G20 “Kowtows” to President Trump Over Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t James Delingpole / Breitbart – Climate Home News claims to have seen a draft G20 communique which omits mention of climate change or the Paris Agreement.

Draft G20 statement waters down Paris climate commitment

Published on 26/11/2018, 1:08pm

Argentinian official says ambiguity over the Paris Agreement is needed to avoid a split with the US, days before critical UN climate talks begin

By Karl Mathiesen
A draft communique from the leaders of the G20 shows that resolve to stand up for the Paris climate agreement against critical voices, such as the US, may be weakening.

The document, seen by CHN, is the latest version of a text that may change before it is released when leaders meet later this week.

Unlike recent G20 statements, it declines to give full-throated support to the Paris Agreement, simply “acknowledging the different circumstances, including those of countries determined to implement the Paris Agreement”.

In a nod to those countries defending their coal industries, the text prepared by the Argentinian presidency says there are “varied” energy choices and “different possible national pathways”.

There is no mention of a major scientific report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was released in October; nor any direct reference to the Cop24 climate talks, which start in Katowice, Poland just a day after the meeting ends on Saturday.

Read more: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/11/26/draft-g20-statement-waters-paris-climate-commitment/

Clean Technica thinks this is evidence of other countries “kowtowing” to President Trump;

G20 Nations Reportedly Set To Kowtow To Trump On Climate Change

November 27th, 2018 by Joshua S Hill

A reported draft version of a communique being formulated by leaders of the G20 in advance of the 13th meeting of Group of Twenty to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, starting Friday, fails to back the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and makes no mention of the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C which warned that “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

Read more: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/27/g20-nations-reportedly-set-to-kowtow-to-trump-on-climate-change/

Greens like Clean Technica and Climate Home News are suggesting that President Trump is pressuring other countries out of expressing their concern about climate change.

But there is a simpler explanation.

President Obama was happy to hand out vast sums of US taxpayers money to anyone willing to scream and wail about their climate afflictions.

President Trump stopped payouts to the climate clowns. So they stopped dancing.

Advertisements

184 thoughts on “G20 “Kowtows” to President Trump Over Climate Change

  1. BLACK TO GREEN. COP 24 is taking place here in Katowice, Poland where I live. Trump is a here and now politician whose days are numbered. The world is moving on in its mission to hold global temperatures to 1.5 C. 2018 has been the warmest year in record since 1850 and glibal carbon emissions rose again in 2017. Enough said: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/01/cop24-un-climate-change-conference-whats-at-stake-and-what-you-need-to-know-un-news/

    • Ummm… historically, the Little Ice Age was a lousy time on Planet Earth to be living in the then-burgeoning populations of the civilized world. Famines, plagues. Nastiness. Similarly, through history, periods of only a few degrees colder-than-average have been periods of great downturns for humanity.

      Contrarily, the warm periods between those cold bookends, have been good for humankind. And pretty good too for the plants and animals of Planet Dirt. We are — as you say — in a period of unusual warmth, perhaps caused by 3 or 4 successive super-active solar cycles, or perhaps from Mankind’s CO₂ emissions load, or a bit of both. And, lo’ and behold… the plants are doing great, both wild and farmed. The oceans are doing well, fisheries are doing well, open-ocean and littoral water aquaculture farms are doing swimmingly. The US and Europe have shown that it is entirely possible to clean up the nastiness eminating form the exhaust pipes of cars, trucks and fossil-fuel burning industry.

      But we (or people like you) continue to pine over the somewhat unusual warmer and beneficial climate.

      I say… let’s do what we can to keep it like this … or even a degree or two warmer!

      Shorter winters → longer growing seasons
      Higher CO₂ → lower plant photosynthesis water transpiration

      Just saying,
      GoatGuy

      • Interesting then that the WMO – an independent body – seems to disagree with you in its most recent report on climate change, as well as the 198 countries attending the upcoming COP24 meeting in December.
        How do you explain this? They are all a bunch of socialists seeking to overturn capitalism? Carbon in the atmosphere does not trap heat? All the climate scientists are mistaken in their findings? Trump and the US sceptics are the true experts on the subject of AGW?
        https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46374141

        • The WMO is “an independent body”! Who are you kidding?

          By the way, you cannot trap heat, it is a transient phenomenon. And what does carbon have to do with it?

        • Ivan, think on this for a moment ……

          The Medieval Warm Period was around 1 deg Warmer than today
          The Roman Warm Period was around 2 deg Warmer than today
          The Minoan Warm Period was Warmer than the Roman

          In those times mankind thrived and made huge advances in Civilisation Because those temperatures were so Benign and Healthy for the earth and it’s environment.

          Now the IPCC is setting out to convince us that a return to those temperatures would be an apocalyptic disaster for the earth and expect us to Ignore History and to Pretend it does not exist !

          Edenhofer and Figueres have stated as spokespeople for the U.N. and IPCC that the intention of “climate change” is to :
          A. Redistribute wealth from the developed world, and
          B. End the Industrial-Economic model that has existed since the mid 19th century

          Whilst thinking about those it is worth remembering that at the U.N. and IPCC every nation has an equal vote meaning that tiny nations such as Tuvalu with a population in the tens of thousands has the same value vote as the USA with its 270 million or so.

          Small wonder then that the vast majority of votes at the U.N. and IPCC are from the small undeveloped nations and it is in their own interest to enthusiastically support ‘climate change’ . That means they can carry the vote to give themselves Billions of $ from the developed world nations.

          Now imagine how unpleasant your winter in Katowice would be if you had to rely on Solar and Wind for heating …… you might survive but there is a fair chance the cold would kill you. Be grateful for your coal and the life it gives you and ignore the self-interest hysteria of the IPCC and it’s totally failed predictions.

          • Poland is moving to LNG, wind and solar. It hss bren given longer by the EU to transition away from coal – not totally but reducing its proportion in the national energy mix. Not sure about nucleur but good with me if it replaces coal.

          • Hmm, the fact that politicians are doing things that enrich themselves and their friends is proof that you are right.
            Really.

          • “No fears over how I will be staying warm in Katowice …”

            You will be staying warm by burning Russian gas. This leaves you dependent on the Russian bear this winter, just like a few years ago when the Russians staged the separation of the Crimea into a Russian territory. People around the world wondered why Europe was so quiet about that, but if you just look at your extreme dependence on Russian energy, it all becomes clear.

          • Don’t spout off on a subject you lack knowledge about and which is factually incorrect. Poland is importing LNG from the US via a new expanded terminal in the north and will be getting gas via the Baltic pipeline from Norway in 2020. It is Germany that will be importing gas from Russia. And that is B.S. about Crimea – Europe is imposing joint sanctions with the US against Russia. So what you wrote is pretty much garbage.

        • Carbon dioxide is not carbon. It is very odd for people to make the claim the carbon in the atmosphere does something when molecular and elemental behavior are very different. Its like saying Sodium in the oceans is explosive since sodium itself is explosive.

          There is much disagreement about the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the transient climate sensitivity to CO2. But political bodies like government panels assembled to propose taxes based on sci-fi dystopian visions of tomorrow are not doing sober science. If they were they would be less hyperbolic about the projections they make in public – especially when their actual projections in private and for real policy makers is much more conservative.

          You should be more skeptical of alarmist claims. The sky is not falling.

          • ” Its like saying Sodium in the oceans is explosive since sodium itself is explosive. ”

            And be very careful with your explosive salt shaker.

        • Ivan, do you really think the LIA was a good period? And that any warming from that is bad? You clearly have a different understanding of history than I do.

          • Doubtful he has an understanding of history, geology, ice cores, chemistry, physics, math, statistics, treemometers, …

          • The fact is that I leave it to the experts who, in this case, are the climate scientists who, in this case, are in agreement that man-made CO2 emissions are warming this planet and causing the climate to change. There will always be a few whacky dissenters – some people still believe the earth is flat.

          • “The fact is that I leave it to the experts who”
            So you don’t understand the science at all? Suspicions affirmed.

          • Yes, and in order to keep their jobs and have someone’s tax money pay for their trip to your town next week, your “experts” must continue to ignore history, geology, ice cores, chemistry, physics, math, and statistics, and embrace treemometers and wildly inaccurate computer models designed to produce alarmism and additional future climate conferences. Oh, and the money, too.

          • Ivan, you are indeed correct, most climate scientists agree CO2 emissions have caused some warming. The degree of warming is the issue. Many good, sincere climate scientists contend the evidence point to the AGW being very minor. For example, a scientist who won the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for work on determining global temperatures from satellite data dismissed the recent climate assessment report from the US to be “alarmist claptrap”

          • Ivanski claims that he leaves things to the experts. But the reality is that in his “mind” you are only an expert if you agree with him.
            Everyone else is an oil company shill.

          • Exactly Ivan,
            Some people still incorrectly believe that the Earth is flat
            Some people still incorrectly believe vaccinating their children will harm them
            AND
            Some people still incorrectly believe a mildly warming Earth is dangerous

          • Incorrect use of the quantifier ‘some’ there Tom.
            Some – mostly US – sceptics believe AGW is a hoax, whereas the vast majority of people believe it is not only happening but only set to get worse if the required action is not taken to reduce man-made CO2 emissions.

          • “Vast majority”? Really? The modal opinion on climate change in the US is utter indifference. There is much more interest in the British royals or the Kardashians. As the legacy media commonly repeats warmist themes without any question, there is awareness of those themes, but damn little concern.
            What I object to is the sort of 350.org, James Hansen, or Al Gore hysteria as to dread effects right soon now. There is an activist minority that is quite concerned, and well funded, but with little popular following. Loud, but small.

        • Ivan,

          Quoting ‘news’ from the BBC, especially environmental news, rather destroys your credibility. They get their science from a bunch of corrupt politicians on the make, and have admitted to censoring any views that disagree with their prejudices. My favourite name for them is ‘British Pravda’.

          As to the WMO, I am reminded that the WHO managed to direct the slaughter of tens of millions with the return of Malaria and Dengue Fever simply because they believed fake science that suggested that DDT acts by killing mosquitoes. It doesn’t. They were aided and abetted by all the usual climate suspects: Greenpeace, WWF, Guardian, BBC, New York Times, EPA etc. Some of the latter thought that reintroducing malaria would be a good thing because it would limit the population of 3rd World countries – almost unbelievable but true. Just because they are independent doesn’t mean that they are right.

        • Ivan,
          Please do everyone a favor by observing how many of the 198 countries that are “attending” the meeting are actually present during the meetings. I attended the meetings in Berlin and Bali. The only time I saw the delegates from most of the underdeveloped countries was in the morning when the UN and the EU handed out stipends. Otherwise, the seats for most of the underdeveloped countries were occupied by environmental activists from the developed countries who had been designated to represent the underdeveloped countries.

          • Mohatdebos

            I reluctantly admit I have seen the same thing. If you recall, Lord Monckton took up such a position vacated by a representative who we never heard much about, like, where was he?

        • The WMO-report is of the same Fake-news quality as most climate reporting from CNN, The Guardian and New York Times. Mostly politics.

          WMO in this report they cannot even distinguish between weather and climate, using the next El Nino to peddle claims of an even warmer 2019.

          WMO is as independent from the UN as Vichy France was independent from Nazi Germany.

          • Don’t be absurd. You are resorting to attacking the messenger simply because you don’t like the messsge.

          • The message has already been refuted.
            PS: Geir gives arguments against the science of the WMO report, so despite your lies, he isn’t just “attacking the messenger”.

        • In Ivanski’s world, any group that agrees with him is independent and truthful.
          Any group that disagrees with him is a paid shill of the oil companies.

    • What fuel is used in your Katowice power station Ivan? Without that coal the inside of your home would not get much above 1.5C at this time of year.

    • “2018 has been the warmest year in record since 1850”

      2018 has still got a month to go. (Unless using the meteorological year, which ends in Nov. But the records for Nov. haven’t been posted yet.) It’s last two months may be relatively cool.

      • Interestingly, Phil Jones of CRU, seems to have admitted in the Climategate emails that claims for ‘Hottest Year’ evaaah are based on between 10% to at most 20% of grid cells – even though others are Colder than normal.

        In other words these claims are based on micro-regional temperatures that ignore regions with below average temperatures.

        The Cause must be supported even though the first casualty is true science.

      • “2018 has been the warmest year in record since 1850” . . . . which tells me that, if true, the year 1850 was warmer. Was that caused by ugly Americans driving large cars?

          • Ivan, completely wrong. The Central England Temperature records go back some 300 years. But as the end if the little ice is generally taken as around 1850 it suited the IPCC to take 1850 as the starting point to create an iĺlusion of warming as earth had been slowly warming up since.

            Temps during the LIA were as much as 2 C colder than currently and we are still 1C COLDER than during the Medieval Warm Period.

            In it’s original form the CET records, temperatures of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have yet to reach the record high temperatures of the 1890s and 1930s. In recent years CRU have adjusted those instrumental records ….. they are now COLDER than they were recorded to be. That helps the warming meme.

    • Not enough said, especially when there is no real science, aside form political science and wealth transfer proposals backing your hypothesis.
      One thing is certain mankind cannot control the climate. Any attempt to do so could be exponentially more catastrophic than expending the necessary resources to adapt to natural variability.

      • “Not enough said, especially when there is no real science, aside form political science and wealth transfer proposals backing your hypothesis.”
        In Canada, the Greens have virtually no power at all. However, through the Federal Liberals, manipulated by Gerald Butts as Justin Trudeau’s chief advisor, we have “political science” and “wealth transfer” schemes being relentlessly proposed because of their complicity with a much larger globalist agenda.
        We also have CBC controlled through money, by the Federal government, to continue the alarmist propaganda, despite the fact that more and more people are finally realizing the deceptions behind the globalist agenda.

    • That is quite untrue of course, and somewhat daft to state out loud, as its easy to check the actual data record. Better than extremist web sites that post any rubbish they choose to as if fact

      Last hottest year since 1850 was 2015 El Nino, which is due to ENSO regional variation, weather not climate. The temperature is now cooling from that.

      Before 1850 it was warmer through several periods during this current interglacial, as we know from written historical records and proxy measurements. What happens in a few lifetimes is imperceptible and inconsequential in fact, and the planet is well within the natural range, and on the track of, the natural ice age cycle.

      And the last Interglacial was considerably warmer and with higher sea levels. Really nothing to see here, and nothing to justify the attack on CO2 for fast buck for lobbyists and exchequers at the expense of the environment and the economy.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/fled0he4ztivd5v/Interglacial%20overlap.jpg?dl=0

    • Ivan, did you read what the IPCC SR15 said it would take to keep within 1.5 C? It is obvious that the world is not “… moving on in its mission to hold global temperatures to 1.5 C.”

      You either live in a low-information environment or have reasoning deficiencies.

    • Ivan, you’re right. Trump’s days are numbered. (To be more precise, about 6 x 365 days.) Of course, he may follow in Obama’s footprints, and continue preaching. But as fast as Trump is making things happen, I think he’ll be able to retire in peace. Obama has to keep talking, because his legacy is almost entirely dismantled now. Trump won’t have that problem.
      Democrats (socialists) hate that, and flood the internet with their loathing and lies, but the internet is not the source of real news. I understand why you think you know what’s happening here, but you’re wrong. The House Republicans we lost were almost entirely Never-Trumpers, and they did not survive this election cycle. Now we can move on without them.
      And Shiff may huff and puff… but the House can do little without the Senate, Presidency and the SCOTUS.

    • 1) There is absolutely no chance of the earth warming by 1.5C.
      2) Even if it did, it would be a good thing, beneficial to everyone and everything.

    • Ivan,
      What do plants use for food? Answer CO2, sunlight, water it’s called photsynthesis

      What do you eat? plants, animals

      What eats what you eat? plants

      What do most flowering plants rely on for pollination? Answer: insects.

      How many insects are around when the snow starts to fly? Answer: little to none

      How many plants do well encased in ice(well being relative..growth, ..etc)? Answer: little to none

      WHY is being warm so bad? Answer: it isn’t. A Warmer Earth is a Greener Earth, it is a more Robust and Bustling Place that allows for the growth of life. ALL LIFE, including humans.

      Don’t believe me? Well we have a perfect environment that reinforces the idea, we’ve even called it a Continent…it’s Antarctica. Why does nobody actually live in Antarctica? Answer: NO FOOD.

      And here is the big question: How is it that “back then” is so much better than, “right now” in terms of climate? And on the heels of that, WHEN is “back then” exactly? THIS IS the fundamental question underlying the entire idea of climate change. Because the philosophical question at the heart of the entire issue is: WE HAVE DETERMINED IT IS BAD. WHY?

      See everyone here has pointed out the why we’ve determined it’s bad–it means more money. Take away the money aspect. Take away the global economy, take away the entire idea of money. Let’s use food instead of cash….we’ll use rice as a measurement as most of the world survives on this grain. Every country that produces rice is now super incredibly wealthy (no more Western Industrial Countries as First World Nations *a term I hate*). Rice is the new monetary standard on which the world runs. RICE does not grow in ice and cold. It grows in warmth, needs a lot of growth, needs lots of liquid water, needs the ebb and flow of the seasons to produce a bumper crop and make these countries richer. I’ll bet you 1 billion rice grains that Global Warming will be INDUCED if that ever happened. The argument won’t be that the world is getting hotter it will be that the world needs to GET hotter faster to produce more rice.

      WE DETERMINED GLOBAL WARMING WAS BAD. WE DID. WE came up with the entire scenario…why? MONEY. Plain and simple. The Earth has been zinging around the sun for 4.5 billion + years. We have come onto the scene in the last 200,000 years. A blip in the Earth’s History. Who in the hell are we to say how the Earth “should” be running?

      And just to reinforce how freaking long of a time the Earth has been around here’s a nice little one to remember:
      200,000 seconds equates to 2.3 days.
      4.5 billion seconds equates to 142.7 YEARS.

      And to illustrate how much of a philosophical decision that the Earth is in danger:
      We’ve been recording temperature using modern instruments for 150 years which is .075% of the time that modern humans are thought to have come onto the scene of the Earth.

      In other words we’ve recorded the temperature (let’s just assume of the Earth for this OK *a little latitude please* for .0000003333% of the time the Earth has been around. (I think that’s right, billion is 10 to the 9th (don’t remember the code for superscript..sorry)..I may have missed a zero or two there. The point is very simple, very easy to remember. Get rid of the noise and find the truth. Global Warming is BAD because we’ve determined it is. WHY we’ve determined that is because fossil fuel is money. That’s it. That’s the whole magic show–that’s the secret magic in the wings of the stage….MONEY. An entirely HUMAN invention just like CAGW.

      • My God you are living in cloud cuckoo land. To think this is all about a transfer of wealth – from who to whom I have no idea – beggars belief. Sceptics like yourself have an axe to grind against the system – it’s all about people trying to steal your hard earned money to fritter it away.
        Get real and start reading about what is actually happening to this planet. This isn’t about a tranfer of money – it is about ensuring the good of all by limiting the devestating effects that lie in store if action is not taken to reduce CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. Look at the charts for Christ’s sake. Get your head out of your metaphorical arse and start to analyse why parts of this earth are vulnerable to increased cases of drought, wild fires, SLR, melting glaciers, stronger hurricanes, ground water depletion etc. This will help to show you some of the adverse impacts of global warming – that is if you can be bothered to read it: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/02/portrait-of-a-planet-on-the-verge-of-climate-catastrophe-environment-the-guardian/

        • Ivan, “renewables”, in the sense of wind and solar, are mostly sustained as rent-seeking enterprises. The industry and it’s investors fund green politicians and their associated green NGOs. While there some sincere zealots who do not have a financial interest in renewables who support them, they are not dominant in the politics, and rent seeking is politics of the worst kind.

          • Define “subsidy”. Unless one is using the tendentious practice of “not paying for our largely imaginary environmental damages” as a “subsidy”, oil, coal, and gas are net taxpayers.

        • My God you are living in cloud cuckoo land. To think this is all about a transfer of wealth – from who to whom I have no idea – beggars belief

          Not according to former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, it isn’t:
          “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”

          Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, agrees with Ottmar:
          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    • Ivan, I notice that you tend to aim your criticisms at Western politicians like Trump who speak out against what he, and many others, consider to be deeply flawed science. Those of us who, with open minds, take an interest in uncovering how the Earth’s climate system works and what drive the weather you denigrate and call sceptics.

      Here’s an interesting one for you. America, largely through its increased use of natural gas to generate electricity has kept the quantity of CO2 released into the atmosphere quite low.

      However, many other countries have, over a comparable period, continued to accelerate the rate at which they release CO2 into the atmosphere by continuing to build new power stations that burn coal. They do this for a very simple reason. It allows them to generate electricity that is cheap and reliable. This gives their countries a strong, competitive advantage over countries like mine, the UK.

      The point is, if all this coal-burning and the CO2 it produces, which possibly rivals even the CO2 produced by the world’s termites, really was a problem, why direct your criticism at Trump? The puny, yet very costly efforts at ‘saving the planet’ by reducing CO2 made by countries like the US and the UK are rendered completely ineffectual because they’re being completely overwhelmed by the countries ramping up their CO2 production.

      So, if this really bothers you nearly as much you claim it does, if you truly and honestly believe you’re going to fry, drown and die because of ‘carbon pollution’ surely there are other world leaders you might want to single out for your criticism. The Chinese head of state springs to mind. Or perhaps closer to your home the German Chancellor. (I’m thinking of those open cast brown-coal strip mines near Cologne and the huge power stations nearby.)

      After all, if you target the biggest ‘polluters’ you will make the biggest difference!

      • The US is the second biggest CO2 emitter after China so don’t try to put lipstick on a pig.
        Thanks for the definition if a ‘sceptic’ – I really didn’t know that.

        • Co2 is plant food, the more there is the healthier the planet is. Don’t thank me, correcting morons like you is just plain fun!

      • I understand the premise of your argument but there is one simple flaw here. I agree that it is not only the US that is failing to rein in its CO2 emissions and the leaders of those countries, such as China, are also open to criticism, just as much as Trump is. However, the big difference is that every country has signed up to the IPCC Paris Agreement to commit to long-term CO2 reductions bar the United States as a result of Trump’s pulling out – that is why he needs to be singled out in particular. If the US commits to the Agreement once again, then the culpability can be shared equally.

        • And yet the US, even having withdrawn from the sham known as the Paris Agreement has been reducing it’s CO2 emissions, while other countries (particularly, but not exclusively, China) have been increasing their emissions. Yet you exclusively attack the one country that has been reducing it’s emissions and staying silent about the largest emitter whom is increasing it’s emissions all because it “signed up to Paris” only what did it sign up to? it signed up to *increasing* it’s emissions (and doing nothing to curb said emissions) until 2030.

  2. If there are only a few reasons why Trump was elected and this is one of them, then all will be well that ends well, at least until 2020. If the Republicans and Trump make the election over the collapsing climate change meme as expressed by the new wing of the socialist/marxist Democratic Party, I would bet on Trump winning a second term. There is a majority ground swell of quiet desperation against the CAGW bandwagon that will manifest itself at the ballot box in the USA. And it is growing in Europe, Canada, Brazil and all over the world. Impoverishing ourselves of affordable energy via carbon taxes and various schemes is lunacy at best, and insanity at worst.

  3. For those catastrophists who predict that the end of the world will be caused by one of its simplest & most important molecules, CO2, I suggest they need to read up on science a little. Biology, Botany, Physiology, Geology and Chemistry would be good places to start.

    For those fantasists who imagine that hydrocarbon energy sources can or will be replaced by wind and solar anytime soon, I’d say “dream on”. As has been pointed out many times on this site and in numerous publications, ~85% of the world’s energy supply comes from hydrocarbons today and that number has remained practically unchanged for decades. Good luck with your electric planes, bullet trains and other fantastical means of transport. Short of a radical technology development, like practical fusion energy, I suspect methane, oil and coal will provide most of our primary energy for the rest of this century, no matter what’s said in Buenos Aires or Katowice.

    • It is the economic endeavors that are powered by fossil fuels, hydro, and nuclear that generate the prosperity that MUST BE GENERATED if there is to be the financial resources that must exist if there is to be a way to subsidize the various so-called “renewables” which are energy sinks rather than energy producers.

      • Bangkok COP23 was a flop because US won’t pay. “How to finance” and equably pay is the words. The whole Paris COP21 was successful because the big players were required to do actually anything, they could write their own reduction goals with no penalties if they miss, they got the developing world by saying there will be $100 Billion that would keep rising to many hundreds of Billions which each year would be given away to pay for project across the world. Everyone was won over. Awesome politics no? Bangkok COP23 was a flop because when the US withdrew nobody would step and say they would pay.

        https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bangkok-climate-talks-end-in-stalemate/news-story/82f372456f02d060375cb2db97a1ad00

      • Do you mean that in your opinion Trump is best G20-leader in handling climate change? He is the best in reducing emissions due to his energy policies. And payments are a non-issue for you?

        • Trump is increasing CO2 emissions every time he speaks. He is an old man now running out of energy – as could be seen the day after the Dems won the House by a huge margin.

          • Have you heard of the Internet? I follow all the events in the US. Adam Schiff will be taking over the chair of the House intelligence committee and he will be a bloodhound on Trump’s trail – Trump hates him because in my opinion he is afraid of him.

          • If you believe that the internet accurately reflects reality, you are even dumber than your writings indicate.

            Since politics is not President Trump’s reason for being, he is not afraid of anyone; he relishes the competition of his reality as opposed to the made-up fake news of Adam Shifty. Politicians, exemplified by Obama, want to be “liked.”

          • The man is a fraud and a showboater with everything having to revolve around him. George HW Bush died today who served honorably on behalf of his country and was respected by many for his dignity and respect for the Presidential office, as well as his ability to unite Americans. He represented what a President should be, not the current incumbent who continues to divide his country.

          • The respected George H. W. Bush did not survive for a second Presidential term once Bill Clinton and the Democrats brought out the long knives.

            Blaming President Trump for U.S. social and political divides ignores history. Once the Left decided to use identity politics, the divide was cemented.

          • Dave, for years the definition of bi-partisanship has been; Republicans and Democrats working together to enact the Democrats agenda.
            Any opposition to the Democrats is always declared to be divisive.

          • Ivan,

            As an American, I’d like to help you understand politics in our nation a bit better. Relying on the Internet to understand how to interpret political shifts in my government is dangerous no matter whether you are politically left, center, right, or apathetic.

            The Democrats did not win the House by a “huge margin”. The Democrats won by taking 4% of the House from the Republicans. That is a considerably small percentage to gain, and it is not enough to classify the House as having greatly shifted its ideology further to the left. In reality, there are some representatives in the House who easily swing from left to right and right to left politically speak. (These are “moderates”, since although they are affiliated with a political party, they don’t necessarily hold to party ideology all the time.) . There are enough moderates in both parties to make it hard to predict how the House will behave ideologically for the next Congressional cycle.

            The change in the House also isn’t indicative of a sweeping ideological shift to the left in the United States. At best it could be assessed as democrats running for the House simply had more successful campaigns. Success of a campaign is a function of how many people the campaign can convince to vote for it and its candidate (this is a function of how wealth the campaign is). It cares little about the ideology of people if the shiny white smile of a well-dressed and rosy-word speaking politician can gain just enough of peoples trust for them to vote for it. Unless a party holds a powerful majority in both the House and the Senate, Congress isn’t an indicator of the overall ideology of the nation. When Obama took office and then the Democrats won the majority of the government, that was an example of an ideological shift to the left. When it flipped completely back to Republican– first Congress, then Trump– that was another ideological shift, except it was back to the right.

            Further, no matter the percentage shift, no sane person can deduce that a shift is indicative of the nation’s stance on a particular issue. This means that although enough people voted democrats into the House, it doesn’t mean they voted democrat because of climate change. There is no real sure way to assess what care points people voted for.

          • Ivan, why don’t you reply to my post? Surely you should. You’re the one ‘saving’ the planet, remember.

          • Wouldn’t trust this rag – sorry magazine – further than throwing it into the bin. Any article that quotes Breitbart as one of its validated sources shows limitations in being taken seriously.

          • Ivan,

            Just the man. I recently found out a Pole invented the common toilet seat. That impressed me. Of course, later an Englishman added the hole in it.

          • A huge margin would be the 1994 election in which the Republicans picked up 54 house seats *and* took control of the senate by picking up 8 senate seats. Or 2010 when Republicans picked up 63 house seats and 6 senate seats

            in comparison, the Dems pickup up less than 40 in the house and losing a net of 2 in the Senate isn’t that huge a margin. Yes, their having control of the House (at a smaller margin then the Republicans had) makes things more difficult, but without the Senate all they can do is hold hearings and grandstand. Meanwhile the Senate will continue confirming Trump’s conservative judicial nominees.

          • Trump had the House support and now he doesn’t. He is as neutered on his legislative agenda as Obama was in his second term.

          • Then he will simply follow Obama’s playbook at get things done through executive orders and department regulations

          • That’s assuming he doesn’t get reelected and also take back the house in 2020. Which if the Dems pursue impeachment, could well happen. Just look what happened when the Republicans pursued impeachment against Clinton, the next election the Dems gained congressional seats in the house and senate.

        • He doesn’t need to argue. Because “climate scientists”. Being an Internet troll must provide an adequate income in Poland. Helps if you parents are too timid to kick you out of their home.

  4. Another idiotic idea from the usual suspects

    A scheme to dim the sun by mimicking the impact of volcanic eruptions will move a step closer next year with the first experiment in the stratosphere

    Fake eruption could dim sun and combat global warming
    Scientists hope to prove that spraying tiny particles 12 miles above the Earth’s surface could reduce global warming by reflecting some of the Sun’s rays back into space.
    They believe this would replicate what happened naturally in 1991 when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines and spewed 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. This cooled the planet by about 0.5C for 18 months. That could be enough to prevent some of the worst effects of climate change, saving coral reefs and Arctic ice and protecting low-lying communities from floods.”
    illustration is here
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fake-eruption-could-dim-sun-and-combat-global-warming-qjd75mv8q

    • This is likely to cause a massive split in the People’s Green Liberation Army, many of whom don’t want to solve any problem that gives them wealth and prestige. It will be fascinating to see how many normal people actually want the world to be colder.

    • The link is behind a paywall, but get a free trial. There should be a trial if this ecological experiment is GREEN lighted to save the planet.
      Why no just take the catalytic converters off all internal combustion engines, yeah know, because sulphur dioxide was bring on the next ice age.

      Oh, and maybe dump shit into the oceans or blanket the poles with carbon(the element) to save the earth from pollution..… we live in Bizarro world.

  5. And there’s me thinking that dancing is good for staying alive. The president appears to have knocked them dead. Hail to the chief!

  6. “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C which warned that “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

    Except all aspects of society in China and India.
    How did they ever agree on this flawed logic?

  7. More and more voters around the world are finally realizing the horrendous and unneeded costs ($122 trillion) to fix the nonexistent CAGW scam.

    There have been 22+ years with no significant warming trend and the huge disparity between CAGW projections vs. reality has become a laughingstock.

    There were riots in Paris last week against new CAGW gas taxes, and such rebellions will expand around the world as insane CAGW taxes are implemented, while global temps decrease.

    Since CAGW is a political phenomenon rather than a physical one, when support for it becomes a polical liability, Leftist political hacks will be forced to abandon it.

    CAGW is so close to being laughed into oblivion, and Trump will be seen as an important world leader that bright about its demise.

    • Don’t be absurd. Spouting the same old sceptic B.S. Trump like any politician is here today gone tomorrow. A small bunch of mainly US sceptics fighting Custer’s Last Stand. COP40 will lead to some important iniatives – with or without Trump. China already the leader in electric vehicles. Keep on burying your head in the sand.

      • Ivan
        Its good to have you onboard, robust statements and beliefs are always worth discussing and challenging irrespective of what side of the argument one is on.
        The long view from here is you are right, Trump is a short lived politician but I`m sure you agree the ripples continue for many years after, and I`m sure you would also agree that one small human with one small idea can rock the planet, assuming that idea is believable.
        The IPCC, as is open for all to see, is a politically focused, single subject, grouping of people reporting the body politic, funded by governments, it grew from nothing and will finally return to nothing and a reduction in funding and the increase in knowledge will curtail and reduce its activities . just as all edifices do.
        Your analogy with Custer can not be what you believe, Custer went over the edge at a specific point in time faced with superior numbers of true believers fighting for just cause. you obviously see around you right now in the media that being in the minority is not a portend of annihilation but rather a slowly accreting lump of rock.
        China may be a world player in electric vehicles, they size indicates they will tend to that over time in any respect on any subject, I`m not sure how that has any reference to global warming other than the horrendous use of energy to extract metals and minerals and to convert those into cars and energy to power them, welcome to the big bad world. And those that bury their head in the sand do not see what is there by closing their eyes, do you really see any trend towards eye closing here , a lack of willingness to look at data perhaps, a lack of specialist trained scholars who are good at what they do even ?
        regards

          • For a sizable donation to her foundation, Hilary can arrange a sale of U.S. sourced uranium to those countries in need. Whoops, she lost the election. Probably not available now.

        • If the debate was 50/50 then I would agree with you. But when you get so many internationally respected organisations and specialists in their field agreeing on CAGW then your sceptical position is looking increasingly isolated and untenable. And how can you take a President seriously on this issue who suggests that raking forests will help prevent wildfires. It shows how clueless the man is on a subject he obviously knows nothing about.

          • Ivan:
            **ut when you get so many internationally respected organisations and specialists in their field agreeing on CAGW **
            Agreeing but proving nothing.

          • When you declare that only those who agree with you count as experts, it’s hardly surprising to find out that all the experts agree with you.

          • Ivan,

            Why do you spend so much time trying to attack the opposition? If the science is true and clear, then surely you must understand that it stands strong on its own. Challenge ideas, not people. Don’t try to reduce people who think different from you. Embrace their opinion and respect the fact that both you and them can have differing opinions.

            Regarding Trump– I give all people the opportunity to present their ideas and defend them. For example, Obama tried Solyndra. It failed… massively. If Trump suggests the idea of pruning forests of dead, dry wood, then I will let him defend it. I can say that, from my own experience helping care for timber, keeping detritus (fancy word for “the forest’s trash”) pruned goes far in helping lower the chance of out-of-control forest fires. America and Canada have large, ancient, sprawling forests and they are growing fast right now. Both North American nations devote a considerable amount of energy to forest care-taking for the very reason of fire prevention. If California slacked off pruning forests because of political reasons or social justice reasons, then Trump is all the more right and his solution is respectable.

          • How do we know what the average global temperature was in 1850 (if that’s meaningful at all)? Were the crude mercury-in glass thermometers of the time calibrated to modern platinum resistance thermometers, or even to one another? How much of the Earth was monitored back then?

      • Would that be China that is currently building hundreds upon hundreds of coal fired power stations. They will probably be needed to fuel electric cars. Zero emitting my arse.

      • Ivan-san:

        I’m not the one with “his head in the sand.”….

        Under the rules of the scientific method, CAGW’s hysterical hypothetical projections vs. reality for everything have already exceeded the statistical parameters for official disconfirmation.

        As has always, once the PDO, AMO and NAO are all in their respective 30-year cool cycles from the early 2020’s, global temps trends will start falling showing once and for all ECS estimates were absurdly wrong.

        Moreover a 50~75-year GSM starts from 2021, which will add to the cooling.

        Trump was the first major world leader to withdraw from the stupid Paris Accord, and with the huge loss of US funding, it’s impossible for other countries to bear US’ share as they can’t even afford to pay their existing obligations..

        This will lead to a domino effect with more and more countries pulling out, and the remaining countries having to bear increasingly higher costs to keep this CAGW scam going.

        China wants the West to waste $trillions on the stupid CAGW scam building insanely expensive, unreliable and diffuse solar and wind farms, while achina works to launch commercial Thorium MSRs from around 2030, which will generate unlimited amounts of cheap power for millennia.

        I agree that electric/hybrid cars will soon replace combustion-engines cars. In China they’ll eventually be charged with LFTR power..

        CAGW is dead.

      • None of the recent COPs have lead to any “important initiatives”. Why do you believe this one will be different. Especially since Trump has made it clear the US will no longer bankroll them?

      • “China already the leader in electric vehicles”

        And brand spanking new, shiny, beautiful, coal-fired power stations!

        • The electric vehicles he is crowing about are trains which run on coal fired electric transmission line. Ivanski ain’t too bright.

          • Di your research you idiot. EVs and the batteries that power them. US has allowed them – through inertia – to do this. Trump, through his arcane policies – is holding back and stifling technological innovation. He just can’t see it.

          • What. A. Moron. Everything you are crowing about is run with electricity generated by coal, gas, hydro and nuclear. Suck on that a while, idiot.

      • How can you sleep at night, knowing mankind will do nothing to stop the coming boiling alive of life on Earth? In your heart you know not nearly enough can possible be done to reverse the inevitable. Even your “climate scientists” say that. “But, we have to do something!” will not save you. At your age (adolescence) you probably don’t yet have children, so you should consider abstaining. You wouldn’t want them to have to grow up on the hellish planet being left them, would you?

        • What the hell are you dribbling on about? I am a 56-year-old with two children so what is all this “adolesence, being kicked out by your parents” shit? What on earth are you talking about? Why are you even writing such childish comments – what is it suppose to achieve? This is supposed to be a serious site isn’t it?

        • Ivan, you sidestepped my question. How do you sleep knowing you are powerless to stop the coming warming catastrophe? Don’t you agonize for your helpless children?

          • Ivanski has no moral guiding principles so no, it does not care about the suffering of others, only imposing it’s socialist ideology on all who oppose it.

  8. If the rest of the nations want to criticize the US, perhaps those which have cut their CO2 emissions by as much as the US has in recent years should cast the first stone.

  9. God is involved now. The Synod of the Church of England is dis-investing their pension fund from fossil fuel companies. Did they ask their pensioners? Until they conform to the Paris Agreement- how measured? Meanwhile the WHO’s 3 million annually die of cooking inhalation while lacking electricity. Not sure whether I should continue contributing to our food bank.

  10. DJT has shown them all where the bear sh*ts in the buckwheat by shutting off the gravy nozzle. Now it is time to do the same domestically. The wailing and rending of garments will be highly entertaining!

  11. I often think Trump has missed a few boats. I am used to diplomats of old, more closed-mouth, but giving careful thought before their utterances. (But, as I think about it, often more evil…).
    In this case all he needs to do is to point out that the US is THE BEST at reaching Paris Agreement goals, and competitors that wish to fall behind the US by pursuing uneconomical “green” technologies like windmills and dust and snow-covered glass panels are welcome to cut their own throats .
    We get very little (close to none) fuel oil directly from SA, and should appreciate Canada more.

    • As noted by many observers, at least two-thirds of the world’s nations will do nothing without U.S. cash.

      Today’s real world problems are what matters to thinking people, not future boogeymen.

  12. I have said it before and I will say it again all of you need to read “The Inconvenient skeptic by John Kehr. As an engineer he lays out a very logical argument why global warming is not an issue. From his facts on age of glaciers , Mt Fremont is 300 years old (must have been warmer before), Mt St Helens is only 30 years old. Therefore it was warmer than now after the last ice age, by around 3 degrees at least. From past data it always shows that the earth cooled off when CO2 was high and always rose after the planet had warmed up.

    • Mt St Helens is only 30 years old.
      Not quite sure what you are trying to get at with this.
      Are you (or Kehr) thinking of a glacier on Mt. St Helens?

      What Mt. Fremont is being referenced?
      There is one in Mt. Rainier National Park. Others?

      • I think it was pretty clear from the words “From his facts on age of glaciers” that he is talking about glaciers. The Mt. Saint Helen’s glacier in question is The Crater Glacier (also known as Tulutson Glacier)
        The Mt. Fremont Glacier in question would be in the one in Wyoming.

        A quick google (or other search engine of your choice) could have told you as much.

  13. Here is one of Ivan’s well renowned “climate scientists.”

    Professor Peter Wadhams, July 2013**:
    Given present trends in extent and thickness, the ice in September will be gone in a very short while, perhaps by 2015.

    **The Guardian

    There are dozens of such wonderfully funny statements such as this by the “climate scientists”.

    Regarding things Trump says (ex. Raking forests,; actually this does help, it is called being ‘firewise’) [look it up]
    Salena Zito, a USA writer: “When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

    Zito again: “When I presented that thought to him, he paused again, “Now that’s interesting.”

    Trump knows what he is doing (although he doesn’t know the science in depth) and he loves stirring up those who don’t actually know what they write about; that is most politicians, most of the main-stream-media (MSM), most of the UN supported groups and NGOs, and of course Al Gore and fellow travelers.

  14. Good post Eric, thank you.
    Interesting comments also.
    Ivan Kinsman’s relentless gratuitous assertions reminded me of the old saw: ” He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool..Avoid him!”
    The same old saw also said: ” He who knows not and knows that he knows not can be taught..Teach him!”
    A lot of WUWT readers know a lot more than Ivan .. perhaps he can be taught? Who knows
    Cheers
    Mike

    • I am surprised Mike that you and your fellow sceptics have not managed to convince more people of your theoretical assumptions that climate change is a non-existant phenomenon. Why is it do you think that Americans are more rather than less worried about climate change? Is it the media? Is it those darned Democrats up to their dasterdly tricks? Is it those sneaky Chinese trying to pull one over on the Americans? Shouldn’t logical Europeans be saying to themselves – goddamit those US sceptics are right and we have been hoodwinked by our socialist-loving climate scientists who are all colluding on this issue.
      Why haven’t all the signatories to the IPCC 2015 Paris Agreement withdrawn their backing saying that the numerous climate models are completely irrelevant?
      http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/11/29/americans-are-worried-about-climate-change/

      • Ivan,
        There is a tactical maneuver in submarine warfare called “Crazy Ivan”….It is called “crazy” for a reason….Now I know why it’s name is “Ivan”..D’OH !

        • So Marcus let’s resort to the tactic of denegrating the opponent – rather Trumpian a la “Little Adam Schitt” – when you are incapable of disproving the evidence I have put forward. In your heart of hearts you are a sceptic-light. You know the sceptic arguments are mostly fallacies but you cannot admit to it 🙂

      • Re Ivan
        Most of your article is propaganda, not facts.
        When a real survey is done comparing all the concerns in society, climate change ranks at the bottom (16th in one survey).
        RE: **Why haven’t all the signatories to the IPCC 2015 Paris Agreement withdrawn their backing saying that the numerous climate models are completely irrelevant?**
        What you have not figured out is that the whole climate change scam is political and a money transfer scheme, which Trump saw through.
        The riots in Paris tell you that the public is starting to catch on. You have not.

        • What real survey? I’ve shown you factual evidence – show me this survey that ranks it 16/16 or shut the f*** up.

          • For Ivan: Sorry, I was mistaken – climate ranks 19th in this survey.
            PS: I hope he can read

            January 27, 2014
            Deficit Reduction Declines as Policy Priority

            Just Half of Democrats Rate Deficit as ‘Top Priority’

            Top Policy Priorities: Economy, Jobs, TerrorismFor the first time since Barack Obama took office in 2009, deficit reduction has slipped as a policy priority among the public. Overall, 63% say reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority for Congress and the president this year, down from 72% a year ago. Most of the decline has come among Democrats: Only about half of Democrats – 49% – view deficit reduction as a top priority, down 18 points since last January.

            The Pew Research Center’s annual survey of policy priorities, conducted Jan. 15-19 among 1,504 adults, finds that the public’s agenda continues to be dominated by the economy (80% top priority), jobs (74%) and terrorism (73%). As in past years, the lowest-rated priorities are dealing with global warming (29%) and dealing with global trade (28%). (Click here for an interactive showing the public’s priorities since 2002.)

          • RE Ivan(who is losing it)
            **What real survey? I’ve shown you factual evidence**
            I have given you several articles below to read.
            My suggestion is read them and go away as you are just repeating propaganda.

          • RE Ivan
            **2014!!! C’mon man, you can do better than that.**
            I have already outdone myself. It only gets worse later. And of course you now know you are WRONG!

      • My dear Ivan,
        I am amused by your meaningless calisthenic blustering! For a start what is a ‘theoretical assumption’ if not an oxymoronic redundancy like for example dehydrated water (mine), or a ‘nonexistant phenomenon’ (yours) or for that matter ‘climate change'(theirs)? Everyone knows that the climate changes; hourly, daily, regionally, seasonally and according to many other less obvious cycles such as ENSO, AMO and a whole bunch of terrestrial circumsolar peripatetic oscillations and inclinational variables as yet improperly understood. (See! We can all throw long words together to fool the ignorant!)
        But seriously for a moment allow me to take issue with the ludicrous contention implied in your phrase: “…you and your fellow sceptics..” A sceptic is by definition an individual divergent from the consensus..from the Greek ‘skepsis’ meaning doubt or enquiry, i.e. those not easily convinced.
        Think of us, if you will, as antibodies of the immune system in the body of knowledge, resisting the virus of groupthink that infects so many like yourself who were taught WHAT to think rather than HOW to think. I recommend a good dose of scepticism for the restoration of a healthy mind.
        Regards
        Mike

  15. For Ivan’s benefit:
    China Building 259 Gigawatts Of New Coal Capacity

    Building work has restarted at hundreds of Chinese coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery. The research, carried out by green campaigners CoalSwarm, suggests that 259 gigawatts of new capacity are under development in China. The authors say this is the same capacity to produce electricity as the entire US coal fleet.

    China coal power building boom sparks climate warning – BBC News

    The Orwellian New York Times calls this : “joining the climate fight.”

    As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants

    Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

    Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord

  16. For Ivan again:

    https://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/climate-change-a-low-priority-for-most-canadians-poll/

    Climate change a low priority for most Canadians: Ipsos poll

    However, people in many other countries place climate change even lower than Canadians do.

    In developing countries, said Colledge, “it’s really not an issue.”

    “Some of the poorer countries, corruption and crime are higher up on their lists,” he said. With the exception of China – where air pollution is highly visible in cities – generally only developed countries rank it as a top concern.

    RAW_19FN_2015-11-26-Climate-Change-3

  17. For Ivan:

    https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/global-warming-polls-priorities/

    Here’s a list of 19 public priorities that Pew asked about in the January poll. Dealing with climate change ranked next to last. Fighting terrorism was first. The “other” category includes priorities that are opposed or considered not important.

    What the table suggests is that Americans want government to do almost everything, from fighting terrorism to strengthening the economy to helping the poor … and on and on. Public opinion polls can be used selectively to create the impression that grass-roots pressure for action is overwhelming. One obvious way to do this is to merge the responses of those who believe a chosen issue is a “top” priority with those who think it’s merely “important.”

    For example: In the Pew poll, 94% of respondents rated fighting terrorism as the top priority (73%) or an important priority (21%). Way down the list at number 12 is “improving transportation.” Only 49% consider this a “top priority,” but when that is combined with those who think it is important (39%), the total is 88% — not far from the combined score of fighting terrorism.

    The reality is that government can’t do everything for everybody. Practical politicians judge where public pressure demands action — and where it can be minimized or ignored. Combating global warming seems to be in a gray area. It bothers more and more people, but it hasn’t reached a critical mass of public opinion that would compel Congress and the White House to act decisively.

    YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

    Here’s One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

    U.S. Cuts ‘Global Warming’ Gases Faster Than Anyone Else, But Media Ignore It

    Climate Scientists Mount Misleading Attack On IBD Editorial About Global Warming

  18. Some fraud for Ivan:

    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

    The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
    FacebookTwitterLinkedInShare
    Licensing

    3/29/2018

    Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

    What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

    Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

    This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

  19. OK, from past experience I can tell you Ivanski is not big on responding, it just spews out its leftist talking points and toddles away. Please don’t waste any time waiting for it to respond.

  20. “G20 “Kowtows” to President Trump Over Climate Change”
    So after all that pontificating from Breitbart, Eric et al, how did that kowtowing go?

    Newsweek:
    “he United States was the only country that attended the G20 summit, a meeting of the world’s twenty largest economies, which did not express its support for the Paris Climate Accords in a joint statement issued at the end of the two-day meeting.”

    • Trump is isolated on this issue.

      I am in favour of Macron’s idea that the US be penalised on trade if it fails to set and adhere to concrete targets forreducing its CO2 emissons. Why should the rest of the world bear the financial costs of implementing required measures – especially the European Union – whilst the US maintains the status quo. Trump can continue to maintain his stance but it will come at a cost…

      • As usual you don’t have a clue since Trump doesn’t give a damn about what Micron thinks, who is currently battling a lot of protests all over France over his dumb anti “fossil fuels” attack. From VOX:

        “The protests began around November 17, when French drivers sporting yellow vests led a demonstration of 280,000 people across the country to push back against rising taxes on gas and diesel fuel. French President Emmanuel Macron announced the new gas tax earlier this year, as part of a broader plan to minimize France’s reliance on fossil fuels.

        The tax will increase the price of fuel by about 30 cents per gallon and will continue to rise over the next few years, the French government says. Gas already costs about $7.06 per gallon in France.”

        https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18123906/france-protest-macron-paris-riots-yellow-vest-arc

        You don’t have a clue.

        • No – as usual you have not analyzed this situation correctly and are using typical broad brush statement to support your argument.
          French drivers use a high percentage of diesal in their cars which is s more polluting fuel than petrol. Quite rightly the French government wants to wean the French driver off diesal, which especially impacts air quality in cities and towns. Stop skewing the facts: https://www.euronews.com/2018/11/16/what-s-all-the-fuss-about-the-french-fuel-tax-hikes-euronews-answers

          • And why do French drivers use more diesel powered vehicles? French government regulations require it, to support their vehicle manufacturing industry, which makes diesels more than gas powered vehicles because??? French government regulations, yet again. My, my, Ivanski! You are in quite the pickle, at every turn your leftist stupidity keeps smacking you in the face. Too funny.

      • I am in favour of Macron’s idea that the US be penalised on trade if it fails to set and adhere to concrete targets forreducing its CO2 emissons

        Good luck with that, Not only can the US can point to it’s reducing CO2 without “targets” compared to other countries failure with targets, but the US can penalize those who attempt to penalize it, as China has discovered in trying to tit-for-tat with Trumps tariffs – they matched the 50 billion dollar for dollar but when Trump threatened another 200 billion, they could only retaliate with 67 billion.

        Why should the rest of the world bear the financial costs of implementing required measures

        You got that backward, why should the US bear the financial costs? Just look at the UN green climate fund, Obama dumped $1 billion US taxpayer money into that. Trump stopped paying. How much has the rest of the world ponied up? China, Russia and India (the world’s top polluters) paid $0

        • Most of that money was going to go to third world dictators and never would help the poor citizens. Of course there is no science to show that throwing money will change temperatures.

    • It went swimmingly! As we type the government of France has figured out that to keep their heads attached to their bodies they will have to abandon all that environazi stupidity. They will give the appearance of doing so unwillingly, do it they will, step by grudging step. They will also be stuffing their pockets with as much tax money as they can steal, that goes without debate since it was the only goal all along.

    • Newsweek:
      “he United States was the only country that attended the G20 summit, a meeting of the world’s twenty largest economies, which did not express its support for the Paris Climate Accords in a joint statement issued at the end of the two-day meeting.”

      Like the child who said “the Emperor’s got no clothes” while all the rest were marveling at how fine the threads were..
      and as for Newsweek, well, it’s way past irrelevance on its way to extinction.

  21. “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

    Hey Joshua S.Hill, don’t give it all away! Would you please leave it “unprecedented”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *