way for the shift to 100% clean energy that the world wants and the planet needs”

WWF UK

“We have a clear vision in the strong long term goal; mechanisms to address the gap between that aspiration and the countries’ current commitments; and the foundations for financing the transition to a low-carbon future.”

Greenpeace

“The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history. There’s much in the text that has been diluted and polluted by the people who despoil our planet, but it contains a new imperative to limit temperature rises to 1.5C.”

350.org

“This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels. There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground.”

Oxfam

“This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Only the vague promise of a new future climate funding target has been made, while the deal does not force countries to cut emissions fast enough to forestall a climate change catastrophe.”

EDF (Environmental Defense Fund)

The agreement will send a powerful, immediate signal to global markets that the clean energy future is open for business. It makes a moral call for dramatic action that leaves no one behind, and it moves us closer to the crucial turning point when global carbon emissions, which have been rising for more than two centuries, finally begin to decline.”

Christian Aid

“This is a historic agreement and the culmination of a path the world set out on four years ago.”

Cafod, Catholic aid agency

“For poor people living on the frontline of climate change this deal offers hope for a brighter future, but not yet the security that we’ll get there quick enough.”

E3G, thinktank

“The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring the end of the fossil fuel age.”

ActionAid

“what we have been presented with doesn’t go far enough to improve the fragile existence of millions around the world”


Here is the full text of the draft agreement via the UNFCC websitehttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

Don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t about wealth redistribution, and these two paragraphs clearly show, it’s nothing more than a handout from rich to poor which will probably end up getting diverted and used for anything but the intended emissions reductions, especially in corrupt regimes of Africa

53. Decides that, in the implementation of the Agreement, financial resources provided to developing countries should enhance the implementation of their policies, strategies, regulations and action plans and their climate change actions with respect to both mitigation and adaptation to contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the Agreement as defined in Article 2;

54. Further decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;

And the one year “out” clause, which I suspect will reach nearly 100% participation in a decade or so.

Article 28

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.

2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.

3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.


Note: shortly after publication, some punctuation and spelling errors were corrected, along with adding some clarifying text to the paragraph on RCP models. 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
skeohane

Since it got the ‘legally binding’ clause, this means congress has to approve it for he US, correct?

ShrNfr

Obama will pretend otherwise.

3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.

Legally bound to be not legally binding. Phew.

So will Congress . . . .

RWTurner

Fortunately for us there is an election in 2016. This tremendous financial obligation to cure planetary lycanthropy is great ammunition to persuade the reasonable swing voter to vote for not-Hillary.
The real monster looming is our monetary bubble, and that is scary. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Congress is supposed to have to declare any war that the US gets into. They have not done that since 1942 for WWII. Does that mean we have not fought in any wars since then? Hmmmm?
http://time.com/3399479/war-powers-bush-obama/
Then there is the whole “war on some drugs” thing. We had to change the constitution to outlaw alcohol (demon rum!), but the government thumbed its nose at the constitution when it when after other drugs. Many lives ruined over the unconstitutional outlawing of people smoking a little weed or whatever.
So, does “legally binding” really mean Obomber (in the urban dictionary for his use of drones in illegal wars) will need congress? Your guess as good as mine.

Walter Sobchak

“They have not done that since 1942 for WWII. ”
That is not true. Congress authorized the 1990 Gulf War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“That is not true. Congress authorized the 1990 Gulf War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
They did not declare war as the constitution requires. I don’t care if they passed some bill and delivered it with cookies and milk to the while house. The constitution demands that war be declared. But as one president is supposed to have said, “the constitution is just a god damn scrape of paper”.

Invading a sovereign nation is clearly an act of war. Therefore, an authorization to invade, IS a declaration of war. Just because they pussy-foot around and don’t use the word WAR, doesn’t mean they haven’t declared war. Congress likes to hide behind meaningless words.

hanelyp

G. H. W Bush had Congressional approval in Iraq. G. W. Bush made his case before Congress and obtained approval for action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The absence of the words “declaration of war” is irrelevant. The Congressional oversight the Constitution demands was satisfied.

John Peter

Sorry, but I thought that The USA declared war on Japan on 8 December 1941 shortly after Pearl Harbor.

Some here seem to not care if congress and the president conduct murderous actions overseas without the formal declaration of war required by the constitution. Some have wrote that any authorization of force is “good enough”. That sort of thinking is how we got involved around the globe in all manner of conflicts and “regime changes” — most of which we started. The quote below and the article it came from just happens to agree with my understanding and I don’t necessarily agree with everything the man writes. I also can say that I don’t recall ever running across a classical liberal (libertarian in modern speak) who would agree that any old bill out of congress is “good enough”, nor did any member of the “old right”.


In my book “The Next Decade,” I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.
World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110328-what-happened-american-declaration-war

The entire article is well worth your time to read, especially the part where the State went to war in Korea without the guts to declare war. (and sent my dad there to be a medic which is the only position on the battlefield where the man is unarmed as the enemy shoots at him)

TRM

No disrespect to those with other views but I agree with markstoval. The authorization to invade is not a declaration of war. It is as others have said “pussy footing” around it. The WWII was clearly a declaration of war. Everything since has not been.
That being said Mark and I are wrong according to the courts.
In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: “[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an ‘authorization’ of such a war.”[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional “Declaration of War” was not required by the Constitution.

Dennis Bird

Agreements don’t require Congressional approval, only treaties. Hence, the lack of Congressional approval for free trade agreements.

Walter Sobchak

That is also not true. Agreements between sovereigns that import legal obligations on them are called treaties. All treaties are agreements. Not all agreements are legally binding. Not all agreements are among sovereign nations.

ossqss
ossqss

Not necessarily, dang text to speech autocorrect!

Bubba Cow

yup, scary, and with real world problems, this is simply disgusting`

Yirgach

Congress will retaliate with a modern version of Smoot-Hawley, then it’s off to the races.

Lewis P Buckingham

A bit like being married then going through a no fault divorce. No strings.

You jest, of course.

brians356

“… likely resulting in the death’s …”
That’s “deaths” if you please, editor.

dccowboy

Well, it doesn’t actually commit anyone to do anything other than ‘set ambitious goals’. Well, it actually does do one concrete thing. It creates yet another huge bureaucracy to collect and ‘manage’ all of the ‘ambitious goals’ every 5 years and generate thousands of reports.

dccowboy

I forgot to say “generate thousands of reports that no one will actually read’.

FJ Shepherd

Now the 40,000 can happily jet back home and giggle about the huge carbon footprint they have created by travelling that way.

Jeff (FL)

Except the European locals who must be suffering Carbon Footprint envy. 🙂

Not to say £150.000.000 lighter for dubious privilege of hosting the jamboree.

Shepherd, there was actually a kiosk at the conference where the 40,000 could pay penance for their sins…
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/10/459223558/how-to-stay-carbon-neutral-when-getting-to-paris-is-carbon-costly

Justin

But the author said that most attending the conference didn’t pay up, lol.
I wonder what the guy sponsoring the carbon pennance booth had to pay to set up there? I went to the site Climate Neutral Now and it appears to be a massive scam. You donate money for projects because, presumably, you feel guilty for killing the Earth. You pay money, I’m guessing, to fund a clean energy project in another country, but in the end, don’t end up with any ownership in the project or its future earnings. I’m guessing that the “owners” of those projects will be charging market rates for the electricity those projects produce, and they’ll pocket the profits…
I’ve seen Nigerian phishing emails that were more convincing.

dccowboy

Reading this ‘agreement’ I was reminded of the scene in “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” with the bureaucrats meeting and making an agreement to save the planet from a meteor hit.

Mike from MA

Thanks for the update on the back slapping and whining about supposed deficiencies but…
How much will this nonsense cost the average bloke?

hanelyp

On the books direct cost, or off the books indirect costs through crashing what’s left of the economy?

