Paris Climate Conference V2: “only real commitments of real money for tangible projects will be discussed”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

French Climate Ambassador Laurence Tubiana has insisted that hollow promises will have no place at this year’s anniversary Paris climate “gimme the money” fly-in.

The climate change fight returns to Paris

By Laurence Tubiana

Monday 11 December 2017

European Climate Foundation chief and former French climate ambassador Laurence Tubiana calls for higher ambition from the global community in order to meet the goals and targets of the Paris Agreement.

Nearly two years have passed since France’s then-foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, struck his gavel and declared: “The Paris agreement for the climate is accepted.” This week, President Emmanuel Macron and the French government will host world leaders and non-state actors for the One Planet Summit.

The purpose of this gathering is to celebrate climate gains made since 2015, and to boost political and economic support for meeting the goals and targets of the Paris agreement.

The diplomatic success of the Paris accord is worthy of praise in its own right; it was a remarkable leap forward in the fight against climate change. But we must not rest on our laurels. With the United States, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, dismissive of the accord, the rest of the global community must reaffirm its commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Dramatic, meaningful, and immediate steps must be taken.

Solutions start with money, and a main objective of the One Planet Summit is to mobilize public and private financing to fund projects that can reduce climate-changing pollution today. During the summit’s “Climate Finance Day,” companies, banks, investors, and countries will announce new initiatives to help fund the costly transition to a carbon-free future.

Hollow promises will have no place at this gathering; only real commitments of real money for tangible projects will be discussed. As a result, we hope to see hundreds of millions of dollars committed by governments to fund solutions across all fronts of the climate-change battle.

Read more:

One thing is abundantly clear from sifting through this article and other similar flights of green fantasy; everyone in the climate community expected the USA to foot the bill.

Despite a few friendly overtures, China has not yet stepped in to fill the breach left by the departure of all that US cash.

Until the climate community finds someone willing to pay for their endless expenses paid global conferences, and money pit climate projects, hollow promises are all hopeful green NGOs are likely to receive.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 11, 2017 3:52 am

The reality is that 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 and plenty of sceintific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. There is no real evidence that the Paris Climate Agreement has had any effect on climate.and no real evidence that it ever will have any effect on climate. The USA is suffereing from a huge federal debt, huge federal deficits, and huge annual trade deficits. The USA is in no position to be funding anything let alone this climate change boondoble. Let the nations with trade surpluses do the funding because they have the money to waste. Even if they could find a way to stop the climate from changing it would be of no real benefit to anyone because extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of our current climate. Global cooling can reverse sea level rise but at the cost of expanging glaciers, the reemergence of contential ice sheets and a decrease in available crop land and yields. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

M.W. Plia.
Reply to  willhaas
December 11, 2017 4:49 am

Well said Willhass. However, as we all know, it’s the optics that matter. The reality is not important as perception trumps it.

In the “western” world the Catastrophic AGW meme is political and little to do with science. Governments know they can increase revenues via carbon taxes in order to save the world…win win.

And they have the support of the academic climate scientists who are funding dependent and find it necessary for their livelihoods to infer large climate change from a harmless, negligible effect estimated in tenths of a degree.

Moreover, fear sells. The approval of a popular, peer pressured academic consensus has enabled the media to dumb down the scary message to sound precise and unquestionable which a lay public accedes to.

Ergo, mass delusion…and it’s far from over. Many of these people think they are smarter than most and to admit to being wrong is not an option. Did anyone see Jerry Brown on Sixty Minutes last night? Whatever happened to balanced, impartial reporting?

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  M.W. Plia.
December 11, 2017 8:01 am

I heartily agree with you both. In the modern world of media and politics, image matters far more than substance and the dollars that buy media advertising pay for perception, not understanding. What will change the course? My suspicion is that those of us raised in wealthy developed countries, having never really lacked for any necessity, will only open our eyes to the deceptions when we start to feel the pain of bad policy. We may not be clever enough to vote for reality until reality bites us on our collective butt.

Reply to  M.W. Plia.
December 11, 2017 9:03 am

French climate ambassador Laurence Tubiana calls for higher ambition

ambition: a word that tells everyone you know it is not going to happen, but wish is would.

