U.N. conference climate alarmists out of touch with energy reality as world’s nations embrace increased use of fossil fuels

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The L. A. Times published an article addressing a panel discussion at the latest U.N. climate alarmist confab in Poland touting protests by attendees regarding the need for continued use of fossil fuels.


The Times article noted that the protesters were demanding actions for the conference to embrace the climate alarmist views of the most recent UN IPCC climate report:

“Protesters on Monday disrupted the Trump administration’s only official event at the U.N. climate conference — a panel defending fossil fuels — with laughter and chants of “Keep it in the ground.”

“The panel embracing coal, natural gas and nuclear power highlighted the United States’ near-outlier status as nearly 200 other nations worked to address scientists’ warnings.”

“Other nations wanted the conference to “welcome” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warning the dangers of global warming are coming faster than predicted. The four oil- and gas-exporting nations wanted the conference to merely “note” the existence of the report, which strongly suggested drastically cutting fossil-fuel emissions by 2030 to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.”

However the panel presenters from the U.S. delegation wanted to address the importance of the continued need for future global fossil fuel use:

“The U.S. political delegation had come to the conference to promote what the Trump administration calls its “balanced approach” to energy security and accessibility, environmental protection and economic development, Griffith said. The U.S. planned to continue to supply energy to the rest of the world with coal, natural gas and nuclear power, he said. He cautioned several times against “alarmism” over climate change.”

“All too often at meetings like these, alarmism displaces pragmatic solutions to address energy and environmental concerns,” he said.”

Most of the conference attendees believe that the U.S. is out of touch with what they claim as the global “transformation” to alarmist driven climate and energy policy.

“The administration is out of step with the transformation happening across the country and the world,” said Lou Leonard, the World Wildlife Fund’s senior vice president for climate change and energy.”

However real world global energy use data (Mtoe units) clearly shows it is the U.N. conference climate alarmist attendees that are out of touch with energy and climate reality as demonstrated by the latest energy use data contained in the World Energy Outlook report of 2018 from the International Energy Agency as presented in an article by the Global Warming Policy Forum.



The GWPF articles notes that:

“It is perfectly true that the proportional increase in modern renewables, the “Other” category represented by the thin red line at the top of the chart is a significant multiple of the starting base, but even this increase is disappointing given the subsidies involved, and in any case it is almost completely swamped by the increase in overall energy consumption, and that of fossil fuels in particular. Renewables in total, modern renewables plus biofuels and waste and hydro, amounted to about 13% of Total Primary Energy in 1971, and in 2016 are almost unchanged at somewhat under 14%. Thirty years of deployment, almost half of that time under increasingly strong post-Kyoto policies, has seen the proportion of renewable energy in the world’s primary energy input creep up by about one percentage point.”

“It should therefore come as no surprise to anybody that emissions not only continue to rise, but have recently started to increase at the highest rate for several years, a point that is revealed in the latest release of the Global Carbon Budget, 2018 and can be conveniently illustrated in the chart derived from this paper’s data and published in the coverage of the Financial Times.


The World Energy Outlook 2018 report on energy use data complements the Global Carbon Project 2018 emissions data which shows that both cumulative and incremental global CO2 emissions estimates are driven by significantly increased use of fossil fuels despite decades of global government driven mandates with hundreds of billions in subsidizes pushing high cost unreliable renewables.


The L. A. Times continues to push scientifically unsupported politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda views of global energy and climate that are clearly out of touch with real world reality.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 15, 2018 6:16 am

There is a bit of humour going on at COP24 at the moment the “welcome” vs “noted” debate is back again for round 2. The new draft text is “welcomes the timely completion” so they get the word welcome in without countries have to make a judgement on the science. I suspect the compromise will fail because the “welcome” group really want science authority and it is designed specifically to avoid that.

They haven’t even got to the contentious stuff with article 6 and finance.

Bill Powers
Reply to  LdB
December 15, 2018 8:09 am

Why are all those people rioting in the streets? And why is the media doing such a poor job of reporting the significance of them? Yeah. They’re rhetorical.

Reply to  Bill Powers
December 15, 2018 8:23 am

If you mean the French rioting, it is because of increasing taxes, the latest one was on transport fuel in support of carbon tax.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  LdB
December 16, 2018 2:49 am

Well it certainly looks like it didn’t fail. COP24 has been a great success!

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 12:56 pm

What part of that was success? And if that is success, why fuss with real scientists about CAGW or Climate Change? Real, as opposed to climate scientists who follow the rules of the science of astrology, i.e., create theories that need not be validated or proven. That are ‘proven’ correct if 1) temperatures go up, 2) temperatures go down, or 3) temperatures stay the same. Substitute ‘drought’, ‘floods’, ‘hurricanes’, etc. for ‘temperatures’.

COP 24 was a great success! We’re all saved! Hallelujah! Praise Politicos!

December 15, 2018 6:23 am

“The L. A. Times continues to push scientifically unsupported politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda views of global energy and climate that are clearly out of touch with real world reality.”

could have saved a lot of typing with just one word….lying

Reply to  Latitude
December 15, 2018 10:03 am

There is no shortage of lying by the fossil fuel industry when it comes to comparing fossil fuels with nuclear.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 15, 2018 6:18 pm

“There is no shortage of lying by the fossil fuel industry when it comes to comparing fossil fuels with nuclear.”

Please prove that statement.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 16, 2018 12:38 pm

Examples? Your statement makes little sense. I can’t relate it to anything I’ve read.

Reply to  Latitude
December 15, 2018 10:06 am

Here is how modern politics works:

The far-left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, Cuba, the Former Soviet Union countries and almost all of Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa…

The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.

It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined state, looking down on all the peasants.

That is Trudeau’s strategy, and Notley’s and other leftist Canadian politicians. The anti-pipeline thugs have cost Canada $120 billion in lost petroleum revenues, and yet no progress is being made. Do you really think the left are that stupid, or is it part of their plan to control the country?

In the USA, the Democrats follow the same destructive path, and almost elected Hillary Clinton, who would have finished them off, destroying their economy and their freedom.

These leftists are traitors to their countries, and the evidence is clear – the over 100 failed countries that have already taken this disastrous path.

Ed Reid
December 15, 2018 3:31 pm

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”, Margaret Thatcher

Alan Tomalty
December 15, 2018 8:02 pm

The leftest view of the world is all wrong. They believe:
1)All cultures are equal in worth and values.
2) All religions should be respected.
3) There is an entity called free will in each human. (See the book by Bruce Hood on “The Self Illusion” that proves otherwise)
4) Equality of outcome should be aspired to ( This leads to socialism and then to dictatorship.)
5) CO2 is a pollutant
6) Green energy is nirvana
7) A hard core criminal in most cases can be converted to change and repent if only through enough reeducation.
8) There are more than 2 genders.
9) The main stream media is not biased towards leftest positions
10) The Chinese Communist party will eventually reform and stop its attempted domination of the world.
11) First past the post election systems are bad and everything should be proportional representation.
12) In past generations the non white world was noble and without violence nor discrimination (the noble savage hypothesis).
13) Open borders are compatible with the modern welfare state.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 16, 2018 7:15 am

Well said Alan – thank you.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 16, 2018 10:31 am

You bang on about all the negatives of socialism and then you get a super grifter like this one being appointed to Trump’s cabinet. Drain the swamp my arse. More like fill the swamp: http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/16/former-fossil-fuels-lobbyist-to-head-interior-department-as-zinke-exits-us-news-the-guardian/

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 5:41 pm

And we know every word of it is true because a Trump hating left wing zealot wrote it down and published it on the interwebs.
You have drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid, pal.

Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 6:37 am

The Climate Numptys’ battle cry now is: “Keep. It. In-the-ground! Keep it In-the-ground!”
To which the response should be: “We. Need. Fos-sil fuels! We need fos-sil fuels!” Or alternatively: “You. Are. Id-iots! You-are-id-iots!” Or perhaps “Plants. Love. See-oh-two! Plants love See-oh-two!” The possibilities are endless.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 8:56 am

There are many times in my professional life when I’d liked to have kept IT in the ground!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 9:55 am

The response should be molten salt thorium reactors, not more fossil fuels. But the fossil fuel industry has always hated the nuclear industry and since the beginning of nuclear has badmouthed it. Fossil fuels simply can’t compete with nuclear. Renewables compete with fossil fuels far better than fossil fuels compete with nuclear.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 15, 2018 3:08 pm

A business will always say their product is better than an alternative. That is not a reason to hate them.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 15, 2018 4:47 pm

Where are you coming from Davidsillymatty.
The lefties hate nuclear more than they hate fossil fuels .
Put up or shut up .
In any free market country if renewables produced cheaper energy than fossil fuel they would soon take over.
That’s how free markets work .
Nuclear will be the way of the future when the processes can be guaranteed to work without accidents that have troubled nuclear power plants in the past.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 15, 2018 8:06 pm

“Renewables compete with fossil fuels far better than fossil fuels compete with nuclear.”


Cancel the $120 billion/year of subsidies on solar and wind and they die tomorrow.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 16, 2018 5:47 pm

Another factor, perhaps the biggest one, is that it is the regulatory process and requirements that make nuclear so expensive.
As for all the accidents that have plagued nuclear: Huh?
Horsefeathers and hogwash.
More people die erecting and maintaining wind turbines than have died from commercial nuke plant accidents.
The record is nearly spotless.
Ask anyone in France.

BS from both sides of this comment thread.

Allan Caldwell
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 18, 2018 3:25 pm

Forget about which is better. What the world needs is more energy. From all sources. Energy provides life and a standard of living that should be available to most. So if we could quit with the climate change/CO2 nonsense and just realize that we need more energy from ALL sources, made available to all who need it, we’d be better off.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Allan Caldwell
December 19, 2018 12:01 am

Fine with me so long as conventional fossil fuel energy is replace with renewable energy wherever and whenever possible. That is why I am satisfied with the latter receiving government subsidies as the payback is much greater in the longer run.

Allan Caldwell
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 19, 2018 8:51 am

I am opposed to subsidies period. The market will always move in the direction of demand as will technology. Forcing it through subsidies is a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Renewables will make up a small portion of energy consumption for the foreseeable future. We’re spending a lot of time worrying about the wrong things.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Allan Caldwell
December 19, 2018 9:14 am

No, I disagree. Sometimes the market needs to be pushed ref. uptake of new technologies – it is like giving fertilizer or nutrients to a young plant.

Renewable technologies will pay back their original investment many times over in the long term as well as the added benefit of being beneficial to the environment. The same goes for electric vehicles – countries like China and Norway have achieved great success via their subsidies/financial incentives programmes.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 11:25 am

An addendum to “keep it in the ground” might be “so we can destroy the earth’s surface”. I’m thinking: wind farms, solar farms, mining on steroids to supply the renewable industry, miles and miles of corn for biofuels (with associated groundwater depletion, ocean deadzone expantion, etc.), and you can keep adding to the list.

December 15, 2018 6:40 am

Its so easy to be in the “gnashing our teeth, worrying our beads” camp, environmentally. Just hop on a plane, attend the Big Conference, beat one’s breast loudly while the cameras are rolling, and then circuit the country after giving Sky is Falling lectures. Dough to be made, disingenuousness be dâhmned.

One thing you gotta give The Trump Administration: it isn’t mincing words about reality. The reality is that the people of the world are clamoring to use more coal, petroleum and natural gas as fuel to empower civilization itself, every year. That is reality, without flinching from the trend. The world’s peoples energy-use demands are growing in the same way that a teenager grows: no matter how much you might want to keep our little kids little, they grow and grow… and eat more and more.

Reality is that fossil fuel demand is going to increase.
For as long as it holds its position of energy-intensity, low-cost and low technology overhead.

Wishing otherwise, will require a simultaneous revolution in energy production and storage/delivery the scale of which is comparable to that of the whole petrochemical industry itself. Huge. 30% or more of global economic activity.

My feeling is that a world full of countries that have no higher policing authority will say anything to keep doing whatever they feel like doing, for as long as possible. Which runs in the face of the ecological-sky-is-falling narrative.

Or as Latitude said (paraphrased heavily): they’re lying. We aren’t. reality

Just saying,

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  GoatGuy
December 15, 2018 7:36 am

“gnashing our teeth, worrying our beads”

Oh dear. Sorry for the OT, but can’t resist the old story about the priest who thundered about the pains of hell, where there would be
“Tears and Gnashing of Teeth! Tears and Gnashing of Teeth!!”
Whereat an old man in the congregation shouted:
“Father! I have no teeth!”
“Teeth!” roared the priest in reply, “Teeth will be provided at the entrance!”

There is no escape, and it’s worse than we thought.

R Shearer
December 15, 2018 6:48 am

I buy whole fuels only, 100% organic.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  R Shearer
December 15, 2018 6:54 am

+10 :<)

Reply to  R Shearer
December 15, 2018 8:05 am

Hahaha . . . very good. +10 indeed.

December 15, 2018 6:48 am

The simple fact is that there is no cost effective solution to replace fossil fuels.

Energy is a vital component of modern life. It is a large component of everything we do. Anything that raises the cost of energy means we need to sacrifice something else to pay the increased costs.

What are we going to give up to pay for the transition? It is no good arguing renewables will pay for themselves. What as a society are we prepared to give up to pay the cost of replacing fossil fuels.

So far no one has answered this. Rather we have vague promises that it will be painless. France is showing those promises to be hollow.

Russ R.
Reply to  Ferdberple
December 15, 2018 10:09 am

The AlGorithm is simple. Add up what they say, and what they propose, and you have a formula:
1) You give up a substantial piece of your wealth and freedom, and I will pretend to do the same.
2) Use the proceeds of this tithe to Gaia, to further build my flock of dependent voters.
3) Energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket”.
4) Jobs in the private sector jobs will become less profitable.
5) More voters will become dependent on government generosity.
6) Import unskilled labor to the places that are exporting unskilled labor jobs.
7) Take away your ability to fight back.

Joe Crawford
December 15, 2018 6:51 am

From the last chart it looks like the in-development & undeveloped CIA (i.e., China, India and All others), while preaching a good line, are still growing their fossil fuel usage and thus CO2 emissions at an ever increasing rate. And they still expect the rest of us (i.e., the EU and U.S) to give them several hundred billion of dollars a year to help? If you can con others into supporting some wild-ass dream of saving the world that a few avowed socialists and anticapitalists dreamed up why not. The gullibility of the yuppies, never challenged or taught how to think critically, has always amazed me.

Roger Knights
December 15, 2018 6:56 am

The fact that demand for fossil fuels keeps rising and swamping the growth in renewables, especially in developing countries that demonize CO2 at UN conferences, implicitly refutes green claims that renewables are cheaper, or will soon be so, or only a little more expensive. Why can’t they see it? It’s so obvious.

Reply to  Roger Knights
December 15, 2018 8:33 am

Nobody ever mentions the fact that petroleum not only supplies energy, it is the source of some 6,000 by-products, including chemicals, plastics, paint, asphalt, etc. If we were to switch to 100 % renewables, where would we get the asphalt to pave our roads, the shingles for our roofs, even the aspirins for treating the headache this stupidity is causing me.

Steve richards
December 15, 2018 7:07 am

If these climate activists want the world to run on renewable energy, then they should stop being hypocrites and volunteer to have there home electrical supply modified so that then there is no wind or solar power, their home supply is cut off. We could choose a high profile activist in each country to demonstrate the strength of there beliefs.

Reply to  Steve richards
December 15, 2018 8:07 am

If you don’t live according to your beliefs you have no beliefs.

Of course none of them do or they would simply abandon their private jets and iPhones. Palookas.

Reply to  Steve richards
December 15, 2018 8:17 am

That would be pointless and misleading . What about industry, transport, smelters etc. Lighting alone consumes 25% of all electricity produced. Darken Las Vegas, the streets and cities etc?. What fun.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ozonebust
December 15, 2018 9:09 am

Darken Las Vegas? Blasphemy! But you make a good point. Have these people ever been anywhere after dark? Imagine airports, businesses, sporting events, etc, all the things that produce commerce having to shut down at night.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 16, 2018 2:05 am

What? See the sky, the stars, the soft darkness of the real world? Never!


Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Steve richards
December 15, 2018 8:18 am

Would that be to all of their homes or just the biggest one?

Al miller
December 15, 2018 8:04 am

The ongoing refusal by the cultists to acknowledge the only “ready for prime time” alternative – nuclear- exposes the seedy underbelly of their real cause. While many true believers and acolytes gnash their teeth, the agenda pushers have openly stated this is about wealth transfer and political reform (of the worst possible kind).
-IPCC refuses to acknowledge in any way any other cause for (the perfectly natural) climate change
-So called climate change is natural and always has been
-there is no such thing as a denier – but the skeptics are many and growing in number
-97% has been proven fraudulent
-Consensus is the worst possible way to back any real science
-there is a deliberate and foul ongoing smear campaign against those who speak out against the Green Blob
-Global “Climate change” gurus are stunning hypocrites
-Top IPCC personnel have many times over admitted the cause is world socialism through. The UN
-since the goal of the movement is an unelected unaccountable world government this can only be met with great resistance by all thinking people
The list could go on ad infinitum. Thinking people (skeptics) already see these facts and many others starkly showing against the Warmista unfounded claims. Unfounded referrring to junk science, propaganda, outright lies and distortions and GIGO computer models.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Al miller
December 15, 2018 8:11 pm

“the skeptics are many and growing in number”

This is what scares the hell out of people like Mosher.

Robert W. Turner
December 15, 2018 8:15 am

How long can a charade like this last in the information age? Thank god for the internets.

That last chart is interesting, is India ramping up to an explosion of growth like China in 2000? That would be good for the Indians and the world. Let’s dig that coal up and get it to India!

Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 8:18 am

The U.S. is an island of rationality and common sense in a sea of stupidity, lies and outright insanity.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 8:43 am

. . . with the understanding that that sea is all too willing to accept the megatons of money that flows into it from the island year after year.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 10:06 am

1/2 if the USA is rational, the rest are liberals.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2018 6:21 pm

“The U.S. is an island of rationality and common sense in a sea of stupidity, lies and outright insanity.”

A trillion dollars per year for the military industrial complex contradicts that claim.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Wally
December 15, 2018 8:14 pm

Many, many people in countries formerly in the Soviet Union give great thanks that the US spent such large sums of money on its military industrial complex.

I know I sleep much better knowing that a portion of such funds is being used directly to fight the global war on terrorism. I am forever thankful we have such a strong military.

Contrary to what you state, the US does, by and large, remain a country of rationality and common sense in comparison to most of Earth’s other nations . . . despite the uncontested shortcomings and failings that it has.

Have you already departed the island for the sea?

December 15, 2018 8:23 am

December 15, 2018 8:45 am

The irony is they are only able to protest in the first place because it was not ‘kept in the ground ‘

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  knr
December 15, 2018 9:00 am

. . . and let’s not overlook that they had the freedom to have that meeting in Poland primarily because several of the world’s greatest users of fossil fuels were able to free the country from its occupation by the empire of an unquestionably-evil mustached dictator (and his then-sidekick totalitarian ally country).

December 15, 2018 9:04 am

In other news
The Mayor of B.C. ski town sends letter to energy companies asking them to pay for effects of climate change.
Result: CIBC pulls energy sector from Whistler investor conference, mayor apologizes for climate change letter.
Also, the mayor owns a shuttle service that transports guests from Vancover to Whistler.

Peta of Newark
December 15, 2018 9:56 am

The Interweb is a Wonderful Thing – lookee what I’ve just been invited to:
(its a webinair that’s on tomorrow and will be selling *something* but the antennae are all-a-twitch)

The Initial Pitch:

Financial stress is bad for your health. No big surprise there. And with all the extra spending around the holiday season, stress about money tends to get even worse.

Most people think that the key to less financial stress is to have more money — and spend most of their lives trying to get it (often creating a lot of stress in the process!). But did you know that according to new research, some people with monetary wealth have even more money stress than people with lesser means?

So if there’s more to a feeling of peace and prosperity than just how much money you make…
…what does research tell us about what actually makes the biggest difference?

The answer might surprise you. It turns out that three money myths have been drilled into most of us throughout our lives. And these three myths could be damaging your health, your happiness, and even your wealth.

Who would *you* invite along, suggest might attend or, do you already have a cure for stress?
(please say its not malted/fermented barley or sugar)

December 15, 2018 10:06 am

Practically speaking, the increase in wind and solar energy to the grid has not kept up to the increase in energy demand for air conditioning alone. The protesters are just there as an outlet of their pent-up frustration with on-line video games.

Jane Rush
December 15, 2018 10:23 am

On the UK news tomight they highlighted the plight of Fiji as a victim of climate change but when I look it up on the internet I find research papers saying they are not losing land because of global warming they are suffering from old-fashioned coastal erosion caused by other factors. If this is true – how does Fiji get away with it?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jane Rush
December 15, 2018 4:37 pm

“If this is true – how does Fiji get away with it?”

I don’t think they will ultimately get away with it, Jane.

As you said, you can look the problem up on the internet and find it is not CO2 that is causing problems for Fiji.

As far as I know, noone is giving Fiji any money as compensation. So I don’t see that they will win this one.

The leaders of Fiji are trying to take advantage of the situaton with the hope of getting lots of money for nothing in return.

Nice work if you can get it, but I don’t think they are going to get it.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 15, 2018 8:55 pm

Or, in shorter words, “It’s a scam”.

December 15, 2018 10:37 am

If large capacity battery storage ever becomes practical it should be installed at power plants and charged during low demand…not at individual homes, wind, or solar “farms”.

December 15, 2018 10:45 am

“Renewables…about 13% of Total Primary Energy in 1971, and in 2016…under 14%…Thirty years of deployment… ” Shouldn’t the author have said, 45 years of deployment?

Gary Pearse
December 15, 2018 11:39 am

‘LA Times pushes scientifically unsupported climate alarmist propaganda…’ Well, Larry, that’s a clear declarative evaluation I found lacking in your previous article.

I’m obviously a sceptic of the dangerous global warming theory, yet we still could theoretically end up in a fevered climate or freezing to death or simply lazing in a “Garden of Eden Earth^тм”, given “The Great Greening^тм” going on (I think the latter is a good bet). The current crop of low talent, designer-brain catastrophist scientists definitely hasn’t got game to move its alarming take forward.

David Stone
December 15, 2018 2:04 pm

It is amazing how parochial these papers can be. In LA the city would stop if all the air con. was banned from use by law unless driven entirely by wind or solar. In temperate areas such as the UK, thousands of people would die each year if fossil fuels could no longer be used for space heating, and Alaska would become uninhabitable, as would much of the northern US and Canada in Winter. So millions would die or become migrants to warmer (but not too warm) lands. Why is none of this even discussed by the IPCC? 10 degrees warmer in these areas would be wonderful!

Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 2:47 am

As soon as I saw “conference climate alarmists” in this heading of this article I knew it would be biased and unobjective.

Climate alarmists translates into climate scientiest who understand the science and are alerting national governtments to what the prospects are if sufficient action is not taken to mitigate the effects of AGW. The US sceptics continue to use terms such as “climate alarmists” when the very evidence exists that their own countries borders are threatened by a wave of illegal economic migrants from Central America who are abandoing their properties and livelihoods as a result of climate change’s impact. Get real people – it’s already here and no nation is immune to it: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/16/climate-change-is-contributing-to-the-migration-of-central-american-refugees/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 2:03 pm

“The US sceptics continue to use terms such as “climate alarmists” when the very evidence exists that their own countries borders are threatened by a wave of illegal economic migrants from Central America who are abandoing their properties and livelihoods as a result of climate change’s impact.”

I would say most of the illegal aliens are coming to the United States in order to collect a paycheck from the American taxpayer. They can get a monthly welfare check, and housing and free medical care and all sorts of goodies. They would be crazy not to come and try to take advantage. I would do so myself, if I was poor and lived in Central America.

The U.S. would be crazy to allow these freeloaders into our country. We have too many freeloaders as it is, already here. The U.S. should only accept immigrants whose lives are threatened in their home country, and immigrants who can benefit the U.S. and pay their own way, and not be a burden on the U.S. taxpayer.

Build that Wall! Put a Big, Beautiful Door in it for legal entrants.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 16, 2018 10:10 pm

I too stand against illegal economic migration. If someone wants to move to another country there are legal channels for it.

US scepticsc on the one hand want no action on AGW and on the other don’t want illegal economic migration. Take measures to help CA countries to deal with increased droughts etc. as well as stop the situation worsening and there will be less incentive to migrate to the USA if many of these migrants can remain on their land.

Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 2:52 am

It’s amazing how a site that is supposed to be dedicated to a debate on the science underlying climate change transforms into a general rant against socialism.
Let’s get back to the issues – COP24 has been a great success in laying down a roadmap for limiting the impacts of AGW. Onwards and upwards!

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 4:12 am

Want some cheese to go with that whine ? Waaaaaaaaa….. : )

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 12:53 pm

Ivan, please give all of us that read WUWT the benefit of your wisdom and qualitatively define what you mean when you use the term “climate change”.

Waiting . . .

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
December 16, 2018 11:10 pm

Let me give you the following quote:
“Trump at times has denied the basic science of climate change, which states that burning coal, oil and natural gas produces emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere, warming the planet. It’s become increasingly clear that warming is happening faster than previously thought and with worse results. The US National Climate Assessment published this year says thousands of Americans could die and gross domestic product could take a 10% hit by century’s end.” (source: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html)
Now, you will come back that there is no evidence exists to prove that a warming planet impacts the climate beyond its natural variations. In fact increased CO2 emissions are even a positive as they lead to a greening planet – again, not true (https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/14/what-is-the-so-called-c02-greening-effect-and-is-it-beneficial-in-the-long-run/)
Now I am reading on WUWT – which really made me laugh out loud – is that all the climate scientists whose data proves AGW have become ACTIVISTS – “you cannot be both a scientist and an activist”, “you should adopt an impartial approach to your data” etc. etc. So now the US sceptics are using the twisted logic that any scientist who is a proponent of AGW – because that is what their data is proving – is automatically transformed into an “activist” and those scientests who oppose its existence are “impartial and objective”. What other absurd arguments are the US sceptics going to come up with?

December 17, 2018 4:13 am

Energy is the least of it. Economjcs: a trillion dollars damage to the world economy is not enough?

The reason that is not enough is because there are still trees in the world. Trees are what Mann’s hokey stick was all about.

A “climate optimum” is a warm period.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 17, 2018 4:18 am

Depending on where you are living of course.

If I am living in the Middle East/Africa why do I want a warm period?

Johann Wundersamer
December 26, 2018 12:50 am

Most of the conference attendees believe that the U.S. is out of touch with what they claim as the global “transformation” to alarmist driven climate and energy policy.

Leaves fascinating moments of perception for most of the conference attendees when learning to deal with real news.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
December 26, 2018 1:00 am

More and more evidence of AGW’s impact around the globe. I suggest it is the US sceptics who should get real on this issue instead of burying their heads in the sand: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/26/climate-change-sea-turtles-massachusetts

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights