Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
It’s been a few weeks since the U.N.’s Paris Climate Conference (COP21) ended. Mainstream media from around the globe praised the impotent agreement, as though anyone expects political promises to be kept. The COP21 agreement reminded me of the proverb A promise is a comfort for a fool.
Fantasy headlines read:
- This is the end of fossil fuels (CNN)
- Historic Paris climate pact puts world on green path (TheHindu)
- COP21 Delegates vote to adopt historic deal (EuroNews)
- COP21: President Obama celebrates Paris deal that ‘transformed the US’ (Independent)
There are many more.
But one headline made me laugh out loud. It still makes me smile. It was penned by none other than SkepticalScience’s Dana Nuccitelli, whose article was posted at his home blog SkepticalScience and at TheGuardian two weeks ago. His headline read:
The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
Mr. Nuccitelli needs to ask himself why the U.N.’s climate agreement is non-binding…why the “shalls” were replaced with “shoulds”…why the teeth of the agreement were extracted…why commitments became empty promises. (See proverb above.) Answer: Republican members of congress—who Mr. Nuccitelli would most assuredly classify as deniers—would never have ratified an agreement that actually commits the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I have yet to find another post-COP21 headline that made me laugh as hard, though the Independent’s “COP21: President Obama celebrates Paris deal that ‘transformed the US’” came in a close second.
The agreement is nothing but a chance for the progressoids to create headlines and have a feel good moment in a time when reality isn’t looking so good for them.
I always love those products that are guaranteed to last for the lifetime of the product.
How is a products lifetime defined? It starts when the product is bought, and it ends when the product breaks.
When I had a plant nursery, I used to joke to some of my customers that all of my plants came with a lifetime guarantee. If someone kills one, the guarantee is off.
A more realistic phrasing is to state that the product conforms to industry standards, the description of the product is accurate, and is free of defects and disease and fit for merchantability.
The COP21 agreement reads almost exactly like the Lifetime Warranty for those miracle kitchen gadgets sold on late-night TV infomercials. I wonder how many kitchen gadgets Mr. Nuccitelli has? If he thinks the COP21 agreement is so wonderful, he’s a prime candidate for their target audience.
So does this mark the part of the ‘Climate War’ were the Alarmists stuff their pockets with their ill gotten billions, declare victory, and go home? Because if so they can go with my blessing. Enjoy your great victory, warmists. The rest of use will finally be able to get some real science done once you’re gone.
Mr. Nutella (sorry, I couldn’t resist that one) evidently has not read Clausewitz’ “On War”, or he would recognize that a war has not been won until the opposition concedes that they have been defeated. There are no signs of concession among the ‘deniers’.
“The Paris agreement signals the loss of the climate war…”
Fixed.
Yes but we still need to stop burning dinosaur bones for heat, electricity and transportation. Eventually we will badly need fossil fuels for feed stocks for plastics so we should not burn it all up.
guereza2wdw
Granted. Eventually … Meaning, 120 years? 180 years? 380 years? 1380 years?
See, the enviro’s and extremist’s CURRENT (2015!) agenda DEMANDS immediate policies and taxes and bank-enriching carbon schemes that destroy lives NOW, that kill millions NOW and harm billions in the near future. That do NOT reduce CO2 nor reduce potential future beneficial global average temperature increases, that do NOT reduce future potential oil and gas use.
With hundreds of years of known coal reserves, plus hundreds more years of undiscovered coal reserves, we can produce billions of tons of future oil stock products when needed at economic rates. When needed.
By the time we use up all the dinosaur “bones”, we probably won’t be using plastics anymore anyway.
Carbon fibers… a useful sequestering.
So … if we eliminate carbon pollution then our future will depend on carbon pollution?
Yep. Sounds like a typical “going Green” plan to me. 😎
Used wisely, we can use fossil fuels to supply, power and transport ourselves for generations. Applying some intelligence and true research, we should have built supply ships to bring us back methane from intrasolar sources.
There is enough methane in our solar system, to power humanity until Andromeda Galaxy smashes through the Milky Way, and then some additional billions of years.
If needed, but to accomplish this feat, we will have to solve the main flaws to the use of nuclear energy.
Also, after looking at the history of the world for the last 150 years, if we are still relying on fossil fuels for out main energy source and not nuclear the world in 100 years, the world/civilization broke.
are junk science-based, inaccurate history-based, free market-choking, government regulations.
Um….I know that the term “fossil fuels” implies that we’re burning fossils….but we don’t actually burn dinosaur bones. We preserve them in museums. We burn ancient organic materials that aren’t really anything anymore.
You can always count on “Nutty” Nuccitelli for a good laugh.
Thanks, Bob. I needed a laugh!
Let me fix this headline for you, Dana.
“The Paris agreement suggests that deniers may lose the climate wars by the end of this century.”
That keeps your claims in line with other climate predictions.
“The Paris agreement strongly suggests…”
Don’t forget the hyperbole, Mickey.
We need hyperbole in order to make it robust.
Another take on this
“Paris was an enviro-fail, but a PR success, and political win — it’s a non-binding, non-treaty, but real commitment.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/paris-was-an-enviro-fail-but-a-pr-success-and-political-win-its-a-non-binding-non-treaty-but-real-commitment/
Maybe Nuccitelli should define “war”. Is it the “war” over rising temperatures? More weather disasters? Higher levels of CO2? The arctic disappearing? Closing coalmines and oil wells? The term “war” in relation to science is such a perversion and a childish distortion. It is clear from Obama’s climate plan just released that there will be years of legal and political wrangling in the US. That is war.
What is happening that is alarming is that at a lower level of national government there is renewed enthusiasm for more rules and regulations that will be difficult to stop. In countless ways local governments and bureaucracies, now infiltrated by green, Marxists are rushing through economy damaging changes in the name of COP21 and AGW. That’s is war.
One of the main reasons why the Chinese were seemingly comfortable at Paris was they will benefit from the west forcing up the costs of production through doubling electricity pricing for example.
Yeees. Its the pinkos comin to get ya eh. Hiding under your bed right now.
NASA is in league with em. Actually
most of the world is.
Everyones out to deny a few rich wankers their right to shit over everything, including their own children.
Its not FAIR that everyone isnt selfish and paranoid. Cuz thats the normal way
way to be. Innit mate?
The ” infiltration ” you speak of is only
gunna get worse.
Because NASA is so corrupt physics will cease to be.
Except the correct physics soley propounded by wealthy paranoids.
Isnt that right?
Sorry bruvver,I is a bit confused.Are you sayin’ that the people who work at NASA are rich,selfish,paranoid wankers who sh*t over everything coz I thought that was Al Gore innit?
Right-o guv’nmma!
It took the ouster of Kruschev to end Lysenkoism. That and some help from the inventors of the Russian hydrogen bomb.
I don’t see any major political revolutions in the west coming down the pike to save us…
Peter
Shhhhhhh Peter….the best revolutions are the ones you DON’T see coming…..
Dana Nuccitelli, neo-Nazi:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8apmfouVO-Y/U3CCBVFmwPI/AAAAAAAABKU/Ci-CsSKCF0g/s1600/Herr+Dana.gif
The Germans thought they were winning, too.
Might have won it if they had rice burners 🙂
One more then I’ll stop, it seems things have progressed 🙂
Crazy…
And, of course, a major reason they lost was a shortage of “fossil fuel” (or not enough wind mills).
If it weren’t for the boomers, somebody might actually try something.
That guy looks Wehrmacht.
Perhaps better would be a Schutzstaffel uniform … if you;re looking for die-hard fanaticism. 🙂
Okay, Old Bluff-n-Dodge, “creepy,” then:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
db!!!! Godwin’s Photography!!! I hate this…but I cannot stop laughing….hysterically! My lord someone merged his face/moped incredibly well.
Must….stop….laughing.
Aphan,
John Cook did that Nuccitelli neo-Nazi photoshop, not me. Therefore old1 is wrong as always.
So when Nuttitelli called the entire skeptical community den(-)iers, he lost right there…that is what you are saying, right?
To be fair with Nuccitelli it is fair to say that when all you can make and have is sh*t , then all you got to give or sell is sh*t . So he he is given all that his got , these really is his ‘best effort ‘
Dana, Dana, Dana
The Paris agreement is a white flag held up by the climate alarmists who oppose fossil fuels.
They surrendered even though there hasn’t been a climate skirmish yet. Paris was just a mimicked affair staged by mimics for mimics.
John
John…did you just say….white flag…and Paris in the same sentence? Shame on you! *grinning widely*
Silly is all that’s left after peak climate alarmism in Paris. Otherwise, this is the quiet time before the U.S. (aka money target) elections. You will hear next to nothing from U.S. agencies, multinational agencies, biased media sphere, and many advocacy outlets over the next year. Zzzzzz
“The Silliest Post-COP21 Headline Ever?”
Hang on to that question mark. I have never seen a proof that there is a limit to silliness.
I think that the addendum “so far” is implied.
Add the word “Currently” in front of it?
Just as silly are those who claimed that all the INDC submissions (the policy pledges) would have a large impact on global emissions. One such group is Climate Interactive, strongly promoted by Joe Romm in the run-up to COP21. It claimed that the pledges would make a full 1C of difference to warming by 2100, with global GHG emissions in 2100 being 40% lower than the “No Action” scenario. But anyone reading the INDCs knows that actual proposed changes are tiny. So how do Climate Interactive achieve their much larger difference?
I looked at CO2 emissions, which account for 75-80% of GHG emissions in the model. For OECD countries where emissions per capita have been stable or falling for decades, the “No Action” scenario forecasts that they will rise for decades. For Russia and China, where per capita emissions are likely to peak before 2030 without any policy action, the “No Action” scenario forecasts that they will rise for decades. This is largely offset by Climate Interactive assuming that both emissions and economic growth in India and Africa (where there are no real attempts to control emissions) will stagnate in the coming decades. Just by making more reasonable CO2 emissions forecasts for the OECD, Russia and China can account for half of the claimed 2100 reduction in GHG emissions from the INDC. Climate Interactive’s “No Action” scenario is bogus. Plotting the CO2 emissions per capita for six regions illustrates this point.
This corroborates a post at WUWT by Bjorn Lomborg on November 17. However, I explain how the global figures are made to look reasonable. The forecasts for economic and emissions growth for India and Africa are unusually low. For instance, to meet the economic growth forecast for 2010 to 2015, India’s GDP would need to drop by 20% or more in the next few hours. 🙂
I have posted a fuller explanation at my own blog.
They are calling this a “climate war” meanwhile they will not make real war on real terrorists.
Some silly headlines and a few commenters here have mentioned “2014 warmest year ever” as proof of something
The Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age.
Based on that two things
1)One would expect to see “the Warmest” month/day/year from time to time.
2)There is no CO2 signiture; therefore no human influence*, in any of that “Warmest Ever” hype.
*(This is true in spite of Governments altering historic and meticulously collected temperature records.
Records which should have been left alone and now should be restored.)
RobRoy,
Satellite data shows that “2014 was the hottest year EVAH!!” is just plain wrong:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
(Note: “lundasoid” is the latest fake screen name for ‘BusterBrown’, ‘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. All the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
‘AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works.’
____
– more than 97 percent of the passengers believed in a robust white star line vessel ‘Titanic’.
– the Titanic was sunken by an iceberg:
as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence.
____
Luke and AGW.
Capt. Scettino and the ‘Costa Concordia’ stranded on Giglio.
____
BTW, who needs icebergs for catastrophs.