The madness of the #ParisAgreement on climate

Guest essay by Iain Aitken

The December 2015 COP21 Climate Conference in Paris, in which 40,000 delegates from 196 countries flew in (and imagine the carbon dioxide emissions all that travel created) and finally agreed an ‘historic’ document that legally committed nobody to any carbon dioxide emission reductions, simply repeated the failure of the Lima conference of the previous year and Copenhagen before that. These conferences are wasteful and pointless charades, being cynically designed to give the public the impression that the politicians are actually serious about ‘saving the planet’. The Paris deal, in particular, allowed nations to set their own voluntary carbon dioxide targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight.

To achieve the goal agreed in Paris of a maximum 20C increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels has been estimated to have a global cost of $17 trillion by 2040 (about 800 times more than was spent on all the Apollo missions to the moon) – and it would require carbon dioxide reductions about 100 times greater than those pledged in Paris. Pledges are cheap (if not worthless). For example, take China, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. China’s pledge was to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 60-65% of 2005 levels by 2030. Yet its stated plan is to build 363 coal-fired power stations between now and 2030 which has been estimated to double its carbon dioxide emissions. It has also announced that it will build no further wind turbines owing to their excessive infrastructure costs and their destabilising effect on the grid. How can we reconcile the pledge with the plans? India, the world’s third-equal largest emitter, plans to treble its emissions. So long as they are not required to make any legally binding (and overseen) decarbonisation commitments the pledges do the developing countries no harm – and may even do much ‘good’ (in the sense of serving self-interests), if the developed nations do indeed decarbonise (so making them less globally competitive owing to their higher energy costs) and hand over hundreds of billions of dollars to help the developing nations move more rapidly to renewable energy. Whether the politicians of the developing nations believe a word of the IPCC reports is irrelevant – it appears to make very good political and business sense to pretend you do. When Donald Trump described climate change as a ‘Chinese hoax’ this is presumably what he had in mind.

To gain an empirical insight into the likely behavior of nations that ratify the Paris Climate Accord we need look no further than the very similar (but actually ‘legally binding’) ‘Kyoto Protocol’ emissions-reduction treaty from COP3 of 1997. The Kyoto Protocol was also hailed as ‘historic’. Some countries (like Canada) that ratified it subsequently withdrew as the economic pain became apparent. Countries adopting costly decarbonisation policies under Kyoto’s first commitment period seriously damaged their economies and yet actually increased emissions at a rate faster than the U.S.A. (who did not ratify Kyoto). By 2012 17 of the 36 countries left who were bound by the Protocol had failed to meet their targets (the big emitters generally having the worst record). Had everyone actually achieved their targets the end result by 2050 would anyway have only been a 0.050C reduction in temperature. As Chairman Inhofe of the US Environmental Works Programme said in 2006, ‘The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.’ All Kyoto appeared to achieve was constrained economic growth in the developed nations that ratified it while allowing unconstrained growth in developing nations like China and India. Similarly even if all 196 nations actually delivered on their Paris pledges by 2030 it would once again result in only about a 0.050C temperature reduction (0.170C if the pledges were sustained to the end of the century).

Basically, at the very best the Paris Climate Accord is just symbolic – but a very, very expensive symbol. It is not even legally binding and, just like the Kyoto Protocol, effectively allows China and India to continue with ‘business as usual’ emissions up to 2030; indeed the agreement explicitly states (in Article 4(7)) that ‘economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties’ – which gives carte blanche to developing nations like China and India to increase their carbon dioxide emissions as much as they like. On this basis it is reasonable to suppose that the Paris Climate Accord is unlikely to be any more successful than the Kyoto Protocol. The Paris Accord was a great success from a public relations point of view – but an unmitigated failure from a climate change point of view. As Walter Russell Mead presciently saw it (since he was writing before the Paris conference), ‘It is, in its way, a perfect solution. It is a legally binding agreement to disagree about carbon. Each country is legally bound to do exactly what it wants… To produce a failure but to call it a success is one of the oldest political tricks in the book.’

So long as much cheaper fossil fuel energy is available in the developing nations they are likely to avail themselves of it in order to improve standards of living and help alleviate as fast as possible the plight of millions of starving and poverty-stricken citizens. Indeed some developing nations are reducing the proportion of renewable energy in their power mix in order to respond to the demand for cheaper energy. There are few better and faster ways to alleviate poverty and disease than cheap energy – but global decarbonisation may defer that for decades. Decarbonisation is not a victimless ‘crime’. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan (who was talking about government), it may be the case that decarbonisation is not the solution to our problem; decarbonisation is the problem. Since nearly 1.3 billion of the world’s poor do not even have electricity (many dying prematurely as a result of smoke inhalation through burning dung in their huts), what right do we, in the developed nations, have to deny them the chance to acquire it?

The politicians of the developed nations who have signed up to the Accord are falling over themselves to be seen to take the lead in ‘saving the world’, irrespective of the fact that it almost certainly does not need saving and, even if it did, the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions being committed to are, in practice, unachievable (because even if they were theoretically achievable the electorates of the democracies would not tolerate the economic pain and environmental damage that this would entail). We can be very confident that there will be no material climate gain from the Paris Climate Accord, certainly in the near future (because that would require China and India to actually start to honour their pledges in the short term, which appears to be a fantasy) – but very material economic pain for the developed nations who seriously pursue decarbonisation policies.

The alarmists’ response to all of the above is of course that if the developed nations do not pursue decarbonisation policies then it legitimises the developing nations doing the same – so the developed nations must take the ‘moral lead’. But that only makes any sense if the developing nations actually follow that lead (instead of profiting from the reduced global competitiveness of the ‘moral lead’ nations) – and it is very clear that they have no intention whatsoever of following that lead.

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “The madness of the #ParisAgreement on climate

  1. The Paris agreement seems to be much more mad than indicated by this article. Ref. this previous article at WUWT:
    “Here’s the takeaway message. Using the most extreme of the 16 estimates of future CO2 levels along with the higher of the two TCR estimates, in other words looking at the worst case scenario, we are STILL not projected to reach one measly degree C of warming by the year 2100.

    More to the point, the best bet given all the data we have is that there will only be a mere half a degree C of warming over the 21st century.

    Can we call off the apocalypse now?”
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

    • ” These conferences are wasteful and pointless charades”

      They are not a charade, they have a very real and important political objective. The charade is that this has something to do with climate. It does not.

      • China’s pledge was to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 60-65% of 2005 levels by 2030.

        I suggest that you actually read what China committed to before attempting to write a post on the subject, and read carefully.

        China will not reduce it’s CO2 output one jot before 2030 and knows that everyone will have long forgotten about the whole thing by then anyway.

      • Yes, it was my understanding that China simply agreed to develope fossil fuel reserves on a business as usuall pattern until 2030, so some clarification would be appreciated.

      • China will not reduce it’s CO2 output one jot before 2030 and knows that everyone will have long forgotten about the whole thing by then anyway.

        That’s right, Grog.

        The 60% cut refers to emissions intensity per GDP, not actual emissions.

      • “If ” China even reduces their CO2 emissions then. They play a long game, to win an even longer war by BEGINNING with strategies that can span decades and centuries. (Note though that not all of their strategies are winning strategies, but they are long-planned. Not “next quarter profits” nor “next election cycle in two years”! )

      • FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation

        President Obama Announces Ambitious 2025 Target to Cut U.S. Climate Pollution by 26-28 Percent from 2005 Levels

        “Building on strong progress during the first six years of the Administration, today President Obama announced a new target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.”

      • “PS: The USA isn’t one of them!”

        George Soros has been buying up coal mines in the US.

        To keep them closed or because he knows they will have to re-open.

      • You nailed it climategrog!

        The alarmist influenced keep misstating what China’s leader actually said.
        His Excellency, Xi Jinping’s statement broken into statements without wording change, bolding, mine:

        “• China pledges to peak CO2 emissions by around 2030 and strive to achieve it as soon as possible,
        and by 2030, reduce CO2 per unit of GDP by 60-65% over the 2005 level,
        • raise the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to about 20%
        • and increase forest stock by around 4.5 billion cubic meters over 2005.

        This requires strenuous efforts, but we have confidence and resolve to fulfill our commitments.”

        Note that China’s plan is to increase emissions.

        China phrases their around 2030 emission target as “peaking” earlier if possible.
        Whenever someone uses loose descriptions like “peak by around 2030”, I prefer to place it into context.

        Context:
        China has five thousand plus years as a civilization. Just how does a 5K year old country view a “peak by 2030”?
        Sensibly as a six thousand year civilization, with many peaks; most of them just minor points in a 6K history.

        Then there is that complex bit about “reduce CO2 per unit of GDP by 60-65% over the 2005 level”.
        How can China fail to make that reduction!?
        With modern coal electricity generation, nuclear power, modern industrial factories, modern farming and even modern housing??

        Everything points very well towards China easily meeting that emissions reduction; except that eco-greens fail to understand that does not mean China is going to reduce total CO2 emissions! Only to improve the efficiency of fossil fuel consumption in GDP production!

        To better understand CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, here is some excellent reading on the matter provided by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels:

        e.g. “let’s assign the Russians an emission-economic rating of 100, the worst rate.
        On this relative scale, America rates a 33.

        The best are the Japanese, at 18, not far ahead of the United States, and mainly because of their intensive use of nuclear power.
        For comparison, South Africa rates a 69, Saudi Arabia— despite its high GDP from oil revenues— a 62, and our Canadian neighbors 36.
        Among the 10 largest emitters, in terms of economic efficiency, America comes in third, after Japan and Germany.”

        Enjoy!

      • i had hope…till i read the last para
        seems they managed to influence by switch selling real pollution and getting the poor kid to think its climate change!
        sad

      • Good article. Thanks for the link.

        I liked this part:

        From the article: “On a field trip to a biology laboratory there, many of his students took their first ride on an escalator. To illustrate why some scientists in the 1970s believed the world was cooling rather than warming (“So why should we believe them now?” students sometimes asked),”

        Good question! And of course, it *was* cooling, not warming at the time. The trend is for the temperatures to rise for a few decades, and then fall for a few decades, and then rise again for a few decades. It was falling in the 1970’s, until late in the decade.

        We are currently in the “rise again” part of that cycle (1978 to present). The alarmists claim, that because we are pumping CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere, this trend will continue to go higher, rather than enter a cooling period like it has done in the past.

        So far, CO2 continues to be pumped into the atmosphere, but the temperatures are not rising as they predict. There is a discrepancy here. A discrepancy the alarmists cannot explain.

        I bet the student mentioned in the article, Gwen Beatty, reads WUWT. She sounds pretty sure of her position.

      • “ozspeaksup June 5, 2017 at 6:52 am

        i had hope…till i read the last para
        seems they managed to influence by switch selling real pollution and getting the poor kid to think its climate change!
        sad”

        Which brings up a curiosity I’ve wondered about for the last week.

        Trolls on various sites, e.g. WSJ, have been purposely conflating actual pollution with CO2 emissions and claiming that USA escaping the Paris agreement increases pollution.

        After arguing against their silliness several times, I began to wonder if the paid trolls and trollops have been informed of a propaganda method change?
        Quite a few of these paid irritations are not bright enough to decide these position stances on their own; nor are they equipped to effectively use said policy changes and verbal stumbling of the shills are noticeable.

      • The end of the story looks like a successful case of indoctrination where the student succumbs after legitimately challenging a one sided presentation. Sad that indoctrination and scientism is cascading from the colleges and universities now down to High School. Guess the old adage is true — “get’m while they are young”.

      • conflating actual pollution with CO2 emissions

        Ancient bureaucratic scumbag / politician trick – redefine or expand the current formal, within-context meaning of a word or term.

    • “The December 2015 COP21 Climate Conference in Paris, in which 40,000 delegates from 196 countries flew in (and imagine the carbon dioxide emissions all that travel created) ”

      Does anyone know whether any delegations travelled by train?
      Those I would have expected to: –
      Luxemburg; UK; Belgium.
      Those which may have done:
      Spain; Switzerland; The Netherlands.
      Could Italy, Germany and perhaps Austria have come by train?

      Does anyone know who did, in fact, come by train [or pogo stick]?

