Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Poor people in Asia are rejecting the great renewable energy opportunity.
‘The world is losing the war on climate change’
10/08/2018 – by Dr Maarten van Aalst, Director, Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre
For those of us working on the humanitarian impacts of climate change, last week provided some very gloomy reading, including a stark headline above an Economist leader that ‘The world is losing the war against climate change’.
The authoritative weekly was not asserting that climate has suddenly become a binary issue of victory or defeat but referring to a direction of travel; it argued that on climate, the direction of travel remains the wrong direction.
‘Three years after countries vowed in Paris to keep global warming “well below” 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, greenhouse gas emissions are up again. So are investments in oil and gas. In 2017, for the first time in four years, demand for coal [the dirtiest of the fossil fuels] rose.’
The main reason? Soaring demand for energy in the booming economies of Asia, where in the decade to 2016 this rose no less than 40 per cent, met almost entirely by coal, gas and oil.
…
The coming months will feature some significant milestones for international climate policy. In October the IPCC’s long-awaited report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is due, while negotiations on the rule book for the Paris Agreement are scheduled to be completed at the next COP meeting in Poland in December. But it’s already clear we need action way beyond what’s currently happening, and fast, as many of the extremes we are experiencing now are just a taste of what’s to come.
I continue to see strong media coverage of both current extremes and the risks we are getting locked into as a critical factor, and I’m glad to see The Economist, for one, all but taking words out of our mouths. A shift from carbon may eventually enrich economies, their leader last week concluded, but (my emphasis) ‘[p]oliticians have an essential role to play in making the case for reform and in ensuring the most vulnerable do not bear the brunt of the change.’ The humanitarians’ point exactly!
Read more: https://www.climatecentre.org/news/1035/a-the-world-is-losing-the-war-on-climate-changea
Clearly the humanitarian solution is for rich countries like the USA to provide financial assistance to China and other developing countries in Asia, to help wean them away from their reliance on fossil fuels for economic growth, without them having to “bear the brunt of the change”.
Another one eyed moron who hasn’t a clue.
Who lets these mental poppets out of their homes without a keeper?
Years ago I was working as a landscaper and I was in a plant nursery when I asked a laborer to grab one of the Dracaena marginatas that he was near .. ‘what?” asked this guy who’d been in the industry for 10 years , I point he replies ‘oh the purple spikey things’. I tell him it’s name again and suggest I start letting him know at least what the various species were we used most frequently. “forget it, I finished learning when I left school, I don’t want to learn new things” was his reply – one I’ll never forget.
The guy called himself a landscaper, he claimed skills, he was gainfully employed as such and that was his attitude?! I’ve seen it plenty of times since, people who got their jobs and they put their brains on hold and did the bare minimum thereafter.
This sort of thing led me to be very wary of ‘experts’ and ‘professionals’ – basically people who did stuff for a job and somehow they become the go-to dude for facts. I recall one instance where some data from Kodak about it’s product was wrong and I spent weeks going back and forward through their company trying to find someone who had an inkling of what I was talking about, from tech to chemical engineer, the attitude was ‘i don’t know nuthin, I just do my job’ and despite clear evidence that their product was failing in it’s claimed attributes and me discovering why, I couldn’t get it across to anyone – even showing them to their faces caused them to vague out and chant ‘but the Kodak brochure says it works’. . (selenium toner, basically it only worked due to the sulfiding action of thiourea, a compound dropped from later formulations thus making the product utterly incapable of providing any protection to silver prints)
but hey, evidence versus ‘the brochure’ written by the sales guy, better trust the sales guy, HE works for the company so HE must know everything.
So when a person in a position like the above uses his clout without any real information to back him claims I see it as another example of someone reading off the product brochure and naively expecting truth.. and it makes me very cross.
They work from home, dontcha know? 😉
I remember a meeting in the early 80s with execs and engineers at Kodak in which I extolled the coming revolution of interactive media and digital imaging. They listened politely, had not a single question, but the top guy piped up with “That’s nice son, but we’re all silver halide men here.” Or to quote the immortal Lucy, “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
Sorry. I didn’t see your post til after mine. Same response.
Kodak was also told in the late 70’s that they better start exploring digital because film was going to become obsolete. Their response was identical.
Ironically the first self-contained electronic camera that used a charge-coupled device image sensor ever built was created in December 1975 by an engineer at Eastman Kodak named Steve Sasson, now regarded as the inventor of the digital camera. but since Kodak was a film company the didn’t take advantage of what should have made them the leading company in digital photography.
I expect that, much like vinyl records, film photography will survive as a niche market by virtue of its picture quality.
I’ve been saying for years that Sears Roebuck could have morphed into what is now Amazon. They had the market and were familiar with mail order. But alas, when the going got tough, they got out of the catalog & mail order business in favor for their brick-and-mortar stores.
Well that is probably a lot of his problem. Thinking that you can get objective science from newspapers with a big fat political axe to grind.
If his job is humanitarian aid he would to better getting on with that than trying to turn RCRC into a similar climate change activist organisation.
Most of those NGOs are overloaded with liberals incapable of reasoning skills.
The NGOs are targeted by liberal socialists and they eventually infiltrate even if the original charter was for a conservative cause. They smell other peoples money.
I am seeing a new pattern in these releases. The Global elite must have gotten together recently and decided to double down on alarmism and passed the word on to the minions. Same general alarmist wording in a lot of propaganda lately.
The Climate Action Network coordinates the message worldwide.
More distressing is the new evidence that purports many NGO’s in the foreign sector are riddled with paedophiles and other such opportunists.
What about pedos in the police-justice system? Anyone is investigating? What about the criminalisation of “sexto” of seventeens?
I recently had a problem with a new keyboard. The “customer service” person told me the problem was “it doesn’t work with Mac”. I told him I used the same model for 4 years without problems. His response was “they don’t work with Mac”. No matter what I said about using the keyboard in the past, “it doesn’t work with Mac”. Needless to say, his satisfaction survey was not highly rated.
I went around the problem by purchasing what I needed from a different company. On this purchase, some keys on the keyboard did not function properly, but this time the company said satisfaction was guaranteed and sent me a new keyboard. Amazing. The first manufacturer is a large, well-known company, obviously no longer concerned about customer satisfaction.
I’ll bet the very last plant name that nursery laborer learned was cannabis sativa.
Many “experts” claim 10 years’ experience when what they have is one year’s experience 10 times.
A grounds maintenance employee when asked what had happened to the garlic I’d had growing in some planters at work replied “was they the green things?” There’s not much you can say to that!
James Bull
Good one Karlos51, helps explain why Kodak never saw digital photography coming!
“Soaring demand for energy in the booming economies of Asia,”
What are they complaining about?….this was the plan they agreed to and exactly what they wanted to happen
All the more reason to NOT donate money to the Red Cross.
How did the world hold developed countries responsible for global warming?
Let’s list the advances of the last 2 centuries from fossil fuels. (h/t Judge William Alsup)
Why are developing countries like China and Saudi Arabia freed from the cost of combating climate change?
Ah yes, only developed countries have riden the wave of fossil fuels.
So will the developing countries surrender the benefits of an industrial revolution and a technology revolution and other advances?
Apparently not.
Back to the 70s. That’s the 1770s.
Herbert
The whole concept is laughable, it’s extorting money from the wealthy west to hand to the impoverished developing nations in an idealistic belief that everyone should share the worlds wealth, even if they haven’t worked for it.
That is, except for a select few mega wealthy individuals who frequently promote the concept of socialism themselves, safe on their thrones of elitism.
There is a problem though, the idea the Roman Empire would crumble was also laughable, but it happened. Whilst we mock these people, they are working hard behind the scenes to overthrow Capitalism, the very natural order of human existence the greens should be promoting because free trade is the underpinning of humanity. The most natural means of existence, yet unlike every other ‘natural’ thing on the planet the greens squeal about Capitalism being unnatural, despite the gifts it has showered on mankind.
Capitalists should be on notice that the socialist hordes are on the march and the war will be very long and very bloody.
Mock them by all means, but never underestimate them.
I see this as the build up to an ultimate confrontation between good and evil. Don’t look for any ‘rapture’ to save you, though. That’s wishful thinking.
The rapture isn’t about being saved. That is simply a part of society crossing that last line in the sand. It’s part of the unfolding of Armageddon. It is part of the “finality” of God’s judgement.
The rapture isn’t a a salvation to look forward to, it marks the beginning of the ending.
China has 45% of the worlds’ skyscrapers.
Meanwhile the RedCross/Cresent organisations depend entirely on fossil fuels for their activities; without which they would barely exist.
Another addled brain gets MSM coverage.
I guess they will have to give up all that life saving technology that happens to be made out of fossil fuels and go back to using leeches. More like 570 BC.
We still use leeches for certain medical applications, most commonly when a patient’s blood needs to be kept thin. The natural anticoagulant in leech saliva still works better for this purpose than any synthetic drug we’ve so far come up with.
I can honestly say that I’ve never seen a jar of leeches in any hospital or doctor’s office in my lifetime.
If you want to see a leech in a doctor’s office….go private & look at the bill.
They’re kept in the hospital pharmacy’s back room, in a sterile refridgerated bath. When called for by a doctor, they’re moved to a warm water bath to wake them up and delivered to the patient’s location. Once they’ve taken a blood meal, they become medical waste and are destroyed, commonly by dissolving them in alcohol.
My sister’s a hospital pharmacist, and would tell you that one of the least favorite tasks of the pharmacy techs is cleaning and prepping a new shipment of medicinal leeches. 🙂
The Rock Bass on Lake Geneva in Wisconsin don’t really mind if the leeches are warm or cool.
You just hook them onto a “fuzzy grub” jig and throw them under the many piers on the lake.
Not sure why, but the boat tends to spend most of its time around the piers where young ladies are sunbathing, the extra shade attracts the fish apparently.
We also use maggots. I had an employer who was diabetic and developed an infection in his leg. The hospital used maggots to clean it. The only problem was when the maggots ran out of dead flesh to consume, they would crawl out of the bandage. The nurses freaked out!
And they depend on charitable funding which is generated because they offer medical and humanitarian assistance, not because they use the money to fund a Climate Centre!
Hopefully it’s just one man who’s job it is to sit in a corner and say something sympathetic about climate because “well, everyone else is doing it so we ought to as well. To keep the money rolling in”.
Personally, I suspect most donors would not consider it a good way to spend the money they have given.
Why does a brunt have to be borne ? If all the future economic benefits promised by the thermogeddonists was remotely credible then we would all be rushing headlong into renewables .
Clearly they don’t believe their own fairy stories.
“we need action way beyond what’s currently happening, and fast, as many of the extremes we are experiencing now are just a taste of what’s to come.”
Like the hurricane extremes Al assured us were becoming more frequent and severe?
” NOAA forecasters lower Atlantic hurricane season prediction”
Thermogeddonists–thermogeddon.
Great words!
The fairy stories may even be true – but if a village is starving ,waiting 20 years for some new technology to be developed and perfected and distributed is not a viable option.
The Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming meme has been ongoing for 30 years now. How much longer has we got to wait for this new technology?
It is bad enough if these people could of survived even in the early 20th Century let alone another 200 years prior?
First, Leftists predicted 10C of manmade Warming by 2100 in order to get the enviro-wackos all fired up, and to stop being laughed at, they quickly cut it to 5C, then 4C, then 3.5C, followed by 3.0C, then 2.5C, then 2C, and now it’s even 1.5C is catastrophic…
Without a doubt, 1C will soon be the new catastrophic warming, and finally any warming at all is dangerous, ‘cuz Trump.
Leftists are completely insane….
goldfish.
“AHMYGAAAHD, IT”S GETTIN GDARK! ” yes we call this night time, oh clueless one, it happens every day. You did this yesterday, remember?
“AHHH! EEEK! AAHHH!” it’s the light switch, it stops the dark frightening you, just as it does every night..
“STOP, IT BURNS IT BURNS” .. ty not to look directly at the.. ah forget it. hey, look, a puppy!
/backs away from the excessively timid
File this under “OMG, we’re all gonna die!” 🙂
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/leonardo-dicaprio-witnesses-a-terrifying-sign-of-climate-change-in-calgary-a-chinook
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio attracted widespread derision from the people of Calgary after he cited the city’s famously unusual weather as “terrifying” evidence of climate change.
“We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come,” DiCaprio told Variety.com, describing it as a “scary” vision of things to come.
“It’s terrifying, and it’s what people are talking about all over the world. And it’s simply just going to get worse.”
Leo and his movie Revisionist were made for each other.
A very good comment Samurai.
I’ve watched the warmist conspirators scale back their false claims of high–climate-sensitivity for over a decade, and I thank you for pointing out this fact.
I view this as a deliberate tactic of the warmist camp – start with the BIG LIE, get all the sheep stampeded and get tens of trillions of dollars spent on bogus research and worthless green energy schemes.
The global warming scam is now over 30 years old, enough time to build a lucrative career and retire comfortably. We can expect more retirements in the next few years, especially if there are signs that the world is about to get colder.
Global warming alarmism is the greatest scam, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.
A very good comment Samurai.
I’ve watched the warmist conspirators scale back their false claims of high–climate-sensitivity for over a decade, and I thank you for pointing out this fact.
I view this as a deliberate tactic of the warmist camp – start with the BIG LIE, get all the sheep stampeded and get tens of trillions of dollars spent on bogus research and worthless green energy schemes.
The global warming scam is now over 30 years old, enough time to build a lucrative career and retire comfortably. We can expect more retirements in the next few years, especially since there are signs that the world is about to get colder.
Global warming alarmism is the greatest scam, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.
It is reminiscent of campaigns to ban various chemicals or radiation, where any amount of the evil pollution is to cause dread effects.
Another $500k+ a year concerned climateer.
My money my money, wont someone please think about my money.
A number plucked out of some no-ones a$$ 1.5c over a 200 year period, and we are doomed.
On a planet whose natural climate and temp swings plus or minus 2 kelvin per century quite naturally, and has done millions of times, many times with much greater swings…………
Of piste but I thought, hopefully, this would brighten everyones day. Well I found it very funny-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=NjlC02NsIt0
Thanks to iceagenow for flagging it up.
I LOLed. That dim-witted woman didn’t stand a chance with her fake “question”.
Wow !! That is definitely a different approach !! LOL
I agree with Dan Pena’s arguments. Global warming alarmism is a huge deliberate scam.
I do wonder if he eats with that mouth – he talks like the boys from Otterburn Park who I grew up with. But Dan did me one big favor – I’m motivated to clean up my language!
“The world is losing the war on climate change”. Good to hear. It’s a fake war anyway, and a costly one, damaging all of humanity. But the Climatists couldn’t care less about that. It means we’re winning; the side that is for common sense, for a world where affordable, reliable energy is more commonplace, not less. Where poor people don’t have to scrounge for already-scarce wood or animal waste to burn, living shortened lives from breathing the smoke, and polluting the air.
…..And there seems to be not even the slightest suspicion that it was — and still is — an abundance of fossil fuels with which to power an economy that was the primary reason for wealthy nations being wealthy nations.
Furthermore, it is only an economy that has abundant fossil fuels with which to power productive economic endeavors that will have money with which to subsidize so-called “renewables.”
This issue has gone to a place that is really, really strange. For it to have gone to where it is requires that the magic money that central banks such as the US Federal Reserve magically conjure out of their magic hole in the air be considered real money rather than being the make-believe fairy tale stuff of magic that it is.
Red Cross own and charter a massive fleet of aircraft. We must let them know immediately . . . we will no longer stand for massive carbon spewing aircraft!
Furthermore, please publish your complete carbon footprint including all fuel use. Your donors have a right to know your level of contribution to the deadly CO2 budget which is at a deadly tipping point as decreed by the Red Cross.
Please WUWT readers, write or phone your local Red Cross today!
I look forward to all aid arriving via wind-powered sailing ships and hoofstock-pulled wagons. I am sure that victims will be comforted knowing that while they were suffering and lives were being lost, the Red Cross was NOT using evil fossil fuels to speed their response.
I am sure that any negative effects on disaster relief efforts due to avoidance of fossil fuel usage will be accepted as positive. Not using fossil fuel-powered equipment to remove heavy debris after building collapses, not using synthetic blankets/tents/clothing (oil-based!), not using fossil fuel-powered generators for medical facilities and equipment, not using anything produced using energy from fossil fuels…how could anyone be against such “responsible” actions?
Bonus: fewer people will survive, so there will be less demand for fossil fuels!
/sarc
Saturday opinion:
Trouble is this days celebrity ‘scientists’ banging on about CO2 being the only control knob of climate & weather are possibly limelight biased over the actual science bias – IMHO 😀
“Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre”
Why do they need a climate centre? Shouldn’t they just respond to a crisis and go there, however caused?
That was my first thought. I appreciate the charitable work that the Red Cross does, but they need to learn to stick to what they are good at doing: immediate, TEMPORARY relief. Their forays into long term work have been problematic.
I read a 2015 article about the Red Cross’ extended relief efforts in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. Their projects were rarely completed or effective, largely because they did not know what they were doing. At the time, they had only built 6 permanent homes in the ENTIRE country. To be fair, there are a lot of longstanding problems in Haiti that made it difficult or impossible to do many projects. However, they had nearly $500 million from Haiti-specific donations. They should have been able to accomplish more than they did.
My favorite line from the story: “Some solar street lights have been installed, though many broke and residents say others are unreliable.”
When the developed nations can demonstrate that renewable energy works, then and only then, will the third world implement renewable energy. Just because you had the bad luck to be born in an undeveloped country, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid. The stupid ones are the university educated, unicorn loving, western liberal elites who, against all the evidence piling up, continue to think wind and solar are viable.
“A shift from carbon may eventually enrich economies”
So these idiots want the developing countries to give up the very real, low hanging fruit of fossil fuel use to enrich their economies today in exchange for a possible enrichment at some future, unspecified date.
One has to wonder about the mental health of the True Believers.
If they actually believe all this, and many do, then they must be scared to death.
The CAGW fraud has been detrimental to billions of people, costing them a potential good livelihood and seriously harming the mental health of countless people.
All it took was a few decievers in the wrong places to turn the world and the temperature profile upside down.
I also noticed, but with dismay, the position now adopted by The Economist. When a magazine that worships at the feet of the patron saint of economics, Adam Smith, thinks that substituting expensive energy in place of cheap energy will increase profits and well being, there is something gone wrong with the world.
When “sustainable” and “renewable” energy generation remains just a bunch of Tinker Toys , what other choice do these people have?
Red Cross must have all the money it needs.
It is a shame, but since we know where most of the CO2 is coming from, concentrating on those areas offers the most bang for the buck.
Since CO2 is on net, good for the planet, we ought to be subsidizing it.
People with science backgrounds know better that to pretend there is a net gain. Why subsidize so that the majority of the globe loses? We are not even sure which part may win.
Alley.
Get a grip.
Your ”experts” are frauds, even ”if” they believe their words true.
”Tom Abbott
One has to wonder about the mental health of the True Believers.
If they actually believe all this, and many do, then they must be scared to death.
The CAGW fraud has been detrimental to billions of people, costing them a potential good livelihood and seriously harming the mental health of countless people.”’
I too believe in science and facts. Is that so bad? Why do people like you mock facts? Does not make any sense.
True believers are a problem. They believe in their gut feelings, the opposite of facts. I agree that the science denier fraud is detrimental to the advancement of science. All you have to do is read what people here are writing that would fail any HS or college science class.
We don’t mock facts. We mock the pathetic lies that you keep posting.
Like most of Alley knows, this fact is also bogus.
Of course alarmists define scientists as being anyone who agrees with them.
CO2 makes green things grow bigger and faster.
We have yet to reach the temperatures seen during the Medieval warm period, which was itself cooler than the Roman Warm period, which was in turn cooler than the Minoan warm period.
In fact 95% of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than it is today, and during those times, life flourished.
