UN Patricia Espinosa: “Climate change impacts have never been worse”

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The hype is strong with this climate conference.

With the direst environmental warnings yet still ringing in their ears, nations gathered in Poland for a UN summit aimed at heading off the “urgent threat” of runaway climate change.

Climate change impacts have never been worse,” Patricia Espinosa told journalists after Sunday’s first negotiating session.

“This reality is telling us that we need to do much more.”

In a rare intervention, presidents of previous UN climate summits issued a joint statement as the talks got underway, calling on states to take “decisive action… to tackle these urgent threats”.

The impacts of climate change are increasingly hard to ignore,” said the statement, a copy of which was obtained by AFP. “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies.

At the COP24 climate talks, nations must agree to a rulebook palatable to all 183 states who have ratified the Paris deal.

This is far from a given: the dust is still settling from US President Donald Trump’s decision to ditch the Paris accord.

G20 leaders on Saturday agreed a final communique after their summit in Buenos Aires, declaring that the Paris Agreement was “irreversible”.

But it said the US “reiterates its decision to withdraw” from the landmark accord.

While the data are clear, a global political consensus over how to tackle climate change remains elusive.

Katowice may show us if there will be any domino effect” following the US withdrawal, said Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a main architect of the Paris deal.

Brazil’s strongman president-elect Jair Bolsonaro, for one, has promised to follow the American lead during his campaign.

Read more: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/climate-change-threat-has-never-been-worse-says-un-climate-chief

Note that Patricia Espinosa is Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This is a different UN environment position to the position of Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, a position recently vacated by Erik Solheim after embarrassing revelations about Solheim’s extraordinary jetset travel expenses.

Greens are particularly upset that global CO2 emissions seem to be growing again, after a pause in emissions growth which led to claims CO2 had been decoupled from economic growth.

The reality in my opinion is a little less dramatic – it seems likely that China provided false growth metrics for a few years, to conceal an economic slump. Now the Chinese economy is genuinely growing, CO2 emissions are on the rise once again.

Advertisements

158 thoughts on “UN Patricia Espinosa: “Climate change impacts have never been worse”

  1. So climate change impacts are now the worst they ever were? So, the Little Ice Age, with famine and plague, was worse than the present?
    I think it is a matter of historical ignorance, or appealing to historical ignorance (which is worse).

    • This smacks of desperation. Who will believe this claptrap? It takes someone who’s really educated to believe such total rot.

      The public in general is not alarmed about CAGW. The dedicated left is desperate to believe it. I suspect that the number of true believers will dwindle but it could take a while.

    • Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), falsely stated in her latest attempt to stampede the sheep:
      “Climate change impacts have never been worse… … This reality is telling us that we need to do much more.”

      Hmmm… what is the appropriate response to this alarmist nonsense?
      Cue Dan Akroyd:

      • Espinosa, Guterres, Figueres, all of them are associated with the Socialist International; Guterres was a past president. Climate Change alarmism is nothing but a Socialis International (aka Marxist) agenda as opined by the new Brazilian President.

      • Oh, there is global greening from CO2, apparently, and the 1940-1975 cooling trend is over, but getting upset over what could be called climate milding is perverse.

      • They usually do say how, just by hyperbole: wildfires, drought, hurricanes, typhoons, etc. But anyone who actually looks at the data see that there is nothing new under the sun. But, most people don’t look at the data, they just repeat what they hear.

        • What amuses me about the sceptic community is that they never talk about the science that much. Carbon particles in the atmosphere trap heat that is normally emitted out of the atmosphere. If heat is trapped, the planet warms. If the planet warms, the climate changes – for the worse.

          • What amazes me about trolls, is that they actually study the science, they just repeat the trite lies they have been taught.

            Only a tiny fraction of people deny that CO2 “traps” heat.
            The question has always been, how much.
            The tiny bit of warming that the planet has seen over the last 150 years has been 100% beneficial.
            The tiny bit of warming that we might see over the next 100 years is also going to be completely beneficial.

            Add to that the FACT that CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster and CO2 is a blessing for us and for the planet.

            Now go away and study some science.

          • Ivan:
            **What amuses me about the sceptic community is that they never talk about the science that much.**
            Let’s start with the basics. Two science questions which I know you will not answer:
            1) Show me ONE scientific study which MEASURES the amount of warming caused by CO2.
            2) Show me ONE scientific study which proves that warming in excess of 2 Deg C will cause runaway warming.
            Waiting……………………………..

          • Get in contact with Michael Mann or any IPCC climate scientist.

            If it is not carbon particles from man-made activities in the atmosphere leading to SUCH A SUDDEN INCREASE in global temperatures then what do you attribute this to? Don’t give me the solar activity crap or natural cycles or the El Nino or volcanic activity.

            (First you post a very dismissive comment attacking skeptics in the thread, but when you are asked questions two times by Gerald, you don’t answer it. Then Berndt gives you a long reply with a request for a cogent argument over it, you avoid answering him, deflect to something else, You are behaving like a TROLL, avoiding answers, attacking with sweeping statements about skeptics and moving on with no requested answers, then you have the gall telling Mark to go away while he exposes your inability to make a good debate in the thread.) MOD

          • Ivan:
            ** If heat is trapped, the planet warms. If the planet warms, the climate changes – for the worse.**
            I am very impressed with your science. Now where is this measured and published?

          • I thought the issue was the temperature sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now “science talking” Ivan informs us that the issue is now carbon particulates in the atmosphere. I guess CO2 is just so “last week”.

          • Why should it cool given man’s activities. What has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting we wipe ourselves out?

          • Thanks Ivan, I was having a bad morning but you really cheered me up, I read your comment around 30 minutes ago and I’ve just now stopped laughing enough to write this..

            Point 1) Quote. “What amuses me about the sceptic community is that they never talk about the science that much.” Please actually read the content of this site upon which you are posting comments. Come in, have a look around, make yourself at home, dwell for a while, if you still can’t find the discussion of the science (or the lack thereof) then let us know and I’m sure there are plenty of people here who would be glad to give you some pointers. Also, you see those links on the right hand side under the title ‘Bookmarks’? they’ll help you out too…

            Point 2) Quote “Carbon particles in the atmosphere trap heat that is normally emitted out of the atmosphere”. Thanks for your highly scientific quote, my reply to you is Ummmm… WTAF are you talking about?? I think you might want to read up a bit on the science of CO2 warming, you know, the science that is not normally discussed by sceptics. Again I’d suggest this site and the bookmarks to help out your understanding.

            Point 3) Quote, well, basically everything you just said and your follow up comments.. I would make a friendly suggestion that you don’t post comments on sites about topics that you have not the faintest inkling of the subject matter other than what you picked up from the slime that is thrown at your ears and eyes by ‘News’ outlets such as the BBC, CNN and The Guardian.

            I don’t know you and really do not want to attack you as a person, I’m sure you are a great guy, however, your comments give approximately 97% of the readers of this site the impression that you are dumber than a box of rocks. Many people here would be very willing to have a friendly, robust conversation with you about the details of the science point by point, however most of them would rather not engage with an unarmed opponent

            Please return soon with a cogent argument and you’ll be welcomed with open arms

          • With me a short cogent summary of why the IPCC scientists are wrong and we can talk. And don’t talk about the models being irrelevant.

          • Once again, Ivanski indicates that he is incapable of understanding anything outside of what he is paid to believe.

            It would cool precisely because the actions of man have very little to do with the temperature of the earth.

          • Ivanski, Mann’s hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited. The mere fact that a couple of Mann’s acolytes, using the same data and the same methods got the same answer, doesn’t prove that Mann was correct.

            There has been no sudden rise.
            There has been a very gradual 0.6C rise over the last 150 years, most of which occurred long before the bulk of the CO2 was added to the atmosphere.
            Beyond that, it’s been warmer than today 1000, 2000, 3000 and 5000 years ago. Long before CO2 increased.
            Beyond that, it’s been warmer than today for about 90% of the last 10K years.

            Try learning some science.

            Hint, you won’t find any at the BBC.

          • Ivanski, you’ve been given that summary many times.
            You just declare that anything to goes against what you are paid to believe isn’t science and reject it. Then you insult those who dare to disagree with what you are paid to believe.

          • Please butt out of this. You know very little yourself about the science – it is obvious. Stop interjecting as I don’t need to communicate with you.

          • Carbon particles are NOT CO2, not only that CO2 doesn’t trap anything since it absorbs and EMIT IR light energy.

            Climate can change independently of either warming or cooling, ever though of that Ivan?

          • Ivan, first you write this with NO mention of the rate of change:

            “What amuses me about the sceptic community is that they never talk about the science that much. Carbon particles in the atmosphere trap heat that is normally emitted out of the atmosphere. If heat is trapped, the planet warms. If the planet warms, the climate changes – for the worse.”

            When I corrected you over the your mangling of words you used, you come back with a bogus insulting attack. It is clear you have no cogent argument, just a series of illogical statements without support, while you avoid making direct replies to others, even avoid answering questions.

            You are a poor debater sir.

          • Ivanski telling others to butt out because they don’t know science.
            Irony is lost on trolls.

            Regardless, there is nothing unusual about the current rate of increase.

            BTW, if you think that proxies with 300 year sensitivity are going to show decade level temperature responses, then there is no hope for you.

          • Ivan, if the rate of change is “unprecedented”, exactly when are you comparing it to? Certainly not either the entrance or exit of the Younger Dryas period, our mild .8 degrees in 150 years or so is nothing compared to 3 degrees in 70 years that was experienced then.

            You want to talk about “the science”, okay, what data are you using to make the claim?

          • I couldn’t less about the Drayas period or any other period when the make up of this biosphere was very different. What I care about is the period here and now and moving forward.
            AGW is the cause of the last four hottest years and 20 out of the last 22. Allowed to ontinue unabated the planet will cintinue to warm with the exacerbated extreme weather events and accompanying SLR. The logic is simple.

          • As always, Ivanski assumes that if anything changes that CO2 must be the cause of it.

            It’s not like he knows anything about science. That’s the opinion he’s paid to have.

      • I was about to ask just that question. It is always just a statement, never any actual examples. And if it’s so bad, it must be a very long list.

        • Just turn on your TV set and see what is happening around the world. It will soon come home to you…
          I suggest BBC and CNN as the two best channels for their climate change coverage, and the Guardian newspaper/New York Times for written reports.

          • Re Ivan:
            **I suggest BBC and CNN as the two best channels for their climate change coverage, and the Guardian newspaper/New York Times for written reports.**
            You just hit the bottom of the barrel for bad sources. But how would you know?

          • Ivan:
            **Just turn on your TV set and see what is happening around the world. It will soon come home to you…**
            My grandfather called it weather and there is nothing new.

          • ‘I suggest BBC and CNN as the two best channels for their climate change coverage, and the Guardian newspaper/New York Times for written reports.’

            Ivan – you’re a flat idiot. No further conversation with you needed.

          • Ahhahaha! Love it. Very reputable MSM outlets those ones. You must really know your stuff Ivan armed with thise dynamite sources.

          • Gentlemen – I suggest you withdraw from this debate with Ivan. It is unfair and it is beneath you, as Oscar Wilde said, “to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”

    • “So climate change impacts are now the worst they ever were?”

      Bear in mind that people who are only capable of speaking *in shorthand* (e.g. anyone who says “climate denier” or “carbon emissions”) inevitably come to *think* in shorthand.

      I genuinely suspect Espinosa means “PROJECTIONS OF climate climate change impacts are worse than ever”, “the effects THEY SAY WE”RE GOING TO SUFFER are worse than they’ve ever said before,” etc.

      But she says what she says because her brain no longer knows the difference.

  2. What is this climate alarmism nonsense…We have to ‘tackle’ climate change. Tackle, like it is a game of football. I wish they could get some new verbs. It’s the same drivel every day. And nothing is going to change, other than there probably be a revolution over carbon taxes, and some people will lose their heads over this.

    • “Verbs?” The UN can go pound salt in a rathole works for me! Maybe we should be doing things like hardening our electrical grid instead of trying to change the weather for the greater glory of globalism and doing Stupid Human Tricks in space, eh?

    • “And nothing is going to change, other than there probably be a revolution over carbon taxes, and some people will lose their heads over this.”

      Ref: Paris over the last few weeks.

      • The Arc de Triomphe was among hundreds of buildings attacked by anti-government ‘Yellow Vest’ fuel price protesters on Saturday — who said their actions were “the start of a revolution”. link

        People will give lip service to CAGW until they get bitten by ridiculous fuel prices and taxes. Then we see that public support is about one molecule thick.

        I’m not sure the comparison is apt but I am reminded of the Boston Tea Party.

  3. I hope other people are looking and it is not just only me. There has been an amping up of the climate change rhetoric since the November elections. My supposition is that Nancy Pelosi is allowing the Ortez section of the Social Democrats and Millennium women who worked so hard on this election cycle to have a bone. Given the legacy media’s acquiescence to the climate change narratives, I suspect the Murdock ownership influence is also playing a role in this harangue. Jeff Bezo remains a supporter of a climate change catastrophe narrative as well.

    Needless to say, the riots in France, after Macrone’s fuel tax, purportedly to curb climate change did not sit well with the 50% portion of French electorate who are out to save their skins and not necessarily willing to sacrifice their families on the alter of global warming…that might take place some 100 years hence.

    One can only hope that peaceful efforts to resolve legitimate economic issues are at hand now that the continuation of the rebellious nature of the French Revolution is accounted for.

    • “One can only hope that peaceful efforts to resolve legitimate economic issues are at hand now that the continuation of the rebellious nature of the French Revolution is accounted for.”

      The easiet, least violent thing to do would be for Macron to cancell this tax increase. The People are right and Macron should acknowledge it.

      I heard the French are paying the equivalent of $7.50 (US) per gallon of fuel, and that’s before this new increase. I paid $1.95 per gallon the last time I filled up in the good ole USA. Thanks, President Trump! 🙂

      French politicians should be doing all they can to reduce, not increase the price of fuel. The CAGW fraud has driven the leftist politicians to insanity to the point that they are destroying their own nations going down these deadend anti-fossil fuels roads. They are going to look very bad when CO2 proves to be a beneficial gas, not a harmful gas.

      If you see anyone claiming that CAGW is currently causing Earth’s climate to change, then you know you are seeing a bunch of lies because there is no evidence that humans are causing the Earth’s weather to change

      The alarmists started out saying these dire atmospheric changes would happen decades in the future, but now that their predictions seem to be going wrong (more CO2, but temps are cooling, not warming), they are getting desperate and are doubling down on the disaster and are falsely claiming that human influences are already evident in today’s weather. These are lies. There is no evidence. They know there is no evidence. They are lying to you. They have a vested interest in lying to you.

      • “I paid $1.95 per gallon the last time I filled up in the good ole USA. ”

        You might still find that price in some midwestern states, but out here in the People’s Republic of Washington, we’re well over $3.00, in many places over $3.50 for a gallon of 87 octane (regular).

        • I paid $2.89 the other day, but that was at an Indian Casino. Just down the road was $3.49 at Chevron, which is about $0.40 less than a few weeks ago. Thanks global market pricing. No thanks Jerry Brown and you $0.70 state taxes.

          • Even in the UK we have to suffer gasoline prices at $6.00 per (US) gallon of regular unleaded at today’s average prices and exchange rate. Our indirect taxes are high – VAT accounts for $1.00 of this and excise duty accounts for a further $2.19.

        • Right now in Stavanger (Norway’s ‘oil town’), we’re paying around $6.25 per US gallon for 95RON unleaded petrol. For that price we’re pitifully grateful because during the autumn it was as high as $7.75.
          And the crude that exorbitantly priced go-juice is being refined from comes from literally just over the horizon.

        • Just filled up at $2.33 and the upper midwest. Not bad. Not bad at all. I love my colleagues that rail about gas prices all the time yet are true believers in AGW and I am a meteorologist! Most don’t buy the catastrophe but some do, yet they bitch about gas prices. Inconsistent much?

  4. If, when Patricia Espinosa says “Climate change impacts have never been worse” she really means “human caused climate change impacts have never been worse”, she is absolutely correct as they have remained extremely minimal.

    SR

  5. And what “climate change impacts” that have “never been worse” are you referring to? Specifically? Since there hasn’t been a significant change in temperature in 20 years what “impacts” are being referred to?

  6. RE: ““The impacts of climate change are increasingly hard to ignore,”

    To the contrary, the non-existent ‘impacts of (man made) climate change’ deserve to be publicly, derisively disdained. The climate change fraud is a climate model house of cards erected on the ever shifting sands of purported disasters pending in ‘the next decade’, as declared repeatedly over the last 40 years.

    It’s the pervasiveness and unbelievable cost of the climate change fraud that is ‘hard to ignore’!

  7. I have always considered the fundamental essential duty of a true scientist was to promulgate their knowledge, their collection of data, and their analysis, by exposing their findings to the world.

    Except for paranoid climate scientists they still all do.

    • err
      except for bigpharma and big agricorps as well…who ALSO hide data remove bad results and fudge statistics(they use CiC as a CYA)
      fify

  8. Greens are particularly upset that global CO2 emissions seem to be growing again, after a pause in emissions growth which led to claims CO2 had been decoupled from economic growth.

    That’s music to my ears, and not just because of a little schadenfreude. They are going to have to get used to such disappointments because they are going to be continually disappointed by what happens in the real world. They may stamp their feet and shout and scream until they make themselves sick, but it will only get better when they change their expectations. The world is not going to change to meet their unreasonable desires and expectations.

    • One would think after predicting doom and gloom for 40 years and seeing no actual doom or gloom that people would wise up and realize these people are peddling bullshit.

        • It never ceases to amaze me how those who know nothing about the church and Christianity still consider themselves to be experts in it.

          • MarkW, were you referring to yourself, ……. or what?

            I will assume you were ……. unless you explain the reason for your above critique about “knowledge deficiency”.

            Cheers

          • For someone who knows nothing about Christianity Sam, you are sure quick to display your ignorance.
            Over and over again.
            It’s almost pathological.

          • MarkW, I’ve probably forgotten more historical facts about Christianity than you have ever attempted to educate yourself on or about.

            And MarkW, your education in/of the Christian Church and the origin of the present day Bible should begin with you learning about the Roman Emperor Constantine and the fact that he is/was solely responsible for Christianity becoming one of the world’s major religions.

            To wit, start with this:

            Constantine the Great and Christianity
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

  9. Leftists’ hilarious desperation in keeping this bogus CAGW myth alive is palpable.

    The disparity and duration between CAGW’s bogus projections vs. reality for EVERYTHING (global warming trend, sea level rise, ocean “acidification”, Antarctic Land Ice loss, Greenland Land Ice loss, Arctic summer minimum, severe weather incidence/intensity, species extinctions, CH4 concentrations, etc.) already exceed the parameters required for official CAGW hypothetical disconfirmation.

    The hilarious “worse-than-we-thought” meme CAGW advocate espouse defies reality, and rational/logical thought.

    CAGW advocates will continue to kick their catastrophic predictions down the road, but doing so defies the rules of the scientific method, logic and rational thought.

    When the short-term global warming spike from the current weak El Nino cycles ends in mid-2019, CAGW advocates will have an extremely hard time explaining why NONE of CAGW’s dire predictions are coming even close to reflecting reality over the past 23 years.

    They’ll no longer be able to use the 2015/16 Super El Nino spike, as its affects will soon be completely negated by the end of 2019/early 2020.

    We’re getting close, folks.

  10. She is just riding the Gravy Train that feeds her and doing what she is told.
    If she didn’t do that, the Elitist – Socialists would hire someone else who would.
    And I’m guessing her UN Yob pays pretty good, so they’d have no problem replacing her if she broke out in a fit of honesty.

  11. Climate change impacts ? How about that: -During the COP24 event:
    -The airport of Katowice can not be used as alternate, i.e. restricted prior permission required zone
    -The massive increase of non-scheduled (charter) operations is handled by stringent permission and parking rules
    -Push-back tugs availability is scarce, power-backs (reverse thrust) is permitted upon agreement.
    -Etc…

    Yeah. Conferences depend on massive air travel. Conferences aim to ban fuel at all. GO figure…
    This said, clocking extra hours has never been so easy 😉

  12. Global Warming is now fairly clearly largely or entirely a social phenomenon, and a very interesting one indeed.

    Consider what people would be doing if they really believed all this. They’d be frantically putting pressure on all governments, particularly the high emitters, to drop their emissions drastically. But they are not. There are no, zero, calls for China to lower emissions.

    This is really a test case. You cannot be serious about wanting the world to reduce emissions if you do not demand that the largest emitter reduces. Still less if you tolerate the largest emitter increasing its emissions.

    The key clue to the social phenomenon is what happens when in an alarmist forum, someone points out the arithmetic of this. Its as simple as, we are doing 37 billion tons now. We need, supposedly, to get this down to under 10 billion fairly soon, and eventually to zero.

    China alone is doing 10 billion and rising at the moment. OK, someone eventually asks on these forums, how much do you want China to reduce?

    The answer is immediate and ferocious, and it comes in two or three parts. One is the claim that China is installing wind and solar. So what? How much does it have to reduce?

    A second is the plea for excuses: its only fair China should catch up with the West, sometimes in historical emissions, sometimes in per capita (which it already has), sometimes the excuse is its for exports.

    At which point the position becomes untenable. The argument is supposedly that if we globally do not reduce, civilzation will be destroyed, and so the logic of the argument is that on the grounds of fairness, we should tolerate China destroying civilization.

    It obviously makes no sense, and the only way to make sense of it is to conclude that the alarmists do not actually believe that the reductions are necessary at all

    A third tactic is to claim China is already reducing, already lowering coal consumption and extraction, and will…. soon….. start to lower its emissions. This simply contradicts the facts.

    So what is going on? Why is it that people fly around the world to international conferences issuing dire predictions and demands for actions which, if their theories were correct, will at enormous expense have zero effect on them?

    There is only one explanation of this which makes any sense, and this explanation also accounts for the bizarre correlation between political affiliation and advocacy of these self contradictory measures. it also accounts for the bizarre phenomenon of the frequent claims among left advocates that modern industrial economies can thrive perfectly well on wind and solar electricity generation. Of course they cannot, and similar arguments suggest that the advocates do not believe what they are claiming on this point either.

    The explanation is that the alarm and the theories are being used to agitate for measures which are desired for their own sake. Global warming is just an excuse, one in which none of the advocates really believe.

    And if we look at what is being advocated, what exactly the upshot of these useless measures is, its the de-industrialization of the West, combined with the continued industrialization of China, India and so on.

    We have to assume that people want the clearly visible consequences of what they advocate. In the present case it will result in the continuing rise of global emissions, the de-industrialization of the West, and the continuing economic growth of China, India etc.

    Now as to why they want it….?

    • I agree, the simple logic of their demands makes clear they don’t seek science, they seek a narrative.

      I was told as much by an environmentalist, when I asked, what if all the focus on CO2 takes our attention off worse pollutants? And they said, it doesn’t matter if CO2 isn’t a problem, because by forcing a reduction in CO2 you force a reduction in production, and a reduction in consumption, and they added with emphasis, “it’s about reducing greed.” Of course, for people who care about the world, with a Western religious background of sin, the planet suffers because of greed.

      But when it comes to the UN, well I imagine it is just that it creates a new layer of power, a new power at supra-national level, and now that game is running, everyone has to play, and get in there and gain as much power as possible, and if nothing else, the West is simply out-numbered.

      Maybe not what the UN was created for, but it is becoming the new leviathan. And they need taxes, for power, so tax energy, and get all the industrialists on board, with opportunities for all sorts of supra-national initiatives, like changing the world food supply, hence all the vegan propaganda, etc.

      Now, can I be reborn on a better planet please?

      • Why all climate efforts all boil down to taxes and big money withdrawal ?

        I mean face it, how retarded are we supposed to be not to realize it’s all about stealing?

        Why those who claim fuel prohibition are the first to charter flights for 35 min. chocks to chocks time ?

        Hey, it’s big business going out there, big crowdfunded business with all the bells and whistles of a multinational sect operation. With gurus, power-fights, dogmas and all.

        As long as there’s money, they won’t give up easily.

    • “…the alarm and the theories are being used to agitate for measures which are desired for their own sake.”

      — I agree with that 100%. Those who want to decrease economic production and consumption may have joined on, I don’t believe that’s the main objective. The CAGW scare-mongering is rewarded with massive wealth transfers, which I believe is the primary motivation. The UN gets to be the redistributor. Western governments are getting on board if they see a justification for a novel tax methodology, infrastructure spending, and more government regulatory authority.

      People whose natural inclination is to see mankind as a virus on Gaia are natural adherents, as a the anti-capitalists who want to see reduced consumption and production. Authoritarian elements will jump at the chance to call for a “temporary” suspension of democracy.

      It’s quite an association of interests and it should be no mystery why there is such a sharp ideological divide between adherents and skeptics.

  13. Some may even characterize it as catastrophic, forced by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming… Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change if your hedging.

    Climate Change, if you plan to abort the baby and keep her, too.

  14. One of the most incredible features about the climate alarmists is there ability to flog dead horses.
    They chose CO2 as their molecule of choice to put into the frame as the villain, driving climate. There meme, reduce CO2, stop CO2, CO2 must be removed. Of all the molecules (other than water) CO2 is probably the most beneficial known to man and plant life. It would be a better world, if we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. Despite this fact, the alarmists focus on it, wanting to destroy it, even though it has been shown to be innocent of any crime, and has only ever been a good citizen in the society of molecules, throughout all history.
    The alarmists also bang on, about disastrous sea level rise. This is another metric that is easily checked and we find, there is no disastrous sea level rise happening.
    We should be grateful, the alarmists are so lacking in scientific understanding and facts, otherwise they might have been a force worth listening to, or be troubled by.
    Perhaps the fact the climate is cooling, is what is driving the CO2 alarmist, to show ever more urgent desperation. They realise the tax payers’ of the world are waking up to the nonsense false story they are peddling.
    Jolly hockey sticks.

  15. They are just talking to themselves. Absoloutely no one listens to this crap anymore. We have got bored with it. For decades they have been banging away with impending doom stories, and we are now enured to them.

    Let them turn up the control know of shrill, it only makes them look increasingly foolish.

  16. Socialism works great….until the “socialist” political elite run out of “Other Peoples Money” to ummm..borrow?. Then they just run away…with the “Other Peoples Money” that they ummmm “borrowed”…

  17. “She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in International Relations from El Colegio de México and earned a diploma in International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Switzerland.”

    And here I was so sure she was something other than a professional political hack dialing up the hysteria to 11.

  18. This is the reason why the COP24 meeting is taking place in Katowice, Poland. The US sceptic community continues to be in denial, even in the face of increasing evidence that AGW is going to need a concerted global effort to keep CO2 measures within required parameters. Unforunately the denier-in-chief, the current POTUS, seems to have little idea about what are the fundamentals underpinning climate change, in direct contrast to other global leaders who recognise and acknowledge its impact. Without operating on a quid pro quo basis, the Paris Climate Change Agreement becomes neutered – a reason why international pressure has to be imposed on the US, currently the second largest greenhouse gas emitter (13.1%) after China (26.65) and above India (7.1%): https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/03/climate-change-where-we-are-in-seven-charts-and-what-you-can-do-to-help-bbc-news/

    • Sure, sure, keep guzzling the Klimate Koolade, comrade. You are delusional, and live in a fantasy world. Climate Belief is a sort of mental illness.

    • I must admit to thinking your comment was a wind up. Then, when I noticed you have linked to the BBC, I realised, you are just not firing on all logic cylinders.
      Have you considered linking to the IPCC for a truly amazing set of graphs?

    • I would have thought the highest priority would be to pressure China to cut back, after all they are the biggest emitter. The USA is already cutting back, thanks to fracking.

      • Now lets just analyze that Eric.
        Europe has plenty of fracking reserves that they – in your opinion – could use to replace coal extraction, but they are not choosing to do so, preferring to leave them in the ground untapped. Why is that do you think?

        • What’s to analyze? The US has reduced CO2 emissions more than Europe has — if the European leaders were actually concerned about reducing emissions, they wouldn’t be closing Nuke plants and discouraging fracking. Instead it’s more important that the US *says* the “right things” than that they *do* the “right things”.

          Conclusion — European leaders aren’t actually interested in lowering emissions, they are just interested in enacting policies in the name of lowering emissions. Why is that do you think?

          Proposed anti-AGW policies do far more economic damage than the mild warming we’ve experienced has, or that can be reasonably projected for the future. If the UN wanted to be accurate, they should say “climate change policy impacts have never been worse.”

        • That is a simple question to answer Ivan, They have not resorted to the ultimate safe clean fossil fuel of natural gas, for the same reason they have not adopted the ultimate clean energy source of nuclear power generation.
          It is called the EU green lobby. They don’t operate on all logic cylinders either.

        • European countries aren’t fracking, even in countries with promising formations like the UK, because of pressure from greens (with assistance from Russia). (Cameron and his successor have spoken out for fracking.) Scotland has banned it.

          • Instead of saying the general statement “pressure from greens” why not be more specific – because Europeans are generally not dumbasses who want to destroy their environment by injecting a highly potent mix of cocktails into the soil which will eventually impact groundwater tables. The US is facing an environmental ticking time bomb – mark my words. LOL

          • If Europeans believe that what gets injected into the ground during frac’ing is highly toxic, then they are indeed dumb asses.

            If they believe that these frac’ing compounds will inevitably contaminate ground water, then they are double dumb asses.

            By definition, areas being frac’ed are beneath impermeable layers of rock. If they weren’t there would be no oil or gas to be extracted, it would have leaked to the surface millions of years ago.

          • Biggest load of B.S. I have heard for a very long time. Believe that and you’re even more of an idiot than I thought.

          • PS: I remember a press conference where the governor of Colorado drank a glass of the stuff.

            Seems that as usual, what Ivanski is paid to believe and reality are different.

        • Why do you think?
          It makes more economic sense – coal is relatively easier to extract. Coal is a fantastic resource and we should be making as much use of it as possible. Simples.

          • Except for the huge environmental costs. Once those are factored in then both become untenable. Black to green however is a win-win – renewable and clean energy, so the more the better.

          • The only “environmental cost” is in your delusional imagination.

            CO2 is a huge benefit for the environment, and even open pit mines are refurbished when they are closed.

          • “Black to green however is a win-win – renewable and clean energy, so the more the better.”
            I presume Ivan’s never heard of spinning reserve….

    • Funny how you never advocate putting pressure on China, which even you admit produces twice as much CO2 as the US, and growing.

      Regardless, since CO2 is incapable of doing harm to the planet, why should we do anything to keep the levels of it down. For plants, the ideal level of CO2 is somewhere north of 1000ppm. Why do you hate plants so much?

  19. Aahh, the United Nations.
    That wonderful organization that can confront an impossibly disastrous scenario – and make it infinitely worse.

    • It seems to me that most US sceptics are pretty tight with their wallets – wasting money on this, wasting money on that, stealing my money to give to poorer people etc. etc. (no criticism implied – it’s their choice as to how they spend their $s). As such, as soon as their house and property gets hit by an extreme weather event, they will most likely be at the front of the queue demanding federal assistance money to bail them out. LOL

      • “It seems to me that most US sceptics are pretty tight with their wallets“
        …..and thank god for that.
        We in the west live with a democratic structure and when the majority of people decide that it’s in their own interest and benefit to shut down the oil and gas that helps to make the market economy run, then it will happen.
        ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Adam Smith

        • Oh – did I touch a nerve there Randle. I reckon there are quite a few former Trump supporters in TX, FL and CA who, after being hit by extreme weather events have now clocked that global warming is not something people just talk about. They have also seen how clueless he is on the issue and decided to vote BLUE…

      • “stealing my money to give to poorer people etc. etc.”

        That’s the left, not the skeptics. The skeptics give their OWN money to charities, not other people’s. As usual, you have it bass ackwards.

      • To socialists like Ivan, the worst sin is desiring to keep the money you have earned, rather than give it to people like him.

        PS: I love the way Ivan projects his own character flaws onto everyone else.

      • Weather events always have and always will affect mankind. If you build in the way of her, she just might burn you down or blow you over. It’s the way it’s always been dim bulb.

  20. I will reiterate. Glaciers in my opinion should be the focal point of where we are heading. Most glaciers in north America are less than 8000 years old, some by a lot. This tells us that it was warmer years ago and the earth is cooling off now. John Kehr theory is that the earth is never in heat balance and will oscillate from warmer to cooler and back. Look at daily variations in temperature if you do not believe that. We can swing 50 degrees in a few days here in New York for example. The medieval warm period caused the little ice age which in turned caused the recent warm spell which will now cause a cold period. I recommend you read John Kehr’s book for real enlightenmen. It certainly reinforced my own beliefs.

  21. “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies.”

    And yet our trolls keep whining that global warming has nothing to do with politics.

  22. So let’s start a list of the climate change effects. I’ll start:
    1. About 15% more green vegetation worldwide.
    2. About $2 trillion up in smoke.
    3. Greens are angry…that creates heat.
    4. ?

  23. “Climate change impacts have never been worse”

    …and every person on Earth has never been closer to death than they are right now.

  24. Just a general observation:

    UNFCCC — ” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”???

    NO !

    “United Nations Fake Climate Catastrophism Consensus”

    Sorry I cannot contribute anything of more depth here.

  25. A recollection of the Holocene transgression came to mind in response to the title. THERE was some sea level rise for ya.

    Oh, yes, and the Polies and Corals kept up with it.

  26. The climate (alt) reality project is doing a live 24 hour propaganda blitz that 8 million have signed up for. Watched Gore’s 10 minute presentation of lies and distortions which the subscribers will swallow whole. Scary that so many people think the future of humanity is at stake.

    • “Scary that so many people think the future of humanity is at stake.”

      It is scary. But considering that the CAGW narrative is being promoted by every official organ of society (politicians, news media, entertainment media, universities, teachers unions, scientific associations), I think it is amazing how many people there are who do *not* buy into the CAGW hysteria. I think it is understandable that most people are not worried about CAGW because they don’t see it happening in their lives and it is encouraging that people trust their own senses rather than believe the hyperbole about CAGW that is all over the Public Square.

      • Thanks for the positive take Tom!

        With the Dems making climate a priority a large percent of the population will embrace the psychotic delusion of CAWG. My experience is that people can’t accept that they have been brainwashed so cling to irrational beliefs in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

  27. The UK Met office has just released its predictions from 2070, so adding to the breath taking, faint-inducing roller-coaster ride of terrifying projections emerging from Poland.

    The UK “Could” be 5.4 degrees C hotter in 2070. The operative word is could. This means that the rate of warming is going to increase by a factor of 10 tomorrow until 2070.

    I suppose it could happen, but is it really likely?

    We also have to be prepared for a 1.5M increase in sea level, which appears to 500 time the stable observed rate of 3mm/year. I suppose it could happen, but is it really likely?

    I really cannot understand how a supposedly world-class scientific organisation could predict this, when there is no data to suggest that it is going to happen. Do they have anyone in the organisation who is prepared to say “wait a minute – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

  28. “Climate change impacts have never been worse,” But according to the paleoclimate record, climate change impacts have been a lot worst. For example, the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet the last ice age followed. The current modern interglacial period is gradually getting cooler but it may take many thousands of years for the current interglacial period to transition into the next 100K year ice age. We should enjoy the relative warm climate while it lasts.

    Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

    The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. No such radiant greenhouse effect has ever been observed, in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or any where else in the solar system for that mater. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction.

  29. Patricia Espinosa has a BA in International Relations and a law degree plus is a gender warrior so she must must be obeyed about climate because the UN says so.

  30. THESE “people” are sick mofos. Good grief. Where I live it’s about as good as it gets climatologically speaking and for many areas on earth it is the same. Life is good.

Leave a Reply

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