Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.
COUNTRIES APPEAL TO TRUMP OVER CLIMATE CHANGE AS COP22 ENDS
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace have welcomed the united front displayed by nearly 200 countries in Marrakesh in the face of Donald Trump’s campaign threat to quit the Paris accord on climate change.
The UN negotiations concluded in Morocco in the early hours of Saturday with an agreement to hammer out a rulebook by 2018.
Last year’s Paris Agreement left many details vague, such as how countries will report and monitor national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The final text also urges rich nations to keep building towards a goal of providing 100 billion dollars a year to help developing countries address climate change.
But some agencies are disappointed by a lack of concrete targets.
“I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt. This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialise,” said Lutz Weischer, team leader on international climate policy at Germanwatch.
…
Read more: http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/19/countries-appeal-to-trump-over-climate-change-as-cop22-ends
It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.
I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have always said, just take away their money. And that includes the billions going to universities starting with OSU for firing Nicholas Drapela and WWU for their cruel treatment of Don J. Easterbrook and many others.
Conrad
I don’t agree with the conclusion that green groups didn’t know where the money was coming from. They knew exactly where it was coming from. You can’t guilt China into giving more money like you can the US. And that’s why they’re so worried about the Trump administration. The end of the gravy train is at hand and the pigs are scrambling.
Wasn’t Paris the definitive agreement?
But now in Marrakech they have an agreement to meet again in 2018 to reach agreement on the rules.
And in the meantime, plenty of nice places to meet and socialize.
6 Dec – 9 Dec: Scoping of the IPCC Special Report on “Climate change and oceans and the cryosphere”
(Monte Carlo, Monaco)
12 Dec – 18 Dec: Decision on Scoping Nominations (SR2)
13 Dec – 16 Dec: TFI – 14th Editorial Board Meeting for the IPCC Emission Factor Database
(Bali, Indonesia)
But wait, IPCC have a strategic five year plan of meetings. The three Working Group contributions to AR6 will be finalized in 2021 and the AR6 Synthesis Report in the first half of 2022 in time for the first UNFCCC global stock take under the Paris Agreement in 2023.
Will they take quatloos instead? Plenty of those still left I think.
That blowhard Hollande tries to threaten Trump over the Paris scam. So funny, since he has NO enforcement tools to use if we back out. Hey Francois! Anything that’s done can be undone!
Oh, I hope so. I truly, truly hope so.
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful. It is helpful in that it is plant food and, perhaps more importantly, it reduces plant’s need for water.
“It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on him NOT UNDERSTANDING IT”. Upton Sinclair in the intro to An Inconvenient Truth. Ironically this is true also when applied to ‘warmers’.
Can anyone explain why the profile for the UAH satellite is so different in the two charts below?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2016_v6.gif
Going by the original UAH chart you could draw a line from the 1998 highpoint to the 2016 highpoint and the line would be almost perfectly horizontal.
Whereas the UAH chart in the combination chart looks more like a clone of the Hadcrut4 chart, than the original UAH chart. If 1998, and 2016 are not on the same horizontal line, and everything in between is not below that line, then that is not a true representation of the UAH satellite chart. The profile should be much flatter than is shown in the combination chart, not heading up at an angle. It doesn’t resemble the original UAH chart at all.
Anyone know how that happened?
The top chart chops about 4 years off each end of the bottom chart. It also looks like the top chart has a longer smoothing period than does the bottom chart.
Aside from not having the same end date, the combination chart claims to depict running 5-year means, while the UAH-only chart claims to depict centered 13-month means. Given that, I wouldn’t expect the 1998 spike to be nearly as high on the combination chart.
“Given that, I wouldn’t expect the 1998 spike to be nearly as high on the combination chart.”
Why, Dale? The actual numerical difference between the highpoint of 1998, and the highpoint of 2016, is 0.1C. Just eyeballing the combination graph, it appears the numerical difference on that chart is double that or about 0.2C. The combination graph is distorting the real differences between 1998 and 2016. I don’t understand how the combination chart can be considered a valid representation if it is doubling the actual distance between 1998 and 2016.
According to the Paris Climate Accord, the rich nations are suppose to help the poor nations. The US has a huge national debt with huge annual deficits and huge annual trade deficits. The US is hence a poor nationand should be recieving payments from some of the rich nations. I want China to provide me with an all electric car and a solar chanrging system to chahrge its batteries. I cannot afford to tay anything for it so it must all be completely free.