Nice way of putting it. Unfortunately, the Red Chinese have nukes on ICBMs, too, so it’s a bit late to put them out of their misery quickly. You’ll just have to keep working on pushing them back into starvation and plague to reduce their population.
Alley, your continuing display of stupidity is getting very annoying.
So Dilks thinks that we DON’T know where CO2 is coming from. Is it annoying that I posted a simple fact?
One of these days Alley will post an actual fact rather than a pathetic opinion he tries to mislabel as facts.
Today, once again, is not that day.
Alley, have you decided yet what you’ll do when your world is cooking? You should start planning, because nothing can or will be done by humans to change where our climate is going. You know it, and I know it. How long will your virtue signalling serve to soothe you?
Alley can’t respond, He’s been caught sockpuppeting, in violation of our posted policy, so his comments now go into the bit-bucket.
As my old friend Tad, a PhD who immigrated from Poland, used to say:
“WHO EES ZIS IDIOT!”
The Republican National Committee is stealing my material!
See this, posted by the RNC August 10, 2018:
‘FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATS’: RNC Mocks Ocasio-Cortez In Ad
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34367/future-democrats-rnc-mocks-ocasio-cortez-ad-ryan-saavedra?utm_medium=email&utm_content=081118-news&utm_campaign=position2
Now see my post of July 3, 2018:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/03/huff-post-climate-activist-green-groups-lack-diversity/#comment-2395613
[excerpt]
Phil’s article is reminiscent of this scene from “Billy Madison”:
“Mr. Madison, what you just said is the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone is this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/27/100-renewables-by-2035-surprise-new-york-primary-winner-takes-on-democrat-climate-moderates/#comment-2391692
ATheoK and Tony Abbott
I would like your opinions to be true, but they are not – Obama got elected and Hillary came close. This indicates that about half the voters in the USA have been infected with the Progressive/Marxist virus. Many of these fools don’t even know it – they think they are cool, and smarter than those they disagree with (they are not – see Dunning-Kruger Effect).
In Canada similar leftist scoundrels/imbeciles were elected: Justin Trudeau om Ottawa, Rachel Notley in Alberta and John Horgan in BC, and Ontario only recently threw out the uber-extreme Kathleen Wynn. Canada’s economy is failing due to the policies of these leftists.
Across Europe, almost all countries are led by these closet Marxists and their economies are also failing, and have been for decades.
In the USA, the leftist infection is much more prevalent than a just few violent paid protesters. About half the population in the USA is effectively on the dole, since they consume more than they contribute – these people will usually vote for anyone who promises them more free stuff, like Ms Ocasio-Cortez. She knows what she is doing – it is the standard Marxist formula that has dragged down so many countries in the world.
The solution is to get the unemployed back to work, which Trump is doing – and a key component is keeping energy costs low, so the USA can compete with China and other low-labour-cost countries. Trump is on the right track to saving the USA, and the Marxists cannot stand it.
When Marxists want to sabotage a country, they increase energy costs unnecessarily, which cripples the economy. That is the left’s strategy, and it is working, except in the USA, China and a few other countries.
A key leftist strategy is to cripple the energy industry – examples are endless regulatory snarls and successful anti-pipeline movements – these have cost Canada $120 billion in lost revenues – a huge amount of money that should have been available for industrial re-investment, job creation, health, education, etc.
The leftists were the scourge of the 20th Century – Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed a total of about 200 million people. Almost 200 countries that once had viable economies are on a downward spiral – Zimbabwe and Venezuela lead the way, but many others follow. That is the Marxist agenda, and it is working.
Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre
=======?
Apparently the RC has money to burn.
Would you rather be a poor Asian without a pot to piss in or a rich Asian with an air-conditioning.
You can be sure the director of RC climate center is rich and has air-conditioning. But is worried what will happen if other people have the same.
He’s like all of the eco-imperalists, dictating how people in developing countries should live, regardless of how it improves life.
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE:
1. There is NO credible evidence of dangerous man-made global warming – it was significantly warmer in recorded human history before fossil-fuel combustion became significant.
2. There is highly credible evidence that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is low, less than ~1C/(2xCO2).
3. There is NO credible evidence of wilder weather over the past several decades.
4. There is nothing unusual happening in global climate over the past several decades.
5. The only measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is much higher plant and crop yields.
6. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is alarmingly low for the continued survival of terrestrial life on Earth.
7. CO2 reduction and CO2 abatement schemes are destructive nonsense that increase energy costs and Excess Winter Deaths.
8. Most green energy schemes are not green, produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, and de-stabilize vital energy grids.
9. Twenty times more people die from cool and cold weather than from warm and hot weather.
10. Increasing atmospheric CO2 may cause some mild warming that should reduce Excess Winter Deaths, that globally total about 2 million every year.
11. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is strongly net-beneficial for humanity and the environment.
12. Climate change is overwhelmingly natural, and adaptation is the best approach to dealing with it, to date.
THE ENTIRE VERY-SCARY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMIST MANTRA IS FALSE!
All 12 above statements say so.
I completely agree. The problem is that this scam has evolved into a religion, thus forbidding critical thinking.
The good doctor is nothing but an eco-imperalist. To tyrants like him, people in developing countries should not be allowed to modernize by using efficient, plentiful, and cheap energy resources. It must be renewables! And nothing else!!
“The authoritative weekly was not asserting that climate has suddenly become a binary issue of victory or defeat…”
Not only does this not make sense as a clause or as a concept, it contradicts the headline “The world is losing the war on climate change.” Losing=defeated. The clause could have been left out completely. It adds nothing to the article and makes the author appear addled.
Plus the problem of having declared war on the weather. Perhaps the war against climate change has roots in an existential fear of the natural and inevitable decline of the human frame in a vain hope that eternal life means eternal physical endurance. That might explain why Hollywood is so enamoured of the concept of ‘stopping change’. Maybe what we need is climate botox.
These are the same idiots that wailed and moaned because America sent an aircraft carrier group to help after tsunami in Indian Ocean. What a bunch of ‘tards.
Until someone invents a much better battery than the current state of the art, green power will remain out of reach for all but the wealthiest of the wealthiest. And more than a few of those will go bankrupt in the process.
Money will be made on green technology. By betting against it.
“Money will be made on green technology. By betting against it”
George Soros for one.
The Soros strategy is to do exactly that. To destabilize while betting against nation states. How do you destabilize legally? Simple. Rely on human nature. By giving people a taste of the one truly irresitable drug: getting something for nothing. Once hooked on “free” they will destroy their very lives to get more.
The gods grant the wishes of those they seek to destroy.
Someone needs to remind these idiots how many millions died of malaria when we saved the planet from DDT. “Silent Spring” syndrome. Same imbeciles in charge, same socioeconomic group takes it in the butt.
So bizarre. Greenies have been touting Asian nations, especially China as being the leaders in “climate control” because they scattered a few windmills and solar panels around while they built new fleets of coal generation. They lambasted Trump for pulling out of the Paris accord which had as much likelihood of altering the climate as it did repealing gravity. Now the US is the actual leader in reducing CO2 industrial emissions and the greenies seem to be admitting that China and other nations which, as Trump pointed out, had no obligation to reduce or even stop growing emissions are recognized as a problem. But no one on the left is willing to admit the one leader they dished is the one who got it right. And beyond all of that is the utter stupidity of devoting unlimited resources to trying to control the weather based on totally unverified theories the predictions of which fail over and over.
I absolutely refuse to contribute the Red Cross and like big bureaucratic organizations. Too much money goes to administration and “overhead”. Instead I contribute to those organizations where the vast majority of contributions goes directly to where it is needed.
For example Samaritan’s Purse, without fanfare, marshals material, food and labor anywhere in the world immediately after a disaster. It doesn’t matter if it is 3rd world or 1st world countries. Additionally they recruit volunteers to go in and rebuild. They are a religious based charity, but their help is direct. There are many more like them if you do a little investigation.
Apparently at one point only 7% of Red Cross donations were going towards direct humanitarian aid.
That’s more that the Clinton Foundation’s percentage.
The Red Cross goes through cycles. It started out as a very effective charity. As its reputation increased and money poured in the bureaucratic overhead increased and its effectiveness as a charity decreased. After several years people started noticing that top loevel management was traveling first class, staying in 5-star hotels and actual charitable spending had dropped to less than 10% of the budget. Its reputation took a hit, donations decreased and it finally hired a rescuer to come in and straighten it out. After a few years its reputation increased and money started pouring in again and the cycle repeated its self again. The red Cross has gone through this cycle several times in my memory so I agree with rbabcock and just stay away from it. It’s a shame but anytime there is a lot of money accumulated in one spot someone is going to figure out how to appropriate (i.e., steal) it. That is just human nature. It takes a strong moral character, usually religious upbringing, not to.
” … Clearly the humanitarian solution is for rich countries like the USA to provide financial assistance to China and other developing countries in Asia, to help wean them away from their reliance on fossil fuels for economic growth, without them having to “bear the brunt of the change”. … ”
_________
Rank communism massquerading as ‘humanitarian’ NGOs.
We already provide financial assistance to China… to the tune of 300 to 400 billion dollars a years as a trade deficit. Same thing goes with most other countries we trade with, just slightly smaller amounts.
We buy [their] goods, they buy our debt.
If China were to stop buying out debt, interest rates would go up substantially.
Actually Mark, I thing they are now buying (investing in?) more of our businesses (e.g, Smithfield) and real estate than they are our debt, but I haven’t researched the figures. If I remember correctly they were slowly unloading our government bond last year or two.
The world is not losing the war on climate change; it is winning the war on poverty. The Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre should be ashamed of itself for trying to perpetuate poverty — some philanthropic organization. See Fossil Fuels and Human and Environmental Well-Being ,here, slide 7.
Yeah, we in the West already got OURS, but according to our theories we have used up all the opportunities. Those people in Asia shouldn’t be allowed to have gasoline cars or electricity cause it’ll ruin the planet. However, to show we are suffering with them in solidarity we will put solar panels on our 3,500 square foot houses, and drive Teslas. Oh, and don’t tell me that cooking over a wood fire is so terrible. I do it every Sunday when I grill the steaks and it tastes wonderful!
/s
BTW, without fossil fuels how would Red Cross Red Crescent help the millions that are hit annually by natural and other disasters — solar powered helicopters, field hospitals using candles, food delivered by ox carts?
Clueless, is putting it mildly.
Any moron who puports to be at war against nature is going to lose and lose badly. As for the Asians – good on them for not being morons.
I find this terribly sad, …perhaps my sadness comes from disillusionment. My cherished view of the Red Cross has trouble accommodating ill-informed climate activism. I find myself concerned that I might not feel like supporting the organization in the future.
There would be no replacement of green for fossil energy: any $$$ would be for ADDITIONAL projects in weird places. Fossil fuel energy is profitable. Nobody in poor countries will pass up a buck, especially the leaders.
I suppose the reason for all this lunacy is the deterioration – world wide too – in University education since Richard Feynman. Frightening.
Soooo… the Red Cross has a Climate Centre… that wants us all to be poor and hurting. It’s like a make work project then? I’ll never donate to them again, well… except through my taxes.
The US, which is doing a heroic job reducing CO2 production should be punished.
China and India which are growing their CO2 production exponentially should be rewarded.
Makes perfect sense to me.
The good doctor is missing the point. When all those emissions, all 37 billion of them, go up, the climate asks itself where they come from.
If they come from the wicked capitalist West, which around one third of them do, then the climate says, this is powerful medicine, and it warms the climate.
If they come from the righteous rest of the world, then the climate gives those emissions a free ride and sends the heat straight into space.
Why does it do this?
Well, per capita emissions, emissions for export, installing lots of wind and solar, historical emissions… The climate takes all those things into consideration, and acts fairly. The climate you see is fair. It rewards the good, and it punishes the world as a whole for the sins of the wicked, namely us.
And this is why Paris was so right. This is why Trump was so wrong to leave it.
This is why Chinese emissions do not count. This is how China can lead the world in combating climate change while emitting more than anyone else and increasing its emissions with it.
Its easy when you understand the point. This is a moral issue. Physics in this case is driven by morality.
Got it now?
Shameless prostitution of humanitarian organizations in the service of International Socialism.
The fact that the good doctor references that left wing rag The Economist, edited by clueless watermelon Zany Mental-Shallows, tells you all you need to know about this Red Cross scare story. The Economist is ‘authorative’ alright but only if you happen to be a neo-Marxist.
Amazingly, poor people that live in dark huts don’t like to live in poverty or the dark.
They’re just not Progressive enough, and need to be indoctrinated until they are.
It might be helpful to know just who and what the “Red Cross Red Crescent Cliomate Centre” is. From their 2016 Annual Report:
“The Climate Centre – an independent foundation under Dutch law – remains grateful to its hosts, the Netherlands Red Cross in The Hague, which every years assists us with HR, legal and financial expertise.
In 2016, most of the Climate Centre’s income came from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UK Department for International Development, and the German and Norwegian Red Cross and their governments. We were also supported by:
American Red Cross
British Red Cross
Danish Red Cross
German Red Cross
Netherlands Red Cross
New Zealand Red Cross
Norwegian Red Cross
Swiss Red Cross.
Other contributors were the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, the World Meteorological Organization, IFAD, CDKN, UTC, the Natural Environment Research Council, the World Bank, and the European Commission. ”
For those interested in what they do, just google “Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre.” From what I can tell it is just another redundant organization to employ European bureaucrats.
“Dr Maarten van Aalst, Director, Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre”
I’m only asking but I wonder how big his carbon footprint is?
And not a thought by Dr van Aalst about how much better people were living due to having some more energy to provide lights, refrigeration, clean water, a sewage treatment plant to prevent the next outbreak of cholera or typhoid fever…..
Maarten Van Aalst was Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC special report on extremes and a Lead Author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
He holds adjunct appointments at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University, and at the Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy at University College London.
…Van Aalst is your typical usual suspect and how any IPCC report he leads can be considered impartial is beyond a joke.
Speaking of jokes…did not The IPCC release an AR5 report in which all Extreme Weather was rated at a low confidence level? Is this from The Van Aalst report?
Note that Red Cross Red Crescent held… The 21st session of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies General Assembly in Antalya, Turkey….from 10 to 11 November 2017. This meeting will bring together national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies from 191 countries, the International Federation and the ICRC.
How did they all get there? Via The Solar Impulse Plane that failed spectacularly
a few years back…???
I am mortified. Energy means life
I spent some schooling years in a country where locals could not afford motorbikes or cars. Life expectancy 45 years. Now forty years later, people can afford cars and bikes. The life expectancy is around 65 years plus
. Life expectancy correlates well with affordable energy consumption. My take on the RC comments is that the RC is horrified that poor people are living longer.
I will not donate to them again.
The antihuman criminal mass murderers of most NGOs are the same commies who view the lack of lights in the nighttime sky or North Korea as a positive.
Sick phouques.
Clearly the Red Cross doesn’t need any more donations.
Maarten van Aalst
The ultimate serial liar and cherry picker: https://twitter.com/mkvaalst
Ex South Africa (which has brownouts) sub Saharan Africa has 16% of the world’s population and 53% without electricity. And our cruel and venemously stupid Church of England plans to ‘dis invest’ in fossil fuels.
before we fight the war it should be shown that there is a war to fight
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/ecs-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
yeah i guess if they had power and the ability to cook food chill food and have clean water etc the redx n crescent might be outta some billions in funding?
the insignificant factor of happier healthier peoples not in the plan
Guess where the Red Cross / Red Crescent came from
Three problems here – both expanded on by the late great Hans Rosling (his book Factfulness is very interesting).
1. Red Cross continue with a “them” and “us” position – need to think of te world more as 4 levels.
2. It’s wrong to say the “them” can’t develop to the level of “us”
3. Reducing CO2 emission in the large per person emitters is much more effective than preventing the low per person emitters
See graph here for per person emitters and hopefully you are surprised and not fearful afterwards (as Red Cross/media etc continue to be….)
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$time$value=2005&delay:180;&entities$filter$;;&marker$axis_x$domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin=199&zoomedMax=42642;&axis_y$which=co2_emissions_tonnes_per_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin=-2.7251&zoomedMax=136;&size$which=yearly_co2_emissions_1000_tonnes&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&extent@:0.022083333333333333&:0.4083333333333333;;&color$which=world_6region;;;&ui$chart$trails:false;;&chart-type=bubbles
If you follow the logic of Factfulness, then allowing/helping level 1 move to level 2 and so on, solves many of the other humanitarian problems/lefty worries such as overpopulation etc.
Why do these agencies have a climate centre?
“Clearly the humanitarian solution is for rich countries like the USA to provide financial assistance to China and other developing countries in Asia, to help wean them away from their reliance on fossil fuels for economic growth, without them having to “bear the brunt of the change”.”
Tosh. Any country wishing to industrialize or step into the 21st century technologically can do so without having to re-invent the wheel or start with steam engines. All the efforts of those involved in the Industrial Revolution, over at least 15 generations, has provided a vast repository of knowledge for how it’s done. This has allowed China to Industrialise in 1 generation to the point where they now export goods, including solar cells. However China also exports enough [steel] to cause first industrial nations to close [steel] plants and lose jobs that have been there for generations. China has done this in spite of being colonised (and being resistant to manufactured goods) and more importantly, in spite of decades of Communism. The first industrial nations achieved huge transformations for the majority of their inhabitants and this involved huge amounts of work and effort of generations of those same inhabitants working in the mines, power stations, factories etc. It was a people’s revolution as it did not come from Royal and Government decree.
Both India and China own or are key suppliers to numerous companies in the UK. I think it is a bit rich if the steel workers at Port Talbot in Wales have to help fund India’s economic growth as they are now owned by Tata (India).
The framework for this ‘wealth distribution’ is based on the premise that the wealth of the 1st Industrial Nations is built on ill-gotten gain. Tell that to all the descendents of the coal miners, oil drillers, steel workers, power station workers etc. as they earned every penny they worked for. Of course, none of the Industrial Revolution would have been possible without the individuals inventing and making scientific discoveries or the individuals who worked out how to capitalise all this new knowledge. However, it is those in the middle and lower who will bare the biggest burden in this ‘redistribution of wealth’ as it will come from their pay packets while the public services they rely on will be reduced. The ‘developing’ countries have already had huge assistant in the form of jobs that have either moved from 1st IR nations or where they have bought 1st IR nation businesses.
The most liberating and transformative human action in history is the production of power and electricity. This is where the extraordinary wealth and opportunity of the West has come from and the knowledge for how to do that is free for all, including non carbon based technology, if that is what floats someone’s boat.
I did not know that the red cross was a member of the climate fraud gang.
From this day forward I will never donate another cent to an organization that helps crush the poor by joining an international organised crime cartel that intends world domination by creating a dictatorship of energy.
Every where I travel and see a red cross building I will enter and deliver a protest.
Any one I know I will encourage to do the same.
Love of money will pollute the best of intensions.
“I’m glad to see The Economist, for one, all but taking words out of our mouths.”
That sounds neither very hygienic nor very appetizing.
Harald Lesch describes us humans as “carbon units”.
that suits us “polluters”.
https://www.google.at/search?q=Harald+Lesch+alpha-centauri+warum+ist+das+Universum+so+kalt&oq=Harald+Lesch+alpha-centauri+warum+ist+das+Universum+so+kalt&aqs=chrome.
Wen’s interessiert :
Njema Problema ist indogermanisch und bedeutet Nicht EIN Problem.
Indogermanisch JA bedeutet
Meine Stimme + zählen
as in 104 – ten4.
Njema Problema bedeutet
Nicht 1 Problem.
Go ahead, nothing to see here.
[Njema Problema is Indo-European and does not mean a problem.
Indo-European means YES
Counting my voice +
as in 104 – ten4.
Njema problema means
Not 1 problem.
From Google translate. .mod]