Barbara

CBC News/ Calgary, Dec.7, 2015
‘Suicide rate in Alberta climbs 30% in wake of mass oil-patch layoffs’
Similar to the Detroit area situation c.2009 when the auto layoffs took place.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suicide-rate-alberta-increase-layoffs-1.3353662
Maybe some of the NGO groups have something to be proud of? (sarc-off)

co2islife

This video clip pretty much highlights how the IPCC and the AGW movement are really anti-capitalist movements. It is all politics and no science.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=49m20s

Terry Barnhart

Excellent video …..thank-you

Oddly enough I find the comments from Cafod (Catholic Agency For Overseas Development) the most incongruous of the whole thing. Cafod is a charity devoted to improving conditions for people in underdeveloped countries and they think it’s a good idea to permanently keep them all in dire energy poverty. And just in case that wasn’t enough to starve whatever crops they can manage to grow of co2 thus ensuring famine and disease. Oh, and better ban condoms while they’re about it to ensure the efficient spread of dangerous STDs. You simply couldn’t make this stuff up.

Alba

As a Catholic I almost totally agree. Unfortunately CAFOD is run by people who seem to be more concerned about being in the same team as all the other aid agencies than they are in reducing world poverty. Even more unfortunately they have the clear backing of the Pope. Many of his announcements are masterpieces in ambiguity but on this one he is absolutely clear. And the Catholic Church will be paying the price long after Francis is a footnote in history.
The bit were I disagree is in the silly comment about condoms.

+1

You certainly must mean that “dire energy poverty” equals “dire poverty”.

David Wells

If it meant that I did not have to listen to the BBC pontification about Co2 for the rest of my life I would willingly advocate a complete ban of fossil fuels because then these jumped up fallacious half wits would be denied the ability to transit the planet to persuade us that we should not have that ability.
And if our industry gets completely broken in the process then exactly how are we supposed to earn the money to give away.
As one – probably the only one – journalist with a brain said that if these people had an fewer brain cells they would need watering twice a day.
Exactly how dies electricity from a wind turbine translate into energy to find iron ore extract it move it to a port and load it on board a 380,000 ton ore oil carrier and provide the energy to move it across the oceans when iron ore can be turned into steel for the manufacture of wind turbine towers.
It really does prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you don’t need a brain to make money or become a rent seeking donation reliable imbecile in urgent need of treatment like getting banged up in a padded cell with the only relief offered being Al Gore’s film inconvenient truth being played 24/7 to reconfirm your beliefs so that you can die in peace.

Trebla

David: Re your question about creating and erecting wind towers. The answer is obvious. You extract the iron ore manually using picks and shovels (thereby creating employment). You transport it to port using a horse and a wagon (more employment, with a side order of manure for fertilizer to enhance food production the old fashioned way). Once onboard ship, you use sails – no problem, it was done in the past. As for manufacturing the steel, you use a hand operated bellows (a big one) generating yet more job opportunities. It’s simple, really. Ask any greenie.

Well, the Brits did run a world empire with no machines at all. Everyone loves the memory of those days, right?

Ziiex Zeburz

David, well said

Oldseadog

David Wells,
I once heard someone being told “If brains were mountains you would be a quarry.”
I like your watering idea better.

Jeff (FL)

I see that the goal seems to have shifted from limiting to 2C warming to limiting to 1.5C warming.
These people are so full of themselves, I;m surprised they didn’t try for a negative number.

barryjo

“..try for a negative number”. Maybe that is coming. But not by their hand.

Greg Everard

What bothers me is that since the whole cagw thing is a fallacy, the temperature targets will be easily achieved regardless of whatever ibecilic rules get enforced and they’ll claim that their intervention worked and use that to increase their power to cause more problems in the future. I think it was quite astute of them to change the meme from CO2 is bad to a temperature limit which allows them to impose anything they like in the name of temperature reduction.

David A

“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”
==========================================================================
Oh oh, how do we tell them they are already to late? According to the new pause denier surface record, we are already at 1.9 degrees. Doomed again.

Duncan

It will accomplish one thing, it will provide justification for increasing or adding taxes in the name of going ‘green’ while maintaining a clear conscience (or is that con-science?). Yes, I am looking at you Mr Trudeau.

Bill Reynolds

Our planets first universal Orwellian nightmare where trillions are spent to fix a none problem and then in 25 years with no warming success is declared by all
vested parties.

