Scientists say Paris climate accord essentially useless, it's going to get warmer anyway

Scientists: World likely won’t avoid dangerous warming mark

by Seth Borenstein

(AP) A team of top scientists is telling world leaders to stop congratulating themselves on the Paris agreement to fight climate change because if more isn’t done, global temperatures will likely hit dangerous warming levels in about 35 years.

Six scientists who were leaders in past international climate conferences joined with the Universal Ecological Fund in Argentina to release a brief report Thursday, saying that if even more cuts in heat-trapping gases aren’t agreed upon soon, the world will warm by another 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) by around 2050.

That 1.8 degree mark is key because in 2009 world leaders agreed that they wanted to avoid warming of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Temperatures have already risen about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), so that 2 degree goal is really about preventing a rise of another degree going forward.

Examining the carbon pollution cuts and curbs promised by 190 nations in an agreement made in Paris last December, the scientists said it’s simply not enough.

“The pledges are not going to get even close,” said report lead author Sir Robert Watson, a University of East Anglia professor and former World Bank chief scientist who used to be chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “If you governments of the world are really serious, you’re going to have to do way, way more.”

If carbon pollution continues with just the emission cuts pledged in Paris, Earth will likely hit the danger mark by 2050, Watson and colleagues calculated, echoing what other researchers have found. They said with just a few more cuts, the danger level might be delayed by 20 years,

In Paris, the countries also added a secondary tougher goal of limiting warming to just another 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (half a degree Celsius) as an aspiration.

There “is no hope of us stabilizing” at that temperature because the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already commits the world to hitting that mark, Watson said.

Watson said a few weeks ago he was in Washington at an event with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former Vice President Al Gore celebrating the accord as a victory.

“It struck me that this was naive,” Watson said. “This is a real major challenge to stay even close to 2 degrees Celsius.”

That 2-degree danger mark is on a continuum with harmful effects already being felt now at lower warming levels, Watson said. But he added: “As you go more and more above 2, the negative effects become more and more pronounced, more and more severe.”

The report wasn’t published in a scientific journal. Six outside scientists looked at for The Associated Press and said the science behind it was sound and so were the conclusions.

“It is a good summary of what is common knowledge in the climate expert community but not widely appreciated by members of the public and even policy makers,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute in Germany. “So indeed it is a useful reminder notice to the world about what is at stake.”

On Tuesday, scientists at Climate Interactive In Asheville, North Carolina, who weren’t part of the report ran a computer simulation using pledges from the Paris agreement and found that dangerous mark arrives around 2051, said group co-director Drew Jones.

From the report

“There are many signs that the climate is already changing. Yet some think that climate change is only going to happen by the end of the century. Because of this common misunderstanding, the urgency of climate change has been misunderstood by most … Climate change is happening now, and much faster than anticipated. The evidence is what most have been experiencing as unusual weather events, such as changes in average rain patterns leading to floods or droughts, more intense storms, heat waves and wildfires, among others daily examples. Some of these impacts of climate change already had devastating effects on livelihoods, infrastructure and lives.”

To stay below 2ºC, CO emissions should be net zero by 2060-2075.
Good luck with that.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ian Magness

The only people who the world is going to get warmer for are these so-called “experts”, after the population of the world realises finally it has been duped all along by this self-serving nonsense. To coin a phrase, the heat will be on them to explain why they have cost the economies, and tax payers, of the world so much.


This fraudulent lie must stop sometime. (I hope).

When snow is 10 feet deep and people are freezing everywhere, they will still be insisting the ocean is warming and therefore the GAT. Global warming will never stop as long as adjustments can be made to data and different statistical methods exist. Whether anyone believes the lie does not seem relevant.


Truly pseudo code:
if past temp > current temp
decrease past temp until future modeled temp
increase future modeled temp until > current temp
until hockey stick is formed


This is the way the professionals do it!
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor


Charlie Cradduck

Timeline of Earth’s Average Temperature Since Last Ice Age
When people say climate has changed before, these are the kinds of changes they’re talking about

Bryan A

Then of course there is this reply from an excellent satirist


Did you miss that little note about them “smoothing out all the spikes “? Well, except for the last one.

On the one hand, they are right that the Paris accords will have no effect on the climate, not because CO2 will keep rising anyway, but because the Paris accords are targeted to solve an imaginary problem.
The result of the Paris accords is a lot like trying to prevent a zombie apocalypse by killing the zombies.


Total denial of the facts. These guys should be committed.

Alan the Brit

They already are, committed to lying!


When something is entitled : “The Truth About …” it usually a pretty good indication that it is not the truth.

Climate change is happening now, and much faster than anticipated.

Anticipated by whom? It certainly has not been happening much quicker than the IPCC anticipated, it’s about half what they said. So where does this unquantified, unattributed BS come from?
Sure climate is changing now, as it always has. only a climate change denier would suggest anything else was “normal”.

The FACTS are as follows::
Man-made Climate Change is REAL, and it is being caused by the EPA and similar agencies abroad.
The mechanism is the removal of strongly dimming SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere due to Clean Air efforts.
The magnitude of the warming due to their removal is so large that there can never have been any additional warming due to CO2.
Since 1870 there have been 2 depressions and 28 business recessions. ALL are associated with temporary increases in average global temperatures. This can only be due to fewer SO2 emissions into the air because of the reduced industrial activity during a business recession. The cleaner air allows sunshine to strike the earth with greater intensity, causing more surface warming.
Plots of average global land-ocean and sea surface temperatures both how the same correlation.
As with unintentional recession-induced warming, the intentional reduction of SO2 emissions due to Clean Air efforts will also cause warming, at the rate of .02 deg. C. of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 emissions..
Average global temperatures have increased by 1.0 deg. C. since 1970. At current rates of reduction in SO2 emissions (about 2 Megatonnes per year), the “2 deg. C. limit” will be reached within less than 25 years, unless further reductions in SO2 emissions are halted immediately.


Or de-funded, at least!


The 2ºC meme is a fantasy fabrication with basically zero science to back it up.
Its a propaganda value invented by that goofball, Shell-hummer at Damn Potty !!


Temperatures have already risen about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit
…and almost all of that through adjustments


No, the 2 degree meme was not cobbled up by a goofball. It was created as part of the IPCC propaganda that they are spewing. Just like bemoaning that atmospheric CO2 has passed the 400 ppm mark for good and will never, ever go down again according to the warmist whines. It bothers them not that the planet is greening up very nicely.

Phil R

Would you like to contact Schellnhuber and call him a liar, or do you think he’s just an egotistical narcissist that needs to make everything about him?

But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.
“Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.


Thanks Phil..
and yes, the 2C meme WAS cobbled together by a goofball.. and used by a bunch of wack-jobs.

Gerald Machnee

The 2 degree was pulled out of thin air and all the pseudo-scientists at IPCC and all the politicians have gobbled it up. It is one of the biggest scams and the media is not following it up. It should be challenged each time it is mentioned.


I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the first time the whole “2 degrees” -thing became a thing, it was from temps then, and not from pre-industrial temps. Of course, that was also when IPCC pretty much expected that we should already have hit that 2 degrees from pre-industrial.

Leo Smith

Third rate academics from third rate universities desperately seeking funding.

Robert from oz

Yeah yeah I get it send money for research !

John Adams

Yes, it’s time to send Michael Mann of Climategate fame more money so he can replace the flawed hockey stick with an object that reflects historic and predictable effects the sun has had on our climates. Any suggestions?

Doug in Calgary

The money would be better spent on sending MM printed instructions on where he could shove that flawed hockey stick.

If Borenstein had bothered reading the Paris Agreement, he might not have been so surprised.
It actually acknowledges that GHG emissions will RISE from 49Gt in 2010, to 55Gt in 2030, based on all of the INDC pledges.


Yes, China’s CO2 is set by the agreement to peak in 2030 – and decline thereafter. And before the agreement there was no obligation on china to peak it at all.
And in fact China is expected to reach the peak considerably before 2030 – e.g.:

There is nothing at all binding about China’s agreement – they will simply do what they want

I have to laugh at the ignorance of the China bashers (you know, those critical of the folks responsible for our high standard of living). China is on a large scale power plant production effort, which included dozens of nuclear power plants and has already built dozens of gigawatts of hydro power. China makes the Western world’s efforts look pathetic, which they are, being largely subsidies to impractical renewable
capacity that hasn’t made a dent in carbon emission production, or real pollution, not the EPA’s fantasy pollution, the stuff that allows the world to feed itself.


Be patient Griff
Your testicles will drop one day and you will become an adult.

Caligula Jones

I expect that China will regard this particular part of international “law” with the strict diligence and forbearance that it does with other parts of international law. See: Tibet. Hong Kong. Dissidents. Etc.