      Auto

      • Don’t know who came by train, though I suspect they all planned to ride it — the *gravy* train, that is…

  2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

    Observations and Conclusions:

    1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record

    2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

    3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

    4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

    5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

    6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

    7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

    8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

    9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

    10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

    Allan MacRae, P.Eng. Calgary, June 12, 2015

    • ” The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record”

      The short term variability certainly does but that is on top of a longer term dCO2/dt of 1ppmv/annum in 1970 to 2ppmv/annum around Y2K.

      The phase lag of 9mo shows that most of the inter-annual variability is temperature driven. That should not be automatically extended to all another time-scales. Paleo data on the millennial scale show 800 +/- 600 y lag.

      I am unaware of any data showing a lag on decadal to centennial scale and that is what is really relevant to the AGW argument.

      Maybe you are of some. Please link.

      • grog, both the short term variability and the long term trend have tracked with temperature since the inception of the MLO data set. Plus, the 800 year lag is absent in shallow ice cores. (the lag may be an artifact or the lag of global temps behind temps at the south pole)…

      • You note that CO2 lags temperatures on short time scales (less than 1 year) and on long time scales (circa 600 to 1000 years). Indeed, that is the evidence (if proxy evidence hold true).

        You then surmise that CO2 may not lag temperature on medium time scales (say multi-decadal/centenial). Indeed, that is a possibility, but given what we know about CO2 as operating in real world conditions, there is no evidence that it responds differently on medium time scales, and the burden is squarely on those that allege that the response is different on medium time scales to support that contention.

        I would suggest that the balance of evidence suggests that it is no warmer today in the Northern Hemisphere than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The RAW data from the US, Iceland, Greenland (including Greenland ice cores) suggests that. Russia is very sceptical of the claimed warming, and has noted that its high latitude stations have been excluded. Michael M@nn had to ignore the tree ring data through to the 1990s since when included it showed no warming. This is the reasoning behind his nature trick.

        In 1981 the leading Climate Scientists, Hansen and Phil Jones both published separate papers showing that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were some 0.3degC cooler than the 1940s, and Phil Jones pointed out in the Climategate emails the unreliability of Southern Hemisphere data and the need to manipulate data to get rid of the 1940 blip. Hansen in his 1981 paper also noted the unreliability of Southern Hemisphere data. The reality that the only data of any worth (and I cautiously use worth) is that of the Northern Hemisphere since there is insufficient data historically returned from the Southern Hemisphere, and even today it is sparsely sampled.

        If it has warmed by about 0.3 degC since 1980 (the satellite data suggests that it might have), we are back today at about the same level of temperatures seen in 1940. That would cover a period when man has emitted some 95% of all manmade CO2, and yet there has been no temperature increase. This is consistent with the view that there is no reason to consider that the interaction between CO2 and temperature is any different on multi-decadal timescales to which you refer, and that climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero, or close thereto.

        As I say, the burden is on those arguing that the multi-decadel response is different, and in this regard, you will be aware that one of the climategate emails notes that ‘they will kill us if all we are seeing is multi-decadadal natural variation’. I cannot remember the exact wording or the parties involved, but an email along those lines exists.

      • Here’s Hansen’s 1999 temperature chart that shows the 1930’s as being approximately 0.5C hotter than 1998, which also makes the 1930’s hotter than 2016, which means we have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.

        The 1999 Hansen chart *does* represent the entire globe. As richard verney says, other temperatue charts from around the world resemble the 1999 Hansen chart profile, NOT the bastardized NOAA/NASA surface temperature chart profile.

        Use the 1999 Hansen chart as the global temperature profile for that time period, and then tack the UAH satellite temperature profile onto that, and then you have a true temperature profile which shows we are in a longterm cooling trend.

        Hansen’s chart:

        And the UAH chart:

      • Verney and TA: if I’ve read your comments correctly, they assert that there has been a slight cooling trend over the past 75 years. That being so, why has sea level continued to rise at about 2-3mm/yr over that period? Assuming that the cooling trend continues, when would you predict sea level to stop its long term slight increase?

      • Considering a small pond in a temperate climate zone takes all Summer to warm up from the cooling of the previous Winter (and some cold water remains trapped at the bottom and never warms up), it seems likely that the oceans are still undergoing thermal expansion due to extended periods of colder weather in the past.
        The continents are still rebounding from the ice sheets that melted away over ten thousand years ago.
        Anything seem hard to believe about the oceans warming from the LIA and other cold periods since the last glacial max…and it could still be warming from the glacial max period…and from hundreds of feet of ice water pouring into the sea when the ice sheets melted.
        As anyone with a swimming pool knows well…water can lose far more heat in one cool night than the sun can add back in even several hot sunny days. Deeper water accentuates this phenomenon.
        Besides for that, many glaciers have been receding since the LIA, lots of ground water is being pumped and much goes into the sea, whole bodies of surface water have been drained ( we had one article that claimed that that alone could explain much of the recent sea level rise)…and who knows what else.

      • Sorry…missed a ? there: The sentence that ends in the word “melted” should be “melted?”

      • Dave Magill, as long as temperatures remain above the equilibrium state temperature, then sea levels will continue to rise. If the pause in global temps were to continue indefinitely, eventually (perhaps hundreds of years) sea levels would stop rising, the pause then becoming a new equilibrium state temperature. We were last at the equilibrium state temperature circa the turn of the century (1900) as the following graph shows:

      • Thank you Fonz, Richard and all for your thoughtful comments – a worthwhile discussion.

        TA – I posted a similar comment in 2008: “NO NET GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1940”.

        The global temperature plot below does not look like a linear increase in temperature – it actually resembles a sine curve, which is peaking and about to decline.

        We wrote in 2002 that Earth will enter another natural cooling cycle that would commence by 2020-2030. I am now leaning towards a slightly earlier start time for cooling, by approximately 2017-2020. I really hope to be wrong – humankind suffers during cold periods.

        Best, Allan

        http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774

        [excerpt]

        The best data shows no significant warming since ~1940. The lack of significant warming is evident in UAH Lower Troposphere temperature data from ~1980 to end April 2008, and Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature data from ~1940 to ~1980.

      • Thanks for that link, Allan.

        For general information, here is a comparison of the accurate 1999 Hansen U.S. (Global, imo) chart and the bastardized, bogus surface temperature chart.

        As you can see, the two temperature profiles are completely different. The 1999 Hansen chart on the left shows a slight temperature downtrend from the 1930’s to 1998 (2016 is also cooler than the 1930’s), and then you have the LIE on the right, a chart that was manipulated by the powers-that-be at NOAA and NASA to be used to promote the “hotter and hotter” CAGW narrative.

        Notice the 1930’s is no longer the hottest period on the chart. The Climategate emails said they had to get rid of “the 1940’s blip”, and they did just that by changing and manipulating original data to make it look like it is getting hotter and hotter and hotter. When the truth is we are in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s!

        If not for that lie represented by the right-hand chart, the alarmists would have nothing to talk about. That’s the only thing keeping them in the game. The only thing they can point to. It’s what fools otherwise intelligent people, who find it hard to believe that NOAA and NASA scientists would deliberately manipulate the temperature record for political purposes. But that’s exactly what they did. Just a handful of dishonest scientists have caused all this confusion.

        Unmanipulated charts the world over, look like the chart on the left, showing the 1930’s-40’s as being as hot or hotter than subsequent years. Manipulated, bogus, dishonest charts look like the one on the right with the heat of the 1930’s being downplayed, so as not to destroy their CAGW narrative.

        The Dishonest Temperature Manipulators at NOAA and NASA and CRU and IPCC have fostered a huge lie on the world. A very costly lie. This kind of dishonesty should not go unpunished.

      • Does anybody really think the 1999 Hansen U.S. chart and the Global chart could look that different? Do you think the U.S. would have a temperature profile like the one in the 1999 Hansen chart, and the rest of the world would have a completely different temperature profile? I don’t. And the unmanipulated charts from around the world back up my version of things.

      • Yes, Allan, i think one of the creepiest things about this whole global warming mess is how the temperature data sets have been adjusted over the years. When i began taking an interest in this after “inconvenient truth” came out, wikipedia simply showed a graph with .4C warming (1910 – 1940), .2C cooling (1940 – 1970) & .4C warming (1970 – 2000). My what a difference one decade makes!!! It’s almost as though we’re living an orwellian 1984 type existence and we’re all supposed to forget the old as our government presents the new. Very disturbing yet apparently not new. (even callender was thought to have set the course for manipulation of data sets when he realized that his theory wasn’t panning out) It will be nice when one day agw fails completely. This may well be the most highly publicized false paradigm since the flat earth. If and when it does fail, hopefully it will be useful for society in second guessing other false paradigms as well. Yes, you are right, cold does kill. But lies can kill, too. Better it be cold with the truth coming out, then visa versa. Besides, at that point we’ll all have no qualms with burning more fossil fuels to keep warm. (plus, me being selfish, i live in new orleans where we could use a little more snow… ☺)

    • “5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.”

      There are many reasons to believe that CO2 does not warm the surface of the planet but in fact is, on net, a cooling agent. I would like to see CO2 at 1500 ppm at least.

      It seems to me that humanity will whine and whine about CO2 all the way up till the next ice age and then claim that “anyone could see” that warming was not the problem — the problem has always been cooling.

      I have come to believe there is no such thing as “climate science”. It is not science at all.

      • I think a dedicated group of well funded panic mongers could easily make a far better case for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling, than for CAGW.
        GISP data, the decrease in hot days at all US HCN stations since the 1930s peak, the raw data itself, and tomes of other lines of evidence…plus the fact that cooling is demonstrably able to cause huge and deadly problems for people and crops, dries out the air, causes more energetic storms, and interfere greatly with commerce in general.
        Global cooling is the disaster to be feared…warming pushes back those problems.
        We should perhaps be glad they did not decide to claim we need to deindustrialize or we face catastrophe from cooling.
        They picked the wrong lie for their plans.

  3. A work colleague today went off his chops about Trump and pulling out of the Paris agreement. I just laughed at him and called out ‘hey leftard’! and I mimicked his head exploding, pulling a stupid face in the process.

    Guess who was called in by HR this afternoon? Yep, me. Leftard put in a complaint and I got dragged in and reprimanded about not bullying said leftard.

    What can I say? Tissue anyone?

      • And how does mimicking someone’s expression constitute “bullying”?

        I thought bullying was using aggression of threat of aggression to intimidate, not just poking fun at someone.

        This is exactly why people choose to use a pseudo on internet discussions. You don’t want some leftard bigot trying to screw up your job/career because they do not agree with your stance on climate. Sadly many on the left would see this a perfectly acceptable because you are a callous bastard trying to destroy the planet for future generations. Ends justify the mean etc.

        They’d have us all on war-crimes charges at the Hague if they could.

      • actually “leftard” effectively means you are calling him a retard. That could be a cause for a reprimand but does not constitute bullying.

      • “climategrog June 5, 2017 at 1:41 am”

        Depends on the work place and, in my experience, country. As an example I got hauled over hot coals for saying “There has to be a better way.” to a female colleague who was showing me a process she had developed. Ok, I may have been too keen to suggest better ways to do stuff (Software delivery) or even consider that there *has* to be a better way, in any case, I got shot down. This was in New Zealand.

      • “leftard”

        Next time, humiliate him with facts and reason, not ad hominem.

      • Oh it was a woman. Well that explains it. IMO most of them don’t have the capacity to take an emotional hit without running their yappers. That’s how they process stuff. Without any ill intent towards you, she could have gone to HR to simply get it off her chest, and then HR has to justify its worthless existence.

      • I agree…calling a specific person a name that ends in -tard is very insulting…and could well be legitimate cause for reprimand or even termination, depending on company policy and culture.

      • Well, it was a “her” and “she” might have had a penis at one time or another. Should I ask “her” tomorrow perhaps? Don’t know if a second trip to HR in 2 days will keep my job, methinks not!

    • The canonical example of disturbing the peace is uttering insults. link You’re basically giving someone a license to smash your face. link OK, he’d probably be fired and the lawyer’s bill would break him, but he could be acquitted.

      HR is doing you a favor even if you don’t believe it.

    • If you really want to accomplish more than ridicule of a co-worker, just say that you don’t think about it at that way at all, and that from your perspective, your assessment the of the politics, the economics and the science makes Paris worthless for any other purpose than virtue-signalling.

      That should quiet the room pretty fast.

      • Yeah, Paris is so bad that even those who actually agree that it’s a problem can easily be swayed by stating that it simply won’t work. You don’t even have to challenge their core beliefs. Just state that even under the largest feedbacks, it won’t work. Quote James Hansen calling it a fraud.

        Throwing insults does nothing except make people stop listening to you.

    • Being rude is never right.
      It leads to emotional responses that harden attitudes.
      OK. Being rude is sometimes right… if you are sure you are wrong and don’t want others to notice.
      But that’s more being strategic rather than right.

      • It is hard to make a case for being rude as being “right”.
        It can however be an effective means to shut someone up who really needs to shut the heck up.
        Like, for example, the people who show up here and spout unscientific drivel, while at the same time insulting the education and intelligence of the entire WUWT community.
        Being rude can start fights and arguments, and responding with strong language to someone who has already started a fight or argument can end said argument or fight.
        Another case in point…the unwillingness to be in any way rude or aggressive or to directly contradict, and thereby counteract, the lies that Mikey Mann was spouting at a recent congressional hearing, likely left many with the impression that Mann had the stronger case.
        Hard to counter emotionally riling rhetoric with calmly stated facts.
        Most people are not scientists or logicians, and there is a tendency to pay more attention to strongly worded statements that are emotionally delivered.

  4. Man made climate change is a fantasy on a par with the Jules Verne’s ‘Voyage au centre de la Terre’

    • On small scales, it is for sure that changes in land use and such can alter the climate, and the effect can be rather large on such small scales.
      There are, for example, some Sago palms growing outside in places like NYC that have survived for several decades.
      Plants prove that microclimates created by human influence can be dramatic, and although small in scale and highly localized, these are likely growing.
      But as to it being a problem for the Earth?
      Highly questionable.
      But, “climate change” is warmista misdirection…the scare is based on global warming, and the claims that it will be uniformly catastrophic.
      Without the catastrophe part…hard to worry much about what have always been regarded as a good things…less cold nights, less cold Winters, less extreme deserts, faster growing plants, less deadly polar wastelands…

  5. The emotions about a “The moral lead” for developed countries to encourage the decarbonization of delevoloping ones sound very much like colonialism or Marxist rationalizations to policy. Killing (carbon starvation) for the greater good.

    The debate is obtuse to who is actually sacrificed under carbon rationing policy which is what the UN climate authority is executing.

  6. craig – you’d have been better off asking him to tell you what China had undertaken to do in the ‘fight aganst climate change’….
    That is, build 363 new coal fired power stations between now and 2030 – oh, and then stop.

    • building new coal plant with proper filters with help with the REAL pollution problems in China. They are also shutting a lot of the older plant. That is great for the environment and should be welcomed.

      • Climategrog.
        I agree the real pollution problem is not CO 2. We have mostly eliminated pollution problems
        What kind of filters are they using? Why Can’t we use them here instead of shutting down our coal plants?
        Do they filter out CO 2 which is the objective of the Paris Climate accord?

      • It is not just coal plants. Having just returned from Jiangsu Province, Nanjing and Baoying,,the amount of new construction is beyond belief. Everything is concrete, the scale of which can not be believed unless you see it with your own eyes. I understand that the greater Chongqing area to the west, has over 32 mil people and is adding 1/2 mil a year/ The government pretty much keeps a hands off policy for this area so capitalism in rampant. HP has a printer plant there. China is trying to spread the wealth west to keep the people their revolution was fought for happy. COP21 is nothing but politics to China. They have a trillion dollar plan to help other countries as long as those countries support the One China policy. The people in Taiwan were not Chinese, but rather an indigenous group called Taiwanese. After WWII, the Chinese signed an agreement giving Taiwan it’s independence. So where are they now? I believe that it was Jimmy Carter that first supported the One China policy.

  7. The Basic Madness is the monumental suicidal stupidity of a carbon based life form attempting to reduce the carbon emissions which sustain it.

  8. The so called ” bifurcation” issue lies at the heart of the problem.
    Since the Stockholm Conference (1972) and after Kyoto (1997) the Annex 2 countries under the UNFCCC, the developed nations, have accepted that developing countries need not bear the cost of environmental sustainability and latterly “combatting climate change”.
    The rationale for this is that developed countries have had the economic benefit of two centuries of burning fossil fuels.
    So ” developing countries” like China and Saudi Arabia get a free pass and China and India are allowed to increase carbon emissions at will.
    The US and other Western nations will be freed from this economic straight jacket.
    On this alone President Trump is correct to exit the Paris Agreement.

    • And what that rationale conveniently omits is that undeveloped countries now receive the economic benefit of mature fossil fuel burning technologies developed over two centuries by (now) developed countries (with all of those associated costs).

      • And, ‘free’ CO2 in the air to green their forests and increase their crop productivity.

      • And how about they balance the “economic benefit of two centuries of burning fossil fuels” against the pain ans suffering of so many of our ancestors during that development. And how about they give some credit to the non-totalitarian forms of Government many in the West selected, which might have had something to do with their ability to improve their economies. No, it was all about them raping and pillaging their way to better living,

    • Herbert, you are right, but another way of looking at it is that the UN FCCC would have died before it started if it were not a proven vehicle for receiving aid. This is evident in the early negotiations. Firstly, in 1990 U.S. Finally gave into pressure and Agreed to aid poor countries coming off CFCs. Soon after there was a revolt on the issue in the IPCC which ended up resulting in an independent neg committee that G77 could better control. Still they were holding out until at the 11th hour, just before Rio, when U.S. agreed to contribute to an aid fund. That got the FCCC up in Rio. Then there was the Annex 1 & 2 created at COP1 in Berlin, which, as you say, fixated the division with some questionable listings in the undeveloped class.

    • Yes. It is an example of moving the goalposts, changing the subject. We start with the view that human emissions are a threat to global civilisation in direct proportion to their quantity. Anyone doubting this is called a denier, its proven 100 year old science.

      This naturally leads to the unacceptable conclusion that the largest emitters are going to have to reduce. Since China is doing double the next largest, that means China. Since China is going to reduce GDP carbon intensity by 60% during the same period in which it raises the said GDP by far more (forget the exact number), this means that it cannot raise its emissions from 10 billion to 15 billion, as planned in its role of leading the world on tackling climate change, but will have to reduce them to something like 2 billion.

      Now this is a Very Big Gap, in fact its a 13 billion ton a year gap, in fact its a bigger gap than the actual emissions of the US and EU put together. In fact, the 15 billion they plan on doing is, according to the alarmists, enough in itself to destroy civilisation.

      What is to be done?

      Well, we immediately have to start arguing that its only fair that China should do this.

      Maybe its because its for exports (never quantified).

      Maybe its to catch up with the damage we did to the climate in the past, so they should be able to do their share of damage too, to get even.

      Maybe its to raise its per capita emissions to our levels. Oops, its already at EU per capita levels. Well, it should be able to exceed them and reach US levels.

      And then, by the way, we just thought of something. Look at all that wind and solar they are installing. That makes it all right doesn’t it?

      The fundamental dishonesty of the green movement is shown every time some variant of this argument is used, which it is all the time, and the way to deal with it is just to insist on the question: do you, or do you not, believe that the driver of global warming is the number of tons of CO2 we emit, globally? Do you believe the most important thing is to reduce them? Do you accept that nations control how much they emit from activities inside their own territory?

      But you want China to raise its emissions to 15 billion tons a year. So, do you really believe CO2 emissions are driving catastrophic warming?

      I have asked the question often and in various forums. What usually happens is I get banned or shunned.

  9. An editorial from the Union Leader (Manchester N.H.) puts it more concisely.

    The Paris Climate Agreement signed last year by President Barack Obama was not a treaty, and thus American commitment to it expired when Obama left office.

    -Had Obama submitted the Paris agreement to the Senate, it would not have received the votes necessary to ratify it.
    -Had the Senate ratified the Paris agreement, targets for reductions in future CO2 emissions from power plants would have been voluntary and amendable.
    -Had the U.S. failed to meet its voluntary emissions targets, there would have been no penalty imposed.
    -Had the United States and every other country on Earth met their emissions targets from the Paris deal, the climate models used by its advocates predicted a reduction in the increase of global temperatures of just 0.2 degrees by 2100.

    These climate models have largely overestimated the marginal impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate.

    There is no credible evidence that American withdrawal from the Paris deal will have any impact on future global temperatures at all.

    The entire Paris agreement was a largely meaningless piece of public relations stagecraft, designed for world leaders to give the illusion that they are doing something about climate change.

    It would have billed U.S. taxpayers for the lion’s share of payments to other countries, and locked in onerous Obama-era regulations on power plants that drive up electricity prices.

    President Trump was right to remove the United States from this non-treaty.

    Tracking the howls of outrage over this decision has been useful. It was an elegant way for people to reveal their ignorance of climate science.

    If and when the people arguing that climate change is too important to ignore come forward with a plan that actually does something about climate change, we will start paying attention to their portents of doom.

    • Sorry but Paris was not meaningless. Itvwiukd have become the law of land if not withdrawn from. And if one considers even briefly what the modern American judiciary is willing to do to help shove leftist agendas down the throats of the American people, Paris would have not been voluntary or amenable at all.

      • A naive question I’m sure but why do the American public allow themselves to be dictated to by a clearly highly partisan judiciary?

      • cephus, just a guess but the history of a nation born in revolution against monarchy led to the role of the judiciary to defend the constitution with the supremes having a lifetime appointment vs. political leaders who come and go. That said, the last Gallup polling of the US citizenry in 2015 showed that trust in U.S. Judicial Branch sank to New Low of 53%

      • Completely agree. Obama/Holdren Clean Power Plan rooted throughout the bureaucracy, administrative State,.. cascading down to the 50 States,.. Judges, Lawyers, Torts,… vicious cycle of MSD amplification of ‘pollution suits’ and asthma cases yields a wicked and self reinforcing engine of economic insanity and eventual decline. If the Science is Bad,…then the Policies are Worse and the Impacts are Severe (in the wrong direction. Problem with boiling frogs is they don’t know it until it’s too late and only the smart one or two in the pot get the ‘ah-ha’. Ah-ha….

      • @cephus0
        It’s not that we allow it, because we don’t, it’s that we have no choice. Judges are appointed for life (at the highest levels) and generally only those making the most notorious decisions ever end up in the press.

    • Excellent synopsis Ron. The level of ignorance on climate science and energy in general on behalf of the general public and the media (folks like Holman Jenkins of the WSJ excepted) is incredible. Most of the people I know are just too lazy to spend the time needed to develop informed views. Unfortunately they believe the endless proselytizing of the NYTimes and CNN.

      Trump’s decision to exit the Paris accord was a great symbolic start, but there is much more to be done.

  10. Great essay but it gives too much credit to the climate consensus. Even if all the CO2 goals are met the impact on climate will at most be trivial. Storms, droughts, heat waves, floods, terrible snow storms and sea level rise- all will continue at about the same pace. The consensus is not simply wrong in trying to decarbonize the world. The Paris Agreement is wrong about what the climate impact of decarbonization might achieve.

  11. … Donald Trump described climate change as a ‘Chinese hoax’ …

    There’s no evidence that the Chinese started the hoax. I would be astounded if they didn’t gleefully take advantage of it.

    You could date the start of CAGW to James Hansen’s Congressional testimony in 1988. Back then, China was pretty closed to the west. The Tiananmen Square protests were in 1989. China was focused on worries about its stability.

    There is some evidence that the Russians are pushing the hoax because it has an economic benefit for them. Putin has admitted that patriotic hackers meddle in foreign elections, so I wouldn’t put it past them to encourage the greenies. It’s their modus operandi. link

    • In fact a decade ago China was sure climate change was a western plot to limit Chinese expansion…

      ” Meanwhile in China, scepticism has rapidly evolved into a world of conspiracy theories, epitomised by publications like Low Carbon Plot, a 2010 book by Gou Hongyang that argues climate change is a western conspiracy against China.”

    • In the early days at least, 1988-95, Russian scientists and the USSR/Russian government diplomats were generally openly sceptical of the supposed science behind the need for a rapid response to a climate emergency.

    • After the iron curtain fell, Soviet archives revealed that many of the peace-nik groups were fully funded from Moscow.

  12. The Climate Crusaders are sure putting on a brave face now, in response to Trump’s announcement to quit Paris. It is all for show, of course, in a pathetic attempt to shore up morale. Last year, there was a big climate conference planned to take place in Boston this Summer, but it’s been cancelled .
    The question now is, what will the US contingent of Warmunists going to COP23 in Bonn (Nov. 6-17) look like? I can just imagine the amount of groveling and apologizing required of them. The US will be regarded as a pariah, but always with the faux hope presented that Trump will “reconsider”. So, the fun continues.

  13. “China’s pledge was to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 60-65% of 2005 levels by 2030. Yet its stated plan is to build 363 coal-fired power stations between now and 2030”

    Except of course after cancelling 103 coal power plants since then, China now suspended construction in 15 regions
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-to-halt-construction-on-coal-fired-power-plants-in-15-regions/

    “China will stop the construction of coal-fired power plants in 15 regions as part of its efforts to tackle a capacity glut in the sector, the country’s energy regulator said on Thursday,”

    “The report, citing documents issued to local governments by the regulator, said China would also stop approving new projects in as many as 13 provinces and regions until 2018.
    The rapid expansion of China’s coal-fired power capacity, together with a slowdown in demand growth, has saddled the sector with its lowest utilisation rates since 1978, the NEA said earlier this year.
    Environmental group Greenpeace said the rules, if fully implemented, could involve up to 250 power projects with a total of 170 gigawatts (GW) in capacity, according to initial estimates.”

    • China cancelled some of the planned China coal plants as there is currently no need for the additional energy in the region in question, for the specific planned coal plant.

      The cancelling of some China coal plants was due to inefficient planning, not due to the discovery of some new magical (it is magical if did does exist) on demand, reliable, 24/7 energy source.

      China is currently building coal plants and will continue to build coal plants as required.

      Solar and wind are not, on demand, reliable, 24/7 energy sources.

      There are fundamental engineering limitations that limit the total amount of intermittent (not available on demand, highly variable output) to roughly 10% average of total electrical grid load, without the use of some kind of energy storage. The problem is the most efficient electric power plants (large coal plants, combined cycle natural gas power plants, and nuclear power plants) cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on and limitations of the capability to wheel power in an electric grid. Typical electric grids have 50% of the power supplied by high efficient power plants that cannot be turned on//off.

      The developing countries cannot develop without 24/7 reliable energy.

      Most developing countries, India and most of Africa for example, do not have large reserves of natural gas. The cannot afford to import natural gas. They are and will be building new coal fired power plants.

      The only viable engineering solution to CAGW if CAGW was a real problem, is the massive conversion to nuclear power.

      Comments:
      1) Natural gas liquifying and reheating the LNG to produce gas at source requires roughly 30% of the total energy of the source gas.
      2) Long pipeline transport of natural gas also roughly requires roughly 30% of the energy content of the natural gas.
      3) Due to engineering fact 1 and 2, there is less CO2 benefit to force a country, that does not have access to local natural gas to use natural gas over coal.
      3) The most efficient natural gas power plants, combined cycle plants use the waste heat from the first pass turbines to produce steam that is then used to produce additional electricity. A combined cycle natural gas power plant is 20% more efficient than a single cycle natural gas power plant, however a combined cycle power plant costs twice as much as single cycle gas power plant and requires 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off.

      • BTW,.. I keep hearing about Solar Panels to cover China and spinners on every mountain top to hit 20% ‘renewable’.

        Not true,.. China’s propensity is to up-root 100’s of Thousands at a time and flood their homelands for Dams to drive Hydro. Of course 100% of the local citizens relocated agree that this is what they want to do to “save the planet”. No compulsion or coercion what so ever. :)

      • One of the undeniable truths of centrally planning an economy is that the plans are meaningless. They cannot adapt to changes in demand appropriately, so they end up with gluts (as in this example) or deficits (think bread lines). Par for the course…

  14. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas. If greenhouse gases really do drive dangerous climate change then allowing China, and the other developing nations, to continue increasing emissions until 2030 would be utterly immoral. However, if the problem is small and we can leave China, India and the others out of the solution then the lies about tipping points and so on are also immoral. I suggest President Trump has acted in a very fine moral way to break this impasse. I would hope, but doubt, that an effort would be made to establish a new agreement that is based on science and evidence. If we force China and India to do their share of the heavy lifting that is supposedly required I think we would see the issue fade away promptly

    • https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-paris-climate-goals-emissions-coal-renewable-energy

      “Slowing coal use in China and India has put the world’s two most populous countries on track to beat their carbon emission goals under the Paris climate agreement, according to a new analysis.

      Greenhouse gas emissions from both countries are growing more slowly than they predicted just a year ago, and the difference is substantial—roughly 2 to 3 billion tons annually by the year 2030.

      That would be enough to more than offset the relatively poor performance expected from the United States as President Donald Trump rolls back controls and puts the U.S. on track to miss its Paris pledge.”

  15. Could someone please name for me one “developing” country that is trying really hard to eradicate poverty.
    IMHO, the leaders of said countries use poverty to control the masses. Keep them dependent on government largess.

  16. “40,000 delegates from 196 countries”

    If each of those delegates raised a mere $50,000 each, that would replace the $2 billion the U.S. is not going to pay. But then, that just might take a little effort. I would also challenge all the liberals in the world to donate to the “makeup fund”. Should be able to raise $2 billion in a very short time. This is the real acid test of how firm their beliefs are. Time to put up or shut up!

  17. While I agree with the sentiment of this essay, it contains several serious flaws. First, China is not committed to reducing CO2 at all by 2030. Then the author speaks in several places about temperature declines. These so-called declines are calculated–they are projections. They aren’t declines but rather projected differences of temperature in the future relative to some baseline scenario. These temperature declines are analogous to the “cruel budget cuts” resulting from throttling back a rising projected baseline.

  18. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/27/double-the-atmospheric-co2-fuggeddaboutit/

    Iain, several posts written on this topic use Bjorn Lomborg’s 0.05C reduction of a fulfilled agreement. You realize he used the IPCC’s arithmetic which is a good strategy, of course. However, it should be stated. The real facts of the case suggest that the abundance of cheap fossil fuels is insufficient to even reach 2C if things played out unfettered. The link above (I couldn’t get it to below? ) estimates in the ground carbon resources between 540 to 1580 giga T of carbon content. Willis even made it 1000 to 2000gt and used IPCC’s Bern model and etc. Several things: a) prices for these fuels will rise. b) they are needed for petrochemicals and nitrate fertilizers no matter what the cost, c) the greening of the planet is unexpectedly fast, 14%more forest cover, phytoplankton growing similarly and not only is the bio growth exponential in nature against a linear teetering on levelling CO2, d) and horror of horrors, the greening is an endothermic process! e) the logarithmic behavior of warming with rising CO2 means it’s pretty well done for this century.

    I would be surprised if we much exceeded the past century’s increase of 0.6C, the best the temperature manipulators could manage with unchained fossil fuel use. And hey, how about those crop yields!

  19. Notice the almost complete ignorance of these global warming enthusiasts when it comes to energy technologies. It takes NO intelligence to speak of to realize that battery prices are not only on the cuff of being cheap enough to propel a revolution in transportation, but a claimed cheaper method of producing battery cathodes promises to cut current prices in half – which means below $100 per KWhr, rendering the large 85 kWhr battery pack in the Tesla Model S below a paltry $8500. And on the powerplant side of things, I doubt that any knowledgeable energy expert would bet against one or more of the half dozen molten salt reactor designs currently being evaluated and refined. All of them promise totally safe power cheaper than any other technology, carbon or no carbon. The
    designs are all basically finalized , except perhaps for some minor adjustment as a result of the testing that is now going on. Anyone who believes the world will be burning coal 30 years from now and driving around in a new gas powered car, needs to bone up on emerging technologies. They are living in a dream world that will never come to pass.

    • Well, your “green” technology enthusiasm seems a bit overwrought. We’ll see. The point being that government has no business punishing coal, or indeed any form of energy. Coal will probably be around for quite a while longer, being relatively cheap, and still in abundant supply, and gasoline will as well, for similar reasons.

  20. The Paris deal, in particular, allowed nations to set their own voluntary carbon dioxide targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight.

    Five days ago, Robert Kernodle (May 31, 2017 at 8:11 am) noted, correctly I think, that the text of Paris Accord did not include the words “carbon dioxide” nor “CO2”.

    Further digging, I agreed, noting that it included the word “carbon” once, and “non-carbon” once as well.

    The text includes: emissions of “greenhouse gas” or “greenhouse gases” 15 times without mentioning that different gasses have different strengths in the greenhouse gas ability. The Paris Accord also mentions “climate change” 32 times.

    No matter how you feel, what you believe, about the dangers of rising CO2 levels as it relates to climate change, there exists the very valid question of whether the 2015 Paris Accord is properly written to address the any alleged danger of climate change linked to human produced carbon dioxide.

    Here is my take on that document. The Paris Accord is a shell game that will ultimately give governments authority to control the emissions of WATER VAPOR.

    But, you say, the Accord doesn’t mention anything about water vapor.
    True. But it doesn’t mention Carbon Dioxide, or CO2 at all either.
    It mentions “greenhouse gas emissions” 15 times.
    Water Vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than is CO2.

    Therefore, the Paris Accord is written so open-ended that it can be used to control sources of water vapor as well as CO2, CH4, and anything else that can be remotely labeled as a greenhouse gas.
    QED.

    You may think the Paris Accord is about CO2, but as written it applies to much more.
    .

  21. Nov 28, 2016 Weather is NOT Climate!

    No, weather is NOT climate…even when it’s warm outside. But in case there’s a climate cultist in your life that insists otherwise, here are some facts about global warming and vaguely-defined “extreme” weather that you can use to talk some sense into them.

  22. “the goal agreed in Paris of a maximum 2 degree C increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels.”
    But, haven’t we already had 1 degree of warming, and where are the catastrophes as evidence that we should impose further constraints on carbon dioxide?
    And I thought they suggested 1.5 degrees as a preferred limit?

  23. Just as a footnote to the discussion, here is a Pew Research poll measuring who is the most concerned about climate change. The results are provocative – India is “very concerned” but is a potential recipient of major funding from the Green Climate Fund. But so is China, which couldn’t care less about AGW. And WTF Brazil? Maybe they are high on their use of sugar cane and therefore entitled to their opinion. However, they are on the sucking side of the Paris agreement, looking for money from the suckers in the West.

  24. For example, take China, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. China’s pledge was to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 60-65% of 2005 levels by 2030

    That is completely untrue! China only promised to reduce its CO2 intensity of GDP by 60-65%. Which does not mean anything, given that its GDP figures are set by the socialist central bureau.

    https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/chinas-contributions-paris-climate-agreement.pdf

    More truthfully they are meant to maximize their emissions by 2030. That comes, as they are already emitting more CO2/capita than the EU: So China has promised to no further increase their emissions after 2030, and would logically be in a better position, if they truely maximized they emissions before that line.
    This is quote unique. Like .. blow out as much CO2 as you can, and you will get rewarded for that!

  25. Surprising that link got censored the first time I posted it…
    http://thesaker.is/why-is-the-green-climate-fund-costing-the-u-s-a-fortune/
    “Even more troubling that in addition to the insertion of a financial drain to public money and blocking the sovereign governments from control and regulation of their payments for weather, the GCF sets itself as a supranational entity capable of controlling the national law enforcement under the guise of the risk reduction guarantee.”

  26. Build more cold mines to fire more industry to manufacture more building materials to build more ghost cities.

    Emptiness is fullness, and fullness is emptiness. Zen economics, perhaps? Emptiness that is full of potential? Build it, and EVENTUALLY they will come? Then there’s the decay factor that can mess up that strategy.

Comments are closed.