It's been 26 Years – and all 'Global Warming Policies' have failed

By Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller

It’s been 26 years since countries signed onto the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change with the goal of “stabilization” of emissions to prevent “dangerous” man-made global warming.

Every year since, diplomats have met at United Nations summits to, sometimes successfully, negotiate new treaties and agreements to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Most recently, nearly 200 nations signed onto the Paris climate accord.

The Paris accord went into effect in 2016, but after one year global emissions rose two percent, largely on economic activity in China.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that countries’ Paris accord commitments were “falling short.” The Post admitted, “The euphoria of Paris is colliding with the reality of the present.”

Also buried in WaPo’s story is the recognition that more than two decades have largely failed to meet the goals of the 1992 framework convention.

“More than two decades ago, the world agreed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in our air to prevent dangerous climate outcomes,” Stanford University energy and climate expert Rob Jackson told WaPo. “To date, we have failed.”

The 1992 U.N. treaty called for “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

However, from 1992 to 2017 global annual emissions rose from about 22 to 36.8 gigatons per year — a more than 67 percent increase. That’s despite additional U.N. climate treaties and domestic policies to reduce emissions.

Just two years ago, world leaders, including former President Barack Obama, called the Paris accord necessary to stop dangerous warming. Now, the U.N. is saying the Paris accord doesn’t go far enough.

“It’s not fast enough. It’s not big enough,” Corinne Le Quéré of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research told WaPo. “There’s not enough action.”

However, this should not be a surprise to anyone. Experts have for years pointed out the failure of climate policies to keep global emissions at levels called for by the U.N.

“Twenty-five years of climate policy has made most of us a little poorer,” environmental economist Richard Tol told an audience gathered at the libertarian Cato Institute in 2015. Tol was also a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 report.

Tol said that while climate policies made “some of us a little richer” through green energy subsidies, policies on the books have been more about “rewarding allies with rents and subsidies rather than emissions reduction.”

“CO2 intensity in the economy has come down,” said Tol, who teaches at the University of Sussex. “But you can’t really see a trend break in 1990. It just seems that the last 20 years were a continuation of the trends of the 20 years before.”

More recently, University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke Jr. gave a lecture in Tokyo where he pointed out that decades of “climate diplomacy” failed to move the needle on emissions. “Climate policy is insane,” Pielke said.

Echoing Tol, Pielke also pointed out how key measures of emissions — energy intensity and carbon intensity — seemed unaffected by climate policies.

So, what happened?

It turns out the U.N.’s future energy predictions were based on a “fudge factor” that made taking “action” on global warming look easier than it actually would be.

Pielke co-authored a 2008 study pointing out U.N. “decarbonization” estimates were grossly off base. Basically, the U.N. assumed economies would naturally “decarbonize” at a faster rate than historically occurred.

recent study by University of Oxford researchers reaffirmed Pielke’s concerns. They found emissions intensity “rose in the first part of the 21st century despite all major climate projections foreseeing a decline.”


Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Latitude

It’s working….North Korea went from 3mt to 2 mt
“largely on economic activity in China.”…now who believes that? They can say anything they want, and do….

I believe that (kind of). CO2 emissions data are relatively accurate. Enough to tell that it’s largely because of rise in economic activity in China.
http://www.resilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/emissions.jpg

rogerthesurf

“It’s been 26 Years – and all ‘Global Warming Policies’ have failed”
Absolutely not true.
Within those 26 years a whole industry has been created and is still growing.
Some have become very rich, others rely on it for their living and more is known about the climate today than any time in history.
Unfortunately it has been funded by world tax payers and they have borne the brunt of making the above mentioned rich and comfortable.
For all that have observed all of the above, such as myself, the degree of artifice by politicians, pseudo scientists, the media and hysterics has been noted and I believe this is probably the greatest effect of the global warming industry.
Never trust a government, local or national. Never trust benevolent bodies such as the United Nations, and never trust a bureaucracy of any sort that refuses to discuss facts.
Most of all, never trust a foundation that purports to be helping people in poor countries.

Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Extreme Hiatus

Right on Roger! That mirrors the accomplishments of this project for me too. And even though I was very familiar with the Lysenko story I never expected this much corruption on ‘science’ in the West. Nor did I expect that the USSR’s Pravda would appear relatively objective compared to what most Western media has become.
I also feel particularly disillusioned that the promised warming has not happened as we could use some where I live. That 1998 El Nino was such a tease!

Mickey Reno

Think of all the months worth of salary and pension payments to government workers, bureaucratic “experts” and government funded academics since this big farce began. Think of the prestige provided within this corrupt community in the form of fellowships, attention and praise from fellow virtue signalers, advanced degree credentials, professorships and all that, not to mention the travel to exotic locales in resorts and travel destinations. I’m for an end to all of it. End the UNFCCC. Short of that, get the USA out. No more IPCC. And no more EPA, since I fear the EPA cannot function fairly anymore. It will always be a capture target of the intensely motivated interest group of environmental NGOs.

markl

Ah yes, but the transfer of wealth has occurred and that’s really what AGW is all about so don’t expect any change in the narrative. Globalization/wealth redistribution at the expense of Western/industrialized countries has always been the goal. China may not be “Western” but we’ve made it industrialized to the point of soon becoming the #1 economy in the world on the premise of AGW.

Edwin

Markl you are correct and for anyone paying attention wealth redistribution has been the goal since day one as well and supporting the AGW so called scientific community. We even had a couple of UN-IPCC “leaders” state as much. The problem is how do we change the narrative, the propaganda barrage coming from the environmental left and their friends in the news media?

HotScot

If President Trump does do as he promises and brings prosperity to millions of Americans whilst emissions keep falling, the public will change their tune and the msm will follow. As left wing as they are, they want to sell newspapers and when they lose circulation because they are dissing Trump, they’ll change their tune soon enough.
When the climate catastrophe narrative changes, the rest of the West will follow. The Germans are already floundering with their ridiculous energy policies and the UK’s Brexit has demonstrated the public’s contempt of politicians and their insane schemes, including AGW.
The entire edifice is beginning to crumble.

Fredar

@HotScot
Which “public” is that? As I recall almost half of the voters didn’t want to leave EU. I guess they are not part of the “people” or the “public”.

Yes, the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. It’s a racket.

Gunga Din

Anybody need an example? Look at Al Gore.

Alan Tomalty

The huge problem is that the departments of Atmospheric Sciences in all the major universities in the world have been taken over by AGW fanatics who have PhDs in Atmospheric Science. They also control all the government agencies around the world. Once they did that it was easy to bring all the media onside. Then they invented the term science denier which put us skeptics into a corner. This is going to be a long hard fight. All those PhD Atmospheric “scientists” wont go down without a fight. Their whole careers depend on this.

Nigel S

Like aid donations it enriches WaBenzi.

Fredar

Globalization is part of the evil plot too? I’m a skeptic too, but I think you are making too many assumptions here. I thought skeptics were supposed to be the smart people and support free market capitalism and free trade. Meanwhile it’s the leftists who oppose these things. Unless the world has turned upside down.
Globalization and free trade has lifted millions of people out of poverty, and if some western countries think that they have been “left behind” they should lift those stupid rules and make work and business easier, instead of blindly believing power-hungry populist politicians and closing their borders and eyes, and pretend the rest of the world does not exist. Because we have tried protectionism again and again, and it has never worked. But who knows, maybe it works next time… Just like socialism or global warming policies…

Ron Long

Yes, but I feel deep in my gut that the United Nations has good intentions to save the planet and Trump has somehow single-handed sidetracked them. I feel this quite deeply….wait a minute it’s those fish tacos I ate last night.. Excuse me everyone I have to run….

Perhaps more people are becoming aware that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. I wonder when will they recognize the increasing risk of precipitation related flooding and attend to appropriate infrastructure enhancements.

Crispin in Waterloo

Things don’t have to ‘get worse’ before we do something. There are plenty of places on Planet Earth where infrastructure is badly needed. Why do we have to do something ‘because there is a looming crisis? What about the under-housed, badly watered, poorly educated, rough-roaded communities around the 6 continents?
People behave as if the last thing they saw was the only thing that matters and that no one else has eyes to see. Asia is suffused with corruption. That is a crisis. There are lots of crises – enough that we don’t have to create fake ones. A hundred years ago we have frequent food crises. Now we don’t, in part because it is warmer and in part because CO2 is higher. We need new, dense, major sources of energy generation. That is a worthy goal worth seeking. If a new energy source cannot return at least 8 times the energy it takes to create and maintain it over its lifetime, then it is a non-starter. Let’s get on with it.

I completely agree with you Crispin.
The great challenge is to re-focus the UN and the world on what really matters, which is the reduction of poverty and disease, and the institution of Rule of Law in many countries where it does not exist.
The following post outlines the challenge:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/16/draft-un-climate-report-poor-people-will-be-hit-worst/comment-page-1/#comment-2746116
Radical environmentalists are the great killers of our time, ranking with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
One example of this criminal malfeasance is the banning of DDT, which has greatly increased malaria in the tropics – a global-scale holocaust based on false environmental alarmism.
A more recent example is global warming hysteria and the war against cheap, reliable, abundant energy, which is the lifeblood of society.
Global warming alarmism is the greatest fr@ud in human history, in dollar terms. Tens of trillions of dollars have been squandered on this proven falsehood – funds that were more-than-adequate to install clean water and sanitation systems in every village on Earth, and operate them forever. In the 30+ years that global warming hysteria has been promoted by radicals, about 60 million kids below the age of five have died from contaminated water. These child deaths exceed the total deaths in WW2, or Stalin’s purges, and are only exceeded by Mao’s Great Leap Backwards.
Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote this article in 1994. It still rings true today. Read “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”.
http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/
Regards, Allan

Bryan A

But if they make the necessary infrastructure upgrades to handle the increased precipitation, thereby decreasing or eliminating flooding events, they then can’t claim that CO2 is leading to increased flooding events. They need the flooding events to happen in order to be able to blame on the CO2 Boogie Man.

Alan Tomalty

Why would there be an increased risk of flooding if there is no significant effect on climate by CO2?

MarkW

To a large degree, because of land use changes that limit the ability of the ground to soak up rainfall before it can flow into the streams and rivers.

AT – Water vapor is increasing about twice as fast as calculated from temperature increase. The water vapor increase correlates with irrigation increase. TPW (total precipital water) is measured by satellite and reported monthley by NASA/RSS at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201712.time_series.txt
(last 6 digits are year and month, they change monthly)
The numerical data is graphed as Fig 3 in my blog/analysis

ResourceGuy

These are all rather pathetic predictions and reports by the UN and others. Basically, you’re either in China’s 5-year plan or just an outside commentator spinning tales.

Mumbles McGuirck

‘The 1992 U.N. treaty called for “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” ‘
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Wwll, I say they succeeded. Current levels of GHG are not causing dangerous (or much of ANY) interference in the climate. No doubt, humanity would have to increase it’s GHG production ten-fold or more before any sort of change would be noted. And even then would it be ‘dangerous’? (other than to grant money?)
So pop the cork on that champagne and strike up the band!

Alan Tomalty

you must have been overcome with madness to want to celebrate All the governments around the world including many individual states in the US are implementing carbon taxes which will all cost us trillions of dollars. So far more than 1 trillion $ have been spent in the last 20 years trying to combat a problem that doesnt exist. You have no idea of the scope of this PROBLEM?

Mumbles McGuirck

BTW in that picture, is Al Gore trying to paste back his widow’s peak? *snark*

Bryan A

Al Gore picture Caption
Sometimes even I have to face palm the things I say, Thankfully I have many mouthpieces that believe what I say

Tom Gelsthorpe

Human economic activity has depended on combustion of carbon-based fuels since the domestication of fire 100,000 years ago. 90% of what we call “food” is inedible until it’s cooked, and the naked ape could not survive outside the East African ancestral homeland without fire, and the tools you make with fire. No tools = no domesticated animals, no crops, no defenses from competitors human or beastly. The human diaspora to the other five inhabitable continents, that started 70,000 years ago would never have happened without fire.
Suddenly in the 1980s & 90s a bunch of quack politicians — few of whom are scientists — decided this was all a big mistake, and that humanity had to “de-carbonize” within a generation or two, lest civilization, perhaps the entire biosphere, fall off the cliff into eco-disaster. All it has amounted to so far is a Neo-Prohibition movement attempting to expunge a technology much more widespread and indispensable than beverage alcohol. You can’t even spread the doomsday message without fire, and fire-forged gizmos. Where do people suppose the papers, wires, satellites, books, ships, planes, and electronic communications devices come from?
Did anyone really think it was going to work? Or were they just touting a doomsday cult in order to get their names in the paper, and make a few rent-seeking, humbug-consulting bucks on the side?

Javert Chip

Ok; I’m voting for they were “,,,just touting a doomsday cult in order to get their names in the paper, and make a few rent-seeking, humbug-consulting bucks on the side”. (Did anybody really have to ask this question?)
All the above and one of them wanted a Nobel so badly that he tried to steal it from the UN.

That is my vote too Javert.
See especially point #2 below.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/10/claim-300-4-billion-far-short-of-required-investment-in-renewables/comment-page-1/#comment-2740355
Alan Tomalty wrote:
“Why is it that in every jurisdiction in the world that has got serious about renewables the electricity prices have quadrupled?”
The wind power component of the total electricity mix has in some cases more than quadrupled – in Alberta at one time it was 20 cents /KWh, almost TEN TIMES the price of conventional coal-fired power.
To your question of why?
1. Facts:
The intermittency problem of wind has been known since ~forever. Storage of electricity is not a practical solution and may never be economic or sensible. We’ve known these facts long before the beginning of global warming mania, yet trillions of dollars in scarce global resources have been squandered by politicians on intermittent, non-dispatchable wind power, which has served only to reduce the reliability of the grid, drive up power prices and increase winter mortality among the elderly and the poor.
2. Why?
Most politicians are uneducated in the sciences and to a significant degree are vain, incompetent and corrupt. They love big, expensive projects because those provide them with the greatest opportunity for graft. They want to get re-elected, and “donations” from wind power producers given them the funds to run their re-election campaigns (plus a bit more for the family). They can rely on the support of environmental extremist organizations which have also been bought off by Big Green. When trillions of dollars per year are siphoned off to support wind power, there is lots of graft to go around.
3. In Summary
Over a decade ago I decided to “dumb down” this message, in the vain hope that our politicians could understand it:
“WIND POWER – IT DOESN’T JUST BLOW, IT SUCKS!”

Alan Tomalty

The huge problem is that the departments of Atmospheric Sciences in all the major universities in the world have been taken over by AGW fanatics who have PhDs in Atmospheric Science. They also control all the government agencies around the world that are responsible for anything remotely to do with the environment.

Extreme Hiatus

Allan Macrae (sorry but can’t tell if your last name has a big R)
Here’s a great new graph from Australia to add to your argument. Prices haven’t quadrupled yet but are headed in that direction. Could be headed to the moon if IPCC type extrapolation is used.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/electricity-prices-fell-for-forty-years-in-australia-then-renewables-came/

Thank you Extreme.
An excellent graph, entitled “Electricity prices fell for forty years in Australia, then renewables came…”
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/electricity-prices-fell-for-forty-years-in-australia-then-renewables-came/
We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.

ResourceGuy

Be thankful for the little things in this world—-like chads.

Tom in Florida

Never forget to thank the people of Tennessee, Al Gore’s home state. Had he won Tennessee the chads in Florida would not have mattered. Rarely does a Presidential Candidate lose his home state.

TA

Poor Al.
Good for the rest of us though. 🙂

ResourceGuy

+10

Steve Zell

Gore’s ranting against coal probably cost him West Virginia as well, which had voted for the Democrat in 1988, 1992, and 1996, and has voted for the Republican presidential candidate by increasing margins since 2000. The heavily unionized coal miners used to vote Democrat, but they now vote Republican to save their jobs, thanks to Gore.

R. Shearer

It’s hard to believe that Gore would have been worse than Bush, but I suppose it’s possible. Obama certainly was worse.

MarkW

While Bush wasn’t perfect, he wasn’t all that bad. Especially compared to the alternatives.

BernardP

Despite this lack of success, calls to action are continuing at a fever pitch, most western governments are pouring billions and billions in the fight against climate change, and the messaging from the mainstream media has not altered. Despite the valiant efforts of climate realists, there doesn’t seem to be a way out of the climate hype spiral.

The function of global warming policies is to divide and conquer nations, economies, religions, families, and most important, the individual’s mind.
It has been a smashing success.

Barbara

UNCTAD, May, 2016
‘Science Technology and Innovation for Implementation 2030’, 20 pages
Sustainable Development Agenda, Rio 92- 2016
Includes, climate change, science policy, organizations involved, International Network of Government Science Advisers, and other information.
http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Presentation/ecn162016p02_McBean_en.pdf

Barbara

UN Sustainable Development, 30 June 2014
Statement: High -Level Political Forum
Re: Gordon McBean
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/10768science2.pdf

Gunga Din

I suspect “UN Sustainable Development, 30 June 2014” has more to do with sustaining the UN than anything else.
What they want to “develop” is not anyone who prefers personal freedom wants.