Ivor Ward

I suddenly feel a warm glow knowing the planet has been saved……….No…wait…..that was my gas fired central heating coming on.

Bruce Cobb

Pardon me if I don’t bother reading the text daft draft agreement, as my tolerance for bafflegab, double-speak, and other forms of perfidy, all as attempts of both wealth-transfer and jumping off economic cliffs for no reason is somewhat low.

Todd Foster

Successful conferences generate unanimous resolutions. And the purpose of government Is the production of regulations. Both self congratulate themselves on their successful functioning with the awed approval of the popular press.
All that fabulous French haute cuisine and fine wine was well deserved. Then those VIP’s had to blast through the stratosphere in their private jets to return more quickly to their valuable work.

Ivor Ward

I suddenly feel a warm glow knowing the planet has been saved……….No…wait…..that was my gas fired central heating coming on.
I demand my extra two degrees NOW!

Harry Passfield

Ivor: TWO?? I wanted three…..Singing the anthem for future COPs (hope this works….)
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6fVDAjs9f0&w=640&h=360%5D

Marcus

Lip syncing is never impressive !! Now, those legs…that’s impressive !!!!

katesisco

Could be worse…..I just turned 69, have been in this house–same age as me—with a modern gas furnace (2010 Goodman) installed in the place of the old wood/coal still lurking in the corner for a year now. My house inspector for Rural Development looked at the furnace in Aug and decided the fact that it was installed to blow heat thru the two cold air returns a non-essential fact that could and was omitted from his report. Other than a visit from HVAC company out of town to tell me it was backward no one seems concerned. Realtors pooh-poohed my concerns, RD says sell, and I am compos mentos enough to know a law suit would generate laughs up to the day of foreclosure emergence when all legal data is wiped out.
My best guess is that the basement conditions were well known—high humidity, single pane basement windows, uninsulated concrete walls, uninsulated metal ductwork which all combined to cool the heat traversing the ceiling ductwork so that when it emerged from the ducts a foot high on the outside walls it was cool. Uselessly cool. So the furnace was set reversed to blow thru the close to furnace cold return duct and be drawn across the floor to the outer wall duct opening. But it was substituting one problem for another because this created such a strong draw that the air rushed across the floor cooling itself. And the furnace cool-down left the hall cool.
Guess what I did? I plugged the air opening in my small den where I basically lived last winter. Hoping to have a warmer house this winter, I plugged two more. Silly me. I woke up for my nightime wee and threw up several times between which I opened the bathroom window and lay on the floor. Still no HVAC people would respond to my call for repairs so I assume it was carbon monoxide from poor combustion–not enough air? I am using electric heaters with the circuit breaker for the furnace turned off and Thank Goodnessing the El Nino event.
[Yes, get it fixed. Immediately. .mod]

emsnews

There is the ancient curse: ‘May your wishes come true.’ The global warmists want it colder. I fear they will get their wish sooner than they realize.

Robert of Ottawa

Yes. My response to any Canadian idiot Politician prattling on about carbon emissions is to ask them: “How much colder do you want to make Canada?”

mrmethane

My question would be: “how much personal income will you, yourself, derive from any Carbon tax or trading or offset scheme?” We keep forgetting to follow the money…

Alberta Oil Guy

To quote a line from another Tom Cruise movie, “Risky Business”
“It’s all bull$hit Joel. I’m surprised you listened to me at all”

The “One year” opt out is actually 4 years. The option to opt out does not exist for three years. After three years a notification can be made of intent to opt out. The opt out process takes an additional year to finalize. Countries accepting the agreement are thus locked in for 4 years,

That is how I read it too!

oeman50

Somebody has to say it…The “opt out” is actually a “COP out.”

MRW

Which is one year less than the five years of secrecy imposed on the TPP, TTIP, ETC treaties..

Jl

President Cruz, or Trump or Rubio can cancel it at any time unless the Senate ratifies it as a treaty, which they won’t do.

Still waiting for a good set of studies showing where the climate trend is in relation to the optimum for our biosphere and especially for food crops. Although Canadian farms report they can raise grain crops at 60 degrees north, any cooling moves that line south and every km it moves takes tens of thousands of hectares out of production. The climate madness also induces governments to mandate or subsidze biofuels that have the effect of making food crops compete against crude oil though cost and substitution linkage. This is sooo foolish.

Barbara

There is only a narrow band across Canada where food can be grown and the kinds of food crops grown depends on the temperature ranges within this narrow band.

Steve McIntyre

The one-year opt-out clause is identical (up to minor words) to the corresponding clause in the original 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – which, by the way, is interesting to compare.

So….if you withdraw from the Convention, then you are deemed to have withdrawn from the agreement.
But… just like the Agreement, you can’t withdraw for three years after signing, and then with one year notice
Except…. most countries at this meeting have ALREADY been in the Convention for three years
So…depending on how you want to read it, it seems to me that anyone who has been in the Convention for at least three years could get out of both the Convention and the Agreement with only one year notice?

Latitude

David, it’s more simple than that…
…just stop doing it at any time
There’s no penalty.

Latitude

well ok…maybe a sternly worded letter

Ian

Without substantive involvement of the US, there is no agreement. And without congressional approval, there will be no substantive involvement of the US. So, unless the GOP blows it in November, this is merely a $1B-expensive Photo Op. It’s real purpose is to keep the valve open – for much more of the same.
The GOP has about 10 months to solidify its case.

TRM

And without China and India cutting the rate of growth of their emissions there will be no slowdown in the release of human CO2 into the atmosphere. Good thing too because plants are doing great all over the world.

James Hansen must have a very short memory, be unreasonably or obsessively anxious and have a totally unrealistic belief in own capabilities:
1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008:
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
By such dire predictions United Nations established the heavily biased IPCC:
IPCC was heavily biased from the very beginning
By such dire predictions United Nations departed from it´s charter and started it´s war on skepticism:
United Nations was supposed to solve problems of an international cultural character – not to become one!
I think it is time again to be reminded about the key to science. Enjoy this 1 minute clip with Feynman:
https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0

Edmonton Al

That is a great clip. No BS just straight factual info

Patrick Bols

are we now going to borrow money from China to pay subsidies to China? The US and Europe are broke but the liberals/socialists have no clue what that means. Just spend the money – China will happily lend it to us and then hang us by the rope we bought with it. This is the story of the downfall of great nations, from Rome to now – rotting from the inside.

Ernest Bush

The liberals/ socialists (i.e. fascists) will simply print more money to hand out, thus devaluing the currency further and making it ever hard for those who are working to bring good food to their tables. The only good thing here is what happens when it all falls apart. They will be suffering with everybody else, except they will be clueless. May they all starve to death (my fantasy for Arnold Schwarzenneger). Of course, they would probably be blaming it all on global warming, or Bush, or anybody but themselves with dying breath.

PiperPaul

Climate delegates in the hall reportedly were breaking out in applause and standing ovations.
Self-congratulation, high fives and victory laps for all government-funded Parisites involved in the accomplishment of nothing other than spending billions of taxpayer dollars.

Jim Barker

Still waiting for the agreement to put clown noses on windmills.

I just love Oxfam’s “This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.”
You mean the minute they get hold of it it will snap?

theorichel

Shouldnt we express happiness that thios Conference has resulted only in empty pledges and not in concrete economy crippling commitments as we have feared? Maybe the GWPF or the Open Atmospheric Soc should communicate : ‘Climate Skeptics elated about results of Cop21’.

richard verney

The final draft says countries will aim “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.

Well, I guess that Australia is fine since it is a net sink.
Some of the developing countries will be screwed since the OCO-2 data shows them to be sources.

TonyL

Josh had it right every step of the way.

knr

‘taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;’ that of course can be summed up in one word that is ‘endless’ , if you think that will be no point at which people stop throwing free money at you, why would you tell them to stop ?
Although it is true that money shake down which is the reason many are there in the first place does gets a heads up , you can note that it is a quantified goal , which of course means you may never get there at all , as its a ‘goal ‘ and how you get this ‘quantified’ remains a mystery.
Even at the best of times there was little chance of this cash being available, and this far from the best of times.
The changes to lower value than 2 does give them a ‘out’ , given that with no change at all ,2 looks very unlikely to ever happen , they can claim a ‘victory’ no matter what occurs even if its decrease in temperature , as long as ‘something is done’ even if its no where near what was claimed ‘had to be done’ they can and will the state the only reason that temperatures have not increased has they claimed they ‘must ‘ was becasue their actions saved us from ‘climate doom’ They live and breath ‘heads you lose , tails I win ‘ so will have no issues with this idea.
I am only sad I could not get some money down on the bet , that whatever came out it would simultaneous be claimed as a ‘victory ‘ and also a ‘failure’ depending on the shade of green the reader was wearing.

heysuess

Prepare now for wide-spread acceptance of ‘the pause’, as this surreal group finds a way to take credit for the cessation of global warming.

Yes, the idea was to get an agreement before the temps started falling and claim that CO2 restrictions were the reason. They will take credit for the pause and for the fall in temps to follow.

Oatley

Follow the money.

Why so I get the feeling that the US is the only country that will comply with the letter of this “law”?

John
To date the UK is the only country in the world to have a legally binding climate change act to reduce emissions. The US didn’t even sign up to Kyoto
How this will get through your senate bearing in mind the US refused to sign anything legally binding AND the text calls for everyone to reach the targets set our in Kyoto is anyone’s guess.
tonyb

mikewaite

An interesting comment from Owen Paterson , (the UK environment minister who was sacked by Cameron for disagreeing with Green organisations over the Somerset flooding), about the Climate Change Act in today’s Telegraph (written on the eve of the final agreement) :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12046531/Why-we-have-to-scrap-the-Climate-Change-Act.html
Apparently the Act could be sidelined :
“Clause 2 of the act enables the Secretary of State to amend the 2050 target, which could have the immediate effect of suspending it. To avoid failure in 10-20 years time, that decision must be taken now. ” –

AnonyMoose

Aren’t these financial promises all based on Article 11 of the Kyoto Protocol? The U.S. didn’t ratify Kyoto, so should not give any money under it.

Bruce Cobb

It’s an historic, breakthrough Climate Pig! They all agree, so it must be true.
Wait, is that a new shade of lipstick?

John M

veni, visa, vamoose
I came, I wined & dined, I’m outta here!

: )
John

George Tetley

Is it true ! the end of climate conferences, it has been reported that the next one is to be held in Gambia , ( per capita income $488 per year ) With 40,000 delegates arriving at a cost of + – $50,000 each for 2 weeks, plus 50 billion dollars to build the 5 star infrastructure.etc, etc

John F. Hultquist

“the end of climate conferences”
But no, the next one is in Washington, D.C. next May.
See the count-down clock here: Climate Action 2016

Juan Slayton

Classic.

cassandra

Just speed read the Final Draft! Surprise, surprise! All requests, urging and basic generalities and aspirations. Not worth the paper it’s written on and certainly not any substantiation for the massive amounts of money wasted and CO2 emitted, not just during the last 2 weeks but during the very many prior meetings and conferences leading up to it. It’s even got a cop out clause creating a “Get out of Jail” card for any country subsequently realising that even this “agreement” was too much of a liability
No doubt the politicians, senior bureaucrats and “celebrities” attending this “jolly” will come away with the satisfaction of having something else to almost sate their self-righteousness, another saintly endeavour to add to their CV’s for the future, and many global contacts that they can put on their future mutual backscratching schedules!

I read it carefully. A massive actual fail. Differentiation live and well in 2.3, despite Kerry pointing out in his speech that this guarantees Paris fails to meet its primary CO2 reduction objective. No INDC transparency despite 4.8; the bodies are buried in preamble paragraph 27. No loss/damage liability despite 8.2; the bodies are explicitly buried in preamble paragraph 52. No guaranteed amounts of GFC funding; 9.1 only says developed countries shall provide financing without saying how much. The Group of 77 ‘bribe’ promise is relegated to preamble 54, which is as meaningless as Copenhagen. ‘Intend to maintain a $100 billion/year goal floor’ does not say anything about actual funding. Unfunded financial goals as real as unicorns. Nothing is binding except resubmitting INDCs every five years (unless you are the Group of 77, where even that got a pass).
The warmunist ‘success’ PR spin is beyond the pale. Yes there is a piece of paper from Paris. But it means and does NOTHING.

rogerknights

This ought to be the kernel of a new thread.

Bob Lyman

I read it carefully as well and came to the same conclusions. It left me wondering about two things. First, with such an empty agreement (except, of course, from the perspective of international bureaucrat offered almost endless opportunities to create new positions), how will the western governments who have staked so much political capital on this manage to communicate the results as though they were a victory? My guess is that there will be a great deal of crowing about the meaningless 1.5 degree C. “target” and the “victory for global justice” represented by the repetition of the $100 billion per year aid commitment. There probably will be no end of imaginative fiction-writing devoted to that. Second, in light of the abject failure to achieve a publicly binding agreement, what kinds of secret behind-the-scenes deals were made or will be made in consequence?

ristvan – it would be really nice for lazy people like me if you could write this up as a guest post.

MRW

So when do the 195 countries vote on this?

Now
tonyb

cassandra

And if the few on the UN Security Council often can’t agree, then what chance these 195 will? Don’t hold your breath!

Bubba Cow
Ernest Bush

Is that photo from the area? If so, I want to save it for when the propaganda starts. Of course there may be many more like it from the area if they all came from the same contractor. They make good monuments for the stupidity of the global warming/green energy crowd.

Bubba Cow

Arlington, WY apparently
I grabbed the photo from here –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/wind-power-gets-bent-out-of-shape-in-wyoming/

Thanks Bubba – a symbolic picture that’s worth a thousand snarks!

Thanks, Bubba Cow, I can’t get enough pictures of busted or burning windmills – the folly of the greens.

G. Karst

When cooling causes CO2 levels to drop we can declare success as we continue to cool into another LIA. The standing ovations and prizes will flood academia. The starving people and collapsing economies will be met with overwhelming glee. Can I opt out… (giving my notice of intent now). GK

Ernest Bush

Cooling will not necessarily cause CO2 levels to drop. Less plants due to increasing cold will probably cause the levels to rise. If you can believe the data, CO2 levels can skyrocket during real ice ages because of plant die off. The cold atmosphere will not stop volcanoes from belching CO2.

kevin kilty

The world seems in the grip of a massive delusion not at all different from those Charles Mackay described in his 1842 treatise except that it is much larger, and thus more dangerous by way of global communications.
There are so many ways to escape this agreement it will never be enacted widely. Unfortunately we in the U.S. are currently in the grip of the most delusional Administration of all time.

vounaki

The Madness Collective in full cry.

John M

prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;

Looks to me like they only reiterated the goal from the failed Copenhagen conference, which countries don’t look like they’re going to meet ($100 B by 2020). They’ve just sweetened the pie a tad by essentially saying “You know all those previous promises we made? Well, we’re gonna make even bigger promises somewhere down the line.”
If developing countries do indeed vote to pass this, based on their earlier heated rhetoric complaining about previous broken public promises, they are either fools or they’ve been promised something under-the-table by Kerry and/or the EU.
I guess though, there’s always hope for the faithful…

BrianMcL

I see that one of the contributors to the UK’s Guardian website is complaining that this agreement commits us to “climate breakdown”. I kid you not!
Given that climate is the average of weather, can we now add the destruction of statistical analysis to John Brignell’s list of things that CO2 will cause? /sarcoff

BrianMcL

In fact, said contributor is none other the George Monbiot. So it must be true!

Alan Robertson

Ah, Monbiot, one of the most- favored activists deployed by NPR in their climate change propaganda broadcasts.