December 11, 2017 3:57 am

“we hope to see hundreds of millions of dollars committed by governments “. Wasn’t it hoped for billions with a “B” originally?

Reply to  lee
December 11, 2017 8:59 am

Yes and then billions sustained each year, one version detailed in nature

Climate finance from public funds is projected to increase to US$66.8 billion by 2020, with additional funding expected to come from the private sector.

The econutts can keep dreaming that the developed nations are going to bankrupt themselves under some idea of equal world wealth just like countries with nukes are going to give them up. Hey one poor group of delusional peeps got a Nobel Peace prize for think it 🙂

Reply to  lee
December 11, 2017 9:17 am

I will put this as a separate post as peeps may want to respond to it. Climate Change “Green Bonds” have now been up and running for 10 years and the 2017 figure will go over $100 Billion. All sounds great until you actually look at the green bond market as there is no definition of what “green” means in terms of the bonds. There is also no requirement for verification of enviromental credentials for any given bond.

With most world banks and now companies like Apple joining in to release green bonds I am sure we are truely confident that it is operating above board and there are no possible problems 🙂

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  lee
December 11, 2017 12:46 pm

“main objective…to mobilize public and private financing… ”
They morph form the reasonable sounding “public and private…” to government money. It always comes down to extracting money from taxpayers who have no or little say in the matter.

December 11, 2017 4:07 am

There is absolutely no need to panic, and I do not believe that Macron et al are doing so.
They now know, after last week, that the UK taxpayers, via their pathetic PM , will sub up whatever demands the French make , on the grounds that if we do not donate millions – billions – whatever, the EU will refuse to embark on the next stage of Brexit deliberations .
We, in the UK , are easy meat and easy money.

Gary Pearse.
Reply to  mikewaite
December 11, 2017 7:45 am

Do it unilaterally! You shouldn’t have done it in the first place. Freedom from a lost continent of dazed people is not the kind of thing you negotiate. Ok it will cost you. What can they possibly do to you? Stop paying, pass a one page bill severing all control from the EU. Let them sanction you. Stop buying Brie and canned asparagus and drinking Bordeaux until they beg you to.

At the time of Napoleon, the British were France’s largest buyer of wines, particularly the Navy. Brit’s stopped importing from France and went to Portugal to buy wines at Oporto. That is when Port became a staple of the British Navy and the British. That is why Port vintners in Oporto have English names – Brit’s bought the whole industry there. You guys used to rule the waves and you said you’d never, ever, ever be slaves. Have a brace of Port and buck up!!

Bob Denby
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
December 11, 2017 8:16 am

Nicely, and appropriately, said Gary!

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
December 11, 2017 12:51 pm

Agreed, May is showing her weak spine. The UK should have simply said “Peace Out” and been done. Let the chips fall and deal with it after. Trade deals etc. would have been mostly fixed up by now anyway. Instead they are still stuck in divorce hell.

Reply to  mikewaite
December 11, 2017 7:46 am

…and that’s in between recruiting bank headquarters away from London to Paris or at least crowing about the effort.

Dodgy Geezer
December 11, 2017 4:17 am

…Paris Climate Conference V2: “only real commitments of real money for tangible projects will be discussed”…

Gonna be a short conference, then…

Tom Halla
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 11, 2017 4:34 am

Beat me to it!

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 11, 2017 4:38 am

Dodgy, you just don’t get it. They are going to talk about how other countries ought to give them real money for tangible projects. That could go on for months.

I really admire the willingness of so many nations to unite behind ‘something’. That is good practise for when real issues will be tackled like the permanent marking of national borders, the establishment of an international police force serving the International Criminal Court, the establishment of an asset backed currency that prevents banks from shafting entire countries at once, the ending of slavery and the banning warfare.

Unity is powerful, CO2 is not. Let’s just declare victory and move along to the real problems.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 6:35 am

You missed out the major problem – the one that overshadows all the others.

Providing parity of esteem for transgender ethnic minorities…..

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 8:30 am


Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 1:46 pm

Are those lovely folk financially incontinent, too?

Just askin’.


Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 11, 2017 6:22 am

Someone will sponsor a lunch.

Tom in Florida
December 11, 2017 4:22 am

“climate-changing pollution”
Haven’t heard that one before. Perhaps that will narrow the focus of the discussion to what “climate changing pollution” really is, not that I have any hopes of them actually getting it right.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 11, 2017 4:33 am


They really ought to do something about those termites. Such a vile and massive source of CO2 is simply untenable. It is unnatural. It’s offensive and termites cause enormous damage to the housing stock – more than hurricanes.

“Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.”

We only have to kill 10% of them to offset all the fossil fuel emissions of humans. All we have to do is show that humans provide unnatural homes for 10% of the termite population, thus justifying their extermination on the grounds that humans are unnatural, therefore termites expanding their domain because of human activities are unnatural. QED.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 9:12 am

On the surface, if correct it would appear to be a strong positive feedback for any warming, i.e. as CO2 and average temperature increase the Earth greens making more food for termites which then generate more methane and CO2 thus warming the Earth… ad infinitum. That sounds like runaway global warming to me.

Since that has not occurred in the last several million years the base premise of global warming must be wrong, i.e. there are one or more strong, unaccounted for negative feedbacks, precipitation does not increase as proposed causing more area to be uninhabitable for termites, or some unknown limits the termite population as both its habitat and food supply increase. Aren’t complex systems interesting…

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 9:18 am

Sounds like a job for DDT.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 9:26 am

Oops, just found this: “Nevertheless, our results suggest that termites probably account for less than 5% of global CH4 emissions” from 1986 at, and “20 Tg CH4 per year to the total global methane budget (500 to 600 Tg CH4 per year)” from 2013 at Haven’t run any numbers but I don’t see how 3% to 5% of CH4 production can result in more CO2 than the total from our use of fossil fuels.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 10:05 am

“Since that [runaway Global Warming] has not occurred in the last several million years the base premise of global warming must be wrong, i.e. there are one or more strong, unaccounted for negative feedbacks”

I think that is the heart of the matter.

CO2 levels have been a lot higher in the past and have not caused runaway Global Warming so there is no reason to expect runaway Global Warming at these lower levels.

If human beings burned every bit of the fossil fuel available on Earth they still couldn’t raise CO2 levels to the heights they attained in the past, a past *without* any runaway Global Warming.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 3:10 pm

Termites produce both methane and carbon dioxide.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 11, 2017 11:28 am

“climate change pollution” = CO2

People using this phrase trust that anyone who sees the phrase is already conditioned to know that CO2 is the referenced “pollution”. These people count on an emotional audience’s being so conditioned that no further explanation or justification is expected.

Coin a phrase, mass market it, appeal to it, and watch for the contributions to pour in. This is climate-alarm activism at its worst-best.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
December 11, 2017 1:41 pm

Double plus good!

December 11, 2017 4:26 am

‘climate gains made since 2015’

The what ?!?!

‘The diplomatic success of the Paris accord is worthy of praise in its own right; it was a remarkable leap forward in the fight against climate change.’

It was ?!?!

‘Dramatic, meaningful, and immediate steps must be taken.’

So 2015 really didn’t accomplish anything.

‘One Planet Summit is to mobilize public and private financing to fund projects that can reduce climate-changing pollution today.’

Uhh . . . tomorrow.

‘Hollow promises will have no place at this gathering’

But hollow speeches do.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 4:28 am

“With the United States, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases”

It is? Well, if it still is, it will not be for long.

Now, who reduced their CO2 emissions the most in the past 10 years? Wow, the US of A! How are the other doing, then?

Not so well, eh? Well, we’ll just hammer the USA for what the other didn’t reduce. Is that the plan?

I have done my little bit, reducing CO2 emissions from the heating systems of the poor in Ulaanbaatar by 500,000 tons over the past few years. But it was done with a view to bringing a warmer home, lower cost and cleaner air, not because it reduced CO2. But, hey, if anyone wants to fund me to do it again, no problem. My hand is open.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 7:41 am

Well, if it still is, it will not be for long.

My thoughts exactly. Between 1990 and 2011, the USA emitted 16% of the world’s cumulative CO2 and China emitted 15%. Given that China currently emits about twice the CO2 as does the USA, I would be surprised if China is not already the leading historical producer of CO2. link

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 11, 2017 9:39 am

With the United States, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, dismissive of the accord,…..

As noted, they are counting on the MSM and the gullible (I repeat myself) to ignore the weasel word “historical” which turns the meaning of the sentence 180 degrees; – of course China and India currently are far larger emitters and will be for my lifetime.
The irony is that China and India will be the financial beneficiaries if this doofus were to get his way.

George Lawson
December 11, 2017 4:38 am

“Hollow promises will have no place at this gathering; only real commitments of real money for tangible projects will be discussed.”

They’re going to be sorely disappointed!

Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2017 4:57 am

Funny, innit, how “global warming” has now morphed into an “ecological emergency for our planet”. As the desperation of the Climate Catastrophe caterwaulists mounts ever-higher, so does the pitch of their rhetoric.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2017 7:54 am

Caterwauling Climate Catastrophe Pitch has a familiar ring, CCCP for short.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2017 9:02 am

Yes and ultimately it is the backlash from the politics that will wrap around to haunt the climate scientists.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2017 10:57 am

All they need to keep the CAGW fear mongering going is the occasional stretch of bad weather. The whole meme has switched from still-imperceptible warming and Arctic ice bottoming out to catastrophic weather.

Although twitches in the former metrics still turn on the CAGW gear heads. Real people were burned out long ago by failed temperature and ice predictions.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2017 12:54 pm

It all sounds so much like State of Fear. It is almost like they used it as a play book.

December 11, 2017 5:06 am

They can fill the dead air with a detailed presentation of how the Chinese will be spending hundreds of millions on hundreds of new coal plants over the next few years. That massive commitment to a definitive plan meets the criteria.

December 11, 2017 5:16 am

Here in the UK – we have witnessed on tv what was a quite extraordinary series of wildlife documentaries (‘Blue Planet II’) politicised by David Attenborough and the BBC….
They just CANNOT RESIST banging on about ‘climate change’ in each episode…

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  davidsimm
December 11, 2017 5:46 am

The politisation of the BBC’s output by the globalist agenda supporters who control its programme and editorial output is now so bad that they are literally stopping at nothing , even where caution and restraint might be a matter of life or death.
I wonder if I was the only one who was struck by the BBC’s relentless narrative presentation of the reaction in the Middle East and Palestinian areas to President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as one of violent confrontation and a new intifada as wish fulfilment aided by highly selected video footage constantly broadcast worldwide. There was little mention of the statement by Trump that he did not exclude East Jerusalem being part of a settlement for a non-existent peace process, stuck now for some ten or more years.
Perhaps a more considered and responsible output would have said something like – despite disappointment and rejection by Hamas, there has not been the feared level of violence that some extremists have called for. But that would have required more truthful and responsible journalism that we see from the right-on BBC producers and editors these days.
I have deliberately not watched Blue Planet as it is all too obvious that it has been blighted by the usual climate and green alarmist deceit which now is normal for the BBC.
As for Trump, he is clearly a hate figure for every staff member of the BBC so he can never do anything right.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 11, 2017 11:56 am

We shouldn’t be surprised when terrorist organizations organize protests against the move to Jerusalem. They can count on the Western news media to turn it into something much bigger than it is.

Trump is a hate figure for everyone on the Left, all over the world. The Left always needs someone or something to focus their internal anger upon, so they always create a demon out of anyone who doesn’t see the world the way they do. And Trump is the perfect demon for them.

The problem for the Left is Trump is winning despite all their best efforts to undermine him.

Reply to  davidsimm
December 11, 2017 6:39 am

Even the BBC World Service, the part that reveals the true nature of the beast, is questioning why there is to be another conference so soon after Bonn, clearly concerned about “donors”, in the same way that parasites are concerned about the health of their hosts.

Brent Hargreaves
Reply to  climanrecon
December 11, 2017 8:14 am

Oh, you mean the Bolshevik Brainwashing Company. I’ll believe it when I see it. Their science reporting is all done by hard-left arts graduates. Innumerate activists of zero integrity.

Reply to  davidsimm
December 11, 2017 10:46 am

In the last Blue Planet II they talked of Acid Seas & then poured acid over shells to dissolve them, giving the impression that this is what is happening in the oceans.

As they lie about that, why should we believe anything at all from the BBC.

Henning Nielsen
December 11, 2017 5:32 am

“Dramatic, meaningful, and immediate steps must be taken.”

Presumably the same dramatic steps that had to be taken in 1992, 1998, and 2009? Well, stumbling can be dramatic.

“With the United States, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, dismissive of the accord, the rest of the global community must reaffirm its commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.”

And the rest being who? Those western European countries that can still afford such a waste of money? But even they falter; Germany, the world’s 4th largest economy, has not reduced its co2 emissions in the past 9 years, and have no chance of fulfilling their 2020 goals. Lucky for them that there are no punishments for non-compliance. As for the world in general, they simply sit back and wait for the money.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
December 11, 2017 7:54 am

“no punishments for non -compliance” ? but surely I read the other day that the Republic of Ireland was being fined 500 million Euros for not meeting CO2 emission goals – principally it seems because they had the audacity to create a relatively thriving economy in recent years (relative that is to much of the rest of the EU which may explain why they are being bullied ).
So Germany which undoubtedly controls the EU can force money out of Ireland for noncompliance , but is itself safely immune from UN stricture, not even a wagged finger let alone a fine , for the same offence .
Or am I allowing my europhobia to get the better of me?

Reply to  mikewaite
December 11, 2017 10:59 am

If nations don’t voluntarily give mega-dollars the EU/UN/World Court/World Banque will “see to it” that they give.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  mikewaite
December 11, 2017 12:15 pm

Mikewaite; that’s very interesting, do you have any documentation of Ireland being charged with 500 miill euro for not meeting their emissions targets?

Reply to  mikewaite
December 12, 2017 6:09 am

For Henning
The stories that I read were in the English press and probably had their source here , in the Irish Times:
Some extracts :

-“It is the second year in a row that Irish greenhouse gas emissions have increased, with the EPA noting that “Ireland has not managed to decouple emissions from economic growth”.”-

-“The State could face European Union fines of more than €450 million in 2020 for missing legally binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a climate change expert has said.”-

-“The warning comes as new figures from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show greenhouse gas emissions increased by 3.5 per cent last year to an estimated 61.19 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
The rise was attributed to increased activity in the dairy and energy industries and the transport sector.”-

-“It is the second year in a row that Irish greenhouse gas emissions have increased, with the EPA noting that “Ireland has not managed to decouple emissions from economic growth”.”-

-“Dr Eimear Cotter, director of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Sustainability, said a transformation of the State energy, agriculture and transport systems would be needed if Ireland was to meet its long-term goals to reduce emissions.
The main emissions trends are:
Agriculture: Emissions from farming increased by 2.7 per cent in 2016. The most significant drivers are higher dairy cow numbers (up 6.2 per cent), which reflects national plans to expand milk production. Dairy cow numbers have increased by 22 per cent in the past four years, while greenhouse gas emissions increased by 8 per cent over that time.
Transport: Emissions have increased by 3.7 per cent in 2016 and 13 per cent in the past four years. This is driven by economic and employment growth and shows no sign of abatement in the short term.
Energy industry: Emissions increased by 6.1 per cent in 2016. This is underpinned by an increase in demand for electricity and more electricity generation from gas. In 2016, decreases were observed in coal and peat use and also renewable energy sources (ie wind) due to weather conditions.”-

-“Stephen Treacy, senior manager at the EPA’s Office of Environmental Sustainability, said the sectoral figures confirm GHG emissions, which contribute to global warming, will keep step with economic growth unless appropriate interventions are designed and implemented.”-

jack morrow
December 11, 2017 5:38 am

I wonder about the “climate cities” here in the USA and how many of them will donate.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  jack morrow
December 11, 2017 6:10 am

They will virtue signal to beat the band, and do things they were planning to do anyway. Then they will crow proudly about how they are circumventing Trump, and are helping “save the planet”. Morons.

December 11, 2017 5:55 am

Enough of this climate foolishness! Natural variability may now produce a cooler era. Enough work has been done outside of the reach of the government aegis to give a realistic expectation of things to come. Time to remove trade barriers, especially where they may limit food imports to areas that may experience negative impact.

December 11, 2017 6:02 am

With the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, who do these buffoons realistically expect to step up with financing? Or is this nothing more than an effort to keep the rhetoric up until the Democrats put useful idiot in place next presidential election to restart the redistribution of America’s wealth to the rest of the world, ala Christine Figures. I hope they hold their breath until that occurs.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  pstevens2
December 11, 2017 1:01 pm

Fortunately, the US constitution does not allow the president access to money. The only money the president can give away is money congress gives him. They have given him quite a bit of discretionary money, but it is limited, and they can stop the flow if they would like.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
December 11, 2017 1:05 pm

Obama gave away a billion dollars to the UN Green Climate Fund without Congressional Appropriations. A clear violation of the Antideficiency Act and a crime.

December 11, 2017 6:03 am

“With the United States, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases,”

Every other country on the face of this planet would have told them to pound sand long before now..

December 11, 2017 6:25 am

“Hollow promises will have no place at this gathering; only real commitments of real money for tangible projects will be discussed.”

If I were advising Trump, I’d send over a DoE team — and brief Trillions in investment credits for new nukes.

Reply to  jeanparisot
December 11, 2017 7:02 am

Let the markets decide. Not a bunch of brain-dead politicians.

Glyn Palmer
December 11, 2017 6:42 am

But…but…all you Yanks have to do is borrow a few hundred billion from the Chinese and give it to developing countries to buy Chinese windmills and solar panels. Shame on your President for putting his own country first! Doesn’t he know we live in a ‘Global Community?’

Reply to  Glyn Palmer
December 11, 2017 7:13 am


December 11, 2017 7:13 am

imate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at
and an earlier accessible blog version at
Here is the abstract for convenience :
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
December 11, 2017 7:48 am

You were quite active earlier this year, posting your climate predictions. Eventually, I followed your link and took a look. It was very interesting. I was particularly interested in your Figure 12, which shows the forecast.
I thought it would be interesting to compare the Figure 12 forecast with the current UAH TLT data set.
So I downloaded the image and loaded it into a digitizer program to extract the numerical data. Working carefully, I got a good, fair representation of the data.
Here is the plot of the Figure 12 forecast with the UAH TLT data set updated to last month.comment image
{click to embiggen, as usual}
The black circles are the data from Fig. 12, as digitized. All else is as indicated.
What is interesting is that the start of the forecast, in 2008, is just about exactly in the middle of “The Pause”. So it looked pretty good.
But, as it turns out, UAH TLT seems not to have gone along. Now, we do not want to get too hasty in judging a long term forecast. Perhaps we can say that the forecast of an obvious, prolonged cooling is perhaps premature.

Reply to  TonyL
December 11, 2017 9:27 am

TonyL Thanks for the comment. As you know my main points are
1. That the millennial temperature cycle peaked in the RSS data at about 2003/4.
2.Straight line projections straight ahead beyond a peak or inflection point are a schoolboy error of scientific judgement made by the vast majority of academic establishment climate scientists
3 It is a mistake to begin or end a time series trend in the middle of an ENSO event.
See Fig 4 to see what is going oncomment image

Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated
The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.

Reply to  TonyL
December 11, 2017 9:31 am

Here is Fig 12 for everyone to see – thanks for the digitization – very helpfulcomment image

Reply to  TonyL
December 11, 2017 9:57 am

The idea that big ENSO events should be excluded from the ends of trend lines has much merit. I am uncomfortable excluding them altogether because, simply put, they do happen, after all. I certainly agree that having them at the ends of trend lines can distort and hide things more than they illuminate. I can see why you would want to exclude them as short term weather events when assembling a long term climate forecast.
The forecast that by the end of 1018, things will have cooled down to more average conditions is not unreasonable. A few people have given the opinion that UAH TLT may go as far down as the 0.0 anomaly value in two years time. We will just have to wait and see.

December 11, 2017 7:17 am

Off to Paris just in time to do some shopping for Christmas and when your staying in five star hotels and eating some fine food , all on joe-mug taxpayers tab, what is not to like?
OK perhaps the weather will make it hard to land your private jet , but that is the pilots problem.

Of course its a money grab, and of course great ‘victors’ will be claimed, and when it all turns to dust the USA blamed. But none of that is hardly news merely standard practice.

December 11, 2017 7:27 am

No more messing around – give us money or ELSE!! Notice how Euromorons have a terrible fear of climate refugees, but show no concern when the Islamic hordes pour into their countries, bringing widespread rape, assault, murder and all manner of crimes.

Joel O’Bryan
December 11, 2017 7:28 am

yes, this is just a Christmas shopping junket party to help out the high-end Paris stores. They are suffering from a year reduced rich vistors because of their immigration camps in the city and terrorism threats.

Notice who they are trying to get to show up: Big business CEO, big bankers, investment bankers, and of course bring the wives. Soak the rich.

December 11, 2017 7:37 am

Since the agreement dues are based on historical emissions, I guess we need to estimate the climate impact of colonialism and the estimate of the U.S. emissions during the war output involved in saving Europe from itself….. twice.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 11, 2017 7:56 am

Good point. The scale of CO2 emissions during the WW2 years must have caused a blip in the various records, even of temperature.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  TonyN
December 11, 2017 10:23 am

I’ve always wondered about oil sheens on the ocean surfaces during WW2. The German U-boats were torpedoing so much North Atlantic ships and oil tankers to England. Oil sheens spread out and reduce evaporation. That would lead to heat accumulation in the top layer and reduce convection allowing the sunlight to further warm the oceans.

Same thing in the Western Pacific during the US-Japanese war where US submarines were torpedoing Japanese ships and oil tankers headed to Japan.

Reply to  TonyN
December 11, 2017 10:32 am


IMO the oil slicks were too transient and limited to make a detectable difference. However oil slicks in the tropical Pacific probably had more effect.

William Astley
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 11, 2017 8:01 am

Four times. If there was no US military, the Russians would have taken over Europe during the cold war and China would have taken over the South east Asia countries. The US is expected to protect the free world, in addition to paying for massive conferences to come up with more ideas to spend money on schemes that do not work, using money which we do not have.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  William Astley
December 11, 2017 10:34 am

The A-bomb was only invented once — The Manhattan Project. An immensely expensive project that took vast amounts of resources during a world war. And whose outcome was uncertain until the Trinity Test in July 1945.

Everyone else, from the Russians to NorKs have simply copied those US designs (and subsequent designs for the H bomb and boosting and variable yields) through espionage and information sharing without paying any royalty back to the US government.

Now they do the same with our stealth aircraft technology. Steal it, and use it. Without payments back for the vast amounts of resources used to develop the technology.

SO many other examples where the Chinese, Russians, and developing world benefit from the tech developed in the US and Europe without payment back to the “investors. (the taxpayers in those countries).

Our Paris climate contributions would be negative (refunds to the US) if all those historical theft of IP were taken into the balance of climate aid payments.

Reply to  William Astley
December 11, 2017 10:54 am

…all for the purchase of Chinese solar panels and protectionist solar schemes in India.

December 11, 2017 9:05 am

All the bleating for more money to make up for the US withdrawal only shows the true nature of their scam. The UN has resorted to upping their shame quotient on the US and is still silent about the #2 economy in the world. China has already aired their grievances about not receiving any donor money to help their “developing” economy as they were promised. After years of sucking money out of the US despite little support in return the UN has finally killed the goose that laid the golden egg with Climate Change.

December 11, 2017 9:22 am

Thank you Eric, for providing these revealing world news events and for your insightful commentary. It makes understanding the motivations and strategies of the people promoting climate deception clear. Your contributions to the cause of exposing this are extremely important to the future well-being of humanity and the world itself.

CD in Wisconsin
December 11, 2017 9:39 am

It seems obvious to me that France is totally committed itself to the climate alarmist narrative and the Paris Accord for whatever reason(s). That there is science that casts doubt on CAGW and the need for the Paris Accord is beside the point for the French. It is a matter of national pride and saving face. Failure of the CAGW narrative and the PA is not an option for them, science or no science. Hence, we see their hostility to Trump and his position on the Paris Accord.

The French govt is full-fledged member of the CAGW cult, and there is no backing away from it. As they say however, pride goeth before the fall.

December 11, 2017 10:14 am

Consider how seriously the Germans take C-AGW preparedness training. Every winter, they arrive in great numbers to Miami to learn how to survive in the future climate. The adversity of their training includes exposing 100% body surface to achieve maximum natural cooling effect. Then, they lower their heart rate by laying the horizontal position for minimum body heat generation during the hottest hours of the day, eschewing air conditioned buildings nearby.
They do this for many days until they are visibly affected before returning home to their (for the time being) more comfortable climate. It is one thing for men who have gone through military training to do this. But even their (young) women do this. I was so fascinated, that I spent several days photographically documenting this activity.

December 11, 2017 11:28 am

I have read the auto biography of world champion triathlete Chrissy Wellington. Before entering the sport that made her famous, Chrissy worked as a senior civil servant. She describes how she attended global conferences where world leaders would meet to discuss the subject of world poverty. She then goes on to tell of her utter disillusionment as she witnessed nothing but massively expensive junkets that produced nothing but hot air and mountains of paper.

If the things that you love are global travel and expensive dining, you need to find a seemingly intractable problem that you can convince moderately affluent westerners is really important to solve. Climate change is brilliant because, even if it was a problem, and even if you could solve it, it doesn’t matter. you can just keep on claiming that it is a problem that needs solving and carry on freeloading. The tragedy is that there are a lot of things that could be done to relieve global poverty but they would tend to derail the gravy train.

December 11, 2017 12:05 pm

Real money. What a laugh.

On a side note, I wrote a short bitcoin post you might be interested in.


December 11, 2017 1:48 pm

Hollow promises are all that the Paris Accord Crowd deserve for their Hollow Ideas.

Mike Smith
December 11, 2017 3:12 pm

LOL. I’m not sure they’ll have very much to discuss. I see plenty of people holding out their hands but the checkbooks will likely remain out of sight 🙂

Extreme Hiatus
December 11, 2017 3:58 pm

“With the United States, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases”

Is this factually correct if the whole EU is considered? Or, to use the Greenblob’s methods, is it true per capita?

Not that it matters in reality but it does matter for the political rhetoric.

December 11, 2017 4:25 pm

Did I not read here on this excellent site a few times in the past that the net CO2 emissions in the USA are negative? Has it not been calculated that our forests, fields, and crops absorb more CO2 than our combustion of hydrocarbons generates?

December 12, 2017 12:52 am

It’s Britain’s duty to help nations hit by climate change
Theresa May

Reply to  Griff
December 12, 2017 10:37 am

Sweet lets send all the bills to the UK and Griff.

Dave Fair
Reply to  LdB
December 12, 2017 11:03 am

There is only a couple of problems with that, LdB: 1) There has been no climate change. and 2) There has been no nation hit by the nonexistent change.

So far, impacts of a minor global warming from the Little Ice Age has been positive.

Bob Lyman
December 12, 2017 6:12 am

I have not the slightest doubt that in Paris many governments and their surprisingly accommodating financial institutions, as well as the politically compliant energy industries, will announce massive “new” expenditures of green energy projects. In fact, in some cases, they may announce the same projects for the fourth or fifth time. It is all part of the cheerleading and the media campaign to demonstrate that everyone except the vile Trump Administration is on board. It is also, however, a large distraction from the real money question that was allegedly answered at COP21 – the confirmation that by 2020 the Annex II countries will be contributing at least 100 billion per year to the Green Climate Fund. COP21 left one or two “minor” issues unresolved. The first is the formula to determine what the contribution of each Annex II country will be. The second, probably even more contentious, is the formula for determining the shares of this financial bonanza for each of the recipient countries. A third issue arose when the United States announced its intention to withdraw – how will the U.S. share of the Green Climate Fund financing be made up? I will believe that the COP group is making progress on the big money topic when they have resolved these issues. Recall, if you will, that under the COP 21 agreement, the less developed countries will be exempted from the requirement to meet emission reduction goals if the Annex II countries fail to come up with the cash. As of now, that seems like a virtual certainty.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights