CLIMATE CATCH-22 IN POLAND

By Michael Kile,

clip_image002Another year, another conference. After a quarter of a century of trying to find a way to justify the greatest wealth transfer in human history, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) still wants to impose a “climate reparations” regime on the world as part of its sustainability ideology; despite increasing skepticism from researchers outside the UN echo chamber about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest alarmist report and related claims.

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. (Professor R Lindzen, Annual GWPF Lecture, London, October 8, 2018)

UNFCCC’s twenty-fourth Conference of the Parties – COP24 – will pursue this objective again early next month in Katowice, southern Poland. Thousands of delegates and activists are expected to descend on the city for another annual ritual. Controlling human influence on the planet’s climate, however improbable, remains for them the most urgent task of our time.

So expect a whiff of millenarianism in the Upper Silesian air, a commitment to transforming society into a sustainable utopia. As one UN climate bureaucrat said in early 2015: “we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally – within a defined period of time – changing the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.”

But there is now a big catch, a climate Catch-22. In Joseph Heller’s 1961 novel, B25 bombardier John Yossarian put it like this:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22…He would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he were sane he had to fly them. (J Heller, Catch-22, 1961, p. 56, ch. 5) video

A climate Catch-22 is a similar dilemma. It arose recently with the realisation that it is financially impossible and technically impractical to prevent allegedly dangerous anthropogenic climate change or global warming. So it includes what Lindzen called “unfathomable silliness”; namely any attempt to modify or eradicate an atmospheric phenomenon.

After such an epiphany one would think an agency would be crazy to have more conferences, but sane if it gave up the catastrophist game. Think again, dear reader. Climate Catch-22 is not on the COP24 agenda.

Consider the first impediment: finance. We are told that a great deal of money has to be deposited into the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) as a matter of urgency, at least an annual US$100 billion from 2020.

Indeed, António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, issued an ultimatum a few weeks ago. He warned on September 30 of the “threat of runaway climate change” – whatever that is – by 2020 if nothing is done.

Someone has decided – not determined – that the bogeyman of our age is apparently “moving faster than we are”; or at least faster than dollars are moving from developed economies to the GCF.

If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us…..We are careening towards the edge of the abyss. It is not too late to shift course. But every day that passes means the world heats up a little more, and the cost of our inaction mounts.

Someone also has to pay the many thousands involved with this international boondoggle, including those who design creative ways to spend it; “rebadging” projects using the vague jargon of UN climate-speak is popular. One can include almost anything: from replacing cooking stoves in Bangladesh to sponsoring “gender responsive” drinking water ventures in Ethiopia.

Be sure to take a “climate-proof” approach in your funding application. Be optimistic too. However remote your project might seem from atmospheric turbulence, whether allegedly anthropogenic or merely the random act of some god or goddess, you still have a chance.

And who could possibly deny that growing numbers of the “world’s poorest and most vulnerable” are already facing nasty climate impacts? Or that they urgently need assistance to tackle this “problem that they did not cause”?

So why all the fuss when the solution is so simple? To restore global atmospheric equity and deliver greater developing country “climate resilience”, all the developed world has to do is deposit its fair share of “climate reparations” into the GCF and ignore the elephant in the greenhouse.

Now consider the second impediment. Cheap fossil fuel-based energy – a key driver of modern prosperity – somehow has to be replaced by renewables in little more than a decade according to the IPCC. More on that later.

The weather forecast for Katowice in early December: expect daily temperatures around 0℃ with occasional rain, perhaps some snow too. Inside the venue, of course, there will be hotter air, presumably consistent with runaway climate change.

The key objective of the meeting is to adopt the implementation guidelines of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. This is crucial because it ensures the true potential of the Paris Agreement can be unleashed, including ramping up climate action so that the central goal of the agreement can be achieved, namely to hold the global average temperature to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

What could be nobler than promoting the hope that a group of people of variable expertise and gender from 195 countries can take over the task of manipulating the global thermostat from Russian hackers and produce a Goldilocks climate for everyone everywhere and forever? Yet even the IPCC is unable to confirm whether Gaia has hidden it in a cave in southern Novaya Zemlya, somewhere in Baluchistan, or in a restroom in Geneva.

Don Quixote only tilted at windmills in Spain. He did not attempt to build them. Still, the prospect of “ramping up climate action” with other people’s money to save humankind surely would have made him dust the cobwebs off his lance and ride with the carbon cowboys to the next big deal.

A quarter of a century is a quite a while. No surprise, then, to learn that each UNFCCC conference strives to come up with a unique signature, theme or cri de coeur, such as “we can save the world”. The agency’s media relations team generally manages to take something excruciatingly banal and recast it into something excruciatingly manipulative.

In December 2009, for example, it put “the HOPE into Hopenhagen” (Copenhagen, 2009, COP15). Twelve months later, it was all happening again, this time on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. Over 15,000 packed into the Moon Palace Hotel for an opening night of tropical treats, salsa, karaoke, twanging guitars, stilt walkers in sombreros, and naturally tequila. They danced the night away to the COP16 theme song – “Let’s put the CAN in Cancun!

Katowice is likely to be more a subdued affair. The mood is gloomier today. If there is a theme song, it will not be: “Let’s put more COAL into Katowice!” Whether the home of Europe’s largest coal producer is going green is unclear, but presumably UNFCCC chose this location because it would like you to think so, or vice versa.

Every developing country has put its oar into the climate-change cesspool at some stage. For they all want a slice of the promised magic pudding. Easier said than done, however, as shown in the minutes of the GCF Board meeting held in early July this year.

The Pacific islands have been rowing hard in this pool for a long time. They are all members of the Alliance of Small Island States. This alarmist group accounts for almost 20 per cent of the total UN vote. There were only 51 member countries when the agency was formed in 1945, now there are 193. Tuvalu, the world’s fourth-smallest country (26 sq.km.) with about 11,000 inhabitants, has the same vote as China.

Fiji will be visible at COP24 too, leading the “high-level political phase” of its Talanoa Dialogue for climate ambition. Talanoa is a Fijian word that “describes a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue through the sharing of stories and ideas.” Good luck with that exercise.

With several military coups, racial tension and periodic media restrictions, Fiji probably has a lot to contribute to such a process. It will focus on three questions: “Where are we? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?” How, indeed?

Meanwhile, spare a thought for the 91 authors of IPCC Special Report 15 (SR15). They have managed to conjure up a document whose turgid complexity is surpassed only by the gravitas with which its controversial conclusions are presented to the public.

Prepared in response to an invitation from the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UNFCCC in December 2015, SR15’s full title is:

Global warming of 1.5C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

When the UN had its first Yossarian Moment is unclear. It presumably knew at some stage that it would have to pull a large rabbit out of its collective hat to ensure the band played on. It also had to provide the COP24 Talanoa Dialogue with a justification for turning up the heat on the developed world over funding. If that rabbit is SR15, we are the bunnies.

Be that as it may, of all the ceremonies held throughout the world few are less inspiring than an IPCC meeting to sign off on its latest findings. Consider, for example, its 48th session held early last month in Incheon, Republic of Korea. (video; opening address).

The fate of the habitable world apparently hangs in the balance, yet one struggles to deduce it from the demeanour of the delegates. Perhaps it was jetlag or apocalypse fatigue. Perhaps they were still struggling with the gobbledygook from SR15 computer models, such as MAGICC and FAIR.

The IPCC requires us to accept this premise: that only its cast of thousands can unlock the secrets of “climate change”. When the IPCC Chair, Hoesung Lee goes on about how many comments (42,000) its three Working Groups and various drafts received in his opening address (at 8 min.), he implied that this convoluted process brings us closer to the truth. The more the gloomier. Truth in science is a tricky business. Generally, however, it depends more on a law of nature than a show of hands. Too many cooks tend to spoil the broth.

An IPCC media release on October 8 announced what is invariably a fait accompli: governments had approved release of the SR15 Summary for Policymakers. (Headline statements)

Was it worth all the effort? After three years of analysis by hundreds of scientists, Jim Skae, Co-Chair of Working Group III, made this frank admission last month:

The key message is that we can’t keep global warming below 1.5C. It’s possible within the laws of physics and chemistry. But it will require huge transitions in all sorts of systems – energy, land, transportation. But what the report has done is to send out a clear message to governments that it is physically possible. It’s now up to them to decide if they want to take up challenge. Video link (26 seconds)

The laws of physics and chemistry? What about the laws of politics, economics, self-interest, survival and so on? Did Mr Skae not answer his own question? It’s physically possible, but practically impossible.

The media release did not mention the dark secrets in the alarmist attic. Here is one of them from the report:

Uncertainties in projections of future climate change and impacts come from a variety of different sources, including the assumptions made regarding future emission pathways (Moss et al., 2010), the inherent limitations and assumptions of the climate models used for the projections, including limitations in simulating regional climate variability (James et al., 2017) (SR15, page 61)

Dr John Constable, energy editor of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), has done an impressive analysis of SR15. He concluded that:

SR15, if thoughtfully read, should oblige policy makers to conclude that the obstacles to limiting global warming to 1.5, and indeed even to higher temperatures, are not just arbitrary blockages, rocks in the road to be removed, but fundamental and structural problems with the policy options currently available, which are almost certainly more harmful than the climate change they set out to mitigate.

He also gives a damning critique of specific clauses. The numbers refer to SR15’s headline statements.

C2.6 examines the scale of energy-related investment to deliver the 1.5 limit. The authors suggest energy-related mitigation investment would have to be reach an average annual total over the period 2015 to 2050 of around 900 billion USD in 2015 prices, with a range of 180 billion to 1,800 billion. Reference to the main study itself, see 2-84, provides the relevant gloss: “Estimates and assumptions from modelling frameworks suggest a major shift in investment patterns and entail a financial system effectively aligned with mitigation challenges (high confidence)”.

Translation: The entire world’s finances must be dedicated to climate mitigation, and this is unlikely.

Both UN agencies seem unaware of the current precarious state of global financial markets, with some experts predicting a serious crisis by 2020, if not sooner.

As for the global renewable energy outlook, Constable made the following observation.

C2.2 notes that significant energy demand reduction is required, “including through enhanced energy efficiency”, implying that some straightforwardly coerced conservation of energy will be needed. In addition, not only would a “faster electrification of energy end use” than that needed for a 2 limit be required for 1.5, but renewables would have to rise to supply 70–85% of global electricity in 2050, with gas fuelled electricity generation, equipped with carbon capture and sequestration, limited to 8% in 2050, and coal falling away to nothing. On this remarkable vision the authors comment:

While acknowledging the challenges, and differences between the options and national circumstances, political, economic, social and technical feasibility of solar energy, wind energy and electricity storage technologies have substantially improved over the past few years (high confidence). These improvements signal a potential system transition in electricity generation.

Translation: Even assuming the best for renewables and energy storage, the required global electricity sector transition is still no more than a theoretical possibility.

One question Constable did not answer was how UN Team Climate managed to get reality so wrong. Did the creators of MAGICC and FAIR have a few bad days at the office? Was the SR15 exercise shrewdly designed to be a curtain-raiser to COP24, as mentioned earlier?

New Nobel laureate William Nordhaus, a climate economist, has reached a similar conclusion: limiting global temperatures to 2℃ above so-called preindustrial levels is economically and practically impossible. He too argues that the SR15 report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions.

At some stage in the life-cycle of a bureaucracy its perpetuation can become more important than the task it was established to carry out years, decades, or even centuries earlier.

Some entities know when to call it a day. Others are forced to retire, due to competition or market failure. There will, however, always be a market for catastrophism and the promise of redemption.

Hence the Zeitgeist – including much of the world’s political class – insists the COP circus must go on; at least until the money runs out, or humankind succumbs to the French-fry fate we are told incessantly awaits us without urgent “climate action”.

At the IPCC’s 41st session in early 2015, a decision was taken to produce yet another assessment report. AR6 is scheduled to be completed in the first half of 2022. It presumably will be followed by other reports, ad nauseum. Catch-22.

Michael Kile

18 November 2018

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “CLIMATE CATCH-22 IN POLAND

  1. Was there any mention in all of the thousands of words about using Nuclear generation of electricity to get over the problem with CO2 ?

    Are the Western politicians still paying lip service to the Green UN interests, but not sending them any money ?

    Pres. TRUMP had the right idea, withdraw the money, then they will not be able to enjoy their conferences.

  2. Someone also has to pay the many thousands involved with this international boondoggle …

    When George Orwell wrote “Animal Farm” he chose the windmill to represent the boondoggles that oppressive governments promote in order to create an appearance of progress.

    And:

    Climate models deal with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore long term prediction of future climate states is not possible. 2001 UN IPCC AR3 report
    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

  3. Not only are developed countries supposed to remake everything within that now exists, but pay to make the rest of the world green and emission free at the same time.
    The likelihood of this is 0.0.

    • …..Don’t forget that they are supposed to get it all done without using fossil fuels or nukes to power their endeavors.

      Aren’t human beings really silly people?

  4. “namely to hold the global average temperature ( anomaly)? to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

  5. So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. (Professor R Lindzen, Annual GWPF Lecture, London, October 8, 2018)

    This is wrong of course. What is being promoted is not the overturn of industrial civilization globally.

    What is being promoted is the overturn of industrial civilization in the West only. No-one is urging the Chinese, Indians or Indonesians to even freeze their emissions at present levels, still less reduce them.

    No, the idea is that everyone shall carry on increasing except for the West, which is supposed to reduce by huge percentages. The result by simple arithmetic is going to be that emissions at best remain flat.

    The actual agenda is for the West to de-industrialize while the rest of the world carries on industrializing at a rapid rate, complete with raising their emissions, which leads to global emissions at best remaining flat, but more likely, as even the Guardian is now admitting, rising quite rapidly.

    And this is then presented as reducing global emissions to zero, which it simply does not and cannot do.

    It is either insane or dishonest or both.

    • To some extent the developed world HAS already been de-industrializing while the developing world adds industry. This occurs whenever energy-intensive industry or business moves from the one to the other. It has been occurring over many years. Developed nations export a good fraction of their CO2 emissions.

    • Michel,

      The death sentence for COP 21 in Paris was the U.S.-China bilateral agreement signed in November 2014, one year before Paris, whereby China was “granted” the right to increase its CO2 emissions at will until 2030 while the U.S. decreased its emissions by 25% in the same time frame. The pact guaranteed that India and a host of other Asian countries (some 50%+ of the world’s population) also would follow China’s emissions climate lead ( a.k.a. climate”freebie”).

      Host nation Poland clearly has stated within the European context that its abundant coal will remain its most important source of electricity generation for the foreseeable the future. That should make for some fun national squirming and Orwellian “Newspeak” during Cop 24 in Katowice.

  6. Since I first heard of Global Warming way back when, I have been skeptical about the whole alarmist thing.
    I was at the first Earth Day in 1970 in Philadelphia. I have always looked at the data, and I never saw anything alarming about the climate over the years. I think people are starting to wake up – at least here in the United States. And in some other countries in Europe. I sure hope so.

    South Park should stick with their first version of the Al Gore ManBearPig episode from 2006 a satire about the Gore Inconvenient truth film from the same year, 2006…

  7. “Thousands of delegates and activists are expected to descend on the city ”

    What a massive waste of fuel and other peoples money.

    But rest assured they have given out instructions on how delegates can reduce the carbon footprint of attendance, plus an “offsetting scheme using Adaptation Fund CERs for the remaining balance”.

    So spending even more of other peoples money to reduce their carbon footprint guilt.

    https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/warsaw-climate-change-conference-november-2013/statements-and-resources/7

  8. The actual quote from Catch-22 is not Yossarian speaking. Yossarian learns of Catch-22 from the squadron medical officer, Doc Daneeka, who is responding to Yossarian’s request to be grounded for insanity.
    If anyone has a copy, it’s explained on pages 45 and 46

  9. I have read (a lot of) the IPCC 1.5 paper. It acknowledges that we are already more than half way to 1.5 and then lies about the effects on climate. It is full of motherhood and apple pie wish lists and with a universal call for trans governmental coercive action. Never happen. Why doesn’t the UN stick to what it does best- stop the war in Yemen and bring clean water to every child on the planet? Not.

  10. Global Cooling at minus 19*C tonight in Thunder Bay with potato crops buried under snow in Manitoba because a rainy Fall hindered harvesting. I predict a major freeze-over of the Great Lakes this winter as the 2014-15 season had 92% ice-cover.

  11. Oh yeah countries will be lining up to hand over money in Poland. This is going to be another one of those gotcha moments for the Green lunatics when they realize just how little the world is willing to do 🙂

  12. I understand that Poland uses brown coal to generate most of her electricity.
    It might be a good idea if the coal plants are shut down for the duration of COP24 in order to give the delegates an idea of the consequences of their aspirations.

    • yeah, all power heating and fuel using transport to be denied the klimateklowns would be great.
      hope the snow makes flying in damned near impossible and the roads etc a nightmare for the “chosen ones”

  13. There are two very obvious failures in these IPCC inspired plans. One is that electric cars are poised to become the only vehicles being produced by automakers, all of whom have signed up for exclusive EV products over the next several years, particularly VW, which has announced a truly affordable $21,000 electric car. China allows no gas powered vehicles and wil be the major market for cars. The second point is that molten salt nuclear reactors currently being developed are the obvious future technology for producing electricity. Neither of these two massive carbon reducing events requires much in the way of govt expenditures, if indeed any is required. Those who are pushing renewables are simply energy-ignorant asses pretending to be planet saviors.

    • 1) The only reason why any car maker builds electric cars is because the governments mandate that they must.
      2) Electrics are still less than 1% of all cars being sold. That’s “on the verge of taking over”?????

      • like tipping points, verges are usually very discretionary

        (and the ones used to scare are are necessarily eccentric).

    • kent, again, where can we see these “obvious future technology” in actual use? We can’t can we. Why? because currently they don’t exist in reality. They’re vaporware. Once they actually get one into useful production, then you can claim how “obvious” they are as the “future”. The greens have been touting “renewables” as the “obvious future technology” for years with better success (at least there are actual solar and wind projects in production that one can look to in order to determine their viability, or lack there of, vis-à-vis being the “obvious technology of the future”).

      And to be clear, I think the molten salt reactors sound very promising, *IF* they can actually become reality. I also think wind and solar are technological dead-ends. They’re a massive waste of space (that could be used more effectively for other things), they’re unreliable, and without subsidies that are completely uneconomic. So it won’t take much for working molten salt reactors to be a better choice once they get past the hurdle of currently not existing in reality.

  14. He warned on September 30 of the “threat of runaway climate change” – whatever that is – by 2020 if nothing is done.

    So that’s about 1.25 years to save the planet. It’s déjà vu all over again.

    • Back in 2009, before the Copenhagen COP, it was 50 days according to PM Brown. Not only have we changed the global climate, our co2 emissions has also caused time to move backwards.

  15. For what it is worth!

    Each human being breathes out, very roughly, about 0.9 kg’s of CO2 each day;
    Therefore each human being breathes out, very roughly, a third of a tonne of CO2 each year;

    Assuming that there are approximately 7.5 billions of humans on this planet today, then the human race adds through their breathing, about 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 to the planetary atmosphere each year.

    2.5 billion tonnes annually of breath expelled CO2 from the 7.5 billions of humans on this planet, according to the list of tonnages of national emissions [ Wiki 2014 ] places Humanity in 4th position in “Carbon” [ ? ] emissions, behind China [ 12,454 million tonnes ], the United States [ 6,673 million tonnes / 2014 ], and the European Union [ 4224 million tonnes ] and ahead of India [ 2379 million tonnes ]

    The 1.3 billion Chinese citizens in fact expell each year in total around 430 million tonnes of CO2 or about the equivalent of 3/4’s of Australia’s total emissions of a claimed [ modelled [ ?? ] as are all CO2 emission statistics ] 560 million tonnes annually ;

    Now I wonder what the IPCC and all the activists in Poland are going to do about the 7.5 billions of Humanity, the fourth largest emitter of the dreaded “carbon” on this planet.
    That same dreaded Carbon that is about to bring a climate catastrophe down upon the entire planet.

    • Not that it matters, since more CO2 is a good thing, but we don’t actually add any CO2 via respiration; we merely recycle it.

      • To ROM and Bruce – good points these. SO, if we breathe out 0.9kg per day of CO2 on average, how much of that was breathed in in the first place? Further, assuming cumulative effects, if we started the day at a zero CO2 point before we first breathe in, how much CO2 will we have breathed out by the end of the day? In other words, what is the net effect, in kg, of a person’s breathing process during 24 hours?

      • CO2 from fossil fuels is merely recycled CO2 as well. It was just in storage longer.

        Honestly, man “makes” very little CO2, if you consider where the carbon came from in the first place.

    • Now I wonder what the IPCC and all the activists in Poland are going to do about the 7.5 billions of Humanity, the fourth largest emitter of the dreaded “carbon” on this planet.

      Many on the anti-CO2 side are also malthusians who wish to reduce the world’s population. coincidence?

  16. Climate “reparations” are the beginning, the middle, and the end of the entire CAGW game. It is the only objective.

    Everything else from windmills, to science conferences, or tax hikes, is setting the table or is window dressing.

    • What I can’t work out is who do they really think is going to pay reparations, China is off the hook and USA is heading out the door and they are the two largest emitters (45% of all emissions) and number 1 and 2 economies. So next you go down to EU, India (exempt), Russia, Japan, Germany and everyone else is tiny.

      So I guess it’s all up to EU, Russia, Japan and Germany 🙂

      Sidenote: I assume Germany is part of the EU why do they get a seperate listing?

      • The US is only out the door until Democrats control the Federal government again, which you can trust will happen at some point.

        • Not likely the Dems could sell reparations for climate, race, or anything else even if they take the Senste in 2020. The electorate is no where near swinging that far left.

          • Didn’t the US commit to $1B while Obama was in office? That was an amount meant to break the ice and set the stage for increases in the future.

          • No, Obama committed $1 Billion. For the US to commit it would have required ratification from congress, which never happened.

  17. “Put the CAN in Cancun”?
    No, it was more like;
    “Let us kick the CAN further along the gravy train track.”
    But in Poland the delegates are in for a real treat, a dramatic and sudden rise in temperature as they enter the conference hall. Undeniably 100% man-made. It’s worse than we thought -and nice and comfy.

  18. “…the IPCC Chair, Hoesung Lee goes on about how many comments (42,000) its three Working Groups…”

    Please be aware that a comment is a correction. When reviewing text the comments are submitted with the paragraph identified, the text being challenged, and a proposal for dealing with it (deletion, alteration, replacement, or structural guidance, etc). The fact they had 42,000 comments is a bad sign. It could only happen because the proposed text was so objectionable everyone and his uncle weighed in on every paragraph. For 3000 pages, that is 14 objections per page.

    Next, be aware that just because a comment was relevant and corrective does not mean the issue was corrected. There are forces and factions at work. There are committee and sub-committee and sub-sub-committee techniques that can be used to manipulate the editing process. And from previous evidence, when all is done and the experts reasonably mollified, the Editors have been “taking liberties” with the final product, over-riding the expert consensus. The most famous is of course the change in 1995 from “no detectable” to “clear detection” of human impact on the climate (which 23 year later is still not clear).

    Documents produced by committees can be exemplary, but only if the process is honest. I do not believe the process used by the IPCC is honest, based on so much evidence that it is dishonest and its report contents “pre-cooked”.

  19. From the article: “A climate Catch-22 is a similar dilemma. It arose recently with the realisation that it is financially impossible and technically impractical to prevent allegedly dangerous anthropogenic climate change or global warming.”

    It is both financially possible and technically practical to build nuclear powerplants as a solution to the Green/Alarmist phobia about CO2.

    Windmills and Industrial Solar are what are financially impossible and technically impossible for supplying the world with its electric power needs.

    If the Greens and Alarmists were serious they would be promoting nuclear power generation. It is the only solution to their CO2 problem. They should encourage China and India to substitute nuclear powerplants for coal-fired powerplants.

    That they don’t tells us a lot.

  20. From the article: “But every day that passes means the world heats up a little more, and the cost of our inaction mounts.”

    Actually, it’s been cooling since 1934, with the year 2016 being 0.4C cooler than 1934. And since Feb 2016, the temperatures have cooled about 0.6C, which means we have cooled off by about 1.0C since 1934.

    So claiming the world heats up every day a little more is not even close to the truth, even if you ignore 1934.

    Whoever made that statement doesn’t have a clue. It’s just a knee-jerk response given by many Alarmists. They assume it is getting hotter and hotter (from staring at the Hockey Stick charts, no doubt) and apparently don’t make any effort to actually study the real temperature situation they are living in.

    All they have to do is look at the UAH satellite temperature chart to see the truth, but they don’t even do that for some reason. Maybe they just want to pretend that their CAGW speculation is still in effect, so ignore evidence to the contrary.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2018_v6.jpg

  21. Ford Prefect: Ah, this is futile! Five hundred and seventy-three committee meetings, you haven’t even discovered fire yet!
    — The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (TV version #1.6)

  22. So they want the Green Marshall Plan, the Green New Deal, and the Green Great Society…..all at once. All eyes need to be on the candidates and obscure agendas that would resort to such a “final solution”.

  23. This is what goes on at those international meetings….from the APEC meeting in Papua New Guinea

    “However, the run-up to the summit was marked by unrest. Thousands of people participated in a one-day strike last month to protest the purchase of luxury cars including 40 Maseratis and three Bentleys for use during the summit.”

  24. The UN were formed to supposedly put an end to war after the carnage of WW 2. The charter-to prevent wars. We all wanted to believe the UN could do it.

    In the field of preventing wars and carnage , they have failed miserably. They come in after the slaughter and then foment a civil war. However, they have been highly effective with the Fabian incremental tactics of eroding the sovereignty of Nations. Treaty by treaty, they have been strangling the rights to self-determination of Sovereign states. Treaties like the 1975 Lina Declaration transfer manufacturing from the nations that have developed it to the third world. The 1992 Agenda 21- a green orgasmic bible with pie-in-the -sky Utopian ideals-mainly paid for by the so-called “rich” nations.

    Paris- global tax on air. What a scam. Here in Australian the UN recently DEMANDED another 400 million. The alarm bells should be blaring. The BS meters are exploding. The Emperor is wearing no clothes.

    The moving of the goalposts-2.5 degrees, then 2 degrees, now 1.5 degrees as the climate ultimatum tipping point. You can just see the little wings of indignation flapping and the diapers being soiled in the tantrum. Another BS meter exploded.

    How convenient that the UN have deemed themselves as exempt from prosecution. How convenient that all the secretaries-general of the UN have been Socialists or Communists? How convenient that the UN selects its own high officials? How convenient that the UN has absolutely no transparency at all, yet we are expected to do everything they demand? The only thing “International” about the UN is that they are International Socialists. Here in Australia, bearing adherence, obedience or allegiance to such a (private) foreign power means you are ineligible to be selected elected for Federal Parliament. Almost ALL of Australia’s Parliament have been ruling as TRAITORS since the war! We have signed on for over 8,000 such treasonous “treaties” since 1945.

    Now we see the refugee compact where the UN expects us to take in culturally incompatible people – an invasion without any say from Sovereign Nations. There is plenty of room in rich culturally compatible nations such as Saudi Arabia to accommodate the “refugees.” Another BS meter exploded.

    UN actually stands for United Nazis. Look at the core ideals- population reduction, ultra green, Socialist. The Nazis were Socialists, were born of the ultra green movement. They certainly hated humans. Time to wake up and wake others up about UN treachery before they get their One World Government which wants to collapse our entire society and civilization to bring forth their Fabian Utopia, which WILL collapse in a brutal mess that will make the Nazis look like humanitarians-at least they did not murder everyone. With fossil fuels gone, just how are we going to make metals and insulators for wind turbines? The Utopian ideals of the UN would take us back to the Neolithic era, an era that supported around 7 million humans, not 7 billion. 99.9% human-free. Who will be one of those one in a thousand that will survive the apocalypse?

    Time for us all to expose the United Nazis any way we can- before we are all enslaved , then starved in their insane vision.

    The fate of humanity is in our hands, our keyboards, our political efforts, our talking with others. Unless you really think humanity can survive and thrive living off the land without technology, then you must get active.

    “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men shall do nothing”- Edmund Burke.

  25. The Liberal party here in Canada has always been full of “Climate Hot Heads” trying to transfer money. It’s not just Trudeau v2.0 today. A quote from Wikipedia, of all places, about former Environment Minister Christine Stewart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Stewart#Career

    However, she also fueled the fires of climate change skeptics when, in 1998 she told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

  26. Following the end of WW2, the worlds colonial powers began to de-colonise. Initially despite most being broke, war is a expensive business, they gave lots of money to the new countries, especially in Africa.

    But as the years went by the ex-colonial powers slowly realised that most of the given money was ending up in the Swiss Bank accounts of the new leaders. Result “Charity fatigue”set in.

    Just in time the UN , remember its two thirds black and brown membership. They “Discovered”Climate change””.

    Wonderful, now we have the mighty UN telling us, and our f former donor countries that all of our problems are really due to the Industrial revolution , and so they are not our fault.

    So we deserve lots and lots of money for the damage caused by those bad Western countries.

    So the “Never ending story”continues.

    MJE

  27. Following the end of WW2, the worlds colonial powers began to de-colonise. Initially despite most being broke, war is a expensive business, they gave lots of money to the new countries, especially in Africa.

    But as the years went by the ex-colonial powers slowly realised that most of the given money was ending up in the Swiss Bank accounts of the new leaders. Result “Charity fatigue”set in.

    Just in time the UN , remember its two thirds black and brown membership. They “Discovered”Climate change””.

    Wonderful, now we have the mighty UN telling us, and our former donor countries that all of our problems are really due to the Industrial revolution , and so they are not our fault.

    So we deserve lots and lots of money for the damage caused by those bad Western countries.

    So the “Never ending story”continues.

    MJE

    • They are telling us ignoring climate change is a crime. In that case this crime needs to be openly tried in court and the defendant tried by a panel of twelve of his peers not the peers of the prosecutions cronies.
      In this case the claim it is man that caused the change so the first requirement is an externally verified proof that man made fossil fuel emissions not only matched region by region the claimed warming but that the rise times can be shown to match the CO2 blanketing effect claims made to equate warming with CO2 rather than coincidence.
      My biggest doubt personally is the old file AMSRE_SSTAn_M where I still cannot find even local papers detailing the fossil fuel fests off the coast of Alaska and even further north that produced the huge localised very significant hot spots clearly popping up at intervals.

    • Hopefully they will discover that UN funding fatigue will also set in now the US has warned them and soon hopefully will set a good example.

      They should also remember it was not politicians that ended slavery it was simply that low energy prices and machines made it no longer as profitable as before. The miners have been victims of a character assassination by left leaning politicians and the credit they deserve stolen from them. ( No I am not an ex miner or have more than a visitor connection to any of the mining areas.) Renewable energy with its high price and unreliability has already started to make slavery in the form of a low wage unskilled worker exploitation economy world wide one step closer.

  28. Right on schedule, Vanuatu Foreign Minister “warming up” for COP24:

    https://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4N1XX37U

    WELLINGTON, Nov 22 (Reuters) – Low-lying Vanuatu is considering suing fossil fuel companies and industrialised countries that use them for their role in creating catastrophic climate change, the foreign minister of the Pacific island nation said on Thursday.

    Vanuatu, with an estimated population of 280,000 people spread across roughly 80 islands, is among more than a dozen Pacific island nations that already face rising sea levels and more regular storms that can wipe out much of their economies.

    Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu said it was time that some of the billions of dollars of profits fossil fuel companies generate every year goes towards the damage they cause in countries like “desperate” Vanuatu.

    “This is really about claiming for the damages,” he told Reuters in an interview.

    Speaking at the Climate Vulnerable Forum’s Virtual Summit earlier in the day, Regenvanu announced the legal options Vanuatu was considering.

    He seems unaware that similar action in a California district court a few months failed to excite Judge Alsup:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/climate/climate-change-lawsuit-san-francisco-oakland.html

    But in his ruling, Judge Alsup said the courts were not the proper place to deal with such global issues, and he rejected the legal theory put forth by the cities.

    The cities wanted the defendants — including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell — to help pay for projects like protecting coastlines from flooding.

Comments are closed.