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


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


“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.”


“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.”

“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.”


“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.”


“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 website

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. 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 12, 2015 7:23 am

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

Reply to  skeohane
December 12, 2015 8:03 am

Obama will pretend otherwise.

Reply to  ShrNfr
December 12, 2015 9:03 am

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.

Reply to  ShrNfr
December 12, 2015 12:33 pm

So will Congress . . . .

Reply to  ShrNfr
December 12, 2015 2:21 pm

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.

Reply to  skeohane
December 12, 2015 8:05 am

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?
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
Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 8:15 am

“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.

Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 8:37 am

“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”.

Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 9:18 am

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.

Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 9:32 am

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
Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 10:19 am

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

Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 10:35 am

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.

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)

Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 3:12 pm

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
Reply to  skeohane
December 12, 2015 8:13 am

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

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Dennis Bird
December 12, 2015 8:26 am

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.

Reply to  skeohane
December 12, 2015 9:07 am
Reply to  ossqss
December 12, 2015 9:33 am

Not necessarily, dang text to speech autocorrect!

Reply to  ossqss
December 12, 2015 9:36 am

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

Reply to  ossqss
December 12, 2015 1:19 pm

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

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  skeohane
December 12, 2015 1:39 pm

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

Reply to  skeohane
December 12, 2015 3:32 pm

You jest, of course.

Reply to  skeohane
December 12, 2015 8:54 pm

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

DC Cowboy
December 12, 2015 7:25 am

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.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  DC Cowboy
December 12, 2015 7:26 am

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

FJ Shepherd
December 12, 2015 7:29 am

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)
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
December 12, 2015 7:42 am

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

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 12, 2015 9:07 am

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

Reply to  FJ Shepherd
December 12, 2015 10:55 am

Shepherd, there was actually a kiosk at the conference where the 40,000 could pay penance for their sins…

Reply to  naggme
December 12, 2015 11:30 am

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.

DC Cowboy
December 12, 2015 7:30 am

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
December 12, 2015 7:30 am

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

Reply to  Mike from MA
December 12, 2015 9:54 am

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

Reply to  hanelyp
December 12, 2015 11:00 am

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.
Maybe some of the NGO groups have something to be proud of? (sarc-off)

December 12, 2015 7:30 am

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.

Terry Barnhart
Reply to  co2islife
December 12, 2015 8:34 am

Excellent video …..thank-you

December 12, 2015 7:33 am

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.

Reply to  cephus0
December 12, 2015 9:24 am

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.

Reply to  Alba
December 12, 2015 4:08 pm


Reply to  cephus0
December 12, 2015 12:37 pm

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

David Wells
December 12, 2015 7:40 am

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.

Reply to  David Wells
December 12, 2015 8:36 am

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.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Trebla
December 12, 2015 3:00 pm

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

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  David Wells
December 12, 2015 8:55 am

David, well said

Reply to  David Wells
December 12, 2015 10:47 am

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)
December 12, 2015 7:40 am

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.

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 12, 2015 8:00 am

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

Greg Everard
Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 13, 2015 3:47 am

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
December 12, 2015 7:44 am

“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.

December 12, 2015 7:44 am

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
December 12, 2015 7:46 am

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
December 12, 2015 7:47 am

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
December 12, 2015 7:48 am

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
December 12, 2015 7:51 am

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
December 12, 2015 7:56 am

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
Reply to  Ivor Ward
December 12, 2015 11:41 am

Ivor: TWO?? I wanted three…..Singing the anthem for future COPs (hope this works….)

Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 12, 2015 1:55 pm

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

Reply to  Ivor Ward
December 12, 2015 2:34 pm

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]

December 12, 2015 7:56 am

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
Reply to  emsnews
December 12, 2015 8:24 am

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?”

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 12, 2015 9:03 am

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
December 12, 2015 8:02 am

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”

December 12, 2015 8:03 am

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,

Reply to  Lee Kington
December 12, 2015 8:43 am

That is how I read it too!

Reply to  Lee Kington
December 12, 2015 8:44 am

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

Reply to  Lee Kington
December 12, 2015 9:10 am

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

Reply to  Lee Kington
December 12, 2015 12:58 pm

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.

December 12, 2015 8:08 am

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.

Reply to  buckwheaton
December 12, 2015 10:26 am

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
December 12, 2015 8:10 am

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.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 12, 2015 8:45 am

Lee Kington
December 12, 2015 at 8:03 am
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.

Reply to  Steve McIntyre
December 12, 2015 11:11 am

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?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 12, 2015 1:49 pm

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

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 12, 2015 1:50 pm

well ok…maybe a sternly worded letter

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 12, 2015 2:22 pm

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.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 12, 2015 3:27 pm

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.

Science or Fiction
December 12, 2015 8:12 am

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:

Edmonton Al
Reply to  Science or Fiction
December 12, 2015 11:10 am

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

Patrick Bols
December 12, 2015 8:18 am

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
Reply to  Patrick Bols
December 12, 2015 9:38 am

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.

December 12, 2015 8:19 am

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
December 12, 2015 8:20 am

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

December 12, 2015 8:22 am

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?

December 12, 2015 8:25 am

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
December 12, 2015 8:25 am

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.

December 12, 2015 8:35 am

Josh had it right every step of the way.

December 12, 2015 8:35 am

‘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.

December 12, 2015 8:35 am

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.

Reply to  heysuess
December 12, 2015 4:02 pm

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.

December 12, 2015 8:48 am

Follow the money.

December 12, 2015 8:49 am

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

Reply to  John Allan Wilson
December 12, 2015 9:32 am

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.

Reply to  climatereason
December 12, 2015 11:41 am

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) :
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. ” –

Reply to  climatereason
December 13, 2015 8:11 am

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
Reply to  John Allan Wilson
December 12, 2015 10:18 am

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
December 12, 2015 8:50 am

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

John Whitman
Reply to  John M
December 12, 2015 9:07 am

: )

George Tetley
Reply to  John M
December 12, 2015 9:09 am

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
Reply to  George Tetley
December 12, 2015 1:05 pm

“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
Reply to  John M
December 12, 2015 10:35 am


December 12, 2015 9:07 am

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!

Reply to  cassandra
December 12, 2015 10:19 am

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.

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 12:55 am

This ought to be the kernel of a new thread.

Bob Lyman
Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 5:36 am

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?

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 11:45 am

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

December 12, 2015 9:17 am

So when do the 195 countries vote on this?

Reply to  MRW
December 12, 2015 9:28 am


Reply to  climatereason
December 12, 2015 10:00 am

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

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 12, 2015 9:46 am

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.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
December 12, 2015 10:40 am

Arlington, WY apparently
I grabbed the photo from here –

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 12, 2015 11:31 am

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

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 12, 2015 11:39 am

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

G. Karst
December 12, 2015 9:26 am

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
Reply to  G. Karst
December 12, 2015 9:52 am

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
December 12, 2015 9:28 am

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.

December 12, 2015 9:30 am

The Madness Collective in full cry.

John M
December 12, 2015 9:31 am

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…

December 12, 2015 9:31 am

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

December 12, 2015 9:33 am

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  BrianMcL
December 12, 2015 9:53 am

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

Tom Judd
December 12, 2015 9:36 am

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.

December 12, 2015 9:43 am

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

December 12, 2015 9:51 am

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.

Reply to  PaulH
December 12, 2015 10:21 am

How right you are. If you sincerely and genuinely believe in change you start with yourself. is an epic statement on everyone else has to change first. It is the breathless arrogance of the warmists and lefties I abhor.

December 12, 2015 10:00 am

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
December 12, 2015 10:08 am

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
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
December 16, 2015 8:21 pm

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)?

December 12, 2015 10:09 am

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

December 12, 2015 10:15 am

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.

December 12, 2015 10:20 am

190 countries are attending this socialist love fest, but 185 are only there because the thought they were going to get trillions of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY !!!

Reply to  Marcus
December 12, 2015 12:02 pm

190 countries…….185 get paid……5 pay
Let’s vote on it………….

Bob Weber
December 12, 2015 10:37 am

It’s the “democratic” way these totalitarians behave that’s particularly irksome.
Nothing could be clearer than the outright manipulation used to cement any agreement here – shades of the Obamacare vote – where everyone was railroaded up to the last minute, when a replacement text was revealed, when no one had time or would make the time to read it before voting, where blatant misrepresentations were used to support the process, where intimidation and slander awaited dissenters…
Whatever is signed on to will make no difference whatsoever to the climate, because CO2 emissions don’t drive temperatures, solar variation does. It is that simple.
The sun caused global warming.
Sunspot activity was 65% higher for the 70 years of the modern solar maximum from 1935.5-2004.5, when the annual average SSN was 108.5, than it was during the previous 70 years from 1865.5-1934.5, when it averaged 65.8, using
TSI, which statistically tracks w/sunspot number over solar cycle lengths, was higher during the modern maximum period (from Dr. Kopp at LASP, where the SORCE TSI data is maintained):comment image
The v1 SIDC SSNs were 89% higher during the modern maximum, vs 65% for v2.
High TSI in 2015 enhanced the El Nino and brought barely ‘record’ high temperatures during the year. Even though it’s the lowest SSN cycle in 100 years, SC24 was (and is) still potent.
In order, from high to low, annual average TSI from
2015, 1361.4512
2014, 1361.3966
2013, 1361.3587
2012, 1361.2413
2011, 1361.0752
2003, 1361.0262
2004, 1360.9192
2010, 1360.8027
2005, 1360.7518
2006, 1360.6735
2007, 1360.5710
2009, 1360.5565
2008, 1360.5382
Sep, 1361.1063
Oct, 1361.3139
Nov, 1361.3688
TSI was also higher for most of October and November, compared to September, driving Nov/Dec temps upward: image
Watch high TSI build higher warm water volume (WWV) through Oct/Nov:comment image
The WWV near the SW Mexican coast, and the Gulf of Mexico/Central Atlantic regions was the source of major recent rains in the US, UK, & Ireland (Cumbrian Floods) – all high-TSI driven:
Every bit of the increase in temps since 2008 is from the rise in TSI during SC24. Enjoy it while lasts, solar minimum is on the way… It took 6-7 years for TSI to drop to it’s lowest levels in 2008, and UAH temps followed. SSTs had a similar dip for 2008, also tracking TSI.
El Nino has peaked, as SSTs and OHC have declined over the past few months:
Had3SST global Sep 0.725; OHC 1.04
Had3SST global Oct 0.699; OHC 1.03
Had3SST global Nov 0.694; OHC 0.93,
2016 will NOT be a record year as there will be no long duration outstanding TSI peak as in 2015. Solar activity is scheduled to decline for many years to come:
The warmists’ ‘agreement’ will be rendered a moot point by the sun.

Matt G
Reply to  Bob Weber
December 12, 2015 2:12 pm

It’s noise the alarmist claim? What noise?
Despite the ongoing El Nino overlaying nearly 2 years, the change in global temperatures using RSS lag the change in sun spots quite closely as shown below.
This shows without doubt that solar activity controls El Ninos and resulting global temperatures along with this below.
The central Pacific surface upper 200-300 m also flows eventually into the Atlantic ocean and joins the Gulf stream moving towards the NAD and becomes part of the AMOC reflecting changes in the AMO. The result is the AMO lagging changes in the NINO3 and NINO3.4 regions, although not greatly so in amplification.

December 12, 2015 10:39 am

At least now we can quit worrying about terrorists and wars because this agreement will put an end to their root causes. If only we had taken this most important step of history before 9-11.

Pat Paulsen
December 12, 2015 10:42 am

Reminds me of pirates divying up the booty. Argh, matey!

Steve (Paris)
December 12, 2015 10:51 am

I love this from the BBC
“The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary”

John Whitman
December 12, 2015 10:54 am

tic tock, tic tock, . . . .
. . . and the vote is?????

Man bearpig
December 12, 2015 10:54 am

2 degrees c is easy. Just adjust the data back

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Man bearpig
December 12, 2015 12:10 pm

Spot on, Man Bearpig!! As the temps dive in the next five years, as they will anyway, the Climate Politburo will take credit for it. Let’s face it, already in the UK they are claiming that CO2 – which heretofore they have claimed remains in the atmosphere for tens, if not hundreds of years – is due to start declining. They are really trying to line up their shots for when the temp drops so they can claim it was all down to them.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 12, 2015 2:19 pm

I’ve been trying to second guess how they are going to push this sting but it’s going to be tough because it’s pretty easy to simply measure atmospheric co2. Can’t see them making it stick – even with the bent BBC and so forth backing it – and I suspect NASA are already wobbling and electing to go with at least the semi-unadjusted truth. I think there are a considerable number of worried climate manipulators out there and I predict an ever increasing rush to distance themselves from the icebound CAGW ship with whistle blowers popping out of every porthole blowing very loud whistles.

December 12, 2015 10:58 am

From the NY Times report. Extraordinary!
“Leaders among the climate change denial movements outside of the United States include Nick Griffin, the former leader of the British National Party; Christopher Monckton, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley; and Tony Abbott, the former prime minister of Australia. “

Bruce Cobb
December 12, 2015 11:01 am

It’s done. They’ve all agreed. Let the speechifying and back-slapping and partying begin.

Tom in Florida (where it is gloriously warm)
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 12, 2015 12:11 pm

Yup, no more need for these silly things. This was our “last chance” and “we got it done”. So be it.
Now what is the next boogie man they will thrust upon us to justify their lives?

December 12, 2015 11:04 am

When failure results the ruling class will always resort to expending ‘others’ money.

December 12, 2015 11:05 am

““to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.”
hmm.. that puts Australia in a nice position.
We are already a net carbon sink. 🙂

December 12, 2015 11:06 am

Watching on CNN, they are all clapping and hugging one another. I think they are just happy that the “meeting” is over…nonstop coverage on CNN.

December 12, 2015 11:13 am

Published just in time to analyse this agreement
“On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”

Harry Passfield
December 12, 2015 11:20 am

After WWI Germany was made to suffer under the terms of the Versailles Treaty – and we know where that led. This is the modern-day version of that treaty. The developed world can only wonder where this treaty will lead. It does not help that there is gloating talk that this is the end of fossil fuel. That alone will be a major turning point in determining whatever comes next. This will not unite the world states. It will divide them. One has to wonder if that was not the intention of the power-hungry.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 13, 2015 2:15 am

Like moving a drinks cabinet 1ft closer to Berlin (Black Adder)?

Edmonton Al
December 12, 2015 11:38 am

Arrhenius believed that space was aether.
This was proven false.
Therefore, his GHG Hypothesis must be false.
This from an article called: “The Shattered GHG Effect”
Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer
Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius’ adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of radiation in Arrhenius’ “Greenhouse Effect” to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265; 1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow – effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation. However, Arrhenius’ contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.

December 12, 2015 11:47 am
December 12, 2015 11:51 am

With this agreement in place……it will now become the west’s ambition to show that global warming doesn’t hit the mark set……we might actually start seeing global temperatures,be adjusted downwards.

Matt G
Reply to  Jamie
December 12, 2015 3:09 pm

Only need to correct the recent adjustments in the surface data sets to cause movement downwards.

December 12, 2015 12:01 pm

Josh was spot on with all of it, and was the last minute save. Again. It’s kind of like Groundhog Day except with fresh money.

December 12, 2015 12:08 pm

People Please the US government has used Bogus science many times in the past. Why should this garbage on COP21 be any different. Sen., George McGovern Sen., Albert Gore Sr., and many other Big D Liberals used flawed science to screw the world. Passing laws changing what we eat. This is Big Business : 980 Billion dollars in 2015 US Budge for Health care and Oh add 37 billion for exchange subsidies Obama Health Care program. See how the did it to speed up my point go to the 26 minute of the video

richard verney
December 12, 2015 12:14 pm

As I see matters, the issue here is twofold:
First, given this ‘deal’ will there be a need for AR6?
Second, is there a need for COP 22,, and if so, what will be its purpose and what will it discuss?
Unless there is a step change in temperature coincident upon the current strong EL Nino (as there was coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98), it is likely that come 2019 the ‘pause’ will be over 21 years in duration, and all the model projections (or all but 2 of them) will be outside their 95% confidence bound. That will create some major problems for the drafting of AR6.
Further, in the above scenario, one may expect to see a number of papers published late 2017, 2018 and early 2019 suggesting ever lower figures for Climate Sensitivity.
This ‘deal’ which is crazy will soon lose its gloss unless there is a long lasting step change coincident upon the current strong El Nino.
And, should the globe begin to cool through to 2020 (perhaps due to oceanic cycles and/or a quiet sun), what then?
Many countries may be filing their notice of opt out/withdrawal.

Tom in Florida (where it is gloriously warm)
December 12, 2015 12:18 pm

Well I just got back from a magnificent afternoon walk on a trail through the mangroves along the intercoastal waterway at Lemon Bay Park. Shorts, tee shirt and sneaks, toasty warm, big blue sky with puffy white clouds and fresh green growth on everything. If those who lock themselves up in dark and dank government offices could only understand why warmer is better.

Navy Bob
December 12, 2015 12:33 pm

Hollande may look decidedly less than masculin, but his name definitely is, i.e., Francois, not Francoise.

John in Oz
December 12, 2015 1:19 pm

If greenhouse gases are the cause of temperature rise, why is there no mention within the agreement of the ppm required of any of these gases to achieve the temperature limits they are aiming for?
‘Greenhouse gas’ appears 23 times but ”CO2′, ‘carbon dioxide’ and ‘ppm’ do not appear at all.

Reply to  John in Oz
December 12, 2015 4:12 pm

As it becomes ever more obvious that CO2 does not warm the surface the alarmists need to back away from that scare mongering idea and use a more general term as a first step in the walk-back.

Albert Brand
December 12, 2015 1:21 pm

One word was changed from shall to should-this is significant. If I say to my grandkids “You shall
pick up your clothes”. This is completely different than saying “You should pick up your clothes.” The first is an order the second is a request.

John M
Reply to  Albert Brand
December 12, 2015 2:09 pm

I think the second is a value judgement.

December 12, 2015 1:24 pm

“…Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year”
At least it doesn’t start at 3 trillion. But do these contributions to developing nations have to be in money or can they be in technology and equipment? (The Pope called for a transfer of technology.) If it has to be cash, this is a deliberate redistribution scam and has nothing to do with combating climate change. That’s because everyone knows the money will end up in the pockets of well-connected elites and will not go to reducing carbon emissions.

December 12, 2015 1:24 pm

This agreement doesn t matter. We are already being forced into
A number of lower co 2 and so called green energy measures.

Reply to  John piccirilli
December 12, 2015 1:39 pm

For myself, I have had my dairy business exempted from the NZ ETS , and subsequently deregistered.
I am driving an electric vehicle (Mitsi Outlander) which enables me to almost completely avoid ETS charges on petrol.
That just leaves the imposition on diesel fuel for the tractors. Zero cropping , and pasture maintenance by “hoof and tooth” (predominantly) should minimise any effect.
And significant progress was made at this conference with Kerry admitting that climate would be unaffected , and the Chinese pointing out that posturing was the sole reason to be there anyway.
What is not to like?

December 12, 2015 1:46 pm

“one-year opt out”
Should make for a heated election issue.

December 12, 2015 1:51 pm

Thanks for the Hansen quote. I disagree with him, but he’s one of the people on the alarmist side I respect. Also one of the few willing to recognize that being against CO2 ought to mean being for nuclear power.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  David Friedman
December 12, 2015 2:17 pm

Aren’t you forgetting his foam-at-the-mouth “coal trains of death” stance on coal? As a scientist, he’s a disgrace.

King of Cool
December 12, 2015 1:58 pm

Oo la la! Paris has come up with the biggest serving of crème brûlée the world has ever seen.
Delicious tasting creamy custard to delight the drooling mouths of any greedy green gourmet sweetened with a layer of brittle caramelized sugar.
And what’s more, if it is not to your taste, you can return it to the chef.
But I suspect that crème brûlée á la socialiste it will not be on the menu for long.
There is a big rumour going around that the house is running out of money and soon the only deserts available will be bread and butter pudding á la Marine Le Pen.

old Speak
December 12, 2015 2:10 pm

I Danno? – I mean all these poor Pacific Island folk wading around in knee deep water seem pretty happy with the deal, as do the “already feeling the effects” professional (and skilful) beggars all over the “developing world”, (how long does it take to become developed anyway) and why wouldn’t they? To celebrate I went down to the sea, to an old rocky pool I used to fish in 50 years ago, and whadda you know? The exact same pool is exactly the same, even the old rocky shelf we used to bait up on, jeez I even recognize the great, great, great, great grandson of the little rock pool fish we used try catch with a bent pin and cotton when I was 4. But they tell the seas are a rising my son – but what do I know, must be my eyes are deceiving me.

December 12, 2015 2:11 pm

This isn’t a plan to which the United States government has agreed. A negotiator was sent to Paris by the President, but his only role was to put together a package that can be presented to the Senate for its approval. According to the US Constitution, Congress has sole authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”. The Constitution further states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”, appropriations which are under the authority of Congress.
Nothing that was said and no document that was signed in Paris can lead to the spending of one dime of US money unless Congress says so. Adding a few weasel words to a document that claims to bypass the US Congress does nothing,
So you can all climb down off the window ledge. Nothing has changed in the US as a result of this farce.

Reply to  BillW
December 12, 2015 3:04 pm
George Steiner
December 12, 2015 2:20 pm

This agreement is very good news indeed. For there will be great reduction of the world population in the future decades. And not only because the declining birth rate of the western world.
In about 1800 the world population was about 0.9 billion. Now it is about 7 billion. Reduction of CO2 to 1800 levels will cause important decline in food production. And starvation and death of lots of people.
What better way to depopulate than to kill them. The left wing fascists must be happy.

Reply to  George Steiner
December 12, 2015 2:38 pm

George Steiner
I wouldn’t be too worried about us getting to 1800 levels. Will be many hundreds of years before that happens if at all.

J Solters
December 12, 2015 2:34 pm

There was no vote on this “agreement’. There will be no vote. Under the procedures used by the UN the Chair simply decides that a consensus has been reached and gavels the meeting to an end.The legally binding and enforcement elements are not clear and are probably ineffective given the non specific nature of the promises and goals submitted by the parties. Also the promises and goals are qualified with many caveats which render conventional, meaningful enforcement impossible. Most important activities attendant to the agreement are punted to a later date usually after 2020 and 2030. Nothing substantial or real was agreed to in this document, as was expected by many observers who predicted that a final agreement would constitute a meaningless exercise in futility. “That’s all there is. Let’s pass out the booze and have a ball.” (Peggy Lee).

Tom in Florida
December 12, 2015 2:34 pm

My understanding is that the agreement does not take effect until 2020 and any country can back out before then as long as they do so by 2019. There are also no monetary numbers involved nor are there any required emissions cuts. Only in the lala land of AGW could they celebrate this as they day the world changed. But I am happy that they are happy. Now can we get on with solving the real problems of the world?

December 12, 2015 2:35 pm

We’re saved.

Stu C
December 12, 2015 2:46 pm

All I see hear is an opportunity for governments to create and collect a carbon tax. Said tax will most likely just go to the general coffers. At least of the majority of the tax collected. Big win for the governments for decades to come. If temps go down they claim that it’s working but more needs to be done. If temps rise they claim more must be do. When I say “more must be done” I mean taxes must be raised.

December 12, 2015 3:01 pm

22 January 2017. Not a problem. Ha ha.

December 12, 2015 3:05 pm

No holds barred, I luv it.

December 12, 2015 3:36 pm

NBC News tonight didn’t even make this “history making” moment that “marked the end of fossil fuels” one of its top three stories.

December 12, 2015 4:23 pm

Fortunately…it’s the purview of the US Senate to agree treaty’s.
THe US didn’t commit to Kyoto and we won’t commit to this nonsense.
The whole thing is just an international version of ‘if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”.

December 12, 2015 4:37 pm

It is worth reading the agreement.
Particularly paragraphs 17 and 21comment imagecomment image
P17 states that the INDCs are nowhere close to being on track for the 2C limit. That would require emissions in 2030 to be 40 gigatonnes or less, whereas the forecast (with policy) is for 55 gigatonnes.
In P21 the UNFCCC asks the UNIPCC for some more scary stories and some more modelled emissions forecasts. There is a lot of hot air, but no global plans at all to reach any 2C target.

December 12, 2015 4:38 pm

We’ve reached peak stupid.

Reply to  hoskog
December 13, 2015 5:44 am

probably not yet

December 12, 2015 6:05 pm

Meanwhile, in the real world …. global oil consumption about 94 million barrels per day, heading for $30/bbl …. Ideal time to go and buy some fossil fuel energy stocks.

December 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Now that we have a climate agreement, the end of terrorism is automatic, right?

December 12, 2015 6:11 pm

I think that you have marvelously downplayed the difficulty of this negotiation. Of course we haven’t solved the climate issue. However, to say that we aren’t taking steps in the right direction, and that countries should opt out of this agreement, is outright foolish. We are moving in the right direction, but it takes time!! So long as carbon is the cheapest form of energy yes, it will continue to be burned. Yet we are trying to make it more expensive!! This treaty (and its continuous amendment), will with time force nations to adopt either carbon taxes or cap and trade programs, along with other incentives to move away from the burning of ghgs. I see your point that policy makers and organizations may be overstating to the public how this agreement is successful. Yet in the context of where we were-not so much as 5 years ago, to where the world is heading now, this agreement made is very successful. Also, the redistribution of wealth? I mean really, one of the most prominent issues with climate negotiations -common yet differentiated responsibility-have you ever heard of it? The disparity of wealth between developed and developing nations, and their per capita emissions, is huge. Yet developing nations make up 60% of global ghg emissions, and are only growing. We need to give incentive for them to reduce. Who should do this? Those economies which are rich due to their large emissions in past years. They gain too from aiding in developing countries reductions. Honestly, without a policy enforcing this patter, we would never, ever, ever get anywhere. Also, it requires extensive review to prove that such projects are going towards mitigation efforts (although there is controversy with this, to say it with such vehement force that it would not go to reducing emissions as you did is outright foolish. Btw Africa makes up a minuscule portion of the CDM credit market). Sure, we haven’t solved the climate problem, and we are by no means on our way to the 2 degree mark. But to say that this agreement is just a bunch of pointless talk, and that we aren’t getting anywhere, is just incorrect.

Reply to  Matt
December 12, 2015 7:43 pm

Matt says:
Of course we haven’t solved the climate issue.
What’s there to solve?
The ‘climate’ we’ve been enjoying for the past century is the most benign in the entire temperature record. It really couldn’t be any better.
Temperatures have not fluctuated more than about 0.7ºC. Show us a century-long time frame in the geologic record where global temperatures were as flat as the past century.
You say:
…without a policy enforcing this patter, we would never, ever, ever get anywhere.
Where should we want to “get”? Be specific.
But of course you’re just repeating the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative that you hear 24/7/365.
Matt, listen up: the whole “climate change” scare is nothing but a giant head fake. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with the ‘climate’. The rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial, with no downside at all. CO2 is a completely harmless trace gas, and more would be even better.
The ‘climate’ scare is a ridiculous false alarm; a hoax on the taxpaying public.
The connivers who are orchestrating the ‘carbon’ scare have only one thing in mind: making you open your wallet so they can reach in and help themselves.
A carbon tax is their goal, and it would sharply raise the cost of all goods and services. Whatever your income is, it would not be compensated for the increased taxes. Your standard of living would plummet. And like the income tax, carbon taxes would be a ratchet: they would constantly rise, with no end in sight. But a carbon tax would not lower the planet’s temperature by 0.000001ºC. Why? Because the whole thing is a scam!
Twenty years ago we were all being assured that global warming was accelerating, and that it would continue, resulting in a climate cartastrophe. Polar bears would die out, Manhattan would be submerged, the polar ice caps would melt, and global warming would skyrocket.
None of that ever happened! They were 100.0% wrong. In fact, global warming stopped almost 20 years ago, and there is no indication that it will resume. So, why would you or anyone else believe them now?
I’ll tell you why:
More than $1 billion is handed out in grants, every year. That money goes to scientists on the take; the ones who fan the flames of climate alarmism. The media does the same thing, always interviewing climate alarmists, but rarely interviewing rational scientists who tell the truth: nothing unusual is happening.
And a large part of the public sits in front of their TV sets, watching the local anchorbabe show clips of polar bears on ice floes, and calving icebergs, while telling the mouth-breathers watching her that global warming is gonna getcha. And the government-edumacated, dumbed down, scientifically illiterate head-nodders begin to repeat “global warming”, “carbon footprint”, and “climate change” in their conversations — until they actually believe the nonsense they’re being told, and parroting to others.
Wake up, Matt. They’re lying to you, for the oldest motive there is: for money. Your money. They want it, and the easiet way to get you to go along is by scaring you.
Matt, there has been no global warming for almost twenty years! They were flat wrong. All of them. If you start thinking for yourself, you will see that they could not have been more wrong. But do they ever admit it? Any of them?
No. Because it’s not about science at all. It’s about money and control. So you can either swallow their globaloney nonsense hook, line and sinker… or you can think for yourself. It’s your choice. But please, don’t say ‘we’ need to give developing nations money to reduce their CO2 emissions. There is no science-based reason why they should. If you want to send them your own money, fine. But don’t speak for the rest of us. We know a hoax when we see one.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 12, 2015 10:13 pm

Exxon Mobile and other large energy corporations have bribed news industries to publish false data on climate change. Don’t believe all you read. My sources on climate change all come from academia. I know what I am talking about. You seem to not understand how climate change works on a very fundamental level. First off, your figure that there has been no global warming in the last twenty years could not be more incorrect. Second, climate change alters various parts of the earth differently, in some places it becomes cooler in others warmer. You can think what you want, but if you really want to know the truth I suggest reading some academic papers. The science behind climate change is not up for debate anymore, it’s universally understood.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 1:46 am

Reply to Matt 10:13pm, possibly below. “The science behind climate change is not up for debate anymore, it’s universally understood.”
Ah, so the science is settled, again, is it? Sensitivity, sensitivity, sensitivity. Yes, the science of radiation absorption by greenhouse gases is well understood, but what is not is the reaction of the Earth’s climate to that. Are strong positive feedbacks really at play, as are needed to give the scary numbers? Estimates of sensitivity have been coming down in recent years, which is hardly surprising because the Great Pause 2000-2014 has flattened the trends post-1940. I think that sensitivity will turn out to be in the 1 to 1.5K range, which the world will be happily able to live with.
Note that I wrote “2014” there. The current El Nino is probably ending The Pause for a bit, though curiously the satellite estimated temperatures seem slow to respond. This will probably stop the post-1940 trends from continuing to decrease year by year, but it will take a big new leap to put them into a 3K-per doubling scenario.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 12:06 pm

Matt – re Exxon. I suggest you look very carefully at where Exxon has been spending its CC money. Exxon has an enormous amount to gain from the destruction of the coal industry. And in case you can’t work out why – the reason is that gas can then take over power generation. Cui bono.

December 12, 2015 6:13 pm

The agreement is monumental. All of our climate problems have been instantly solved and the USA does not have to pay for it because we are a poor nation. Extreme weather will never happen again and the sea levels have stopped rising. We can now redirect funds from studying and trying to prevent climate change to paying down our debt. Now we need to redirect our energies to solving our over population problem,

December 12, 2015 6:34 pm

There is one truth to all of this bulk, which is that the age of fossil fuels is largely drawing to a close. Modern wind farms are supplanting new coal-fired burners in the USA (I consult to large utilities on water & environment and have been watching this), and rooftop solar is coming on as strong as cell phones did in the 1980s.
When I was consulting at the Gas Technology Institute in Des Plaines, IL, we called coal the “fuel that won’t go away.” Maybe now it will, and take all the arsenic, mercury, particulates, noxious ash and other problems with it. Good riddance. The world is changing, and change is good. The newest technologies under development are exciting, and our children will have amazing new possibilities.
Not that any of this will reduce global temperatures much, that is happening on its own.

Reply to  CRS, DrPH
December 12, 2015 9:16 pm

What is your power source for backup, when the skies are cloudy, and the winds are calm? If you don’t support nuclear, then we will continue to have fossil fuel plants for the entire grid capacity.

Reply to  RickRez
December 12, 2015 10:49 pm

Easy answer…I support a balanced energy supply that combines solar, wind, fossil, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear sources. Nukes are fine…I stood in the suppression pool of the Clinton, Illinois reactor (beneath the core) a couple of weeks before fueling, and no one will stand in that spot for a long time. However, it takes a lot of time to build them, and I’m still upset at a lack of a nation policy to handle waste (I supported the FAST reactor concept to handle this material). Coal is the source of much of the mercury in our environment, I’m in favor of fracking and natural gas development as a bridge to more advanced stuff. As one of my utility clients told me, “Coal’s time has come.”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  RickRez
December 13, 2015 12:47 am

December 12, 2015 at 10:49 pm”
Solar and wind have their place, but NOT for large scale base-load generation and are too intermittent to connect to the grid. It has it’s place in remote off-grid locations and services like street/traffic/park lighting with conventional battery backup. This is proven in Australia now. More and more people are migrating from rural areas in to cities (Conurbations)…and as cities grow so do energy demands (Clean water, sewage treatment etc etc not just light, heating and cooking). The transmission losses of wind and solar are huge…and vast areas of land are required. So if you think coal is dead, speak to the Chinese and Indians. They will just thumb their nose at you and keep right on developing their energy base with fossil fuels (Coal the original bio-fuel).

Reply to  CRS, DrPH
December 13, 2015 7:58 am

“rooftop solar is coming on as strong as cell phones did in the 1980s”
Rooftop solar is growing due to a large number of shysters coming into the field and enormous government subsidies propping them up. There is a very low satisfaction rate among people having installed solar; from energy savings that never appear, not advising solar customers that electric companies change billing from monthly to annual giving them false impression that they are saving when at the end of the year they get a whopping bill, numerous installation delays, screw-ups, unforeseen costs and headaches, leasing schemes that are usurious, difficulties in re-selling homes with solar panels under 20 year contracts, and the list goes on.
To compare solar with cell phones is not reasonable or even rational. Cell phones experienced exponential growth because of the incredible communication, computing, and digital media power that could be fit into a shirt pocket. Making it work was infrastructure growing concurrently at the same rate. Cell phones provided tremendous value and were market driven. Solar is government/ideology/politics driven and value is not only limited but injurious to a large number of consumers who took the plunge.

Reply to  Alx
December 13, 2015 5:14 pm

Look at the trends:
Sorry to rain on your parade, but the latest wind and PV technologies will bury coal. Good riddance.

Reply to  CRS, DrPH
December 13, 2015 5:51 pm


Sorry to rain on your parade, but the latest wind and PV technologies will bury coal. Good riddance.

Justify that claim, please.

Martin Wright
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2015 9:35 pm

I think the link provides sufficient justification for the claim.

Martin Wright
Reply to  CRS, DrPH
December 13, 2015 9:39 pm

…. and Spain has achieved up to 31% of domestic electricity needs from wonder power alone.

Phil's Dad
December 12, 2015 8:02 pm

Given that it looks increasingly likely we will come in below (delta) 2C on a near ‘business-as-usual’ basis; I can see why the control freaks need a new 1.5C target.
Could someone who understands these things better than I let me know what disaster will happen at 2C that will not happen at 1.5C over the same time period?

Phil's Dad
December 12, 2015 8:19 pm

Of course para 21 shows that they don’t know either but I don’t know if that makes me feel any better. So, anyone, why 1.5C?

Reply to  Phil's Dad
December 13, 2015 1:52 am

There is obviously nothing that will happen at 1.5 °C – or 2.0 °C. No one can determine the “moment” when the level is reached, anyway. Different teams measuring the global mean temperature routinely differ by 0.2 °C in their estimate of the temperature. This difference is equivalent to 15 years of the apparent underlying trend.
Look for webs about the 2014 Nature article by Victor and Kennel – two keywords – who ditched the 2 °C target. It is completely meaningless, nothing interesting occurs at any of these levels, and the global mean temperature is in no way correlated with the health of the planet, they argue.
The history of this 2 °C meme – which was so popular among the alarmist politicians talking about the hysteria in the recent 10 years – began in a paper by William Nordhaus, an economist, in the 1970s. So there is absolutely no “underlying science” that would make 2 °C or 1.5 °C any special. He said many random sentences about 2 °C warming and 3 °C warming and 5 °C warming etc. and the sentence about the smallest warming became popular among the activists. They obviously picked the lowest temperature difference as a “point to scare” because this gives them some power immediately. Someone said that 2 °C is dangerous, so listen to us! After some time, people forgot where the claim actually came from. It became a part of the mass culture in certain corners.
In reality, a cooling by 5 °C could be economically bad – although nowhere near a chance to eliminate life or mankind or anything like that (ice ages were lower, even rather recently). If we indeed returned to some ice age, new continental ice sheets would begin to grow and many big regions would become unfit for agriculture if not living. The ecosystems are more sensitive on the cool side because things freeze over at 0 °C and life etc. depends on liquid water. But on the opposite side, something qualitative – a phase transition – only takes place at 100 °C, the boiling point of water.
One would need dozens of degrees Celsius of warming for things to get dangerous. The warming by 10 °C would still be beneficial for most of the countries we live in, especially for the Northern ones. But even my country, Czechia, in the ultimate moderate zone, would benefit from 10 °C of warming. The average annual temperature in the whole country would go from 7 or 8 °C to 17 and 18 °C. One can see other similar places at these temperatures that are so much better off. Many things like preferred crops and food would change substantially if the temperatures went up by 10 °C but there would be no serious threat to the well-being as such.
To spread panic about 1.5 °C relatively to the preindustrial era is completely insane especially because according to some ways to quantify the warming, we have already surpassed that level while there’s clearly nothing wrong happening to the ecosystems because of a wrong global mean temperature. This is the most prosperous world that has been around for quite some time – also a world that is very hospitable to plant and animal life. The extra CO2 helps. It reduces the sensitivity of plants on water and allows their growth to be some 20% higher than before. A billion of people in the world is being fed thanks to the concentration of CO2 that went up by 40 percent since the preindustrial era.
The 1.5 °C or 2 °C level cannot be determined with the required accuracy. Even if they chose a methodology to determine the global mean temperature this amazingly accurately, the methodology would still produce fluctuating values of the temperature due to the natural variations. Big enough El Niños or La Niñas routinely change the global mean temperature by more than 0.5 °C just in one year. And even if one neglected that it’s impossible to determine the temperature this accurately and if one also ignored the unavoidable natural variations, the task to “set” the value would still lead to no particular prescriptions about the fossil fuels because the strength of CO2 in driving temperature is not known accurately at all. According to the IPCC, the warming per doubling of CO2 is between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C, and this interval only has 80% probability to be right – the odds are 20% that the right figure is outside this broad interval. Skeptics obviously believe that the true figure is even below the lower bound of the interval.
But even if one picks the IPCC data, the 2 °C limit can’t tell us anything accurate enough what to do with emissions. If the upper sensitivity is right, we might need to reduce emissions to 1/3, but if the lower one is right, it is OK to keep the emissions the same because the effect of each CO2 molecule is lower by a factor of 3. There is obviously no accurate link between the temperature and CO2 even if we neglect all the other natural oscillations because people don’t know how strong the greenhouse effect actually is.

Another Scott
December 12, 2015 11:13 pm

Now that COP21 is over, I wonder if the Karl, et al “Pause Buster” paper will be reconsidered and the resultant temperature record adjustments re adjusted?

Reply to  Another Scott
December 13, 2015 1:07 am

Why would they? They consider them to be accurate.

Martin Wright
December 13, 2015 2:04 am

Make up your mind, Anthony. Do you despise the agreement because you don’t believe the science or because it may be ineffective. Don’t ever suggest Dr Hanson and you are on the same page.
Perhaps the real reason for your obsession with dismissing climate action us revealed on your rant when you say: ‘Don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t about wealth redistribution, …. 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’. Maybe you just hate being moral because that might mean you have to share a little.
So how does it feel, Anthony, the world has ignored you.
By the way, no apostrophe in NGOs.

Reply to  Martin Wright
December 13, 2015 6:55 am

“Make up your mind, Anthony. Do you despise the agreement because you don’t believe the science or because it may be ineffective.”
He’s not annoyed that’s it’s ineffective; he’s annoyed that’s it’s being touted as effective.

John Whitman
Reply to  Martin Wright
December 13, 2015 7:33 am

Martin Wright on December 13, 2015 at 2:04 am
“Make up your mind, Anthony. Do you despise the agreement because you don’t believe the science or because it may be ineffective. Don’t ever suggest Dr Hanson and you are on the same page.
Perhaps the real reason for your . . .”

Martin Wright,
Why? {is your premise hidden and false}

Reply to  Martin Wright
December 13, 2015 10:29 am

There’s one thing certain. Taking large amounts of money from US Citizens will redistribute most of it to the already wealthy. Its really a method for wealth concentration.

Reply to  Martin Wright
December 13, 2015 12:28 pm

There’s nothing moral about transferring money from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. That’s just delusional. To get truly moral you first need to get real.

Martin Wright
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 13, 2015 12:39 pm

Your argument is based on an unproven assumption. How do you know that the wealth transfer will be misused by poorer nations?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 14, 2015 12:16 am

“Martin Wright
December 13, 2015 at 12:39 pm
Your argument is based on an unproven assumption. How do you know that the wealth transfer will be misused by poorer nations?”
Aid already is.

Adam Gallon
December 13, 2015 2:46 am

Here’s the way it goes.
US Congress says “Stuff it up your fundament”
The rest of the developed world makes horrified noises, but is quietly relieved, Russia, China & India say “Well if the Yanks aren’t doing it, neither are we”, the proposed recipients of all this £100billion largess start screaming, along with the Green Blob “It’s all the evil USA’s fault!” and the wheel continues to turn.

December 13, 2015 3:00 am

Everyone agreed to meet in Paris to solve the dangers of fairies and unicorns. This meeting, set up to address the threats posed by fairies and unicorns, was called the Conference of the Parties (CoP). The CoP – comprised of representatives from all the world’s various governments (and many unelected representatives from self-interested charities) – has been meeting for 25 years now, on and off, each time to discuss the threats posed by fairies and unicorns. In almost 30 years of extremely well funded research, a scientific consensus that fairies and unicorns do exist and are actually potentially catastrophically dangerous to mankind has emerged. Unfortunately, nobody yet has ever seen or has ever been able to scientifically identify any fairy or unicorn anywhere in the world.
After two weeks of talking about the dangers that fairies and unicorns pose – even though, to date, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that faeries and unicorns have ever directly or indirectly caused anyone any harm at all – all the delegates to the meeting agreed that the dangers posed by still imaginary fairies and unicorns is real and that urgent action is needed to deal with the threat, should these imaginary faeries and unicorns ever actually appear and start making trouble.
All the delegates at the Paris CoP decided that the best way to fight fairies and unicorns would be to tax the world’s population to try and make it so that the danger of faeries and unicorns ever appearing and threatening anyone, especially smaller, poorer nations, is averted, or at the very least mitigated. The CoP agreed, therefore, that it would collect $100billion every year from now on – mostly from the world’s richer nations who are, after some discussion, believed to be the most responsible for encouraging the likelihood of an attack by fairies and unicorns.
The $100billion that the CoP has voted for itself to receive every year will come from taxpayers living and working in the world’s richest nations (but not all of them, especially not those in Asia and the Middle East who are, CoP says, not as responsible for making fairies and unicorns a real threat to humanity as are countries in western Europe and North America) – this will be money collected mostly from ordinary people who are just trying to earn a living, feed their families , etc, and most of whom would have had no idea whether fairies and unicorns even existed or not, had the Media Party, who are very firm believers in both fairies and unicorns, not told them. Every day, in every way.
Poorer nations, who the CoP think are probably more vulnerable to fairy and unicorn attack than richer nations, will get the majority of the $100billion collected every year. They will be asked to use the money to protect themselves from anticipated fairy and unicorn attacks – although nobody is yet sure how best this could be done.
To date, nobody has ever proved the existence in any scientific paper, anywhere, ever, of either fairies or unicorns.

Martin Wright
Reply to  CalUKGR
December 13, 2015 12:49 pm

What I don’t get is how you can push a conspiracy theory of such magnitude. You’re saying that the vast network of climate scientists and the most senior politicians of every nation on the planet all labour under a fallacy. That’s a very big call. It seems to me that the establishment of developed countries is better off preserving its fossil-fuelled energy supply. These global corporates have succeeded in slowing the world’s response to AGW by disseminating seeds of doubt, but at the end of the day science has propelled our governments to commence a transition. These same governments are looking hard for evidence to justify further delay, and sadly they can’t find it. This website included.

December 13, 2015 5:16 am

CNN is of course at it again – Latest opinion warrants a headline “This is the end of fossil fuels”
I bring up CNN because it is a mainstream news outlet. It is not surprising that alarmist publications spew their Baghdad Bob climate nonsense, it is unforgivable a that major news outlet does the same.

Reply to  Alx
December 13, 2015 8:18 am

“CNN is of course at it again – Latest opinion warrants a headline “This is the end of fossil fuels”
12,000 miles of oil pipeline has been built in the US in the last 5 years,
fossil fuels are here for a very long time.

December 13, 2015 7:09 am

This wealth redistribution is how we destroy Capitalism, right Bob?

December 13, 2015 7:23 am

noun or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value

jan curtis
December 13, 2015 7:29 am

Of brother. Did anyone tell the Chinese that their man-made islands in the South China Sea will be under water by 2100.

Bill Illis
December 13, 2015 7:36 am

I did some number crunching on the Paris Climate (let’s say) targets or long-term objectives. This is not what the actual emission plans submitted by countries but what the long-term targets are.
The Paris Climate agreement plans to limit human emissions so that the amount that plants oceans and soils can absorb is equal by about the years between 2050 and 2100. Emissions have to peak in 2030.
So let’s take the natural absorption rate of the year 2075, about 28 Gigatonnes per year (compared to the rate of 2014 of 20 Gigatonnes). Human emissions then need to decline by about 0.75% (less than 1.0%) per year after the year 2030 (40 Gigatonnes) and by 2075 (28 Gigatonnes).
CO2 then peaks at 480 ppm in 2075 and slowly declines to 400 ppm by 2200. That would be in the range of +2.0C by 2100 according to the 3.0C per doubling theory.

December 13, 2015 8:25 am

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) says:

GWPF Welcomes Non-Binding And Toothless UN Climate Deal
Reassuring, I think. If the US Congress does not fund any of the faux ‘commitments’ the Obamunists have made, then they are moot. And with any luck a President Cruz will put the kibosh on the whole business.
/Mr Lynn

December 13, 2015 9:43 pm

The climate cranks have now sealed their precious “agreement” to make the world safe for continuing vast transfer of wealth to rent-seekers who manufacture and promote this fake crisis.
With victory at hand, news organizations may now be forced to switch to other controversies to sell newspapers. All that remains is a blowout celebratory TIME cover marking this event as the high point of the current social mania before it passes away to join all the others lying near bottom of the dustbin of history.

Martin Wright
Reply to  bh2
December 13, 2015 10:09 pm

The great thing about science is that it remains true even when you don’t believe in it.

Reply to  Martin Wright
December 14, 2015 6:54 am

The great thing about science is that it doesn’t rest on belief. Unlike religion, which does.

Reply to  bh2
December 13, 2015 11:56 pm

Sorry, bh2, but I’m not a crank. I’m a rational, responsible world citizen. I’m doing my best to make semse of the signals I receive. My perception is that the world’s media have under-represented the case for action on AGW, and over-represented the scientific minority view of sceptics. It’s the sceptics’ view that sells newspapers.
What do you mean by “rent seekers”? If AGW is a real or likely threat then it makes sense to enable poor nations to develop with less reliance on fossil fuels. Does it not?
Please identify the other “social mania” that you say alredy occupy the dstbin of history. How many of those are backed up by such a comprehensive scientific research base?

Reply to  Mart
December 14, 2015 6:31 am

Hi, Mart …
In answer to your last question, I refer you to Makay’s famous “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. It’s a long list. And a big book.
Every delusional crowd is stirred by rent seekers who PERSONALLY benefit from the promotion in one way or another. “Follow the money” is surely the most reliable measure of motives generally governing human affairs.
The large body of natural followers (which is to say, most people) who echo and re-echo the promotional messages (“signals”?) submit willingly to confirmation bias and soon accept virtually any evidence promoted by others which re-enforces their adopted beliefs. (I leave it to Richard Feynman to explain to you in plain talk how this pernicious process operates in science, including the observation that “the easiest person to fool is yourself”.)
A copy and paste definition of rent-seeking: “When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.” This gain is not only denominated in dirty lucre, however. The social benefit of claiming to pursue a selfless cause in service of humanity is the worlds oldest (and arguably most profitable) deception, and also, therefore, arguably a major sub-category of the worlds oldest profession. There are very few like Sean Penn, who pays his own way in money and in kind to support those causes he deeply believes in. Most of the rest expect someone else to pay the way for their “beliefs”.
George Soros once described his strategy for earning riches by speculation was to discover the trend which is false and to then bet against it. This can take a long time, of course, owing to what Soros labels “reflexivity”. Eventually the false premise is exposed and the false trend fails. Often suddenly. Surprise follows. And losses.
The point, of course, is that most people do not see the trend as false and it is their very belief in the certainty that it will continue forever which sustains it. Soros profits on eventual fulfillment of their delusional thinking.
Until he collects his reward for sustained skepticism, most people (97%, let’s say) will more and more devoutly believe in the false trend and promote it ever more loudly, despite the fact it rests on a fundamentally false premise being steadily undermined and exposed by objective reality.
“If AGW is a real or likely threat…”
Yes, like that one.

Martin Wright
Reply to  bh2
December 14, 2015 12:18 am

It’s a matter of trust. I am not a climate scientist. I don’t need to be. Others have that expertise and when other experts combine and reach a consensus, then I listen. I listen for advice based on scientific research that I cannot hope to understand.
I choose to place my trust in the IPCC and in the many authoritative agencies such as NIWA (the meteorological service in New Zealand where I live) or NOAA. I choose to not place my trust in the sceptics who comment on this website. They are outside the scientific consensus.
The institution of scientific inquiry includes the evaluation of studies that appear to contradict previous findings. Scientists seek to reconcile conflicting data from competing studies. Old theories may be rejected or affirmed or adapted as further studies account for the differences. That’s science. The accumulation of thousands of studies, including the ones that appear to be contradictory, have brought us to the present understanding of AGW.
And the case for action has never been stronger.

Reply to  Martin Wright
December 15, 2015 12:47 pm

As was the case for population control, based on UN projections decades ago.