Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The initial explosion of green Euphoria at the announcement of the COP21 climate agreement, is rapidly giving way to dismay, as various environmentalists and other expectant parties realise how feeble their climate “victory” really is.
According to The Guardian;
Leaders from around the world have hailed the agreement struck in Paris on climate change, but some analysts and environmentalists are less sure about its impact.
…
Richard Chatterton, head of climate policy at the group, which provides analysis used by investors, said: “The deal reached in Paris is weak, containing no concrete increase in the level of ambition to address climate change, and simply urges countries to do more over time.”
He said the most notable outcome was the mechanism for five-yearly reviews of carbon targets, and agreement on the principle that countries should provide transparent accounts of how they reach those goals. But even these were “accompanied by language that could allow countries to maintain the status quo for years to come”.
…
Other observers were also wary. Oxfam called the deal “a mixed bag”, arguing that governments had failed to put humanity’s interests above “narrowly defined and short-term interests”, and that the lack of a pathway to keep temperature rises below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels left that goal unclear and vulnerable people in danger.
…
But investors should take it as a signal, he added. “Does this give investors confidence? Probably, yes. It’s all very woolly [in language and aims] but the direction of travel is clear – to low-carbon.”
Read (plenty) more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/paris-climate-change-deal-cop21-oxfam-actionaid
A pretty fair assessment, in my opinion, is the only real achievement of the new climate agreement, is perpetuity of employment for the climate conference class – an agreement for regular “reviews”, to ensure our jetset climate heroes don’t run short of conferences to attend.
Has anyone noticed how the 2degC figure has now become a 1.5degC figure.
Further, since industrialisation, which coincided with the end of the LIA, there has been about 0.7degC of warming which is not anthropogenic in origin. Even the IPCC acknowledges that manmade contribution prior to 1950 is miniscule.
The land based thermometer anomaly record (which is a meaningless data set for many reasons often explained by Richard Courtney) shows about 0.7degC of warming from the early 1800s to the highs of the late 1930s/40s.
So it appears that the agenda is now to try and restrict manmade warming to about 0.8degC.
The goal posts have most definitely changed, and no one appears to be shouting foul and highlighting this. Repeated often enough by MSM it will soon pass into accepted human consciousness.
We should try and stop this from happening (not the warming which I doubt that we can do anything about, and which is likely to be net beneficial), but rather the moving of the goal posts.
+ 1
Yes, I noticed that baseless insertion, too. Particularly since it seems to have been touted and spouted by Canada’s “because it’s 2015” Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna – as dutifully reported by the CBC, circa December 8, with the headline “”COP21: Catherine McKenna endorses goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C”.
But, that aside … Don’t know about you, but I’ve lost track of the number of years that we’ve been fed the line that the deliberations of the UNFCCC are “informed by” and rooted in the “science” – and/or “scientific assessments” – of the “gold standard” IPCC. Yet, if you read this latest and greatest abominable and abstruse word salad called an “Agreement” carefully, you will notice that one of the clauses was a so called “Associated Decision”, of the UNFCCC in which this oh-so-noble body:
“invites the IPCC to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global GHG emission pathways.”
Translation from UN-speak: “1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” does not have a scintilla of “science” – even of the IPCC- kind – to support it! So much for the IPCC “informing” the work of the UNFCCC, eh?!
Eric,
Polite rant.
(Your comments will be most welcome of course, thank you).
I have just read your post, having also read the “earth’s tilt” post by Anthony.
Whilst I really do appreciate the information you (both) give us, I end up shouting “Bollocks” at the screen ! Please allow me to explain.
“Climate Agreement” – this expression is complete “bollocks” !
(“Bollocks” is a quaint, old, English expression, an insult, which means “nonsense” or “rubbish” or “garbage” as you might say in the North America).
The expression itself, “Climate Agreement”, must be thrown into the NOT EVER TO BE USED VAULT. How the hell can anyone agree about or seek to control any climate system ?
Similarly, “Climate Change” – is complete “bollocks” !
Thread bloggers “asybot” and “richard verney” make similar objection and please know that we each have made this point several times before.
There is no such bloody thing as climate change.
The LANGUAGE has been hijacked enough by the EPA, the UN, a community organiser, a qualified railway engineer, pseudo-scientists at the BBC and others too many to mention. We are all so tired of it. It is time to fight back with language which is plain and true.
I again ASK: please look at the WUWT header page and PLEASE DELETE the word “change”. It should read as follows:-
WUWT
Watts Up With That
The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate.
Regards and thanks,
WL
Hey I’ve got to have some fun… 🙂
The above is ‘spot on’
+ 1
mighty fine observation
2.0 degrees? 1.5 degrees?
Decisions.. decisions..
“There’s no sense in being precise
when you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
J von Neumann
Forget the atmospheric physics arguments, along with the Paris Climate Agreement climate change has suddenly ended now and forever. No more global warming, extreme weather events, or rising sea levels. Those are all in the past so we do not have to worry about climate any more nor do we need to waste money studying the now non problem. We are a poor nation with a huge national debt, huge annual deficits, huge trade deficit, and huge unfunded liabilities. Our President’s economic “plan” has failed. Obama once said that that deficit spending showed ” a lack of leadership” so “a lack of leadership” is the Hallmark of the Obama administration so our status of being a poor nation is not going to change. As part of the Paris agreement, everything is going to be paid for by “rich” nations so our poor nation does not need to pay anything for the climate solution. I expect that in the very near future we will all be receiving electric cars and solar powered changing stations all paid for by “rich” nations. Now we can concentrate on more pressing problems such as Man’s out of control population. We need to gradually reduce our human population so we can turn farm, urban, and suburban areas back into wilderness areas and forests.
The ABC in Australia and the Green activists (same thing) are claiming the new agreement will keep temperature rise ‘well below’ 2 degrees. If they could not agree on 1.5 degrees what does well below mean?
In Isaac Asimov’s novel “Foundation,” a group of nervous Encyclopediaists welcome a sub-vice-consul-whatever from the Empire to assure them that the Galactic Empire hasn’t forgotten about them and will protect them from their increasingly agressive neighbors. The Mayor isn’t so impressed, and secretly records every statement the visitor makes during his stay. After the official has left Terminus, the Mayor admits his transgression, and then provides them a semantic analysis of all the official’s remarks. The committee is dumfounded to discover then when all the contradictory statements have been eliminated, THE MAN HAD SAID NOTHING AT ALL.
Sounds like the same thing happened in Paris.
The reality is that the worlds best chance to keep temperatures to 1.5 degrees will be to do nothing . If one extrapolates the trend for the last 18 years they should be there in 2100 with room to spare.
How can any deal that allows the worlds two largest emitters in the world to do nothing for fifteen years to slow their emissions be serious. Not only is the honeymoon over hopefully so will be the party that warmists have been having at our expense.
A comment on Paris doing the rounds ( from Notrickszone I think)
“Rich people from rich countries met in Paris with rich people from poor countries and decided to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries and screw poor people everywhere
“A pretty fair assessment, in my opinion, is the only real achievement of the new climate agreement, is perpetuity of employment for the climate conference class – an agreement for regular “reviews”, to ensure our jetset climate heroes don’t run short of conferences to attend.”
Correct, the only aim of the COP21 was to ensure that the perpetual Party continues, year after year. The participants are not interested in Science, Economics, Welfare or the Poor, they just want another big Party next year.
I recently read Past Climates by Leona Marshall Libby
It’s an old book published in 1983, but I liked it for its simple writing style and experimental rigor.
Ms Libby must have been quite the pistol in her day.
Sorry I never knew her.
I know there are some old timers on this webpage.
Is there anyone who knew her ?
Not an Ice Core
http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/common_images/articles/20150622011731.png
You can fill in the current prices with your favorite reason for price movement.
After reading WUWT and the wacky world of reconstructions, I have found new admiration for financial price charts. I have far less concern about their reliability.
Unless you think the world has no real use for fossils anymore, then we are getting into the range where sovereign wealth investors start backing up the truck.