The snow job in Poland

IPCC climate confab seeks to stampede the world into adopting destructive energy policies

Craig Rucker

Any blizzards that blanket Poland this winter can’t compare to the massive snow job climate campaigners are trying to pull off.

Some 30,000 politicians, activists, computer modelers, bureaucrats, lawyers, journalists, renewable energy sellers and a few scientists are in Katowice, Poland December 2-14, for another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference. Four issues will dominate the agenda.

* Proclaim that humanity and planet face existential cataclysms, unless fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are slashed to zero by 2050 – to “prevent” average planetary temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) above what they were in 1820, when the Little Ice Age ended and the modern industrial era began.

* Finalize 300 pages of “guidelines,” to implement the Paris climate agreement – by driving the switch from coal, oil and natural gas to wind, solar and biofuel energy.

* Reach a binding agreement that wealthy countries (excluding China and other newly rich nations) must transfer at least $100 billion annually to poor countries.

* Ensure “transparency” on discussions, disclosures and treaty compliance.

This entire agenda deserves skepticism and ridicule.

Earth’s climate is always changing somewhere, due to powerful natural forces over which humans have no control. To say we can now perpetuate current conditions by controlling emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is sheer fantasy.

Average global temperatures have already (thankfully) risen nearly a degree since 1820. To suggest that another half degree would be catastrophic is absurd. Indeed, average temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm Period – and except during recent El Niño events have barely risen since 1998, even as CO2 levels climbed significantly, spurring plant growth worldwide.

Constant references to the “hottest ever” day or month involve hundredths of a degree, less than the margin of measurement error, often by activist scientists who have a history of doctoring data. They also ignore record cold snaps, like this Thanksgiving weekend in the U.S. Northeast.

Human activities certainly affect climate and weather to some degree, at least locally. But there is no real-world evidence that they have major (much less cataclysmic) impacts. Computer models say otherwise, but their record for accuracy is abysmal to zero.

Regarding guidelines to implement Paris, they would put the United Nations and IPCC in charge of our energy use, economies, lives and living standards – which would be disastrous. Fossil fuels still provide 80% of all U.S. and global energy; wind and solar provide less than 5% and only intermittently.

Forcing us to convert to wind and solar would increase electricity prices ten times over – and blanket areas many times the size of California with turbines, panels, batteries, and huge mines to dig out the raw materials needed for these “eco-friendly, climate-safe, sustainable” replacements.

Expensive, unreliable “renewable” energy would destroy jobs and economies, depress living standards, keep poor nations impoverished – and cause conflicts, famines and refugee migrations, as countries fight over increasingly scarce energy, food and resources.

Developing countries say they were promised $100 billion a year, for starters, plus free energy technology transfers. That’s the primary reason they signed the Paris climate treaty.

They’re angry that barely $3.5 billion has been put on the table, and rich countries say they cannot afford to pay more, especially if they’re also supposed to slash their fossil fuel use and thus economic prosperity.

The biggest snow job is any claimed devotion to transparency. Secrecy and deception are fundamental to the IPCC process. Anyone who questions the “fossil fuels cause climate chaos” thesis is silenced. So is anyone who suggests that data and evidence should determine policy – instead of computer models.

Katowice organizers are furious that a Trump Administration exhibit will highlight the remarkable benefits of fossil fuels. They vilify scientists who emphasize the sun’s vital role in climate change, or point out the many ways that temperature, storm, drought and other climate data are cherrypicked, “homogenized,” manipulated or even fabricated to drive alarmist narratives. They ignore the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 1970-1976 global cooling scare.

The real IPCC and Paris treaty agenda is simple. Blame humans and fossil fuels for virtually all climate and weather events. Control energy use, economic growth and living standards – lowering them in industrialized countries and limiting them in developing nations. Redistribute the world’s wealth and resources. And replace the capitalist economic model with a global green socialist system, controlled by the UN, IPCC and green activists.

Lack of energy, jobs, safe water and decent living standards is a far more pressing issue for poor countries than climate change. No wonder Asia alone already has some 2,000 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants operating or under construction. That’s nearly twice as much as total US summertime generating capacity.

Meanwhile, every Irish household faces new carbon taxes of $3,000 to $5,000 a year (!) unless their government imposes equally costly measures to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions and avoid paying punitive EU fines. To gauge likely Irish reaction to that, look to France – where tens of thousands have been rioting over President Macron’s plans to implement higher carbon taxes.

Climate insanity needs to be reined in. CFACT’s delegation to Katowice is working hard to get that process underway.

Craig Rucker is president of CFACT, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank devoted to sound science for both people and planet.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
December 10, 2018 8:38 am

“Human activities certainly affect climate and weather to some degree, at least locally. But there is no real-world evidence that they have major (much less cataclysmic) impacts.”


It seems to me that RGHE theory might be founded on the popular misconception that space is cold, 3 K to 5 K. Just ask around, conduct a little survey, poll the “experts.”

1) Space is cold
a. The atmosphere is like a bed blanket making the underneath warmer compared to the cooler overneath. How does that work?
b. Due to surface BB upwelling 396 W/m^2 and GHG “trapping” and net downwelling 333 W/m^2.
c. As demonstrated by experiment the contiguous participating media renders such surface BB LWIR impossible.
d. The actual reason for the surface temperature is the difference created by the atmospheric thermal resistance per Q = U A dT as demonstrated daily by the insulated walls of a house.

2) Space is hot
a. 1,368 W/m^2, 394 K, 121 C, 250 F as actually experienced on the International Space Station, space walkers and the lunar surface.
b. The atmosphere acts as a reflective shield similar to one placed behind a car’s windshield reflecting energy away and reducing the temperature inside the car, i.e. cooling. Without an atmosphere and the 30% albedo the earth would receive 20% to 40% more kJ/h of solar energy for a temperature increase of 20 C to 30 C.

The atmosphere cools the earth by reflecting away 30% of the ISR.

The atmosphere does not warm the earth per RGHE theory.

No RGHE = no CO2/GHG warming = no man-caused climate change.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
December 10, 2018 10:50 am


The space near Earth is kinetically cold, but radiantly hot owing to the Sun and radiantly lukewarm owing to emissions by Earth. There’s no matter to heat in space, but when we put matter there, it will absorb radiant energy and warm up. Conflating radiation with temperature in order to ‘linearize’ the relationship is the source of so much bad science it would be funny if not for the evil agenda behind the ‘climate change’ scare.

What you are calling the ‘thermal resistance’ is the attenuation of radiant surface emissions between the surface and space and amounts to a net 38% reduction in the planet emissions, relative to surface emissions. What makes this different from an insulated house is that attenuation varies pseudo-chaotically over a relatively large range based on cloud coverage. In the steady state, these attenuated emissions can only be returned to the surface or emitted into space. The atmosphere actually absorbs closer to 76% of what the surface emits leaving the planets emissions about 150 W/m^2 short of what it needs for balance. The extra energy comes from surface emissions that were absorbed in the past and emitted by the atmosphere into space. What’s left from what was absorbed (about another 150 W/m^2) is returned to the surface allowing it to become warmer that it would be based on 239 W/m^2 of solar energy alone. Note that for Earth, the only source of absorption and emission by the atmosphere are GHG’s and the liquid and solid water in clouds. The O2/N2 are just bystanders to the radiant balance.

Consider this. If the Earth had the same N2/O2 as it currently has but no GHG’s and no water. The albedo would be about 0.1 and the average surface temperature would be about 271K. Since this atmosphere is completely transparent to LWIR, the outbound radiant flux from the surface to space is a relatively constant 307 W/m^2, while the kinetic temperature of the atmosphere as it’s heated from the surface will decrease based on a lapse rate.

Note that the radiant temperature throughout the atmosphere is constant, while it’s kinetic temperature decreases between the surface and space. Conflating these seems to make people want to think that these two temperatures are the same throughout the atmosphere, but they are only connected at the surface.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2018 4:18 pm

“The space near Earth is kinetically cold (no molecules), but radiantly hot (photons) owing to the Sun…”
Yeah, what I said. Which means that without an atmosphere the earth will be hot just like the moon and ISS and not cold like RGHE says. On top of which 288 K – 255 K = 33 C is 100% horse manure.

“…is returned to the surface…”
This entire paragraph is handwavium nonsense. “back” radiation is not possible. No BB from surface means no up/down/”back” loop.

Averages are confusing crap, the max/mins are what matter. With a 0.1 albedo the earth would get 29% more net kJ/h and the only way the ASR temperature will go is up, 24 C.

The radiant temperature is different from lit side to dark and from pole to pole.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 10, 2018 5:18 pm


Back radiation from the atmosphere returning to the surface is the only possible way that the Earth’s surface can be warmer than the Sun can do on its own. Refer back to the O2/N2 only atmosphere. It can be 1 ATM or 100 ATM and the surface temperature will be the same as it would be without any atmosphere at all. Add a layer of clouds thermally independent from the surface below and in direct equilibrium with the Sun heating the atmosphere from above and the surface below a 100 ATM atmosphere will be much warmer than the surface below a 1 ATM atmosphere for the reason you stated, but this doesn’t apply to an atmosphere heated from below like that of the Earth.

The only possible way to quantify anything about climate change is by a change to the average. Don’t get hung up on the fact that the average isn’t representative of any single point on the surface at a single tine. It’s actually representative of all of them across an interval of time.

With a .1 albedo, the incident energy would be about 307 W/m^2 corresponding to 271.3 K, which is not 24C warmer than 255K. but only 17C warmer. And yes, the temperature varies from pole to pole, but the average emissions == average incident energy in the steady state and the ‘average temperature’ is only properly considered as the EQUIVALENT Stefan-Boltzmann temperature of the geometric average emissions by the surface.

The lit side is irrelevant to averages. Relative to climate change, averages are over increments of years, so night/day and seasonal change all average together. W/m^2 are very linear with respect to each other and can be geometrically summed together and averaged over time without loosing any accuracy or precision. This is not true with degrees of temperature and you’re extending this non linearity into the linear power domain. The IPCC conflates W/m^2 with degrees by their ‘linearized sensitivity expressed as degrees per W/m^2 which is a significant source of confusion.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2018 8:29 pm

“Back radiation from the atmosphere returning to the surface is the only possible way that the Earth’s surface can be warmer than the Sun can do on its own.”

What nonsense!! “Back” radiation is needed because the sun can’t do it by itself.
Leave a pipe wrench on the driveway in July. It will get too hot to pick up. That means over 140 F. The sun did that all by itself not the “back” radiation. Put your hand on the hood of a black car sitting all August afternoon in the stadium parking lot. Well over 140 F. The sun did that all by itself.
Gross from the sun:
1,368 W/m^2, 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Net with 30% albedo:
957.6 W/m^2, 360.5 K, 87.5 C, 189.5 F.
That’s more than enough energy & temperature from the sun to cook stuff to over 140 F all by itself.
The following seems to be the source of the notion that the sun needs “back” radiation help.
“Averaging” the discular ISR over the spherical ToA by dividing by 4:
Gross ISR:
342 W/m^2, 278.7 K, 5.7 C, 42.3 F.
Net ASR w/ 30% albedo:
240 W/m^2, 255 K, -18 K, -0.4 F.
Yeah, in both of these scenarios the sun will need help, but only because this averaging application is incompetent, stupid and dumb beyond belief. That’s not even close to how the earth actually heats and cools.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 10, 2018 7:25 pm

The moon is hot on the dayside, if you are in the Sun.
But on the night side, or in a shadow, the moon if very cold.
And it is only the ground surface that is hot in the sun…place a shade overhead and stand there and your feet would be very hot and your head would be losing heat rapidly, as would the surface.
An Earth with no atmosphere would be dead, but it would be the same as the moon, hot and very cold. And fried by UV.

Reply to  Menicholas
December 10, 2018 8:23 pm

The 672 hour day also matters. It makes the day/night peaks further apart while not affecting the daily average when expressed in W/m^2 and in its equivalent temperature.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Menicholas
December 10, 2018 8:32 pm

NIkolov & Kramm didn’t seem to think the rotation made that much difference.

Lit side goes to 390 K quickly, night cools to 100 K quickly.

Either way the 33 C warmer with atmosphere is complete baloney!!!!

Kevin A
Reply to  Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
December 10, 2018 11:21 am

Did a Google search on RGHE theory and got pages of The Theory of Everything (2014 film) but nothing on the RGHE theory just page after page of subjects with ‘theory’ but no RGHE theory. A search on returned pages of RGHE theory like which is to suggest Goggle is now blocking ALL websites that do not follow the narrative of AGW. Needless to say I just switched my search engine and am informing my elected politicians about this destructive censorship.

Kevin A
Reply to  Kevin A
December 10, 2018 12:12 pm

To find a replacement for the google search engine I did a quick test:
Really Good ranking means they returned pages of the term searched on
Good [ranking] is they returned the term searched on
Fair ranking, returned some results
Bad ranking was a clone of Google censured results with Google being the worst search engine since they have become a propaganda arm of the socialist democrats. really good really good good good good Europe good good good weird junk google clone in Russia good fair but broken fair with limited returns china bad bad google weird bad bad the lowest worst search engine since it is the one providing all the other clones with the censured results.

Reply to  Kevin A
December 10, 2018 7:31 pm

Everyone should be 100% aware, long since, that relying on Google for accurate and unbiased search is like looking to CNN for news, Snopes for fact checking, or Wikipedia for general info: On any issue subject to political propaganda, completely worthless.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
December 10, 2018 12:34 pm

What does RHGE denote?

The stratosphere starts where the troposphere stops cooling with height.

The ISS orbits in the ionophere, i.e., it’s being bathed by a plasma – which is a different ball game from trying to stay warm on the Earth’s surface with a predominately molecular gas blanket.

The plasma is being accelerated by electromagnetic forces – and charge accumulates on the surface of the ISS – in addition to the radiation pressure.

Temperature is terrible metric for energy.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  cinaed
December 10, 2018 4:01 pm


It’s RGHE – Radiative GreenHouse Effect

For molecules temperature is THE metric.

Kevin A
Reply to  cinaed
December 10, 2018 8:02 pm

#cinaed, the ISS information was from another post that related to: “And under the extremely unlikely possibility that the Deutch Energy Tax does everything it is claimed to do, if by 2050 it reduces our CO2 emissions all the way down to ten percent of their 2015 values, the atmospheric concentration in 2050 will be lowered by only three measly ppmv, down from 502 ppmv to 499 ppmv. ”
That is the 499 ppmv, ISS 5,300 ppmv and the people is it are alive and happy, at any rate the CO2 level is meaningless from the context that temperature leads CO2, the whole RGHE is junk in that every year the forcing value for CO2 keeps getting lower but lower is meaningless since ‘temperature leads CO2, which means CO@ is not the cause of increased temperatures.

December 10, 2018 8:45 am

History will remember global warming as one of the biggest…if not the biggest….ponzi schemes/scams ever invented…
We give the UN money….the UN turns around and gives our money to countries to vote against us

wash rinse repeat

Reply to  Latitude
December 10, 2018 9:08 am

Global warming is only the bastard progeny of the “phony socialism is really really good for poor people” scam, unfortunately, as the climate scam is being destroyed by real science, but the bigger scam continues.

….. although perhaps not in Paris. Pity this latest expensive BS-fest couldn’t have actually been in Paris this week. When kleptocracy meets reality.

Reply to  Latitude
December 10, 2018 9:13 am

I would characterize the acts of the IPCC/UNFCCC/World Bank as extortion masquerading as a protection racket.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2018 11:08 am

They should be prosecuted under RICO–The Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act! Everything they do criminal!

December 10, 2018 8:50 am

This confab in Poland demonstrates the need for long range mega party jets like the one Boeing is starting to pitch.

December 10, 2018 8:58 am

You forgot to add that converting to 100% wind and solar would actually increase the overall CO2 generated. Adding biofuels to the mix (e.g. in gasohol) has already increase the price of corn to the point where more people are starving.

Reply to  joe
December 10, 2018 9:13 am

That’s just another BS myth Joe:

comment image

Reply to  philincalifornia
December 10, 2018 9:46 am

The major myths surrounding renewables are that they are cheaper and that they have any effect on the climate by reducing CO2. The only effect they have is to make energy prohibitively expensive, moreover; the climate impact would still be insignificantly small even if the effect from CO2 was the absurdly over-estimated effect claimed by the IPCC and the self serving ‘consensus’ surrounding the reports they generate.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2018 2:57 pm

Yes indeed, but the myths surrounding bioethanol are equally (actually way lesser) stupid myths (unnamed Mexicans dying of starvation because they couldn’t afford a tortilla type crap). In fact the dry distiller’s grains that are the product of the good components of corn (proteins, lipids, etc.) are converted to T-bone steaks and healthy chickens, while the waste starch is converted to bioethanol as a by-product.

Jim Reedy
Reply to  philincalifornia
December 10, 2018 9:48 pm

The consensus of papers (search terms Biofuels effect on food prices)
suggest that there is a Price impact.
And as we know, consensus ‘science’ is the only way to go
first page of results has only 2 studies ‘debunking’ (both results were for the same study) and many more that support that it is impacting food prices
if we take the invalid 97% of scientists thing and apply it to these papers…
97% of articles returned for the search terms claim you are wrong.

December 10, 2018 9:05 am

Did somebody say “snow”?

comment image

That’s the measurement I made at about 12:00 Noon, December 9, 2018 (Yesterday) here in a central-NC city, where communities around me were getting inch readings in the teens.

But I digress. Poland, yes, what a snow job — perfect for manipulating snowflakes, wouldn’t you say?

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
December 10, 2018 9:20 am

In the following days in Poland it will be snowing.

December 10, 2018 9:15 am

A couple of years ago my ancient furnace died. No problem, I bought some cheap electric heaters to use until a new furnace could be installed. The first thing I did when I bought my 1947 house in 1980 was to install new insulation well beyond what was required by the (1980) building code. In spite of that, the cost of electric heat was eye watering.

We have a government policy that, starting in 2030, all new houses have to be heated by electricity. link Ouch. I do realize that houses can be built such that they need very little heat. There’s still cooking and water heating that could be done with natural gas. Since so little heat would be required what’s the problem with heating with natural gas. In fact, the house could be heated off the water heater.

On the same theme, someone I know in the Netherlands just moved into a new apartment. Over there, you have to supply your own heating appliance. She’s going with electric because they’re phasing out natural gas in two years. Her apartment building is old and poorly insulated. I’m guessing that she will have to seriously ration the heat.

It’s a very expensive snow job.

Reply to  commieBob
December 10, 2018 1:52 pm

Isn’t that the country where you have to cycle everywhere? Only possible because it is small and cramped. Like their minds.

December 10, 2018 9:35 am

Look on the bright side. Assuming they reach agreement on payments rich countries have to make to poor countries, it will be difficult for Democrats to reverse Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris accord. I can’t imagine the American public will put up with that kind of extortion.

December 10, 2018 9:42 am

Skepticism against climate change is a serious illness whose causes are incomprehensible. It is true that green solutions are costing and endangering a lot of workforce, but it is completely incomprehensible why some are opposed to geoengineering solutions whose expenditure is negligible.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 10:12 am

Climate Belief is a mental illness afflicting the weak-minded.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 10:32 am


“negligible” – is the reason that NASA hasn’t attempted to measure the Greenhouse Gas property of Carbon Dioxide on Mars, where the atmosphere is 95% CO2, the fear that it will be found to be ‘negligible’?

Or is it because it can’t be measured? And, if it can’t be measured, does it exist?

Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 10:40 am

Certainly a lot of geoengineering “solutions” would be presented and tried once these arrogant grant seeking academics are joined by big industry lobbyists. They could spray an endless list of chemicals into the atmosphere, spread dark compounds on snow, and try loads of new truly creative ideas. What could possibly go wrong?

Mike of the North
Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 11:08 am

It’s skepticism against catastrophic climate change that is caused by humans, and against the uninformed, ignorant belief that CO2 has been proven to be the cause of any temperature rise outside of that caused by the physical presence of the trace gas itself. This skepticism is caused by belief in the Scientific Method. Maybe you’ve heard of it but I doubt it based on your post. Enjoy your life of group think.

Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 11:28 am


No one here denies climate change, it changes all the time, whether we are here on the planet or not.
What we are skeptical about is catastrophic man made global warming because of CO2.

Eugene S Conlin
Reply to  PeterinMD
December 12, 2018 10:42 am

Peter, methinks Malkom700 forgot to add the /sarc tag

JR Port
Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 11:53 am

Never met anyone skeptic of climate change. However, the majority of scientifically informed accurately question dangerous warming (DAGW) from a slight increase in an integral building block of all life-CO2- from geologically dangerous levels during the recent glaciation a mere 12k years ago.

These well-reasoned folks point out the 1 degree warming since the calamitous LIA that saw human populations devastated has been very positive for Gaia’s humanity, fauna and flora.

Satellites demonstrate ~15% global greening from the small increases in warming and CO2- clearly higher levels of CO2 have been very beneficial. Further, C3 plants evolved at CO2 levels nearly 1000% higher and the geological range of CO2 from 180ppm to >7000ppm illustrates the foolishness of viewing 410ppm as dangerous when plant life begins dying below 180ppm.

Skeptics of DAGW also point out that it was warmer 1000, 2000, 3500 years ago- in fact most of the 11.5K Holocene ushering in advanced humanity has been significantly warmer. In fact, the dark ages and LIA periods of cool were the most devastating periods for humanity. The Younger Dryas ended with a 8-10C increase in decades and has resulted in advanced human civilization. The idea that 1C warming from deadly levels of cold over 200 years is unprecedented and dangerous is absurd.

Further, the realists point out the most robust periods of life on earth occurred during temperatures much higher than present. Neither temps 8-10C higher nor CO2 levels 1000% higher created runaway global warming- in fact they corresponded with periods of enhanced life.

They also point out that the DAGW panic has been perpetuated by a small cabal of government scientists that have used 390x algorithms, spliced and cherry-picked data, falsified models, altered climate records and engaged in FOIA and peer-review subversion.

Skeptics laugh at the bogus 97% settled science nonsense when 1000’s of international scientists remain skeptical- including many of Gaia’s top earth and atmospheric scientists. When analyzed, the 97% turned out to be .3%.

Those viewing the real science are amazed at the irony of those claiming higher temps/CO2 are anti-green and conclude they are either self-serving gravy-trainers or profoundly ignorant.


Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 1:48 pm

mal – Your lack of engineering/science skill has made you gullible to mob think. Ironically CO2 has little to nothing to do with climate but the rising water vapor does. WV has been rising about twice as fast as calculated from temperature increase. The warming is welcome (and self limiting) but the increasing risk of precipitation related flooding needs to be attended to.

A C Osborn
Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 1:52 pm

You forgt the Sarc tags.

Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 1:53 pm

malkom700, you forgot the /sarc tag.

Reply to  malkom700
December 10, 2018 7:44 pm

” but it is completely incomprehensible why some are opposed to geoengineering solutions”

Solutions to what, exactly?
Solutions without an underlying problem are fantasies, except for the ones which are sc@ms, r@ckets, and con jobs.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Menicholas
December 10, 2018 8:35 pm

Yeah, look what a couple of rabbits did for Australia.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 11, 2018 1:12 pm

I was not aware anyone was talking about ecological problems caused by the introduction of exotic species.
I was not.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Menicholas
December 11, 2018 3:27 pm

It’s about unintended consequences.

Tom Gelsthorpe
December 10, 2018 9:43 am

The 30,000 big shots gathering at the Palace of Versailles — er, the Polish confab — have to figure out how to keep the peasants poor, scared and docile, while keeping themselves exempt. Nobody really wants to be poor.

“I’m too important to quit flying. You schlubs? That’s another story.”

December 10, 2018 9:52 am

Quote ‘global cooling scare 1970 -1976’? Is that right? I thought 1940-1970.

John Endicott
Reply to  jolan
December 10, 2018 9:58 am

approx. 1940-1970 was when temps were cooling. approx. 1970-1976 was when the scare stories of the coming ice age were the rage (after which global warming became the big thing).

Reply to  John Endicott
December 10, 2018 10:52 am

John E.
Thanks for the info.

D. Anderson
December 10, 2018 10:19 am

The fact that they ignore China’s mind boggling coal power plant building spree tells you all you need to know about their true agenda is.

Reply to  D. Anderson
December 10, 2018 10:41 am

+1 You don’t see/hear anything about it on the MSM either. So if/when we have a serious global temperature dip will China be the villain or the hero?

Reply to  D. Anderson
December 10, 2018 5:20 pm

They also just manipulated to have Human Rights removed from the COP rulebook for obvious reason.

December 10, 2018 10:40 am

Apparently, global warming activists are speechless in Katowice as yellow vests protests spread Europe-wide with unexpected intensity.

John F. Hultquist
December 10, 2018 10:41 am

has already increase the price of corn to the point where more people are starving.

A statement such as this should be accompanied by (#1) a report of corn prices since 10 or so years before ethanol was mandated in gasoline, and (#2) some research showing that people are starving because of this use.

#2 or a third source should explain other reasons why people are starving and how one can tell if that is because of corn price or one of the other things. Consider Venezuela’s starving people — what’s corn got to do with it?

The Cob
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 11, 2018 1:01 pm

“What’s corn, but a second-hand emulsion”

James Snook
December 10, 2018 10:47 am

Brexit is dominating the news in the U.K. and even the BBC hasn’t been touting climate Armageddon for the last week.
I thought that COP24 finished this weekend but it lasts a ludicrous two weeks. It must be the only conference in the World that runs for two weeks, but the alarmists do like to have their snouts in the trough at every opportunity.

David Chappell
Reply to  James Snook
December 10, 2018 12:00 pm

Well, if amongst other things, they have a 300-page book for 30,000 people to edit, they need the time.

December 10, 2018 10:48 am

Their extreme policy haste stems from knowing internally that a cooling cycle is in the offing with definitive satellite data to track it. Attacking satellite data and pushing as hard as possible now in policy forums is the activist answer. The slopes of the cycle curve are turning against them, most notably in the Atlantic.

Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2018 10:52 am

Meanwhile, the “evil four” – US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait refused to “welcome” the recent IPCC jump-the-shark moment uber-climatrophic “report”, causing it to be relegated to merely being “noted”, and during the ensuing hue and cry, wailing, gnashing of teeth, perhaps even rending of garments, Australia sat silent, leading to suspicions that they were complicit. The schadenfreude is almost too much to bear, watching the climate circus becoming a fiasco.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2018 1:59 pm

On behalf of all right-thinking Australians, I apologize for the duplicity and complicity of our government.

Reply to  Hivemind
December 10, 2018 6:20 pm

Australia is barely on speaking term with Russia since MH17 and Trump has made it quite clear what the USA position is … so I don’t understand why anyone would expect anything other than just sit and watch.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2018 5:18 pm

What was somewhat more amusing was watch them pitch all the social justice outcomes out to simply a preamble and I think some of the socialist groups have yet to wake up what happened. China did not want Human rights at the centre of any agreement and there were problems with gender equity for India and many muslim countries. Indigenous impacts got thrown because of issues with China (Tibet) and Indonesia (West Papua).

That all happened Saturday, Dec 8, 2018

I commented a couple of weeks ago that these issues were going to make any climate agreement impossible and so I wasn’t surprised it all got thrown. What will be interesting is the reaction of the socialist green elements when they work it out.

It doesn’t seem to have sunk in with many of the socialist greens that a countries sovereignty overrides any climate rules and the concept of a global human right is dead and buried. The agreement is now about a group of countries and arrangements between them nothing more.

China being the darling of the climate warriors was always going to be interesting given that they were asking for global human rights and China has been very clever in getting the human rights removed with barely a murmur so far.

Steve O
December 10, 2018 10:57 am

CAGW scaremongering is a tool.
– Redistribute wealth.
– Increase government power.

Natural supporters are socialists, and others who view increased government power as beneficial to society, those who see injustice in uneven wealth distribution, and governments themselves who always seek to increase their regulatory and taxing power.

Tom Abbott
December 10, 2018 11:09 am

From the article: “Katowice organizers are furious that a Trump Administration exhibit will highlight the remarkable benefits of fossil fuels.”

That’s pretty funny! Trump really does have a good sense of humor.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 10, 2018 11:29 am

Actually fossil fuels, unlike solar/wind, have very little impact on the surface environment, they are extracted from underground, burnt in very compact power stations and gas boilers, and provide quantities of CO2 plant food that greenhouse owners can only dream of. Whats not to like?

Reply to  climanrecon
December 10, 2018 12:53 pm

Fossil fuels are the state-of-the-art energy source!
Without them there would be catastrophic anthropogenic global waning!

Reply to  climanrecon
December 10, 2018 3:22 pm

Well heck yes, even Teslas run mostly on fossil fuels.

Flight Level
December 10, 2018 11:42 am

I can testify, no delegate/activist/politiccian flew to Katowice in other than kerosene powered aircraft.

David Chappell
Reply to  Flight Level
December 10, 2018 12:02 pm

or went on foot or by bicycle

Flight Level
Reply to  David Chappell
December 10, 2018 2:33 pm

Some might have done so, third door on the left just opposite to the elevators.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  David Chappell
December 10, 2018 10:29 pm

Soon they can go on snowshoes.

December 10, 2018 1:33 pm

Lets preempt the headlines after this magnificent coming together ends.

“We have joined together as one united force to save the world from catastrophic global warming. This is truly an historic event”.

From there they go to celebrate – 30,000 glasses of champagne * three each at 10 Euro each = Euro 900,000.

Then when the temperatures don’t rise due to natural events, they win. If they go to 1.75 to 2C they can say it was a close call and thank our lucky stars we started early.

Its a win win game for the IPCC and associated bloodsuckers, but a loose loose for the taxpayers.


Russ R.
December 10, 2018 1:48 pm

So developing countries are only getting $3.5 billion, and they are upset about that.
Put in context that we can grasp easily, that would be 3500 checks for $1,000,000.00.
And the developing countries were expecting 100,000 checks for $1,000,000.00.

And what EXACTLY are the writers of those checks getting for their money?
And the developed countries also get to cover the cost of financing unreliable energy R&D, and production, and implementation, and required infrastructure changes, and climate research, and propaganda production. And pay more for our own energy usage, and pay more for everything that needs energy in the production and distribution processes.
And most people that will be footing the bill for this do not see any discernible changes in the climate that have a noticeable effect, let alone a negative effect!
Taxpayers do expect something of value for the money they earn, even when it is confiscated before they ever see it. And saving us from the boogeymen, only works on “some of the people, most of the time”.

Joel O'Bryan
December 10, 2018 2:06 pm

Conclusions in scientific matters demand skepticism.
Climate change is purely an ideology-driven agenda.
Thus a recommended edit:

“This entire agenda deserves skepticism and ridicule.”

December 10, 2018 2:46 pm

Blizzards in Poland.
Nothing compared to ice sheet up to 3km thick across Europe during an ice age.
They occur regularly and we are due to start descending into another.
Someone should tell them that higher CO2 is probably the best way to forestall one.

Reply to  Jeff
December 10, 2018 3:28 pm

Unfortunately, given what we now know about the bounds of climate sensitivity to CO2, I think we can actually say that the chances of us being able to forestall “one” using that method are probably zero. At least we won’t have to waste time trying, and can work on inducing global warming with big solar energy deflectors in space (for example) – and that would be deflecting to the Earth.

Reply to  philincalifornia
December 10, 2018 5:39 pm

But I think we have much more to fear from a cooling planet than a warming one.
Earth has been ice free for most of its history.
But we are now in an ice age with a regular 100,000 year cycle of glaciation.
And going by the previous cycles, we are at the peak of warm interglacial
and most of the rest of the cycle will be devastatingly cold.
Surely Solar reflectors are the last thing we need, as the ice and snow does this job so well.

Reply to  Jeff
December 10, 2018 9:10 pm

You misunderstood me Jeff – or misread. I was talking about deflectors, not reflectors. It might be an effective way to warm the planet by directing more solar down to earth. Better than cramming everyone down into the tropics, or building domes over cities that would get crushed by glaciers.

Reply to  philincalifornia
December 11, 2018 12:09 am

I see now, sorry Phil.
Yes that sounds very promising.
I also read about proposals to have satellite deflectors above cities for permanent lighting too.
This could be a good small scale test for larger schemes later.

December 10, 2018 7:54 pm

Hey, lighten up, all of you pathetic, quibbling souls!!!!

Listen up! The IPCC, in its wisdom, decided to have Arnold “The Terminator” Schwarzenegger as one of their major speakers. He lives in a house in California that is barely big enough to house his bloated ego, but he wishes that he could go back in time to shut down all use of fossil fuel!

What more could ask for than someone who wants to cut off all the progress humans have ever made because he is a mordant idiot like that one????

After last week’s power outage, I have never, EVER been more happy than I was to wake up shortly after the lights came back on and to find that the furnace was running again.

The people from IPCC are running the biggest, nastiest, pocket-lining scam on the planet. It is high time they were disbanded and sent packing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sara
December 11, 2018 4:41 am

“He lives in a house in California that is barely big enough to house his bloated ego, but he wishes that he could go back in time to shut down all use of fossil fuel!”

I like Arnold’s action movies, but his statement above has to be the dumbest he has ever made. He apparently thinks that would be a solution to our present “problem”.

There are lots of clueless people in this ole world. Millions! Arnold has singled himself out as one of them.

December 11, 2018 7:48 am

Katowice Coal

Katowice Coal

Poland prepared a nice coal reception!

December 11, 2018 7:59 am

December 11, 2018 10:00 am

I guess COP-off 24 isn’t going so well for the green-blob; even in climate kool-aid addicted Norgrey, news of the big hot-air fest is conspicuous by its absence.
It can’t help the cause to read news about the US and China posting their coldest November and December temperatures on record this year. No doubt that’s yet another example of gullible warming happening right before our eyes.
News here is distracted by the Nobel politics prize awarding a MeeToo hash tag to Congo, some finger pointing about who ballsed-up in the case of Frigate versus the oil-tanker, some coverage of those unruly, simpleton farmers causing traffic jams in Paris; the only climastrology news is how shameful it is that Norgrey’s ‘climate ranking’ has fallen – something to do with getting rich selling evil oil to other people to burn while preaching the gospel about the need to save the freaken planet.
Any wonder I don’t trust the lame stream media here.

%d bloggers like this: