The 'Binding' Paris treaty is now just voluntary mush


But Obama still wants to send US energy use and living standards backward

Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek

Paris climate talks this week descended into madcap all-night negotiations, as delegates desperately tried to salvage some kind of agreement beyond empty promises to do something sometime about what President Obama insists is the gravest threat to our planet, national security and future generations.

He gets far more energized about slashing energy use than about Islamist terrorism, even after the Paris and San Bernardino butchery. Determined for once to lead from upfront, he took a 500-person greenhouse gas-spewing entourage to the City of Light, to call for preventing increasing droughts, floods, storms, island-swallowing rising acidic ocean levels and other disasters conjured up by alarmist computer models.

Legally binding carbon dioxide emission targets were too contentious to pursue. So was modifying the concept of “differentiated responsibilities.” It holds that countries that historically caused the recent atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up must lead in cutting their emissions, while helping developing countries eventually do likewise, by pouring trillions of dollars in cash and free technology into the Green Climate Fund for supposed climate change adaptation, mitigation and compensation. Developing countries had insisted on that massive wealth redistribution as their price for signing any binding document.

Although China now emits far more CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) than the USA or EU, it refused to fast-track reducing those emissions. China and wealthy petro-states also opposed paying into the Climate Fund. Other major bones of contention were likewise never resolved.

Thus, in the end, what we apparently got out of Paris is voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the Fund.

Of course, the entire climate cataclysm mantra is based on the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history. Now, merely tweaking CO2 emissions will supposedly stabilize climate and weather systems.

President Obama fervently believes this delusion. He will likely use the voluntary Paris gobbledygook to say America somehow has a “moral obligation” to set an example, by de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States. Thankfully, Congress and the states will have something to say about that, because they know these anti-fossil fuel programs will destroy jobs and living standards, especially for poor, working class and minority families.

The impacts would be far worse than many news stories and White House press releases suggest. Those sources often say the proposed climate treaty and other actions seek GHG reductions of 80% below predicted 2050 emission levels. The real original Paris treaty target is 80% below actual 1990 levels.

That means the world would have to eliminate 96% of the greenhouse gases that all humanity would likely release if we reach world population levels, economic growth and living standards predicted for 2050. The United States would likely have to slash it CO2 and GHG reductions to zero.

Moreover, current 2050 forecasts already assume and incorporate significant energy efficiency, de-carbonization and de-industrialization over the next 35 years. They are not business-as-usual numbers or extrapolations of past trends. Further CO2 reductions beyond those already incorporated into the forecasts would thus be increasingly difficult, expensive, and indeed impossible to achieve.

As we explain in a analysis, there is a strong positive relationship between GDP and carbon-based energy consumption. Slashing fossil energy use that far would thus require decimating economic growth, job creation and preservation, and average per-person incomes. In fact, average world per capita GDP would plummet from a projected $30,600 in 2050 to a miserable $1,200 per year.

Average per capita GDP in 2050 would be less than what Americans had in 1830! Many futuristic technologies would still exist, but only wealthy families and ruling elites could afford them.

That would be catastrophic for jobs, health and welfare in developed countries – and lethal to millions in poor nations, who would be denied the blessings of electricity and fossil fuels for decades to come. That is indefensible, inhumane and immoral. And for what?

Mr. Obama and the alarmists in Paris insisted that drastic GHG reductions will hold global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 F) and prevent climate and weather disasters. Now some even claim that the upper safety limit is actually 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F), which would require even more draconian energy and emission cutbacks. Otherwise, Earth could become uninhabitable, they assert. Nonsense.

EPA’s own analyses suggest that its fully implemented Clean Power Plan would bring an undetectable, irrelevant reduction of perhaps 0.02 degrees Celsius (0.05 F) in average global temperatures 85 years from now – assuming carbon dioxide actually does drive climate change.

In the Real World, climate changes regularly, and recent climate and weather trends and events are in line with historic experience. In fact, average global temperatures haven’t risen in nearly two decades; no category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record ten years; Greenland and Antarctic ice are at record levels; and still firmly alkaline sea levels (8.1 pH) are rising at barely seven inches per century.

Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% (400 ppm). That would pose much greater threats to human health, agriculture and prosperity (and wildlife) than global warming.

We must never forget: Fossil fuels facilitated successive industrial revolutions and enabled billions to live better than royalty did a century ago, helped average incomes to increase eleven-fold, and helped average global life expectancy to soar from less than 30 in 1870 to 71 today.

Carbon-based energy still provides 81% of world energy, and supports $70 trillion per year in world GDP. It will supply 75-80% of global energy for decades to come, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Agency and other studies forecast. Carbon-based energy is essential if we are to bring electricity to the 1.3 billion people who still do not have it, and end the rampant poverty and lung, intestinal and other diseases that kill millions of people in poor countries every year.

Furthermore, thousands of coal-fired power plants are built, under construction or in planning around the world. China and India will not consider reducing GHG emissions until 2030, and even then it will be voluntary and dependent on how their economies are doing. That means atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb, greening the planet and spurring faster crop, forest and grassland growth.

President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris largely [ignored] these inconvenient realities, and whitewashed the adverse consequences of anti-hydrocarbon policies. Even binding targets would have had minimal or illusory health, climate and environmental benefits.

Instead, they would have horrendous adverse effects on human health and environmental quality, while doing nothing to prevent climate change or extreme weather events. What alarmists wanted in Paris would have let unelected, unaccountable activists and bureaucrats decide which industries, companies, workers, families, states and countries win the Climate Hustle game, and which ones lose.

And it’s not just President Obama, who wants to slash America’s carbon dioxide emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 – and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050! Every Democrat presidential candidate demands similar actions: Hillary Clinton wants one-third of all US electricity to come from wind and solar by 2027; Bernie Sanders wants 80% by 2050; Martin O’Malley wants 100% by 2050.

Obligating the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, and send billions of taxpayer dollars annually to dictators, bureaucrats and crony industrialists in poor countries would be disastrous. Thank goodness it did not happen. But we are not out of the woods yet.


Dr. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc., in Washington, DC. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 13, 2015 10:40 am

The Greens just want perfection. Economics does not enter into any of their proposals (beyond how to get contributions), as what they purportedly want is objectively impossible.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2015 10:46 am

Take a look at this Social Frontiers Conference from 2013 that also had UK government and Rockefeller Foundation backing if we want to appreciate just how much economics and regard for what has ever worked factors in to these plans for us and at our expense.

Santa Baby
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2015 1:02 pm

They will change the text afterwards at UNFCCC?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2015 2:00 pm

No they want control. They want to be arbiter of all things the proles do.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2015 6:16 pm

Many gr$$ns feel humanity must be sacrificed to save the planet, that mankind is the cancer. Rather than sacrifice themselves first, like lemmings, they hope they can engineer a timetable whereby humanity will begin to die off only after they themselves have lived out their own comfortable (thanks to cheap fossil-fueled energy) and wealthy (thanks to gr$$n rent seeking) lives. “I got mine.”

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2015 6:35 pm

“The Greens just want perfection.” I disagree. Otherwise they would support energy sources like hydro-electric and nuclear.
Their real product is fear. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace would be out of business tomorrow if they could no longer frighten people. Contemporary environmentalism is an Original Sin religion. We are all guilty, and must plead for favors from the righteous priesthood who would rule us.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2015 6:50 pm

The Greens just want perfection.
Perfection is the Enemy of Good.

December 13, 2015 10:43 am

Before concluding that Paris is mush, please take a look at UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s Dignity for All report or the related Rockefeller-funded, Larry Summers chaired, Commission on Inclusive Prosperity from Last February.

Reply to  Robin
December 13, 2015 11:22 am

Von Mises was correct when he stated:
“it is ideas that determine what people consider as their interests. Free men do not act in accordance with their interests. They act in accordance with what they believe furthers their interests.”

Ain’t that something
Thanks Robin
The manipulation of the educational system guarantees that “free thinkers” have a long way to go.
Job security of a sorts.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Knute
December 13, 2015 1:21 pm

Arlington cemetery refutes that argument
We as a people are not yet that cold, everywhere everyday people act in the greater good, against their own interests and gain.
It is that evil (and I mean secular as well as religious) always seems to out weight good act for act.
this is a issue of education.Give people the facts and they will act properly.
With one exception people will sacrifice themselves but NOT their children.
NO one will condemn their future, their children so a group of self serving , moralizers can feel “good” about themselves.
sorry time to get off the soap box

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
December 13, 2015 1:42 pm

Thanks Mike for the reminder of good over evil.
I’m Debbie Downer today.
Will fix that.

Lawrie Ayres
Reply to  Knute
December 13, 2015 7:39 pm

We are constantly told by the MSM and their leftist commentators that conservatives are causing much of the world’s problems. They spend many column inches belittling those who still believe in the bible messages but what I find interesting is those being derided are the ones who build the hospices, the hospitals, the schools and run the street reach programs. I am yet to see a green group do any of these things since they seldom believe in self sacrifice but certainly encourage taxpayer sacrifice.

Reply to  Knute
December 14, 2015 1:07 am

“Arlington cemetery refutes that argument”
Arlington is a monument to Ironic Evil. (the great evil that good men do while they are attempting to do good)
One of my three uncles (all US Army) was on the planning staff running the Vietnam War. He told me two years before one of his brothers was shot down and lost a leg that we had lost the war and we should never have gotten involved. This was apparently a common belief among the brass running that abortion of a war. .
I then read Major General Smedly Buttler who wrote “War is a Racket”.
The only “just war” is one where a people repel an invasion by aggressors who attack and invade. Ask yourself how many times the US has been invaded by another country. Then ask yourself how many times we have attacked or invaded another country. If your answers are honest, your eyes will open.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  Knute
December 14, 2015 5:18 am

Well, I would ‘amend’ that definition of a ‘just war’ to include “aiding a people who are invaded and attacked by an aggressor”. Would it be ‘just’ to allow an aggressor to invade and conquer the people of another nation simply because they are not within our borders?
So, let’s take a look, here are my ‘candidates’ for ‘just wars’ in US history
Revolutionary War – seems like the British ‘invaded and attacked’ after the Declaration of Independence (even before that)
Barbary War – Arabic pirates were attacking and seizing both American flagged vessels (which constitute ‘territory’ of the US), killing American citizens and holding them for ransom or simply selling them into slavery The efforts of the ‘Barbary Pirates’ (who were not ‘Pirates’ operating independently from the Arab states from which they operated, they were fully supported & protected by the Arab States in the area) over the time they operated resulted in the enslavement of over 1 million Europeans & Americans – more than the number of Africans brought to America as slaves.
War of 1812 – British were attacking US flagged vessels (which constitute ‘territory of the US) and were killing and taking captive American Citizens. Impressment of American citizens by the Royal Navy was nothing more than disguised slavery.
Mexican – American War – Maybe, the US probably is responsible for goading the Mexicans into attacking, but, they did first try to buy the territories that were later annexed after the war reached it’s inevitable conclusion. Mexican forces attacked US forces and laid siege to a US fort on US territory to initiate the war, so, ‘technically’, it was an invasion by an ‘aggressor’ that started the war (even though that is exactly what Polk wanted and manipulated the Mexicans into doing by placing US troops in a ‘disputed’ region claimed by both countries).
Civil War – probably debatable but, technically, when South Carolina seceded, they became a ‘foreign’ state and they attacked and invaded the US (Ft Sumter). Lee’s subsequent invasion of the Union (into Pennsylvania & Maryland) would seem to meet the requirement of an aggressor attacking & invading US territory.
WWI – Germans sank 9 American flagged merchant vessels prior to our declaration of War. Attacks on American flagged vessels (and killing of American citizens) constitutes an ‘invasion’ or attack on American soil.
WWII – I believe the Japanese attacked US territory, then the rest of the Axis powers declared war on the US Probably Hitler’s worst move of the war, it gave Roosevelt exactly what he wanted. Would be interesting to consider what would have happened if he didn’t and Roosevelt could not get a Declaration of War on the other Axis powers).
Korean War – North Koreans invaded South Korea, we came to their aid
1st Gulf War – Iraq invaded Kuwait
Are the wars the US has fought that are not ‘just’. But, even within the rather narrow definition of a ‘just war’ we have fought in a number of ‘just wars’.
[The US did end up paying Mexico for the territory already won by the US armies! First time in history the victor in a war paid the defeated for conquered (but essentially empty) enemy territory. .mod]

December 13, 2015 10:46 am

We can all be thankful that the well-intentioned carbonophobes gathered in Paris recently did less harm than they set out to do. This image of a delicious bowl of cornmeal should also remind us that many thousands of people in poor countries have died and are dying because rich countries like the US are mandating that corn be diverted from food to ethanol, raising its price out of the reach of those on the margins. The people gathered at the climate conference in Paris probably don’t like to think of themselves as starvers of third-world children, but they are.

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
December 13, 2015 11:09 am

You have it backwards ! The rich countries are the ones sick ask me about eating corn rice and wheat.

Reply to  Russell
December 13, 2015 12:35 pm

Relax, Russell.
Extensive research has shown that starving and malnourished people rarely, if ever suffer the clinical side effects of obesity. We are not sure why this is, but the data are clear. For whatever reasons, obesity related heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes just do not seem to affect third worlders like they do people in the prosperous west.

Reply to  Russell
December 13, 2015 3:25 pm

TonyL Please watch from the 18 minute mark: You will enjoy PS I agree with you.

December 13, 2015 10:48 am

The infamous 97% of scientists meme has now been replaced with 100% of countries, so easy for dim-witted and vote seeking politicians to exploit. This treaty is very bad news, I think it has to be formally not-ratified by the US, please.

Reply to  climanrecon
December 13, 2015 12:14 pm

190 countries attended this socialist love fest, but, 187 of them were ONLY there because they thought they would get trillions of OPM…..Other People’s Money !!

Reply to  climanrecon
December 13, 2015 12:22 pm

President Obama fervently believes this delusion. He will likely use the voluntary Paris gobbledygook to say America somehow has a “moral obligation” to set an example, by de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States.

I agree that he will likely say this. It is certain he will say something like this.
Unlike Kyoto, the Republicans control the Senate. Even if somehow this really isn’t a Treaty, and .President doesn’t HAVE to have the Senate Ratify it, he has the moral obligation to do so.
The Republicans in the Senate should schedule a vote for ratification on the Treaty for early February. Let the public debate over the holidays. Hold hearings and Senate debate in January. Let Obama squander his State of the Union in its defense. Let every politician in favor of it go on record. Then vote the Treaty down positively rebuking the administration’s policies and tactics, giving the Judiciary no place for the Administration to hide.
It won’t happen. Republican Senate leadership would rather hide from anything important.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 13, 2015 1:01 pm

In a normal election cycle you might very well get something like you describe.
This election cycle is focused on the Presidential race. IMO the GOP won’t go full hammer on CAGW because they don’t see it as a winning position.
It’s dicey to tell someone who is tricked into feeling guilty that they are being tricked esp when the feeling of being “green enough” makes many onlookers feel good about themselves. Slap on a little of the “those religious zealot GOPers” ignore CAGW because they are creationists and then all of a sudden you have GOPers looking like deer in headlights.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 13, 2015 2:04 pm

No, for the community organizer in chief, it is just a useful stick to hit the USA with.
BTW Which communities, precisely, did he organize?

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 13, 2015 2:05 pm

You mentioned President Obama and “moral integrity” in the same post.
Might be the first time that has ever happened on the Internet.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 13, 2015 2:41 pm

RoO, the south side of Chicago. Before becoming a do nothing Illinois legislator (most non votes), then a do nothing Senator (most missed votes), before becoming Pres on hope and change rhetoric. All hope, no change. Like COP21.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 13, 2015 6:03 pm

Legislation can also sit, and die, by delays, delays, delays. This might be the best strategy, to get past the POTUS election, then either have Trump’s rubber stamp to kill it, or, shove it in Shrillary’s face.
You also stand the risk of Czar POTUS pulling another “executive order”. and ruling by decree (for which he should have been IMPEACHED long ago, for his other dictatorial decrees). Either way, he’s a pompous, deluded ass, much like our own Shiny Prince of Pot, PM Jihadi Justin of Canuckistan

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 13, 2015 7:30 pm

he TPP has a mandatory enforcement for any OTHER environment agreement, so it will be used as the enforcement vehicle.
IF the TPP passes, Paris is binding.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 13, 2015 8:27 pm

IF the TPP passes, Paris is binding.
Nope. Authority under TTP extends only to areas stated in TTP .
The United States Senate is not allowed to surrender its’ responsibilities.
There is enough case law to bury any thought of TTP being linked to COP21.
Just because the issue has come up is enough justification to rewrite TTP so there is no question of linkage.
President Obama most likely just killed TTP.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
December 13, 2015 8:38 pm

Thanks Mike
I’m paying close attention to these seemingly unconnected items.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
December 14, 2015 1:34 pm

At the hearing, all the Democrats showed up, Cruz was in effect the lone Republican.

Mark Steyn: As I’ve often said, the Republican Party is so good at folding they should be the White House valets. Doesn’t matter what your issue is, they’ll fold. They fold on debt, on immigration, on regulation, on gay marriage, on Obamacare, on [Insert Your Issue Here]. Regardless of the merits of this or that issue, on the whole they’d rather pre-emptively surrender. And I got the definite sense from their no-show last week that for these guys global warming will be just the 173rd issue for which discretion is the better part of valor. Save your powder – for next year, next decade, whenever.

December 13, 2015 10:50 am

Off topic, but hoping someone here can help. I’d like to see if there are any comparisons out there of how much $ gets invested in research supporting vs opposing the ‘consensus’ on climate change. It’s intuitive to me that ‘consensus’ driven research ideas rate likely to get more funding, but I’d love to see a credible analysis of this…. It’s easy to find arm-waving rhetoric about research funding- that’s not what I am looking for – I’m looking for an analysis that truly tries HARD to be objective about it …. about how much funding goes to either side in the debate. Can anyone point me to something? Thanks!

Reply to  Chris
December 13, 2015 1:22 pm

Hey Chris,
As a postdoc working in environmental sciences (trained as a chemical engineer) I can tell you my own personal experience, which is of course limited, but I talk to a lot of my colleagues from all over the world so at this should be least somewhat representative.
Research proposals are usually described in neutral terms. For example, ‘is there an effect of X on Y, and if so, what is that effect’, Of course often the authors have a suspicion of what the answer will be but at least when it comes to writing research grant proposals it should be neutral. I know the idea of a ‘consensus’ gets mentioned a lot here on this blog, but in the actual research world I just don’t see this ‘consensus’ that much. Why would anyone fund research for questions that are already answered? You’re most likely to get funded for promising something new and interesting that hasn’t been done before, and you’re definitely most likely to get cited a lot for papers in which you attack the current state of knowledge (e.g. the ‘consensus’). And as you know, citations are the lifeblood of scientists.
Actually a lot of research is going on about uncertainties, data errors, etc. The result of this is almost always a confirmation of the current state of knowledge. Now probably you’ll have a lot of people on this blog start yelling that it’s all a fraud etc. etc., but the honest answer, as far as I can see, is that climate change is just a real phenomenon, and everything you read here on this site is mostly about american politics, and the discussion between more or less federal regulation. I’m actually not American, so this fixation with Obama and a few American scientist is very weird for me, and completely and utterly irrelevant when looking at the work that I do, or how I get my funding
I’m happy to answer any further questions!

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 2:44 pm

Cited a lot for dismantling the warmist lies? How well did that go for Lomberg (an extreme warmist himself)? He’s black banned from almost every uni, his research is novel but ignored and then the lack of citings is used to smear him when anyone considers allowing him even an unpaid position.
Grants are expressed as “gerbil worming is the biggest threat evah – we investigate its effects on the poor / penguins / coral / starfish / acidification / weather / Middle East refugees.” The cause is assumed and a spuriously correlated novel effect is sought.

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 2:46 pm

Then why won’t the alarmists debate the subject ??
I think that answers the robust nature of alarmist science – case closed

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 2:59 pm

benben says:
I know the idea of a ‘consensus’ gets mentioned a lot here on this blog, but in the actual research world I just don’t see this ‘consensus’ that much. Why would anyone fund research for questions that are already answered?
Please tell us: what questions have already been answered? (I don’t mean ‘answered’ by someone asserting their opiniopn. I mean answered using verifiable measurements.)
You’re leading a sheltered life if you haven’t been exposed to the “consensus” propaganda, in which John Cook and others claim to show that ‘97%’ of scientists believe in dangerous AGW, or whatever their badly worded self-serving poll pretends to show. The only real consensus is shown in the OISM survey, in which some 31,000 scientists and engineers consider CO2 to be harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
And here we have 100 scientists writing to the IPCC and stating that global warming is natural.
Then we have 125 scientists telling Ban Ki Moon that he’s wrong about “climate change”.
Then there’s this list of more than 1,100 scientists disputing the IPCC’s claim that man-mader global warming is a problem, and questioning if it even exists.
You say:
I’m happy to answer any further questions!
Those will be enough to start with…

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 3:41 pm

Maybe i should add that it would be nice not to have to deal with comments such as ‘hahahahaahahaha’, I’m just saying what I personally observe. IIRC Lomborg was rejected because they wanted to make him a professor, and normally you’d need an h-index of 40 or so for that. His H-index is… what, 5 maybe? He just doesn’t publish enough in scientific journals to warrant a professorship. I’m sure he’d get a postdoc position in a heartbeat though!

Evan Jones
Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 4:32 pm

Oh, stuff. If Lomborg were arguing the opposite position, he’d be king of the faculty lounge.
Actually a lot of research is going on about uncertainties, data errors, etc. The result of this is almost always a confirmation of the current state of knowledge.
Wait for it (grim smile).

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 6:26 pm

You say: “Of course often the authors have a suspicion of what the answer will be but at least when it comes to writing research grant proposals it should be neutral.”
So when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail? (My bold above.) Confirmation bias.
I don’t need an answer. It’s whatever you want.
As I always tell my kids: Their goal is to THINK, not repeat what the ubiquitous “they” say.
Where I live we just had two weeks of “warming” so warming is real. Now we are heading into two weeks or more of “cooling” so cooling is real.
That’s also called “weather”. 43 C below at Eureka, Nunavut today. A balmy -6 at my house but normally warmer but often 20 or 30 degrees colder this time of year.
Tell me exactly why a little warmer would be a bad thing again? I’d use less wood, less propane, less diesel in the tractor, feed less hay, get better crops, spend less money, …
In spite of the foolishness of our politicians, it is well known that northern climes like Canada would benefit from a bit of global warming. Of course, no one has recently given politicians much credit for being erudite…
Have a nice evening.

-43 °C
Feels Like: -51 °C
Forecast: -42 / -34 °C
Wind: 6 km/h ↑ from East
Location: Eureka
Current Time: Dec 13, 2015 at 8:22:27 PM
Latest Report: Dec 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Visibility: 24 km
Pressure: 102.83 kPa
Humidity: 80%
Dew point: -45 °C

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 7:19 pm

Thanks Ben for your thoughtful reply. It makes sense to me. Maybe I can ask a slightly different question. I’m thinking there must be a reference somewhere that shows climate funding by “source.” For example I did a little digging today and found a stat or 2 published by US federal government that they spent around 21 billion $ in 2014 on Climate change related activities (spanning much more than just research grants I assume). I’m really just looking for something factual to verify or challenge the “the koch brothers and the oil industry fund all these skeptics” – all I hear is arm waving, but its hard for me to believe that nobody has ever investigated it. is there a way to investigate whether that’s true?

Reply to  Chris
December 14, 2015 3:09 am

92 billion in US government (state and federal) funding in the three years after 2010. ALL of it going to government-paid “scientists” and labs and societies and their promotion and indoctrination and “training” and “education” and “green power” schemes.
Some 25,000.00 in money from a single conservative think tank.

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 7:54 pm

Your arguments are becoming increasingly unhinged. I realize you will probably start whining about these posts not being sufficiently kissy-face for your tender sensitivities, but you bring it on yourself.
Your latest nonsense is claiming that Lomborg lacked the necessary publications to be a professor, while you conveniently ignore people like Ward Churchill, the fake indian who was given tenure — the day he was hired by UoC! (I might point out that you ignored the links I posted above that contradict your belief in ‘consensus’.)
You will learn that cherry-picking examples doesn’t get you far here.

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 7:56 pm

Other Ben who’s also Chem-E environmental guy,
While you do have a point that research is more civilized and officially more neutral. I have to disagree with your conclusion, especially when you are talking about things outside of actual climate research. For example, numerous people have gotten grants to research “the psychology of climate denial”, and I can’t tell the number of biological research that include the reference of researching the effects of “man made climate change on X”.
It might not be explicitly pro-consensus, but I’ve seen a lot of papers that presume inherently that climate change is: Real, Unprecedented, and man-made. A lot of research that is otherwise unrelated adds a “we believe in climate change” addition in the footer, and several people have mentioned that anything without such a coda gets subject to a lot more scrutiny. This is reminiscent of Copernicus dedicating On the Revolutions to the pope, trying to avoid the scrutiny of the establishment by declaring devotion.
Sorry, but I cannot agree.

Reply to  benben
December 13, 2015 11:21 pm

Ben: You misunderstand the nature of MY opposition to Obama’s policies.
Global warming is real, some of it is caused by CO2, today’s temperature is about. 0.85 degrees C above pre industrial, the warming we have experienced thus far is beneficial, and will likely be positive until 2100, efforts to cut emissions are poorly thought, the 1.5 degree target isn’t supported by anything, the way the RCP8.5 is used amounts to large scale fraud, geoengineering requires much more research. And climate change is now a vehicle or Trojan horse used by the left to peddle a radical vision of a top down, centrally planned and controlled communist world.

Reply to  benben
December 14, 2015 9:19 am

You’re in ‘Environmental sciences’? That’s like ‘Political Science’, isn’t it?

Reply to  benben
December 14, 2015 11:13 am

Hey Chris, there is a lot of investigative journalism going on of course, but I think your question is difficult to answer for two reasons:
1) climate change is incredibly diffuse, and so are its causes and effects. The ‘global climate’ touches almost everything, so it really depends on how you want to count science as relevant to climate change. I think my research is relevant to climate change, but I’m being paid for by the US military, and in my previous project the professor was also a fulltime employee for Shell. so how would you classify that? On this blog it seems very black and white but in reality it’s all over the place. This goes in both ways: its for instance very difficult to get an accurate number for subsidies to fossil fuels. You can choose your system boundaries to get whatever result you want.
2) the subject is incredibly political, at least in the US. In the rest of the world its more treated like a scientific problem, but if you read this blog it seems exclusively an american left wing plot. This makes it incredibly difficult to have a normal discussion, because in such a polarized environment people start inventing their own facts. Some of the responses above are perfect examples.
@ benofhouston, yeah… you make a point. There probably is a lot of research that explicitly looks at the effect of changes in climate on X or Y or whatever. And perhaps they include some boilerplate text on climate change? I don’t know. I’ve never seen it tbh, but I have no problem believing you that this happens. I wouldn’t interpret it as malicious or anything. It’s just that the current state of knowledge indicates that these relatively rapid changes in climate, so it’s normal to write in your introduction that you are looking at the influence of man made climate change ( = rapid changes in climate, and therefore distinct from the normal relatively slow changes). Again, this is not because these scientists are collectively lying to the world. Introductions just reflect the current state of knowledge. A little footer on climate change is sometimes necessary because unfortunately blogs like this like to pounce on research and pull it out of context to claim that climate change is fake, even though the actual results don’t really bear that out. I don’t really think this is reminiscent of Copernicus, who was trying to avoid being tortured to death.
But, benofhouston, I really appreciate that you can disagree with me without becoming unpleasant!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  benben
December 14, 2015 2:28 pm

You mention “the current state of knowledge” being almost always confirmed. That’s the so-called “concensus” view. You don’t see it because 1) you work within it, 2) you believe it to be “sound science” and 3) since it is your industry, you have a definite incentive to not rock the boat.
You are either incredibly, painfully naieve, or just being disingenuous. My guess is the latter.

Reply to  benben
December 15, 2015 1:58 am

Hey Bruce Cobb,
If you want to define ‘consensus’ as ‘what most research papers find’ then that is fine. It’s just that on this blog ‘consensus’ is usually used as a reference to some kind of science-maffia that forces normal, smart, innocent scientists to include language in their work that they wouldn’t want to. And this is something I don’t see happening (again, just purely personal observations).
I always find it very interesting to see how commenters on this blog seem to think that the only way a person could have a different opinion is either if that person is not a real scientist (dumb, social scientist, incredibly naive; take your pick) or is somehow lying.
Maybe we just differ in opinion?

Smart Rock
December 13, 2015 10:54 am

Barack Obama is obviously a very intelligent person. So (to varying degrees) are the other leaders who get enthused about going “green”. I wonder whether he really believes in all this stuff. Not just AGW, but the idea that you can just tweak CO2 emissions and everything will turn out just fine. And that clean, green, renewable energy is readily available, we just have to reach out and grasp it. Or is he latching on to the story to distract himself (and his country) from really serious problems that are beyond his control?
I know when I have found myself facing serious issues that would be hard to face up to, and harder to do anything about, I often find myself (without really intending to) getting immersed in some trivial activity. It’s a way of avoiding facing up to hard facts and tough decisions. Psychiatrists have a word for it, but I can’t remember what it is. Could Mr. Obama be doing this on a global scale?

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 13, 2015 11:07 am

The word is ‘displacement’ and yes, Obama is doing that big time.
Apparently his golf game has become so bad he needs the distraction. 🙂

Greg Woods
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 13, 2015 11:09 am

Reality avoidance?

Tony Jackson
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 13, 2015 11:13 am

I believe the technical psychological term is diplacement

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 13, 2015 12:43 pm

Barack Obama is obviously a very intelligent person.

May be obvious to some, absolutely not to me. Ever see what happens when the teleprompter breaks, he can not put three words together.

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 1:06 pm

You underestimate his kind of intelligence. He has been described as a kind of natural born community organizer. The natural born community leader knows how to launch questions and then gauge the position of his targets by their reactions. Through this method he gets to see what he needs to do in order to sway you in his direction. Btw, Harvard teaches this skill in one of their promoted leadership courses.

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 1:38 pm

My take on it is that his overall handlers have surrounded him with day-to-day handlers. He has never achieved anything on his own, ever. I do not believe he is capable of independent action now.

Through this method he gets to see what he needs to do in order to sway you

Used car salesmen knows how to do that.

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 1:52 pm

my point

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 3:02 pm

Community organizers, per Alinsky, are not there to promote or help the community, rather promote and further the organizers position.
As to Obama’s intelligence…do you really think a psychopathic narcissist like him could keep from showing his intellectual heft if his grades proved his grand intellect? And yet, we’ve still never seen his college transcripts. Makes one go hmmmmmm.
Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 3:05 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 6:18 pm

Evil people can be very intelligent too. Is Obama evil? Hard to say, but he is very narcissistic, that is clear, and his witch hunts on his political foes are clear (IRS audits, etc)

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 6:42 pm

Test scores would be the better metric, huh buster?

Reply to  TonyL
December 14, 2015 11:40 am

Busterbrown…yes I do. And I’m related to 2 of those (both Masters degrees). And a Summa cum laude to boot (my daughter). So?

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 13, 2015 1:39 pm

Does an intelligent person make the claim that addressing AGW is a proper response to terrorism? That sounds more like someone with some vital screws loose.

John D
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 14, 2015 8:21 am

When he is out of office, which should happen if the constitution is still in vogue, I cant help but think he will apply for the Gore replacement opening on the world stage. O boy.

Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2015 10:56 am

It’s “mush ado about nothing.”
Hey! Don’t shoot the messenger.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2015 12:07 pm

I thinks you hath too mush too dwink…..hic ‘…..LOL

December 13, 2015 10:58 am

What do they say in the church circles?
PTL! Hallelujah and Amen, Brothers and Sisterns…

Anthony Mills
December 13, 2015 11:00 am

Obama and Kerry deserve medals for engineering an agreement that requires the U.S. to do essentially nothing to contribute to the idiocy of climate change mitigation.This will be their true legacy!

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  Anthony Mills
December 13, 2015 11:09 am

Not just for the US. Theirs is a global accomplishment. Hurrah! 🙂

December 13, 2015 11:03 am

I wonder if some of the enlightened and informed readers here can help me? If you ground substances to a powder, those substances can be burned – even exploding in some circumstances. So why can’t we ground rocks to a very fine powder and burn them? Excuse my chemistry ignorance, it’s just something that I have often wondered about.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Baz
December 13, 2015 11:10 am

Think of the energy it would take to grind rock to powder. I guarantee you it would take a lot more than you would get back out.

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  Baz
December 13, 2015 11:13 am

Thew composition of rock is silicon based. The ignition temperature of silicon is ~ 1000 C.
You could burn them but you’d need another heat source – and fuel – to raise the rock dust to ‘go poof’ temperature.
Stick with carbon based lifeforms as fuel, Jim.:)

Reply to  Baz
December 13, 2015 11:33 am

The only substances which burn whether they’re powdered or not are those which have the ability to combine with oxygen (almost exclusively) to form ‘oxides’, and in so doing release heat. The more finely divided (for example, powdered as opposed to chunks) the substance, the more surface area is available to foster the oxidation reactions. More surface area → more rapid oxidation of the mass of stuff.
Except for coal, most rocks are already in “terminal oxidation states”; this means that whether they’re powdered or not, heated in oxygen, doesn’t set them afire. Simply they’ve oxidized as far as their constituent materials are capable of oxidizing.
Think of it like charcoal briquettes: with a bit of effort, one can set them aglow. Maybe without flame, but they’re certainly burning. After they stop burning, what’s left? If a briquette is left quite undisturbed while burning, a perfectly ‘charcoal shaped’ blob of ash remains. Is that part flammable? No. It is now maximally oxidized. End of the road. No mas.
You can even try to take a pile of it and ignite it with something really hot like a welding torch. No burning. Now, the ash might fuse into a glassy blob, but that’s not burning per se. More like “making lava”.
In our atmosphere, on this planet, most-every element satisfies that first sentence at the top: has the ability to combine with oxygen. Some react strongly enough that when the element is ground on a grinding wheel, the sparks are brilliant white-hot, as they burn. (Titanium is one of these.) Others aren’t quite as vigorous, like steel. Still, they glow bright-yellow as they too oxidize. Others will seem entirely inert (grinding copper normally emits no sparks.) Some are hugely reactive (like aluminum) but also emit no sparks because they build up protective hard oxide coatings faster than the heat builds up to let them burn. Others are so reactive that they don’t even need to be ground, to burn. (Potassium will burn spontaneously. Magnesium once it starts can’t be put out in air. Has to be smothered.)
Thus it goes.
Fire was such a mystery that philosophers-of-old thought it to be one of the 4 elements. Air, Fire, Water, Stone. They too asked the question you asked. Why do some materials seem to be able to burn, whereas others are quite inert?

Reply to  GoatGuy
December 13, 2015 11:41 am

An education – thank you.

Reply to  GoatGuy
December 13, 2015 3:10 pm

Because they don’t contain flogiston? (sp)

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  GoatGuy
December 14, 2015 8:20 am

Good points about the combustion of minerals. What may not be immediate obvious is that ash, as formed from, say, biomass or coal, actually requires energy. It doesn’t give any. The energy required to ‘burn ash’ is about 100,000 Joules per kilogram. It is negative! Nature is strange.

Reply to  Baz
December 13, 2015 12:41 pm

GoatGuy’s explanation is first class.
To put it another way, most rocks (and water) is already burnt and no amount of grinding to expose surface area isn’t going to change that.
The products of life: coal, kerogen, methane, hydrocarbons, cellulose (plants), proteins, fats, pure refined metals, are substances where oxidation is possible. These you can burn and explode in the right configurations.

Reply to  Baz
December 13, 2015 1:53 pm

You can grind metals into fine powder and burn them with the same power density as gasoline…but not rock.

Reply to  Kirkc
December 15, 2015 12:39 am

Kirkc, yes, but I think you will find that the metals that can be ground into power to be burnt or exploded are all products of Life. They are all refined metals of man. Man had to put a great deal of energy into the process to make the metals from oxides, sulfides, and halides found in nature.
You can find elemental gold in nature, but it won’t burn under any circumstances at normal pressure. Elemental copper and silver are very rare mineral specimens, and powered Cu or Ag might give a ‘poof’ in the right circumstances.
I guess your best bet is elemental sulfur in hydrothermal vents. Even there, I don’t know that extremophile bacteria doesn’t play a part in its formation.

December 13, 2015 11:09 am

Not sure about the process, but doesn’t Congress get a say in what treaties were allowed to enter into?

Reply to  Justin
December 13, 2015 11:46 am

Yes: it is for this reason that the Treaty of Paris 2015 is written to be adopted within one year of its historic genesis. To give the various “congresses” out there time to mull over the thing and finally sign it.
Moreover, the Treaty of Paris 2015 has a particular condition included that prevents it from going into effect until 55% of the nations sign in and 55% of the world’s CO₂ emitters also have signed the treaty.
The two are an interesting thing to try to achieve. If one were to line up all the tiny countries and give ’em all 1 vote apiece, then it would be quite easy to get the first “55%” signed up. Especially if there is potential for big bags of money to be handed out at next year’s Paris 2016 Christmas Party.
But those 55% wouldn’t even account for 10% of the world’s CO₂ emissions. Hence why it the requirement to get 55% of the emissions producers signed up is also key. If for instance every country in the world were to sign the treaty, except China and the United States of America … well, those two alone are over 45% (the remainder of 100% – 55%), so 55% signage couldn’t be had. In this way, the biggest offenders also have the largest Veto power.
Is this fair?
Hard to say, but it certainly seems fairer than letting Kiribati’s single vote have the same “power” as China’s.

Reply to  GoatGuy
December 13, 2015 1:00 pm

I hope you are correct. My question is:
“How official is the title, ‘Treaty of Paris 2015’ ?”
The word “Treaty” was a deal breaker for the US contingent. So I suspect that it isn’t part of the official title. On the other hand, Hollande’s ego might have required the word’s official inclusion.

Reply to  GoatGuy
December 13, 2015 1:09 pm

There is another calculus. Maybe they have concluded that the US will not be counted as a signer, but China, who has nothing to lose by signing and everything to gain by hobbling the US, will sign. It might not change anything legally, but it changes the politics.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  GoatGuy
December 14, 2015 8:26 am

The CO2 emissions of Indonesia exceed those of the USA (in 2015).

Reply to  Justin
December 13, 2015 1:05 pm

Yes, article 2 section 2.2 of the US constitution requires 2/3 Senate approval of all treaties made by the president. But this depends on the meaning of treaty.
Under US law, there are three sorts of treaties.
1. Article 2, which Thomas Jefferson defined on Jan 18 1791 as ‘forever irrevocable except but by joint consent. So COP21 is not an article 2 treaty for two reasons: nothing binding and unilateral opt out provision.
2. Congressional-executive agreements (CEA) which require only majority approval in Congress. The various trade agreements, like TPP now, are of this sort. Obama is arguing COP21 is not a CEA, since nothing is binding.
3. Sole executive agreements. The Supreme Court has ruled that these can onlymbe entered into under one of the Presidents specific executive authorities: conduct of foreign policy and recognition of nations and ambassadors (nope); as commander in chief of the armed forces (nope); obligation to faithfully enforce existing US laws (yup). The administration is arguing that the CAA (clean air act empowing the EPA to cut pollution) plus the EPA determination that CO2 is a pollutant after Mass. V. EPA (classic green sue and settle) makes COP21 a sole executive ‘treaty’.
Fighting that view is probably picking the wrong fight. The correct fight is the unconstitutionality of the EPA Clean Power Plan, which is how Obama intends to inplement the US INDC. Harvard Law’s Larry Tribe, the US’ foremost constitutional scholar, has written a brief finding three seprate reasons CPP is unconstitutional, in support of the 23 states suing the EPA.
Hope you find the longish clarification helpful.

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 1:11 pm

Very helpful.

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 1:42 pm

JW, for completeness I should have added that type 2 CEA ‘treaties’ are distinguished from type 1 Article 2 ‘treaties’ by always containing some sort of opt out provision, hence not fulfilling Jefferson’s definition of a constitutional treaty. With this addendum, my comment is a succinct but complete laymans version of what Larry Tribe taught me in con law many moons ago. Glad you found it useful.

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 2:02 pm
Evan Jones
Reply to  Justin
December 13, 2015 4:39 pm

Not sure about the process, but doesn’t Congress get a say in what treaties were allowed to enter into?
I am not so sure.
That was then. This is now.

Patrick Bols
December 13, 2015 11:12 am

Solving imaginary future problems in stead of tackling muslim terrorism and the poverty in America is the equivalent of politicians attacking other countries (aka Putin). The reason is the same: avoiding their responsibilities by not taking on the real issues. The smart twist that Obama has invented is that, once the world finds out about the big deception, (and we will all be buying extra sweaters by then) he will be no longer in charge. His successors will have to deal with the disastrous consequences of his actions.

Reply to  Patrick Bols
December 13, 2015 3:22 pm

IOW, clean up the mess after the elephant has left the room.

V. O. Marten
December 13, 2015 11:16 am

Just a tiny correction with great importance: it’s not “whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% (400 ppm)” but above 0,04% atmospheric CO2, ten times less. Certainly a case of transposed numbers.

4 eyes
Reply to  V. O. Marten
December 13, 2015 12:47 pm

I noticed this too. Get the numbers right please or lose credibility.

Reply to  4 eyes
December 13, 2015 1:42 pm

VO, 4,
Indeed – and agreed.
As noted on an earlier thread, the concentration of CO2 I our atmosphere, to the nearest one tenth of one per cent [pretty accurate for he watermelon folk] – is zero.
Auto, appreciating more and more a decent sense of perspective . . . . . .

Reply to  4 eyes
December 15, 2015 2:53 pm

No loss of credibility, just a typo – a simple transposition of numbers that is easily fixed.

Reply to  V. O. Marten
December 13, 2015 3:17 pm

My math says 90% less (0.40 – 0.36), i.e. 0.9X less. A department store would never announce a sale for 10X less. This may be a drawback of school changes made me skip the year they would have taught percentages. 🙂
Hey, it’s not just me, see a kindred spirit (someone actually bought a domain for this!?) at

December 13, 2015 11:20 am

Two weeks ago I told my brokers to divest all my Canadian Energy stocks and put the money into US companies.
Not because I’m green, but because the combination of a provincial Liberal government in my home province, a Liberal federal government, and an NDP socialist government in Alberta, home of the oil sands, will pretty much assure we’re going to dive head first into this swamp.
Our new Prime Minister with his shiny new majority government is going to show the world how it’s done.
Poor Canada can look forward to four years of seeing our combined potential flushed down the toilet of green PC.

Reply to  peter
December 13, 2015 11:41 am

You’re right, Peter, and there was Junior ahead of the COP fest, all dressed up and eager to VOLUNTEER billions of our taxpayer dollars into this green cespool even before the shakedown began. Where’s Harper when we need him? Oh wait.. I forgot. We elected Junior even though he wasn’t ready.

Reply to  Trebla
December 13, 2015 12:02 pm

Flight from Canadian energy to American safety.
Hmmm. If you don’t mind, can you tell me what industry groups ?
Canada has been disappointing. While the rest of the world was throwing a fiat party, you guys held tight and seemed to managing your vast resources well. In the end, I’m glad I didn’t buy any of your currency although it was part of my overall plan.
Definitely threw me for a loop.

Reply to  peter
December 13, 2015 11:41 am

From Montreal totally agree with you we have a wacky bunch up here. I worked for Calgary Power now called Atco. Coal Fired and supper.

Captain Dave
Reply to  Russell
December 14, 2015 3:02 pm

I think Calgary Power changed their name to Transalta Corporation. They do operate a lot of coal-fired electrical equipment, but also have a dozen hydro sites in Alberta. You can see the Cascade plant when you drive from Calgary to Banff.

Reply to  peter
December 13, 2015 12:16 pm

Actually Peter now and for the next few years will be the time to invest in Canada. Your dollar is at a huge advantage and the oil & gas stocks are taking a beating. You are getting more than a 50% cut in price. Be careful but there will be bargains to be had if you can hold them for half a decade until things turn around.

Reply to  TRM
December 13, 2015 12:55 pm

The practice of buying a valued asset when others are fleeing ?

Reply to  peter
December 14, 2015 9:21 am

Alberta, and to a lesser extent Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have been the source of much of Canada’s original wealth (farm, forest, mines and fossil fuels). Eastern Canadians don’t have a clue how much the green agenda is going to hurt the economy. Canada has a systems of equalization payments among the provinces. There won’t be much flowing east – how are they going to pay for their wind farms and solar arrays, let alone all the usual costs of our myriad of social programs. Now we have to add in 25,000-50,000 new immigrants, most of whom bring nothing with them. Canada, which had one of the best bottom lines in the world, will rapidly descend into debt.

December 13, 2015 11:22 am

Well, if everything’s going to be voluntary, then the prez should be soliciting the public to join him and the rest of the world leadership (Al, too) in volunteering to be individually austere and “live entirely on intrinsic satisfaction”.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 13, 2015 11:40 am

To be “one” with my inner emptiness ?

Reply to  knutesea
December 13, 2015 12:17 pm

Perhaps he should reward the homeless who already have “their feet to the fire” (to keep from freezing).

December 13, 2015 11:25 am

The greens do not want cheap, unlimited energy. If we suddenly found the secret to generating unlimited cheap, “safe” energy available to all of humanity, they would fight it to their dying breath. I remember what happened in the 1980s when the world briefly thought we had discovered cold fusion that would give us just that. The environmentalist left was outraged at the prospect because they would lose control of their long-term agenda – totalitarianism.

Reply to  pyeatte
December 13, 2015 12:05 pm

Totally agree with you. Why are they not pressing for Fusion Reactors in the distant future and Thorium Reactors in the near future? These technologies would not have the hazards of current Fission reactors and would provide almost unlimited energy. The Left wing love to think they have the interests of the poor and the disadvantaged at heart. The reality is they love to impose political correctness, micro-management and nannying of peoples lives and assuaging their guilt of what our white ancestors did hundreds of years ago. I have said this before but we have a three pronged attack on Western civilisation, two economic (destroying capitalism by a) making nations default on National Debt repayments by b) Increasing the price and unreliability of energy). The third is allowing jihadists, to enter mainly Europe but also the USA.
I think we have at present a scenario as dangerous as Fascism in the 1930’s.

Reply to  pyeatte
December 13, 2015 12:11 pm

Very true. Independence for everyone is not what they want. Completely off the grid and totally independent for food, water and energy is their worst nightmare. How can they control everyone and dictate to them if they are self sufficient? Very strange dichotomy. I always love sending people to for a view of how people can do it themselves.
They still think that unlimited, clean and cheap energy would lead to a population boom and destroy the Earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Raise the standard of living and population levels off and drops. All cultures, races and religions have experienced it. What do you need to raise the standard of living? Cheap, clean, abundant, base load energy.

Evan Jones
Reply to  pyeatte
December 13, 2015 4:47 pm

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” [Paul Ehrlich]

Reply to  Evan Jones
December 13, 2015 5:04 pm

Let the world flail around for 10 years with wind and solar while the insider club nails down MSRs.
Institutionalize the International Energy Allocation Agency and decide who gets to be on the board.
Take turns even.
Nah, sounds too hard to pull off.
Might make a good grade B sci fi.

Reply to  Evan Jones
December 13, 2015 7:58 pm

And if anybody knows about idiot children, it’s Ehrlich.

Reply to  Evan Jones
December 13, 2015 8:03 pm

Thanks, now I know how much they have been lying to us.

Reply to  pyeatte
December 15, 2015 3:07 pm

100% agree.

Leonard Weinstein
December 13, 2015 11:27 am

That is 0.04%, not 0.2% =400 ppm.

Leonard Weinstein
December 13, 2015 11:27 am

Typo, 0.04%, not 0.4%

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
December 13, 2015 11:42 am

40% if it’s the fact sheet Markey was using.

Reply to  knutesea
December 13, 2015 12:07 pm

They like to use the ‘percentage of greenhouse gas’ figure for CO2 because the atmospheric concentration is so laughably small.

December 13, 2015 11:42 am

One small nit to pick in the essay, 400 ppm is not 0.40%, a typo I’m sure unless someone has ‘readjusted’ how percentages are derived.

Reply to  JustAnOldGuy
December 13, 2015 12:03 pm

One of many adjustments in the climate wars. What’s a decimal place between friends? 🙂

December 13, 2015 11:45 am

Obama’s policies are already causing hardship and suffering in oil and gas dependent places like Lafayette. Wages are being reduced. One of my customers has had three pay cuts in the last year! At least she still has a job. I hope he is proud of this. I think it is pretty disgusting

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Malc
December 13, 2015 12:52 pm

In Lafayette, you mean, in Louisiana? Obviously, she works for an evil fossil fuel company. Isn’t she lucky not to be brought up on RICO charges? Think of the children!

Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 13, 2015 1:22 pm

Diesel vehicles.
Diesel generator.
We even make bio diesel when stock is available.
We shred woody debris because the piles attract rodents and we don’t eat those yet.
Sometimes we even open burn (aghast) when the weather permits.
I have some rights to a couple of oil wells, but we keep that as private stock.
I’m still waiting for topless women to stroll down my road protesting our lifestyle but that hasn’t happened yet.

Reply to  Malc
December 13, 2015 5:35 pm

“Obama’s policies are already causing hardship and suffering in oil and gas dependent places like Lafayette.”
The decision by the OPEC countries to not place any restrictions on their respective outputs has had 10X the impact on oil prices of any green action Obama has taken.

Steve (from the once coal state of KY)
December 13, 2015 11:46 am

WOW, talk about some serious comedy….

December 13, 2015 12:00 pm

How do such imberciles gain power?

Reply to  jimheath
December 13, 2015 12:16 pm
Reply to  knutesea
December 13, 2015 5:07 pm

Jeez… all that guy needs is a funny looking moustache…

Reply to  knutesea
December 13, 2015 6:27 pm

Yeah, like really spontaneous……I often wonder how these fellow Canadians believe their crappy little apartments are heated, or, how their buses are fueled, which they ride every day, or how their tekky toys are made, out of petrochemicals, how their food gets to Toronto (the center of the world for the uninitiated) from California, and points further. Our world is full of these naive, myopic adult children, who think a steak comes from the package at Safeway.

Reply to  knutesea
December 13, 2015 8:14 pm

Youth need to go to a good college to learn how the world runs before they are heard from since they failed to learn anything from their earlier education.
There are no tar sands in Alberta, they are oil not tar, that’s how ignorant one of the signs actually reads.

December 13, 2015 12:00 pm

I volunteer to follow the example of Mr Watts and plant some trees. Perhaps some apple for cider making or some cherry to make some wine/mead from. I need something to celebrate this “mush” with and toast the epic fail that everyone signed onto.
Now we just need to prevent local governments from taking their mush seriously.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  TRM
December 13, 2015 5:03 pm

Along with local governments you should try to stop the multinationals companies taking action, here are a few, starting with the dumb, broke ones: Apple, Berkshire, Bestbuy, Coke, Colgate, Facebook, GM, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Unilever, UPS and Walmart. Or take personal action and boycott Apple phones, Android phones, and the internet.

December 13, 2015 12:04 pm

4th paragraph from the bottom is missing a word I think !
” President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris largely these inconvenient realities, and whitewashed the adverse consequences of anti-hydrocarbon policies ” /\ = IGNORED ??.

Reply to  Marcus
December 13, 2015 12:23 pm

Largely IGNORED these inconvenient……??

Reply to  Marcus
December 13, 2015 1:44 pm

Sure, go ahead, IGNORE me !! LOL

December 13, 2015 12:05 pm

Our climate problems are now solved. The climate has stopped changing for ever. No more global warming, extreme weather events, or rising sea levels. And the United States does not have to pay for it because we are a poor nation with a huge national debt and huge annual trade deficits. We need to move on and fix the problem of Man’s our of control population. We need to gradually reduce our human population as we convert our urban and suburban areas back to forest and wilderness areas.

Ivor Ward
December 13, 2015 12:09 pm

The strange thing about this so-called climate agreement is that we normal people, the slightly green gilled types, the raging green loons and the forty thousand will wake up on Monday morning and will do exactly the same as they did last Monday, or their last normal day in the case of the Parisites. The school run will happen in the SUV, the office lights and central heating will be at full bore. The tankers and trucks will be out on the roads: mines, oil wells, shipping, flights etc will not change by one iota. The world will go on exactly as it did before. Why? In my case because I don’t give a sh1t what the loons say. In the case of the loons it is because they think that “other people” are causing the “problem”. Other people should stop this, give up that, replace the other with the approved version etc. Unfortunately “other people” are the ones like me who don’t give a sh1t so nothing will ever happen. Strange isn’t it?

December 13, 2015 12:21 pm

Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek,
I was looking for a comprehensive critical summary of the COP21 climate agreement. Thank you. Please have ongoing periodic analyses of the implications and realities of the agreement.
The major media reports were virtually incredulous hype at best.

December 13, 2015 12:32 pm

Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 are not bad predictions so far.
Just so many sheeple and too many pigs to take advantage of them:(

December 13, 2015 12:45 pm

What Obama wants, is to cripple the West, in any way he can. This war between the East and West has been going on since the 7th century.
The East initially had the upper hand, easily taking the Western Middle East, Western North Africa and much of Southern Europe, but got a bloody nose at Tours in France. The West then gained the upper hand, and expelled the East from France, Spain, Italy, Sicily, Greece and much of the Balkans, before taking the battle to the Near East. But the West overstretched, and retreated back from the Near East.
But in the meantime, the East had exhaused the plunder that made it rich, and most of its serf workforce, and economically dissolved back to the sands from which it sprank. The Ottoman became the Sick Man of Europe. And that would have been the last of it, were it not for oil. Buoyed up by limitless oil revenues, the East had a resurgence, expanding its borders and influence throughout the West, looking to see advantage, and restarted the old feud. They monopolised the UN, established Eastern education throughout the West, financed proxy wars, reintroduced the traditional policy of Hijrah (conquest by emigration), and influenced Western politicians and politics. And then they got a president into the White House, whose every move is dictated by supporting the East and undermining the West.
It is a bold and largely effective plan, aided and abetted by Selbsthast Western media who have a deep hatred of the very political structures that gave them their freedoms, education and wealth.

December 13, 2015 12:49 pm

We are NOT out of the woods yet. If TPP passes, then the US will be mandated to strictly enforce every EPA/CO2 climate regulation on the books as well as the agreement reached in Paris, or we could be subjected to ongoing billions in fines/penalties. This is because the TPP authorizes the setup of a 3-member international climate panel with the authority to issue fines/penalties, payable to any country that claims damage due to another countries CO2 emissions on a simple 2/3 vote, if the offending country is not strictly in compliance with ALL of its CO2/climate regulations and international agreements. This climate panel even has VETO power over any future changes to our regulations by simply claiming that the changes give us an unfair trading advantage. Thus, if the TPP is approved by congress, then we will be LEGALLY obligated. Obama and the Progressives get their wish if TPP passes. TPP MUST NOT PASS.

Reply to  alcheson
December 13, 2015 1:12 pm

“We are NOT out of the woods yet”
Understatement of the thread.
The institutionalization of CAGW is deeply entrenched.
Under the theory of path of least resistance, skeptics will need a cooler climate or a hard dose of economic reality to stop the political momentum.
You’ve already ahead in the science, but the politics are hanging on like a rabid dog.
Free money and all that seduces many.

Reply to  alcheson
December 13, 2015 1:15 pm

Not necessarily as dire as you say. TPP is a CEA type treaty. These historically require opt out provisions so as not to be thrust under Constitution Article 2 section 2.2. If the scenario you envision came to pass, Congress would surely vote to opt out. Problem solved.

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 1:40 pm

They don’t need no stinkin treaties.
Regional initiatives and corporate commitments are pushing the ball.

Reply to  alcheson
December 13, 2015 2:25 pm

It is not obvious to me how any such fine or penalty could be enforced upon the nation with the world’s largest military power (unless China has already surpassed the US).
How many battalions has Ban Ki Moon?
At what point will the Supreme Court of the US step in?

December 13, 2015 12:50 pm

Roy Spencer has a pretty good take on if global warming was a concern in the 1800s.

Vice-Chief Kerry of the Developed Tribes: “All chiefs must dance to the rain gods, or no rain will fall on our lands. Or too many rains. After rain dance, we smoke peace pipe.”
Chief Boingo of the Undeveloped Tribes: “Our people will not dance. Unless much wampum is given to our people. For we have suffered greatly. The clouds do not give their tears. Or give too much…whatever. Only after much wampum will we then smoke peace pipe.”

December 13, 2015 12:54 pm

I find myself agreeing with James Hansen.
link The whole thing is a fraud. LOL Politics makes strange bedfellows.
In Canada, the new Prime Minister, Trudeau Jr., has embraced CAGW in public. Watch him stab it in the back in private … just another slimy politician. Sunny ways indeed.

December 13, 2015 1:05 pm

“Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% 0.04% (400 ppm).”

Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2015 1:08 pm

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that CO2 is the problem that the attendees in Paris claim it to be. Without a large excess of ‘renewable’ energy, just how are we going to build all the necessary windmills and solar panels, and decommission existing fossil fuel power plants? It will require large amounts of energy that will have to, at least initially, come from fossil fuels. This will exacerbate the emission of CO2 above and beyond what it would be without the revolution in energy production! Unlike trees and grass, these new sources of energy don;t grow themselves and will require ramping up mining, processing, fabricating, and transporting the components of the ‘renewable’ energy — as well as increasing the mining of the fossil fuels to power these changes. It seems to me that those advocating rapid replacement of fossil fuels haven’t thought it through. There has been a lot of autonomic hand waving, but little cerebral exercise.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2015 7:11 pm

Clyde …
COP21 … and the WINNER IS …. CHINA!!!!
They have agreed they do not have to reduce emissions until 2030 – 15 years from now. At that time they will consider their objectives.
In the meantime they are commissioning one new coal power plant every 10-14 days. They are also leading the world in developing new nuclear energy schemes.
They currently supply almost 50% of the wind turbines and solar panels sold in the world.
SO as the industrialized world commits to reducing CO2 emissions and drive themselves and their populations in to bankruptcy, where will they be buying their CO2 reducing Nuclear energy, wind turbines and solar panels???
Why from the Coal Powered plants in CHINA of course!!!!
They must be laughing like heck behind cupped hands.
What a wonderful non-agreement COP21 is!!!

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
December 13, 2015 7:36 pm

Excellent 30K foot observation.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
December 14, 2015 12:15 am
M Seward
December 13, 2015 1:09 pm

A 500 person entourage to Paris. Wll Well Well, who’d a thunk it? More booties and stillettoes on the ground in Paris than boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria? Appearances are everything, daaahlings.
What a disgusting, creepy little narcissist this guy turned out to be.
I think you Yanks need another revolution. Go back to a parliamentary democracy and can I suggest compulsory voting ( at least turn up and have your name ticked off the roll). How in the heck do you come up with grubs like Obama and now playing footsie with Trump!!!

Reply to  M Seward
December 13, 2015 1:26 pm

apathy of the silent majority has allowed room for extremism to rule

Jim Francisco
Reply to  M Seward
December 13, 2015 9:28 pm

Must be the fluoride in city folks water.

Reply to  Jim Francisco
December 13, 2015 9:44 pm

One of these days science will move beyond stupid CO2 and get more comprehensive data on stuff that we need more data about …. eg

December 13, 2015 1:11 pm

Congrats to Josh on his cartoon. The only thing missing was the snow during their exit. That said, those folks returning to the UK get that snow.

Bill Everett
December 13, 2015 1:16 pm

I continue to wonder why there is not more attention paid to the existing record of temperature behavior. If the global temperature behaves in the current century as it has since 1880 then there will be only 40 years of temperature rise during this century. That rise will amount to about One degree Celsius.

December 13, 2015 1:22 pm

Man is gonna control the climate? Mother nature is rotflhao
If it was t so sad it would be hilarious

Reply to  John piccirilli
December 13, 2015 1:32 pm

Classic George Carlin piece RIP

Gunga Din
Reply to  knutesea
December 13, 2015 2:16 pm

I’d seen it before but I haven’t seen it recently.

Craig Moore
December 13, 2015 1:33 pm

If shaming is going to be the compliance mechanism, then we should go to warning tickets for drunk and impaired driving and declare victory.

Reply to  Craig Moore
December 13, 2015 2:13 pm

The naming and shaming provisions only work if a country is stupid enough to provide a transparent INDC. US and UK, probably that stupid. Russia, China, India, South Africa, Mexico… Not that stupid. Paul Homewood has posted a number of INDC dissections. Obama set the US up for potential shaming.
But for the ongoing shift to phase out end of useful life coal plants for CCGT, with which the US might almost squeek by its minimum INDC. Provided that analysis in a comment on the previous thread. Thumbnail version: If 35% of coal MW (the oldest and least efficient, most due to be replaced anyway under present retirement practices at average age 48, with current fleet average 40) are all replaced by CCGT producing 70% less CO2 thanks to much higher thermal efficiency (61% versus 32-33% for existing old coal) and the chemistry of combustion (methane produces twice the heat per pound of Powder River sub bituminous coal, and in addition half the CO2 per unit heat), then (0.35*0.7) gives a total CO2 reduction of 24.5%. The COP21 US INDC minimum is 26%, the goal 28%. Obummer’s ‘legacy’, without Obummer. He is smart enough to have planned this, even though it is a total deception. Don’t you just hate that?

December 13, 2015 1:36 pm

400 ppm = 0.04%, not 0.4%.

Reply to  Bernie Roseke
December 14, 2015 1:30 am

Yes, and now for the win: how much of that 0.04 percent of the atmosphere is there because of mankind’s activities and how much is there because of the rest of nature?

Reply to  markstoval
December 14, 2015 8:14 am

Exactly – I have NEVER seen, nor have any of the AGW Morons ever proposed a figure on exactly WHAT PERCENTAGE of CO2 is Man Derived and what Percentage is NATURALLY OCCURRING! Until such a measurement can be made, all this nonsense about Reducing CO2 Output is MEANINGLESS DRIVEL!

December 13, 2015 1:42 pm

Putin: “Obama Administration Has ‘Mush’ For Brains”

December 13, 2015 1:55 pm

“President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris largely these inconvenient realities – needs “ignored”.
Spot on of course!
[Fixed, thank you. .mod]

December 13, 2015 1:59 pm

I especially like the incentives to develop CO2 technologies. If you come up with something really good you can charge anything you want as long as it is free.

December 13, 2015 2:08 pm

Remember Remember
The Twelfth of December
Upturning the Fourteenth July
With Blankety Moonshine
Plus Sauce Hollandaise
And Rentamobgreenhorns pie.
For some Eaux de Vie try these: &

December 13, 2015 2:09 pm

Sooner than later, Bon and Obama and the other bureaucratic-theologians might have a “Thank God” moment when they embrace the “pause” as a “sign” that the UN protocols (har har hee hee) are “working” to not only limit global temperature increase to “2 C” but actually made the increase “0 C”!
Other than that the bowl of mush is Obama’s spine.
Ha ha XD

December 13, 2015 2:47 pm

Now this, # 84, should help, us all, as they are throwing open all the information they have…
“to explore ways of enhancing the implementation of training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information”…..
but I fear they may stick to the absolute letter of the agreement above and do no such thing as release any data.
my `vacuous statement detector` just overloaded and blew a fuze

December 13, 2015 2:54 pm

Thanks, Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek.
It appears like we carbon-based creatures will live to see another day.

December 13, 2015 2:58 pm

Typo: Missing word “ignore” in:
“President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris largely these inconvenient realities,”

Reply to  rogerknights
December 13, 2015 3:04 pm

I said that 2 hours ago….and they ignored me …LOL

Ian L. McQueen
December 13, 2015 3:43 pm

In case it has not been introduced above, “regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% (400 ppm)” has a slight error. 400 ppm is the same as 0.04%, not 0.40%.
I prefer the decimal fraction, 0.0004, because it seems even smaller (which is what it deserves).
Ian M

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
December 14, 2015 1:33 am

Agreed Ian. But what portion of that 0.0004 is there because of mankind’s industrial activities and how much is there because of mother nature? Is not Lady Nature the main CO2 emitter?

December 13, 2015 4:07 pm

COP21 may not have binding commitments but the TPP that Obama and Trudeau and the majority of legislators in the US and Canada seem to favor has legal and binding commitments. The TPP allows non-elected officials to override the various constitutions. Check out E.M.Smith at Chiefio.

Reply to  Skeptic
December 13, 2015 4:39 pm

Please see my previous comments above. Your concerns do not fully reflect the US legal situation. That is a polite understatement; the blunt statement is you are just wrong. You, Chiefio, and Alcheson are repeating a meme that does NOT reflect a complete understanding of the Constitution on this matter, and a wrong ‘negative alarmist’ interpretation which does you all no credit. Trade agreement type 2 CEA ‘treaties’ must have opt out clauses in order to evade US Constitution Article 2 section 2.2.
It would be helpful to the skeptical side if your researched more, and said less before knowing the ‘truth’. In this case, constitutional law indelibly established for near 200 years.

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 6:31 pm

ristvan – I sincerely hope you are right. The question is: is there such an opt-out clause?
What If: No opt out clause, Obama signs it into force in defiance of Article 2 section 2.2, anyway. Remember, he has a pen and he has a phone. It would not be the first major policy initiative he has undertaken in such a way as to trash the constitution.
What Then: Off to SCOTUS? Some would say he would not have done it if he could not get away with it. A future appeal to SCOTUS was anticipated and planned for.
Again, I hope you are right, but many of us are still concerned after what we have seen.

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2015 7:15 pm

As I was reminded of recently by the “new” adult and well educated generation. They don’t identify with the values of my generation and in fact consider skeptical review part of the partisan “hate culture”. Since they are not being “listened to”, they have the right to make the ends justify the means.
I felt like I was listening to a brain washed regurgitation of something they heard at a rally. Anyway, not the point of my post
Tony et al and Ristvan, I am very interested in Chiefio’s pov. Essentially what I read is that the TPP requires the US to meet UN environmental goals in order to conduct trade.
Is that correct ?
Ristvan says that’s constitutionally illegal ?

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 7:44 pm

Ristvan…. I feel you are the Naive one. Once the climate panel convenes and the penalty instituted, the case would have to go to court… putting the matter into a judges hands and you presume that a Liberal/Progressive judge will side with you. I would much rather TPP NOT pass and not take such a chance.

Reply to  ristvan
December 13, 2015 10:02 pm

Alcheson, you may not have fully understood what I explained. It is not some future court problem. To avoid a type one article 2 constitutional treaty, the CEA type 2 treaty is not ‘irrevocable except by mutual consent’ (paraphase of the Jeffersonian legalese). That means there must be some unilateral opt out provision. TPP cannot be a CEA type 2 treaty without some such provision; it is of that type. Usually, Congress by simple majority can exercise a treaty opt out. In some circumstances, the president can even absent congressional approval. E.G. Bush on nuclear disarmament. Your homework is to find that essential provision in the more than 1000 pages of TPP text. Not mine.
I am merely articulating well trodden legal principles that most denizens here are unaware of. Which all could easily be found by ‘Google’ research. Nuff said.

Reply to  ristvan
December 14, 2015 2:32 am

TonyL, that would make it an ” Executive Order”, which the next president can simply overwrite with an ” Executive Order ” .

The Great Walrus
December 13, 2015 4:26 pm

Russell: Regarding the company you worked for (“coal fired and supper”), did they provide breakfast and lunch, or only supper?

R Shearer
Reply to  The Great Walrus
December 13, 2015 6:24 pm

Coal fired pizza would be good for lunch.

December 13, 2015 4:39 pm

Voluntary mush it may be… but the consequences are enormous.
December 12, 2015 is today’s equivalent of what happened centuries ago when the Roman Catholic Church declared, “The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved” (Psalms 104:5) used as evidence against Galileo who was tried for heresy for believing in Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, and which the Roman Catholic Church finally and officially acknowledged to be correct in 1992 (350 years after Galileo’s death). Sir Isaac Newton had already confirmed the theory back in 1687… but that did not budge the Catholic Church’s position.
So using Galileo’s case, today the United Nations plays the role of old Roman Catholic Church … the Paris Accord has become today’s “The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved”, and skeptic scientists are today’s Galileo. The question is will it take 350 years for the United Nations to finally acknowledge the error of its ways?
Like it or not, the Paris Accord has now established some very important and serious principles, which will be now be fed through the world’s education system:
… carbon dioxide from human activity is carbon pollution;
… carbon dioxide from human activity is the key driver of climate change;
… carbon dioxide from human activity controls atmospheric temperature, which humans can control;
… carbon dioxide from human activity only has adverse effects;
… climate computer models projections and scenarios are science;
… the scientific method is obsolete;
… science is now undertaken by consensus;
… scientists who do not adopt the consensus view must be condemned, silenced, banished, etc.
Confronted with this new world order belief system in science, which school or university teacher or lecturer will dare challenge the United Nations consensus on climate science?

Reply to  Mervyn
December 13, 2015 4:51 pm

Sadly true. I suspect as well that the enormous resources which now will flood the CC system will be sufficient to create any paradigm with any spin desired.
It likely will take as many as 300+ years or until the next ice age, whichever comes first, before there will be any realization by the madding crowd that this is a scam the likes of which we have enver encountered.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  Mervyn
December 13, 2015 5:07 pm

I’m thinking Galileo just puked on himself.

Reply to  Mervyn
December 14, 2015 1:37 am

“Confronted with this new world order belief system in science, which school or university teacher or lecturer will dare challenge the United Nations consensus on climate science?”
A few will. They will be men and women nearing the end of their careers who can not be threatened as much as the men and women just starting out in their careers. (and it helps if you already have been awarded major scientific prizes)

December 13, 2015 4:49 pm

I’m super happy the CO2 supply will continue! Now we need to elect officials that know this whole charade is nothing but an attempt to rein in our economy–as if it needed a brake!

The other Phil
December 13, 2015 5:05 pm

President Obama fervently believes this delusion.
No he doesn’t
Slashing fossil energy use that far would thus require decimating economic growth, job creation and preservation, and average per-person incomes. In fact, average world per capita GDP would plummet from a projected $30,600 in 2050 to a miserable $1,200 per year.
Average per capita GDP in 2050 would be less than what Americans had in 1830!

This is what he belies. The problem is, you write it as if it were a way to persuade him he is wrong. What you miss is that this is his goal

Reply to  The other Phil
December 13, 2015 7:39 pm

And that goal was quite clear in the 2008 election but almost no one paid attention. People were warned by Obama that they would have to make sacrifices. Well, the sacrifices are here now.

The other Phil
December 13, 2015 5:05 pm

belies-> Believes

Tom in Florida
December 13, 2015 5:11 pm

Here in Venice FL we have been averaging about 5 C above normal for December. I find the more that 2C increase delightful and hope it becomes the new normal.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 14, 2015 1:39 am

Same for Orlando. December has been a dream.

December 13, 2015 5:19 pm

Caller: Hi, I’d like a loan to buy a house.
Bank: Yes, we lend money for that. How much did you want to borrow?
Caller: $2 million.
Bank: Wow, that must be some house. Or a tiny, tiny apartment in downtown Vancouver. But never mind that for a moment, what’s important is how you are going to pay it off.
Caller: Pay it off?
Bank: Well yes, you have to pay us the money back you know.
Caller: Oh that. Well I have a goal.
Bank: Well payment structure is more what we were thinking-
Caller: My goal is to have it paid out by 2100
Bank: Uhm….that’s like 85 years from now
Caller: And I’m going to pay you 166.67 per month.
Bank: Uh… that only adds up to about 170,000, not 2 million
Caller: What don’t you understand about setting goals? Oh, and I won’t be making any payments at all for the first few decades, but after that I’ll pay extra to catch up. How long does the approval process take?
Bank: (click)
Is there no one in the MSM willing to scream from the rooftops the sheer absurdity of this charade?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 13, 2015 7:00 pm

Is there no one in the MSM willing to scream from the rooftops the sheer absurdity of this charade?
Or, for that matter, is there not one environmentalist group willing to stand up and cry foul? Is there not a single humanitarian organization willing to take, and express, offense? Have the whole lot of them become either cowards or rotten to the core?
Please don’t answer that. I suspect I know the answer, and it depresses me greatly.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 13, 2015 9:34 pm

Yes the Australian TV and radio morning hosts were all in ecstasy this morning. I even heard some stupid Green politician go on about Australia’s wonderful “wind deposits”. I don’t think she realised that she was about the biggest bag of wind going around.

Joel O’Bryan
December 13, 2015 5:43 pm

Why is the mush yellow and not neutral gray?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 13, 2015 5:44 pm

It should be green, the color of both money and environmental stupidity. They’ve become rather indistinguishable.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 13, 2015 9:31 pm

Gold mush is the most expensive, and the least flavorful.

Leon Brozyna
December 13, 2015 5:54 pm

What Paris has given us is a manifesto for the anti-industrial revolution. How bad could it be? Considering how Mr. Kerry is speaking of it as creating jobs, you may just want to get ready to kiss yours goodbye.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
December 13, 2015 6:33 pm

Yes, it WILL create jobs…… China and India !!!

Michael C
December 13, 2015 6:34 pm

I see the treaty as good news. Through their own imposed parameters they can no longer ignore the science and the future realities that are independent of opinion and desire. They are geese for the plucking and can now be held to task. Poor ignorant fools, they have ignored the power of nature’s forcing and regulatory systems, the evidence of which is clearly visible to those that look. The question now is: will the data be massaged to show that atmospheric CO2 is on decline? Has its concentration ever been accurately established anyway?

December 13, 2015 7:06 pm

“President Obama fervently believes this [manmade CO2=global warming] delusion.”
No, he does not! It is a weapon he uses in his attempt to destroy the land he hates: America.
If it weren’t global warming, it would be something else; global warming is just the most convenient and effective tool right now.

December 13, 2015 7:38 pm

Was the intro, preamble, whatever really written by the Chavista delegate from Venezuela. That’s my understanding and it reads like it. No irony here in that her corrupt creed was spectacularly repudiated by the people of Venezuela while she’s been in Paris.
She must be one of vast number of climate scientists Eddie Markey was talking about.

T. Madigan
December 13, 2015 8:35 pm

(Deleted. Labeling others as “denialists” violates site policy. -mod.)

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
December 13, 2015 9:11 pm

I submitted the following to the Climate Science Blog of the Geological Society’s “Connected Community.” We’ll see if they post it. A shorter version appeared on my Facebook page:
The Paris COP-21 meeting on climate change has published its 31-page “Agreement” which can be read here:
I’ve read the agreement and got the impression, perhaps mistaken, that it is an advocacy document with feel-good intentions lacking rigor and enforcement mechanisms. Key provisions are voluntary with no oversight. In other words, each country is left to decide what it wants to do simply because no agreement was possible without such a provision rendering it meaningless.
The winners were the Indians and the Chinese who are increasing coal production. The Chinese also are selling coal-fired power plants to other countries! Even US Secretary of State Kerry admitted that any agreed mitigation the US might do won’t ameliorate Anthropogenic global warming significantly.
The Agreement also has an opt-out provision after three years from signing the agreement with a one-year waiting period after giving notice. However, failure of 55 countries to ratify the agreement by April, 2016, also is an opt-out mechanism that is four months away. The most critical part of the agreement appears in the “Annex” starting on p.19.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK has described the COP-21 Agreement as “non-binding and toothless” which pretty-well sums it up. Similarly, GSA’s distinguished invited speaker at the 2015 Baltimore annual meeting, Dr. James Hansen, has stated that the COP-21 meeting in Paris is a ”fraud.” ( Given his credentials and GSA’s high regard for his expertise, Dr. Hansen’s assessment should be taken seriously even if his language could be viewed by some as strong.
The 12 day venue appears to have been very costly. I estimated it cost over $1 Billion to arrange the Paris meeting. Using the US State Department per diem rate for Paris of $480/day, just this item for 40,000 delegates comes to $211,200,000. Travel costs, averaging $5,000 per delegate (probably a low figure because most travelled first class) would add $200 million. Add rental of the venue, security, special limousines, flying the US President’s security designed SUV, security detail and 500 person entourage, and the costs keep climbing. Add delegates’ salaries as an additional cost.
Did the world get its money’s worth? In the Southern USA, they say “time will tell.” In my view, the venue money could have been better spent helping the world’s poor improve their economic well-being and given them a chance for upward mobility. That’s a global goal worth striving for.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
December 14, 2015 4:46 am

Not only 55 countries, but representing at least 55% of CO2 emmissions. Still, that’s a pretty low bar. The US will drag it’s feet, as well we should. Despite an appearance of toothlessness, the thing is a trojan horse. I hope the Republicans have the cajones to block ratification.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
December 14, 2015 1:34 pm

Th GSA posted it.

Patrick MJD
December 13, 2015 11:09 pm

Being published all over the Australian MSM like a rash. Being called a “legally binding success”. Clearly none of them have read the document.

Eric Harpham
December 13, 2015 11:21 pm

Just a typo I feel certain but 400 parts per million is 0.040 percent not 0.40 percent.

December 13, 2015 11:28 pm

“Obama still wants to send US energy use”
Was that “send” meant to be “end”?
Or was the sentence meant to end (for instance) with “into the toilet, along with the economy”?

Peter Miller
December 13, 2015 11:54 pm

400ppm CO2 is 0.04%, not 0.40%.

December 14, 2015 1:23 am

The fascist elite and their NGO/pressure group propaganda machine, want to pretend that they want to seek out and support technologies that would provide access to cheap low carbon energy.
But, these same people have for years resisted any such technology where-ever it has emerged.
Hence, their total zealous resistance to big hydro power and nuclear, which they seek to “discredit”, resist, delay and defund, for any reason which can be conceivable imagined.
Hence their willingness to resist or ban gas extraction, even though gas represents a lower-carbon alternative to coal and oil.
Then when technologies show any usefulness whatsoever subsidies are pulled and then punitive taxes are devised as though intended to drive them away.
Meanwhile subsidies pulled from effective technologies are immediately redirected towards the most inefficient sectors of the market. Such as the perpetually non-delivering wave-power or the idiotic “deep sea” wind platforms.
Take wind in the UK. Clearly large scale wind is more cost effective than small scale wind. So the subsidy framework has been devised to promote the down-rating of large wind turbines. Approx. half of the turbines in the 100-500kw bracket are really much more powerful wind turbines which have been down-rated to PREVENT them from delivering power. I am not joking. This is the reality.
THEN – as solar P.V. continued is historic slide, which equates to approx. a halving of the cost/kwh every 7-10years – we suddenly see the strangest of things. The E.U. has stepped in with price controls and punitive (70%!!) taxes on cheap Chinese solar P.V. modules. In a desperate attempt to hold the price high.
Is anybody still fooled?
And here’s a description of the ongoing U.K. wind turbine derating debacle:

December 14, 2015 2:27 am

** Mods .. typo error !** In paragraph 17.
“Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above *0.40%* (400 ppm).”
… 400ppm is 0.0400% … (Hint: the 4th decimal place is millionth.)

Reply to  Peter Yates
December 14, 2015 3:59 am

Hmm. Please ignore that bit about “millionth”.
On this graphic, the 4th decimal place is ‘ten thousandths’.

Rainer Bensch
December 14, 2015 2:53 am

“The United States would likely have to slash it CO2 and GHG reductions to zero.”
Well, nice to go on as usual. But I know the Blob didn’t mean that.

December 14, 2015 4:44 am

“Sure, agreements will be made, papers will be signed, people will look suitably serious for the media photo shoot, but if you can actually be bothered to burrow into exactly what everyone is signing up to, and that won’t be much, there won’t be a single binding clause in the whole damn mountain of paperwork.
It’ll all be best effort, contingent, subject to current commitments and dependent on exigent developments. Yap, yap, yap. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Badda bing, badda boom, but as Sam Goldwyn observed, while a verbal contract may only be worth the paper it’s written on, any agreement they sign up to in Paris will be worth considerably less.”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Pointman
December 14, 2015 5:02 am

And yet, it still is a dangerous trojan horse. The Republicans have to hold the line against it, not only for the country’s sake, but ultimately for the sake of humanity.

December 14, 2015 5:22 am

GDP from 30000 to 12000? We have to be careful not to indulge financial alarmism and the like. We don’t win an argument by touting the worst case scenario. We win by using data properly and being realistic in our outlooks.

December 14, 2015 6:23 am

But the WH spin that controlled the headlines says it was historic, landmark mush. Does historic and landmark mean we can now go back to a weekly schedule of scare tactics in place of the daily scare messaging?

December 14, 2015 6:34 am

I saw a documentary from 1966 that predicted this :

Gilligan, Gilligan
W-What are you doing?
Well obviously Gilligan we’re building a fire.
For a merit badge, huh?
No, not for a merit badge, we’re trying to signal that boat out there.
What boat?
The boat out there.
I don’t see any boat.
Of course you don’t.
Do you?
Professor do you see the boat.
Oh i can’t see it, either.
But it’s out there, right?
Look, Mary Ann saw the boat out there.
Can you see Mary Ann?
No, how can I see Mary Ann when she isn’t even here?
Same way you can see the boat.
Gilligan, will you stop that?
Will you go get some firewood for the fire?
To signal the boat that we can’t see, right?
Professor, what kind of boat is it we can’t see?
Uh, white with blue trim, and its got 2 men and 2 women on it.
And the women are wearing bikinis.
Ooh, I wish i could see them, even if they’re not there.
For the last time Gilligan, will you get over to that tree and get some firewood for the fire?
I have an even better idea.
Since we’re making believe there’s a boat, Lets make believe we have a fire.

Reply to  garymount
December 14, 2015 7:37 am

I’m sure Mr Ed will know what to do.

December 14, 2015 7:59 am

You might like –

Lars Tuff
December 14, 2015 8:06 am

Nice one, Roger and Paul. Just one correction: 400 ppm = 0,04%, not 0,4%.
Well this about sums most of the frolly up. But also, we have to remember that poor people in the developing countries are the ones that once again will pay the most, for they shall and will not be allowed decent living conditions, that are only aquired through use of cheap, reliable energy and electricity.
As a result of Paris, India and China can continue to fire up new coal power stations, in ever accellerating tempo, so whatever the west, EU and the US does, no longer matters, with respect to global human CO2-emissions. And as it does not, to adhere to the unholy pact of economic suicide by going “green”, is harakiri to no avail, for anyone, not the global population, not US citiciens and not citicens of the EU.
The last 20 years have seen unprecedented rise in human CO2 emissions, and the global temperatures have not increased, but been in stasis or even in decline. This tells us clearly that human CO2-emssions (5% of total emissions yearly) can not regulate temperatures on our planet.
The consequenses of this really should be that everyone with a sound and scientific mind abandoned the CO2 train. And all of them have. Those who are left on the steamroller are the hysteric non-scientific alarmists and so-called environmentalists, politicians that, as Lord Monchton says, say they are green because they are to yellow to admit they’re really red – and journalists who follow the party lines and report what the rulers want to hear. And in common for all of these are the total lack of any scientific training, knowledge and honourability.
But as You say, we are not out of the woods yet. Hopefully, voters and citicens in nations who’s politicians now foolishly return to their homeland trying to convince everyone to sacrifice all wealth for nothing, will strike it all down, when they realize they are being led to economic suicide, with no real evidence that this sacrifice will gain anything at all.

December 14, 2015 8:47 am

The COP 21 Treaty is an imaginary non solution to an imaginary problem. The earth is just entering the declining phase of the millennial temperature cycle which will last until about 2650.For estimates of the amplitude and timing of the coming cooling see
and check the links there too. See also
At some time, establishment climate scientists will have to answer for not only creating but indeed promoting
this delusionary CAGW meme.

December 14, 2015 10:07 am

Now, merely tweaking CO2 emissions will supposedly stabilize climate and weather systems.

LOL. I always found this to be one of the most amusing of alarmist claims. My standard response is while we are getting control of the earths climate, lets get control of the seasons as well so we have more moderate seasonal changes. After all if we can control something as immense and complex as Earths climate we certainly can control seasons. Heck I’ll even join the parade as soon as COP commits to having rain only on weekdays.

December 14, 2015 7:52 pm

Q: What do these 3 phrases have in common?
• Giant Shrimp
• Military Intelligence
• Non-binding Agreement

(Fifty quatloos paid for the first correct answer)

johann wundersamer
December 21, 2015 6:18 pm

de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States.
leaves – global unemployment.
the markets LOVE volatility.