Steven Hales

Every industrial economy operating under a mixed capitalist system has squeezed waste out of their energy supply chain and increased efficiency of use through market based incentives largely independent of government action. US reduction in CO2 emissions resulted from fuel switching thanks largely from horizontal drilling using hydraulic fracturing techniques unlocking supplies of natural gas projected to last at current consumption rates for 200 years.
Why won’t China likely follow the same path? Why would planning make any difference? And our experience with planning shows that it produces shortages. Get wealthy and clean the environment. It worked in the West.

Phil R

When I was a child, my mommy taught me never to believe everything I read, especially about the future, and especially from the liberal press.


Meanwhile China has just ordered its major coal mines to raise thermal coal output by 500,000 tonnes A DAY !!!
So don’t you worry, little child, there will be PLENTY of CO2 to help feed the world. 🙂

Gases cannot trap heat. Anyone saying this is a scare-mongering politician, not a scientist.


Okay …
We have two objects orbiting the sun at the same radius, the Earth and the Moon. I have observed that the climate on the Earth is altogether more pleasant than that on the Moon. I, apparently foolishly, thought it had something to do with the collection of gasses which make up the atmosphere. Was I wrong?

Patrick MJD

The key words are “trap” and “heat”. CO2 cannot TRAP “heat”. Simples.

Yep. Carbon Dioxide levels FOLLOW heat rises. It’s not happening like you think.

It has something to do with the collection of gasses. It also has a lot to do with having an atmosphere (no convection on the Moon) and the length of day (about 700 hours per lunar day). Earth would have a very different climate if our day were 700 hours long. Weather patterns would be extremely different due to the massive reduction in the Coriolis effect.
There isn’t much climate knowledge to be gained by comparing the Earth and Moon.


Too bad. Nobody why replied seems to have a coherent explanation of why I can bask on the back deck, with or without involvement of the atmosphere.
Shouting something like “CO2 can’t trap heat” is pointless because nobody says that it can, per se. CO2 just keeps some energy from radiating directly to outer space. That energy then spends a little longer in the atmosphere. If you think that’s not the process, you have the problem of explaining why absorption spectrometry works.

That same absorption also means that certain parts of the incoming EM field radiation gets screened out before it reaches the surface. That’s why there should be a ‘hotspot’; but that, I believe, has been misinterpreted. What this means is that the lapse rate should drop from the value of the ‘dry standard atmosphere’, just like we know happens when the local atmosphere gets saturated with water. Some think this dynamic lowering of the lapse rate means that the surface gets ‘warmer than it otherwise would have’ and if we really did know all of the flows of energy, we might be able to see it. Since we don’t and, it seems, that no one derives this stuff from the kinetic theory of gases, I remain skeptical. Since there can be no net creation and/or loss of energy from the whole system (note, there can be from parts of the system); and that the mean global air temperature is as meaningless as the mean human, in multidimensional terms, we are wasting valuable time and energy that could be better used solving actual problems.

Steve Case

We are told:
“The evidence is what most have been experiencing as unusual weather events, such as changes in average rain patterns leading to floods or droughts, more intense storms, heat waves and wildfires,…”
Heat waves – If you take a trip to NOAA’s Climate at a Glance web page and investigate Maximum summertime temperatures, which is the stuff of heat waves, you will find that for the United States, maximum temperatures, June through September, have declined for most states and of those, 20 states show that summer maximums have been on the decline since the 19th century.
Wisconsin Maximum Temperature, June-September


Temperature data derived from good scientific methodology always show zero warming. Here is another, called the heat wave index. No warming on multidecadal time scales. The index also clearly shows the 1930s as an outlier decade for extreme heat.

He says, she says …but people ain’t good at predicting … BLACK SWANS abound,
yikes! Philip Tetlock takes a look at the prediction record, (less clockwork, more cloud
out there) … the very Reverend Mr Malthus, Ehrllch – predictor – not- extraordinaire,
Club of Rome, big Jim Hanson and AL …

Alan the Brit

I am sorry to say that I can’t find any evidence of AGW in the UK, asour rainfall history over the last 150 years is a flat line!


That’s not exactly the case Alan – the increase in flooding since 2000 is as a result of an increase in intense/storm rain events… e.g Carlisle seeing 1 in 100 year flooding in both 2005 and 2015.

Gary Pearse

Flooding due to EU blocking River dredging – the river then does just that on its own schedule.


As I comprehend your references, they say that from models they predict increased flooding. From a brief Google this link
would suggest that a longer term historic analysis might yield a different viewpoint. Noting that “The eras of heaviest summer downpours have actually coincided with cooler summers, not warmer summers, in particular 1912-1931, and again from 1948-1969.”
Happy to be enlightened.

