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.
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.
Belief in the CAGW Cause makes people do (and say) strange, idiotic things.
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.
Typical Ivanski, insult rather than deal with reality.
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….
They leave it in the ground because of idiots like you ivanski.
Because they are dumb.
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?
BWAH HA HA! I laugh in your general direction you gullible one.
As the planet moves inexorably towards a new cooler future the take home message from the overheated UN-IPCC forum is …
http://allnewspipeline.com/images/the_end_is_near.jpg
Aahh, the United Nations.
That wonderful organization that can confront an impossibly disastrous scenario – and make it infinitely worse.
>UN Patricia Espinosa: “Climate change impacts have never been worse”<
LOL :))
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
As I have said before, you are an idiot, you really know nothing
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…
And now you are just blithering
Once again, Ivanski shows how little he knows.
If weather is bad, it’s because of CO2.
He’s actually dumb enough to believe that.
Ivan,
Extreme weather events happened in the past and will occur in the future. There is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing in frequency or severity.
Ivan, you have no idea how to make a cogent argument since you did not even try to show that extreme weather events didn’t exist before 1950……
Care to explain this,
Top 10 deadliest storms in U.S. history
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/top-10-deadliest-storms-u-s-history-article-1.2383006
9 of them long before 1950.
Ever heard of these storms, Ivan?
Galveston, Lake Okeechobee, Hurricane Audrey, Florida Keys, …..
Wow. So extreme weather is new eh? SHAKING MY HEAD!!
“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.
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.
And yet our trolls keep whining that global warming has nothing to do with politics.
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. ?
4. Longer growing season
“Climate change impacts have never been worse”
…and every person on Earth has never been closer to death than they are right now.
Nice Roy. Of course you are 100% correct…unfortunately.
>Climate change impacts have never been worse<
Its easy: Her job depends on CAGW!
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.
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.
Budget needs have gotten worse. There is even word of a booze shortage in the cocktale circuit and who will pay for the Maseratis now?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/26/apec-summit-papua-new-guinea-maserati-thousands-strike
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.
CAGW…typo
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”?
“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.
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.
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.