Tom Judd

My understanding is that life originated in the sea. Some different theories have emerged but the original offers, I think, the best explanation. This is because I believe that the migration of those original sea creatures onto land represents the long process toward the ultimate ending of life. Therefore life could not have originated and developed anywhere but in the sea if it regresses and ends on land.
Allow me to explain. The earliest forms of life must’ve been the unicellular organisms which became ever so slightly more sophisticated to develop into what would be the creation of the animal world in the form of the Amoeba. The next step would appear to be the sponge: All those individual cells came together to create something big enough that one could see it; assuming there was anything like eyes back then. But, all those cells comprising the sponge are identical; they can essentially live on their own. Next came the organization of those cells into, well, organs where each group of cells had a specific function, and without the assistance of other groups that also had their own, but different, function they’d kiss their a•s•s goodbye.
Did I just say ‘kiss their a… goodbye?’ Well, that bring us to those more sophisticated animals that succeeded the sponges. I’m not certain but I believe that would be the coelenterates; corals, anemones, hydras. If one looks, they’ll quickly notice that these animals are basically one big a•s•s. Technically; this means that their mouth and their anus are the same thing. So, if one group of organized cells stopped offering their assistance the animal would, in the most literal sense of the term, truly kiss it’s a… goodbye.
Having a mouth that is also an anus is probably ok for an organism without a brain. But, as brains came into being a solution had to be sought. I think we can all agree that, for a sentient being, the idea of having a mouth that’s also an anus would not just be profoundly unappealing; it would also cause problems out the, um, a•s•s. For instance, kissing your child goodbye could generate a call to DCFS. Or, let’s imagine what would happen to Hollywood receipts if a movie script called for a passionate kiss. Ick. And, think of how disrupting that might be during a presidential State of the Union address.
See, what I mean? For life on this planet to advance the anus absolutely had to be separated from the mouth. And, eons ago, this grand evolutionary feat occurred before life crawled, slithered, paddled, or wormed its way out of the seas.
And, now what do we see? After several excruciating days of watching COP 21 in Paris it has become quite clear. It’s taken a while in the de-evolutionary phase but it’s now quite clear that crap is also being discharged from the delegates’ mouths. The mouth has now, once again, also become the anus.

Rob

I’ll simply increase my personal carbon footprint to offset “all” of this-Lol

PaulH

The photograph at the top of this article is very telling. Note the crowd of people carrying plenty of oil-product items of modern comfort: flags, banners, umbrellas, parkas, etc. Mostly nylon or other similar carbon-based manufactured products. Not to mention the cellphones on display and in people’s pockets.
And I realize it’s just one rather wide-angle photo, but how many people of color do you see in that rally? It’s like finding Waldo… I think I see one person of color near the bottom left. But other than that, it’s a sea of white guilt meets white privilege. Typical for the CAGW scare mongers.

Owen

How right you are. If you sincerely and genuinely believe in change you start with yourself. http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/the-hayride-it-is-unwise-for-leftists-to-challenge-dsouza/ is an epic statement on everyone else has to change first. It is the breathless arrogance of the warmists and lefties I abhor.

Spongsdad

Now that COP21 is finally over (it IS over isn’t it?), can we please get back to the real world and its real challenges and leave the Almighty to get on with overseeing Mother Nature? If we’d spent more time trying to eliminate genuine causes of atmospheric pollution such as NOx. rather than Carbon dioxide, the gas which, sine qua non, sustains the cycle of life, we would all be in a better situation and, I daresay, considerably better off.

Retired Engineer Jim

Is this text really saying that we are to work to a set of goals not yet identified?
“… in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below;”
The nations of the world are going to bind themselves, legally, to levels not yet identified. That is one big, scary, TBD.

Pete Russell

All the COP21 info points to limiting global average temperature (GAT) to 2ºC ( or at a stretch, 1.5ºC) over pre-industrial levels. Where are pre-industrial levels defined? UK MO defines pre-industrial GAT as average temp over the period 1850-1900, is this the definition being used? Whose dataset will be used to measure when we get to 1.5 or 2ºC? Or will they actually measure limiting CO2 to 40 gigatonnes (2ºC), or is 30 gigatonnes (1.5ºC)?

pochas94

This should not be submitted for ratification. It should simply be ignored. Next we’ll have the Mayor of Vanuatu submitting stuff.

Climate charade?
Yes, and for developed nations the tickets are not free while developing nations get paid to attend the show.
Atmospheric concentrations of man-caused CO2 have very little influence in the total CO2 concentration, if at all. And atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have very little influence in the global temperature, if at all. This is the situation I see, unless scientifically proven to be otherwise. Call me skeptic, I am.