Barbara

WMO, May 22, 2017
Re: Gordon McBean, IMO Prize & IPCC.
Gordon McBean awarded IMO Prize, May 16, 2017
https://public.wmo.int/media/news/imo-prize

Barbara

Ontario Newsroom, Canada
Archived News Releases, October, 14, 2008
‘Expert panel helps fight climate change’
Panel members included: Gordon McBean
https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2008/10/expert-panel-helps-fight-climate-change.html

Alan Tomalty

Sustainable development is a big lie. The problem is pollution especially plastics and nano technology. We have turned our oceans into a plastics garbage dump while wasting over a trillion $ on the big hoax of AGW.
None of you realize just how bad the oceans really are to the point that if everyone of you has eaten fish everyone of you have consumed a tiny bit of plastic. Yes Virginia There is that much plastic in the world’s oceans. The number of fraudulent studies on global warming out numbers the number of studies on ocean plastics 100 to 1. I am ashamed of the human race including myself for not doing more to correct this.

Barbara

UNISDR
‘Climate Change and Increasing Risks in Urban areas’
Presentation: Gordon McBean, NCDR, Kobe, Japan, January 2005. ~ 28 pages.
http://www.unisdr.org/2005/ncdr/thematic-sessions/presentations/2-4/western-mr-mcbean.pdf

Barbara

Correction
‘Climate Change and Increasing Risks in Urban Areas
http://www.unisdr.org/2005/ncdr/thematic-sessions/presentations/session2-4/western-mr-mcbean.pdf
Also online.

Barbara
Barbara

ELSEVIER / Environmental Sustainability Journal
Editorial Board includes: Gordon McBean
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/current-opinion-in-environmental-sustainability/editorial-board

Trebla

You just cant get around the 800 pound gorilla of energy density and dispatchability. If we could have with renewables, we would have.

bingo!

Barbara

Sustainable development Law & Policy
Volume 7
Issue 2 Winter 2007: Climate Law Reporter
Re: Legal and Policy Frameworks for Renewable Energy + Climate change
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1225&context=sdlp
CO2 legal frameworks have to be established world-wide. The same with cap-and-trade.
.

Barbara

World Bank Group
PPPIRC Public-Private-Partnership In Infrastructure Resource Center
Re: Renewable energy public-private financing of infrastructure for developing renewable energy projects.
http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/clean-tech/laws-regulations

M Courtney

If the policies actually restricted output of CO2 then they wouldn’t be adopted.
Everyone knows that CO2 emissions are correlated with energy an therefore with prosperity.
The only reason these policies are adopted is because they don’t do anything.

Clausewitz: “War is the continuation of politics by other means.’
Climate Alarmism is the continuation of social change by any means possible.

ResourceGuy

Yes indeed…..
‘You need high taxes in order to be civilized. ’
—Sven Giegold of the Green Party (Germany)
from WSJ story on Germany

mikewaite

‘You need high taxes in order to be civilized. ’
We tried to tell you lot that way back in Boston in 1773 – but would you listen ?

MarkW

I remember one of those “best city” surveys from a few decades ago.
One of the categories was public safety. Rather than do the hard work of trying to normalize and compare crime statistics, the authors decided to just use the amount spent on policing. They figured that the city that spent the most per capita must be the safest.

Tom Halla

But the Green Bolb’s intentions are so admirable their failures on their purported goals should be excused./sark

It was clear from the beginning that all the “commitments” would not work at all. Wind and solar don’t reduce any significant CO2 emissions if at all, replacing coal with gas does reduce a little, nuclear could work technically, but not in reality (politics and huge initial costs)… What does work is reducing energy consumption (economic crises).
Of course there’s no need at all to reduce.

Wight Mann

Oh, well…nobody really expected it to work, anyway.

ResourceGuy

A good time was had by all…..right Al?

KT66

So, in 26 years the emissions have gone up 67% but there has been no dangerous warming. We now have 40 years behind us since the AGW scare became mainstream and no dangerous warming. How long, how long, must this charade go on?