Juan Slayton

From your first link, Griff:
…anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of the once-a-century wet January in 2014 by 43% (uncertainty range: 0–160%). -my bold

Patrick MJD

You obviously have a “checksheet” of web links to post. An alarmist paid shill you are.

Peta in Cumbria

Carlisle flooded because there are far too many sheep grazing the hills that are the catchment for the river that flows through the city – even before the local peasants (I am one but not that dumb/greedy) attempt to grow maize for their dairy cows.
The water company wanted to fence sheep off the catchment for one the their Lake District reservoirs because it was filling with silt – being washed off effectively bare soil left behind by overgrazing. Of course the lovvies, ramblers and those who care so much their hearts bleed would have none of it as the fence would ‘spoil their view’ Not mine or anyone else’s though of course that’s what they say, Their View and enjoyment would be spoiled.
Also, in their wisdom, penny pinching meanness and laziness, the people of Carlisle built the main North-South bridge into the city at the narrowest point of the river – made even narrower by the construction of a ‘Leisure Centre’ on an enlarged bank beside the river. Plus the closure of a second channel the river had around said bank. The Leisure Centre was operated by the local council and the very first thing to re-open after the flood. Gotta keep those membership fees rolling in.
Even worse is that said bridge stands on four huge piers that restrict the river even more. There’s a huge flood plain above the bridge (a Council run golf course) and a huge low lying piece of ground below the bridge, again used bu The Council as a Sports Centre and Recreation Park.
Selfish money grubbing meanness by our local elected officials caused the flood and any attempt to renew that bridge or get it out of the water will be blocked by The Lovvies.

Alan the Brit

Having worked on a varitey of flood alleviation schemes in the 1970s when working for the then Thames Water Authority as an engineer, it was ALL flood alleviation schemes, because of……………Flooding! The Thames hasn’t flooded significantly since the late 1940s, which prompted such schemes! Oh BTW, a statistical flooding timeframe is simply that, a 1 in 100 flood statictically could occur two or three times in relatively frequent succession!


A 1 in 100 year event might sound rare to people living today but it means the earth could have seen it happen about 45 million times.


The “1 in 100 year flooding” term is grossly misunderstood. A better definition is a “1% chance of happening in any given year”.
As a professional land surveyor and civil engineer providing FEMA elevation certificates and map changes I hear my people telling me “We had a flood hear twenty years ago so it’s not suppose to happen for another 80 years”.

Ian Macdonald

Then again, as in any CSI, there is the question of motive. If the alarmists predicted flooding, there is a motive to make sure that happens. If it does happen, then you need to look at ways in which government policies could have been influenced in order to make that so.
The influence won’t of course be of the form, “We need to make it flood, so do this” -that would be way too obvious. An initiative to safeguard endangered wetland species might for example be the form it takes, innocuous-sounding enough that it gets passed without the connection to flooding being spotted. Or, an initiative to promote hill farming, drafted in such a way that it results in stripping of vegetation.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, after all that is a correct assessment. I have a theory, that a conspiracy, whose objective was to make the alarmists’ predictions come true, was going on. What’s more, my theory fits the facts quite well. It’s possible that the government ministers who enacted those measures hadn’t forseen the consequences, and were thus innocent of any wrongdoing. The blame and guilt for those devastating floods and all the human suffering they caused, must lie with the people who proposed the ‘environmental’ measures that caused them.

Michael Jankowski

Ah, Carlisle…”…Carlisle is situated on the flood plain of the River Eden with three rivers meeting in the city…Carlisle has a history of flooding with flood events recorded as far back as the 1700s. In recent years there have been significant floods in 1963, 1968, 1979, 1980, 1984, and recently in 2005…”
Neither of your links mention Carlisle at all. Please try again.


” the increase in flooding since 2000 is as a result of an increase in intense/storm rain events”
No it isn’t.
Stop making stuff up.

Gerald Machnee

Well Griff – you will continue to believe the modelled nonsense, but it was their flood control that casued the problem.

@DCA: The “1 in 100 year flooding” term is grossly misunderstood. A better definition is a “1% chance of happening in any given year
I think the real misunderstanding is that the statistic applies to each drainage basin separately. Give me a state with 50 drainage basins, and you can expect a “1 in 100 year” event to hit one of those basins about every other year.
OK, “every other year” assumes the precipitation in the basins is independent. They are not. But heavy precipitation is quite localized, so there is significant independence. The point being: you can find a 1 in 100 year flooding event every year — if you include enough drainage basins in your search.

Dan Z

Remember when ‘climate scientists’ and government agencies said we’d have global climate catastrophe in the 70s that would produce starvation, mass migration,war and chaos? Back then it was because of a coming ice age. No offense but government-driven ‘climate scientists’ have a terrible track record as long range weather forecasters. I’m betting on Mother Earth to ‘weather’ these latest wolf cries of catastrophic oblivion.
By the way, current global temps are dropping post El Niño. The climatealarmistsbetter hope it doesn’t become a trend otherwise we’ll be back to predicting a new ice age. Again

CD in Wisconsin

So here we go again. Another “scientist” claiming he knows exactly what the climate’s sensitivity is to the GHG effect of CO2. Does he have the science to support his sensitivity claim (other than computer simulation models)? Is is talking about a linear relationship between the two or a logarithmic one as time marches on? Is he taking that logarithmic relationship into consideration here?
More and more, these scientists are sounding like broken records which should be taken off the phonograph player and smashed on the floor.


The models, but just don’t mention the observations. They get a bit funny about that…

Steve Case

Bingo, see my post above.


..The CLIMATE has been CHANGING for 4.5 billion years…When the climate STOPS changing, then I’ll start worrying !

Gary Pearse

It used to be 2C above the 1998 temp. When that wasn’t going to happen, they pushed it back to the LIA – 300yrs ago!


Yes. the Little Ice Age is their climate ideal. Alas, this might turn into ‘Major Ice Age’ for a good 100,000 years.

Smoking Frog

No, it didn’t used to be 2C above the 1998 temperature. It was always 2C above “pre-industrial times.”

Smoking Frog:
Can you tell me what the “pre-industrial” temperature is?

Jimmy Haigh

Right – temporarily – but for the wrong reasons. Or maybe they’ve finally worked out that no matter what happens there is bugger all we can do about it other than what we have always done: adapt.

Exactly. The whole mitigation notion is bogus, and for decades these people said we will pass the deadline for stopping global warming by reducing emissions. Stop wasting time and money on emissions treaties and instead invest in robust infrastructures and reliable affordable energy to adapt to both cooler and warmer periods in the future.

As if the Chinese and Indians will follow the faith of the greens. Most of the Chinese and Indian promises have escape clauses, which they almost certainly will follow. Furthermore, the Germans and British will probably abandon their green plans after their electric grids collapse, which is probably inevitable.


You do know that Germany has the world’s most reliable electricity grid? and renewables are having no effect on it?
and the Indians will ratify the Paris agreement this weekend – the Chinese already have.
The Indians are busy working on their target for 175GW of renewable capacity for 2022.
Just google India solar in news category and look at all the projects if you are sceptical
(do note this one: )

Unfortunately, it’s paywalled, but check out
It may be that they’ve kept things up, but at a price.
I won’t hunt it down, but there were some posts about Poland refusing to carry German electricity from the north.


Yes it is called ‘coal’.

Ric Haldane

So Griff, the somewhat recent 36 hour period that had sun and wind and was over loading the grid as the electric companies were paying people to use more power was a good thing? How about the 3500 interventions that the coal powered plants had to make last year to balance the grid is a sign of stability? You need to step out of your little green/ left thinking box to get a peek at reality. Germany’s grid is in some serious trouble.

tom s

And even if they do, it will have just about 0 impact on anything weather/climate related.


Griff, the “world’s most reliable electricity grid” is history due to the instability caused by the recent addition of a large fraction of intermittent renewables. Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone site (see Ric Werme’s link above) carries extensive documentation of the troubles the German grid has experienced.


Griff, not Germany but did you conveniently miss this.
Also here is an excellent talk on the issues integrating renewables.


“You do know that Germany has the world’s most reliable electricity grid? and renewables are having no effect on it?”
No Grifter, we know nothing of the sort, because it isn’t and they are.
You really ought to stop making stuff up, you are making an utter fool of yourself.
You might get away with your mendacious rubbish over at the Guardian, where they assiduously ban every opinion that contradicts their pseudo-religious “Progressive” fantasies, but you won’t get away with it somewhere where the vast majority of contributors are scientifically literate and there are a number of engineers with real experience of the power industry.

Sylvia Marten

The good professor is from the University of East Anglia… Pil Jones Climategate.
Why dont I believe anything they say?????

I expect sun cycles 24-27 to decline to a grand minimum….

Shawn Marshall

In Socialistic governments the least truthful and most ruthless individuals will rise to the top. Evidence abounds that all of our governments are too Socialistic and science has been “Socialized’. Stalin would be so proud. Let us starve a few million peasants.


“There “is no hope of us stabilizing” at that temperature because the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already commits the world to hitting that mark, Watson said.”
“Stabilizing”? Are they actually saying that the goal is to keep the climate from changing? At all? The goal is to achieve climate stasis?

Alan the Brit

All based on the flawed assumption that Human activity has caused the climate to change, when it could all be perfactly natural (most likely is) then they will be doing the very thing they claim they don’t want to do, interfere with nature! Go figure that one!

tom s

Oh yes, yes….they have grand schemes and ideas to control your weather.

I believe that there are certain things which are easy to predict : 1) electric cars will replace most ICE
powered vehicles long, long before 2050 rolls around. GM has claimed a cost of $150 per kWhr
and Tesla $190 ( complete battery pack) for battery cells for the coming year. That means a battery pack of $15,000 versus the previous $40,000 plus for a 300 mile large passenger vehicle/SUV. Tesla claims the ability to further reduce that cost by a third via their battery gigafactory Recharge times of 80% in 20 minutes or so. Electric cars are inherently simpler to manufacture, with far, far fewer parts, and are more reliable.and will be cheaper to produce with these lower battery prices. 2) SMR and large scale molten salt nuclear reactors will produce power more cheaply than any other technology and be inherently safe and acceptable to all and will become the standard means of making electricity. Regardless of whether these
scientists are right or wrong, their beliefs that strong political changes are required to reduce emissions are
dopey to an extreme. Those changes will come because the economics will be there to ensure the changes. These scientists are simply screwing up the process in an attempt to be Earth saviors. We don’t need any Earth saviors.


“Recharge times of 80% in 20 minutes or so..”
Yeah, this reminds me of the recharge times for my computer and cell phone, they reach 80% charge in about 20 minutes and then take a further three hours for the remaining 20%.

Bruce Cobb

“The economics will be there”. Impossible to predict, baseless cheerleading. We’ll see.


Nuclear power! Really? The eco-activists will ensure that not only no new nuclear power plants are built, but the current ones are decommissioned. Unless the rest of us become a lot more active, and the science gets out to the general public and the politicians.

Billy Liar

No-one’s ever explained to me the efficiency of carting around 800kg (1,750lbs) of lithium cells. It’s like having 8 large passengers in your vehicle on a permanent basis.
Where’s the sense in that?


The extra weight have been shown to produce an increase in particulates due to increased tyre and brake wear, both of which are – er, shall we say interesting – in their effects on human health.
The good old law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Gerry, England

In those 20 minutes or so, how many cars can use a conventional filling station to fill up with petrol or diesel? Not to EV fans come up with a solution to that one.


It takes around three minutes to put enough diesel in my somewhat aged Mercedes turbo diesel to go five hundred miles…

Since we have a medieval climate, may as well have medieval science and politics. We’ll have another enlightenment when things get chilly. Trouble is, that last chilling was a nasty one, and our balmy and clement Holocene epoch may be on the fade.


Climate Change and Savage Winters Fuel Urban Migration in Mongolia
Zavkhan province, where Nyamdulam’s family lived, was heavily affected by the harsh dzuds of 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. In 2007 her family was forced to move to the local township, and eventually in 2010 to Mongolia’s capital, Ulaanbaatar, to find alternative sources of livelihood when all their livestock died in a climate related natural disaster known locally as dzud.
A dzud is a cyclical, slow onset natural disaster that is unique to Mongolia. Dzuds are characterized by a summer drought, followed by an unusually cold, snowy or icy winter, often leading to large-scale death of animals in spring as fodder stores run low and animals become weak. In 1999-2001, summer drought was followed by winters with heavy and continuous snowfall, blizzards and temperatures below minus 40 degrees. Throughout Mongolia, over 11 million livestock are estimated to have died in these dzuds.
Like many families in the region, Nyamdulam and her family lost the bulk of their livestock during the dzuds of 1999-2001. They struggled to recover, and continued to lose livestock in each subsequent year. In 2007, the last of their livestock died.

SUVs did it.

Walt D.

Google is preparing a set of virtual reality goggles where you can actually experience climate change.


A computer-generated fantasy for experiencing another computer-generated fantasy. Eh?

tom s

Yay warmer! I love warmth. I live at 45N in the middle of NOAM. I’d like another 2C if possible, you know…bring us back to how warm it was at the last optimum. Sounds great to me. Love it.

David S

I find it comforting when alarmists state that the huge sacrifices that countries make in the AGW cause will still not enough to save the world. I say great, Lets do nothing use our resources to improve the lifestyles of the current generation and face the global warming consequences when it happens. Futility is a great demotivator in calling for even greater action on climate change. It is clear that with the Chinese agreeing to do nothing no matter what the rest of the world does it will have no impact.
Stop this charade now!


John Kerry has said exactly that. He said the developed nations could stop ALL emissions and it still would not be enough due to the emissions from the rising nations.

Reasonable Skeptic

The most effective way to limit global warming is to use the correct Homogenization process. That alone should buy is about 50+ years.

Bruce Cobb

Typical Doomster posturing. They go from exhuberant “Yeah us! We can do this!” to gloomy “We have to do much, much more, or we’re doomed!” It’s how they keep the troops motivated.


That is the “never enough” syndrome of Liberalism/Progressivism/Socialism.
Even if Progressives were to get everything they were asking for today, “it”* would of course fall short of what they said “it” would achieve.
They then blame they didn’t (get/ask fir/demand) enough, and would then demand even more.
* “it” could be anything, poverty reduction, housing the homeless, aid to shithole 3rd world countries run by despits, environmental preserves and land/ocean sequesteation, etc.


If Hillary gets elected, and Dems control the Senate again, those geniuses Whitehouse, Markey, and Boxer will usher in a new Dark Age. Pray.


Seth Borenstein’s climate porn may is allowed Al Gore and Ban Ki Moon “naïveté,” but he is restricted by his handlers from saying the identical thing about Obama or Hillary Clinton’s CO2 “naïveté.”
That truth demonstrates that what Borenstein practices is not journalism.

all climate accords will be useless unless one can show a relationship between warming and emissions


I cringe every time I see a headline including the words, “Scientists Say…”. How about “Some scientists..” or “Six scientists…” . Besides, who decides a person, even with a PHD, is a “scientist”? How would the perception of this story change if the headline read, “Six people say…”?
The term “scientist” is supposed to convey the idea of reliability and integrity. If only that were still true.


Consider which entities control the land surface temperature data… of course it’s going to get warmer!


“There are many signs that the climate is already changing. Yet some think that climate change is only going to happen by the end of the century.”
What a straw man… as if the climate never changes.

Bruce Cobb

They are talking ClimateSpeak, meaning their “climate change” is the mythical CO2-based one instead of actual climate. Bait-and-switch.

At long last scientists have wised up and stopped making predictions during their remaining careers to prove they don’t know squat, and are making estimates at 35+ years after they retire. Bravo. Of course, a prediction that far out is socially worthless. No one has an attention span that long in terms of public policy. So now, not only are the predictions scientifically garbage, but the social value is also worthless.

Kerry has concluded that if he gets rid of all our air conditioners and we go back to eating rotten food (no refrigerators), we will live longer. I am waiting to see when Obama turns off all the refrigerators in the White House and turns the air conditioning off. Ditto for HIllary. Oh okay, that is a policy for you and me, not those in power.

Chinese international politics–Make a pledge. Drag it out. Problems in translation. Wait for the next administration to repeat the pledge, else ignore it and move along. They know how to play the game.


Give GISS a few more years, and we’ll have 2 degree warming by 2015.


More a directive , than a memo.

Both the approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles and the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies are in down trend. The only climate factor countering this is the rising water vapor. presents a 98% match 1895-2015 of calculated vs measured.


What a quandary. How to scare the crap out of people about an upcoming disaster when the validation is near. Here’s a thought, move it out say 35 years and hope no one will remember.

Well I guess they’d better put the message out for all greenie-alarmists to GET OUT OF THE WAY of fracking and nuclear energy. Pronto. Their objects must be overruled. After all our very survival and that of the world is at stake, so we must act now. [Not really sarc at all.]
Oh, and where can I buy pitchforks? Also what other garden utensils can be used to shake in the air outside the castle gates if all the pitchforks have sold out?

Oops – typo – “Their objects…” should, of course, read “Their objections…”
I had an attack of the fast-fingers.

“lead author Sir Robert Watson, a University of East Anglia professor and former World Bank chief scientist”
– Follow the money….. The world bank is bilking the wealthy nations out of $100 billion/yr so they can use our money to bribe 3rd world dictators.


Earlier today –
EU ministers are expected to ratify the agreement, along with India and Canada, next week meaning enough countries will have signed up for the deal to come into legal force
Trying to make the gravy train law !!

It’s time for King Canute to return to us and give them another seaside demonstration of their futility.

Chris Hanley

“… if even more cuts in heat-trapping gases aren’t agreed upon soon, the world will warm by another 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) by around 2050 …”.
The only certainty is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will continue on its ‘business-as-usual’ path and by 2050 the concentration will reach about 575 ppm which is about double the concentration in 1880.
If the GAT reaches another 1C above the current it will be ~1.8C above 1880 which, assuming all else remaining equal, would confirm the empirical estimates of climate sensitivity — hooray.

leo Morgan

The evidence is what most have been experiencing as unusual weather events, such as changes in average rain patterns leading to floods or droughts, more intense storms, heat waves and wildfires, among others daily examples.
And yet, in Australia we have a station that kept records in the same style record book for I think 132 years. The book had a space for a one paragraph summary at the end of the year.
The most common entry was “This has been a most unusual year.”

Patrick MJD

If true, 132 years ago, that record was written by someone not familiar with the Australian climate.

Eamon Butler

“There are many signs that the climate is already changing. Yet SOME think that climate change is only going to happen by the end of the century. Because of this COMMON misunderstanding, the urgency of climate change has been misunderstood by MOST … Climate change is happening now, and much faster than anticipated. The evidence is what MOST have been experiencing as unusual weather events, such as changes in average rain patterns leading to floods or droughts, more intense storms, heat waves and wildfires, among others daily examples. Some of these impacts of climate change already had devastating effects on livelihoods, infrastructure and lives.”
If only ”Some” think C.C is a distant issue how come it’s a ”common” misunderstanding and ”Most” of us are getting it all wrong? All very vague and meaningless. More sneaky words to give the impression that they have actually said something. They go on to make the claim that they know what ”Most” are experiencing. Who are these ”some” and ”most” where do they hang out? It seems that ”some” people are prone to developing fantasies, and imaginary beings to accommodate their narrative. Not difficult to understand their affection for CAGW.


Since it is Friday perhaps a little fun.
Think of the “Warmists” or “True Believers” as an interbreeding population.
The population will grow if its members can breed to create new True Believers.
If the members are prevented from successful breeding, i.e. no new True Believers created, then the population stagnates, and as members die the population slowly dwindles to one and then when the last member is dead, the population is extinct. In this scenario the population of True Believers is “The Walking Dead”.
There are many ways to die, other than by waiting for it.
It is critical to keep the members of the population of True Believers from interbreeding.
Jumping ahead a little, it may be that John Cook, is the last True Believer, and if prevented from interbreeding to create a new True Believer, the population will be extinct upon his death.
Old True Believers like Al Gore and so many others will die and die and die and be forgotten.
Therefore, it is critical to keep John Cook from interbreeding and potentially creating another True Believer.
I.e. we need to keep John Cook in the category of “The Walking Dead”.
50-years from now, people who are curious might read about the events of what happened, them wonder to themselves, what was all the bickering about.
Good Friday. 🙂


The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. The Paris agreement does not change reality. If CO2 really affected climate them one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no additional radiant greenhouse effect, “No radiant greenhouse effect”, kills the AGW conjecture.

You are overlooking the warming caused by the removal of at least 30 Megatonnes of SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere due to Clean Air efforts. Cleaner air=stronger rays of sunshine striking the earth’s surface = global warming.
This scenario is completely provable.

Imagine that it was considered bad to emit less sulfates (a trend which has also produced cleaner cities). And yet one volcanically dyspeptic year can wipe out all such gains. We have to put it in perspective.

Daniel Levy::
Yes, cleaner air is beneficial to cities, but it comes with the side effect of higher surface temperatures.
Annual emissions of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide aerosols are currently around 90 Megatonnes.. Any reduction in the amount of these emissions will cause average global temperatures to rise at the rate of .02 deg. of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 emissions.
A large volcanic eruption would cause some temporary cooling until its aerosols settled out of the atmosphere. It would not wipe away any “gains”.
It appears that your understanding of the effect of SO2 aerosols is faulty.


The only sure way to cool the climate is to reduce the amount of sun energy that reaches the atmosphere.
This will be necessary in the long term future anyway, as the sun continues it’s evolution/aging/expansion. So, why not start now? More CO2 means more plant growth and more life in general. So, we need to keep CO2 between .04 and .10 % anyway. We just need less energy from the sun. eg. Solar panels in orbit that block sunlight and collect electricity? Selective blocking over arctic areas may reduce ice melt as well.

Patrick MJD

I am sure there will be no humans on this rock to worry about what the Sun will do to all the inner planets while it goes through it’s death throes is some ~5 billion years.


“Solar panels in orbit that block sunlight and collect electricity?”
If you then beam the energy down to Earth and use it, it will eventually end up as heat…
As already occurs with terrestrial solar panels too, of course…