HotScot

KT66
There will be an AGW hiatus in ten years or so I reckon. Then there’ll be a wind up to AGC (Athropogenic Global Cooling) scare.
They’ll get it right eventually.

Alan Tomalty

How much money will have been thrown down a black hole or into the pockets of people like Al Gore in the meantime?

RWturner

The 1992 U.N. treaty called for “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
Well since that has obviously been a smashing success — since the last time I checked the planet Earth still has the exact same climate it did in 1992 — their real goal must be something else, like something to do with money perhaps.

HotScot

RWturner
Now that’s just cynical. 😁

It seems a lot longer than just 26 Years that this ‘Global Warming Policies’ racket has been going on. It is just not true that all the policies have ‘failed”.
The Warmistas have, over these 26 years, created a huge money laundering system for themselves and their cronies. The Scamsters have become rich while the rest of the population has become poorer. Meanwhile, Science has been hollowed out, and turned into just an annexe of the Scam process.. The Media and Politicians have supported the Scam in the blind religious belief that proof is no longer necessary in these new religious matters like ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Global Warming’. Government bureaucracies have piled on to the bandwagon in bulk and claimed their slice of the pie.
The greatest disaster has been the collapse of Critical Thought in Western civilisation.

Alan Tomalty

You are not far off the mark. Sadly.

knr

Well one thing that has certainly gone up over all those years , is the contents of St Gore’s bank account and the amount of air-miles is clocks up ever year.

Robert of Texas

How about we tax all countries that have increased their CO2 emissions since 1992 by say, 20% of their GNP and give all that money to the countries that lowered their carbon emissions since 1992. The money could be paid on a per capita basis to all those good people living in those good countries that have lowered their emissions.
I could find a use for a paycheck to paid to all U.S. citizens – money that comes from China, India, and most of Europe. And I bet they would start lowering emissions really fast! 🙂

Alan Tomalty

I have an idea Go to China with your idea with a big sign that says what you said to us. The only question is how long will it take the US Embassy to get you out of a Chinese jail?

Steve Zell

Al Gore also predicted that the North Pole would be ice free by this year (2018). There was still ice up there last September, so Gore needs to fly up there and light some BIG fires to melt the ice on the North Pole ASAP to fulfill his prophecy. Maybe he can ask Santa Claus and his elves to help!

Perhaps more fundamentally, the climate computer programs, which serve as the basis for the global warming hypothesis, have repeatedly failed to make correct predictions. Despite routine ad hoc revisions to the programs, and ‘adjustments’ to the temperature record to force the data to fit the hypothesis, it is very apparent the hypothesis has been falsified, or at least severely damaged. Hopefully, future attempts to reign in economic growth by regulating carbon emissions will lose their justification.

John F. Hultquist

“… diplomats have met at United Nations summits to …
… activists have met at United Nations parties … to have costly vacations using other people’s money …
I think that comes closer to the reality. I don’t mind fixing the text for you. You are welcome.

“The Paris accord went into effect in 2016, but after one year global emissions rose two percent, largely on economic activity in China.”
Typical accuracy for the source. He has no actual emissions data for that period. He’s quoting someone’s forecast.

Alan Tomalty

Final results are not in but according to this website China is not cutting back and there will be an increase of 2% for 2017.
https://www.nature.com/news/world-s-carbon-emissions-set-to-spike-by-2-in-2017-1.22995
The Bloomberg CO2 clock has the level at 409ppm
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/carbon-clock/
This site says 408ppm
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
since they measure it everyday these are accurate figures . The levels are the highest in the 800000 year history of ice core samples which is really the only reliable way of measuring CO2 in the past. I dont see any runaway global warming yet and the plants love it Horaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!!

Alan Tomalty

We need more CO2 not less.

“Final results are not in but according to this website…”
Yes. You are linking to the same website as Bastasch. But he says it has already happened, when it is only a prediction.

observa

Pretty obvious what’s going on with the highest power prices in the world-
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/electricity-prices-fell-for-forty-years-in-australia-then-renewables-came/
and they’re still scrabbling around trying to solve the problem with their feast or famine unreliables-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/personalfinance/households-to-hand-over-control-of-backyard-pool-in-power-trial/ar-BBJmLRv
What’s a $1000 per pool for another Greeny trial eh?

tadchem

Policies are the sole creations of politicians. There are only two objectives to politics: to control people and to control money.