Climate Doom Ahead? Think Twice.

From Real Clear Energy
By Charles N. Steele
December 26, 2018

It’s one word – but it could change the course of the world for decades to come.

Discussion at the UN climate change talks held in Katowice, Poland recently reached a stalemate. The issue? A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released earlier this year, entitled “Special Report 15” (SR-15). Most of the nations at the conference want to “welcome“ this report, but the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait want simply to “note” its publication.

It might sound like a silly squabble over semantics, but it’s far from that. SR-15 claims that we have only twelve years to avert climate catastrophe and calls for a fundamental transformation of society and end to the use of fossil fuels. Endorsing it is a critical step towards adopting it, and adopting it would change virtually every element of civil society as we know it today.

Unsurprisingly, the U.S. has taken a good deal of heat in the press for its refusal to endorse the report. Critics characterize the move as political and motivated by willful ignorance. But the fact of the matter is there’s good reason for skepticism. Environmentalists have been known to hastily embrace faulty data in the name of a political agenda – and SR15 is no exception.

To put it bluntly, there’s a lot less here than meets the eye. The report argues that the Paris Accord target of a 1.5C increase is better than a 2C target.  But the farther one reads, the more it appears the IPCC’s report is not really about climate change. It’s less a scientific report and more a political platform, driven by ideology, not science.

This would seem a wild accusation, but for two things. First, SR15 doesn’t actually attempt to quantify either the possible costs of warming or how much it would cost to avert warming. In fact, there’s no serious attempt even to show the likely consequences of proposed actions; it’s simply assumed they will work and be desirable.

Second, SR15 clearly proposes radical, global transformation of society. It calls for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems…,” “unprecedented in terms of scale…,” “fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations….” These are direct quotes from IPCC.  What do they mean?

Looking closer, these fundamental transformations are less about global warming and more about promoting “social justice,” as embodied in the UN’s “Sustainable development Goals.” The report makes no attempt to conceal this; in the summary, it argues “Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change.”

It goes on to contend that we must “eradicate poverty” and reduce inequality across nations. As part of these efforts, governments must impose draconian carbon taxes and other measures to effectively shut down existing energy production, re-direct finance to alternative energy, and transfer wealth from developed countries to less developed countries. Individuals must change their diets and “lifestyle choices” to become “sustainable.”  All of this in a decade or so.  It’s a call for global central planning and income redistribution – a sort of “socialism lite” dressed up as sustainable development.

But the fact of the matter is that the IPCC, the UN, and national governments are not capable of eliminating poverty. They don’t know how. People are poor when they cannot produce wealth. Shutting down economic activity, subsidizing alternatives that can’t create enough value to succeed on their own, and transferring income will not make the world wealthier. And governments cannot effectively manage the economy.  A century of consistent failures of socialism shows this.

And, as the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom report demonstrates, there is a systematic positive relationship between economic freedom and human prosperity around the world. A free market system, not central planning, does much more to reduce poverty and generate economic well-being.  IPCC’s proposals are driven by green ideology, not scientific economic analysis.

Does report offer any solutions for the problem it ostensibly addresses, that is, man-made global warming? Not really. Even if one accepts the IPCC’s estimates of the extent of global warming, careful economic analysis suggests that drastic action is not required. The report’s proposed remedies for climate change fail cost-benefit analyses.

Read the full story here.

Charles N. Steele is the Herman A. and Suzanne S. Dettwiler Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College.

Advertisements

183 thoughts on “Climate Doom Ahead? Think Twice.

  1. Following any of this “report”s recommendations would drive billions of people into poverty and starvation and bring about war on a scale never seen in human history. The only thing that will bring about Climate Doom is doing anything, anything at all, the political left wants done. Time for the true Resist Movement to get cranked up.

    • “and bring about war on a scale never seen in human history”

      I’m thinking they propose that wars can only be fought when the sun is shining and wind is blowing, i.e., not so much, same as how people will live.

      • “and bring about war on a scale never seen in human history”

        “I’m thinking they propose that wars can only be fought when the sun is shining and wind is blowing, i.e., not so much, same as how people will live”…
        … using only sustainable cruise missiles and bombs, and non-lead-based, recyclable ammunition…

    • …this “report”s recommendations would drive billions of people into poverty and starvation and bring about war on a scale never seen in human history.

      These are features, not bugs. The Club of Barstow has decreed that the Earth must be protected from people by killing all but a few off.

  2. This article dramatically understates the disaster that would occur if SR-15 was implemented. No country or society has ever ‘taxed’ itself into prosperity. Every attempt to do so (and there have been many) increases poverty and suffering. The fact that socialists keep thinking that it will work ‘next time’ is strong evidence of a mental disorder. How can they keep ignoring the tremendous harm and misery they have produce over the last 120 years with this nonsense?

  3. The IPCC is a “political platform” IMO! A fundamental fact about government is that it’s first priority to increase it’s own power, control, and revenue. The IPCC is merely an organization created to further those objectives using the threats of “climate change”. Various UN and IPCC officials have made statements that make that very clear.

    • The Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control. It’s the true meaning of their IPCC moniker, and always has been.

  4. Having searched the list of SR15 authors published by the IPCC, the list is heavily seeded with specialists in “Sustainability”, “Justice and Equity”, “Governance”, “Political Science”, “Psychology”, “Social Science”, together with the usual sprinkling of Economists and Lawyers. Additionally, the list had to comply with UN requirements of diversity and gender balance, meaning that some authors were not selected necessarily for their scientific acumen, but to achieve the required PC complement.

    Yet we are repeatedly told by the MSM, that the report was produced by “The World’s Leading Climate Scientists”. It was commissioned by the UN two years earlier, specifically for release prior to the Katowice COP, in order to ramp up the ante for advancing the Paris Agreement. It was a blatant propaganda document.

    • As is every IPCC document; even the “actual” reports on the “science” are “adjusted” to prop up the purely political “Summary for Policymakers” BS that is released IN ADVANCE of the full reports, which full reports they hope nobody will examine or read in any detail, lest they see, even after said “adjustments” too much of the uncertainties, doubts, lack of critical understanding, etc. etc.

    • That is why all the developed nations and China removed “Justice, Equity and Human rights” from the IPCC rule book at COP24 🙂

      They can talk about it but it falls outside the scope of the IPCC now, they gutted the IPCC without them realizing.

  5. First they had the Paris “Agreement”, then the Katowice “Rulebook”. What’s next, the Chilean “Action Plan”? I don’t know how much longer they can keep up this charade of pretending to do something about a non-existent “problem”.

    • The whole document could consist entirely of the phrase, “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah”, repeated hundreds of times for hundreds of pages, and it would not make any difference to the people who are holding it in such high esteem.

      What matters is that the IPCC published a … “special report” that is seeded with popular catch phrases, all encased in credentialed fan fare around a measly, ridiculously inconsequential temperature rise, gauged by an arguably severely flawed concept of “global temperature”, horribly modeled into projections by computers that have a deplorable track record.

      SR-15 is the biggest bad joke ever.

      I would ask the people who take it seriously to actually read some of it — just the summary, for example — what a bunch of useless statements masquerading as useful language. … just innuendo with fabricated statements of graded certainty, none of which demonstrate or explain causal connections between anything.

  6. Energy equates to ability to do work which equates to wealth creation. The world needs copious cheap energy to eradicate poverty, provide clean water, food, health care etc etc.

    • Indeed. Person willing to eradicate poverty by quickly phasing out oil, coil, and gas and promoting wind and solar PV as a replacement, is not eradicating poverty nor fighting consequences of climate change.

      The idea that ‘scientific consensus on climate change’ somehow includes some scientific climate politics, or that scientists could even in principle come to a supportable political conclusion, is a pretty much Lamarkian-Luddite.

      There is a consensus – CO2 emissions cause, ceteris paribus, some warming, which is changed by feedbacks to 1.5 to 4.5 K per doubling of CO2. This estimate has not improved for some 40 years. There is no consensus on what is the climatologically safe limit for CO2. There is absolutely no consensus on the price of keeping warming below some level, and no freaking idea on how to stop emissions within a reasonable price — reasonable meaning the price of non-emissions does not top direct and lost opportunity cost of emissions.

      The only thing there is consensus is that leftist loonies don’t bother any costs as long as they’re paid by some other, preferrably ‘white’ able-bodied heterosexual cismales. That is, they just ENJOY outrageous, life-taking costs if they think it is the enemy which is hit.

      • Hugs:
        There is a consensus – CO2 emissions cause, ceteris paribus, some warming, which is changed by feedbacks to 1.5 to 4.5 K per doubling of CO2.

        Do we really know that? I’ve been checking this site for a little while because for the most part I agree with the people and find their knowledge of the whole climate change very in depth. (And not insinuating yours is not.) My background is in high school and some undergraduate science while in nursing then a masters degree in business. So I know more than most people I run into regarding science and math because I was always good at it – though I don’t make that a point on this site because I find so many with better expertise. However, I have been following the whole climate issue since high school when we were plunging the earth into the next ice age. I realized when they changed the narrative that they were really full of you know what.

        But I really wonder if we have that specific a grasp of what a doubling of CO2 could do to the temperature? For during my life CO2 has more than doubled and I wonder if the earth’s temperature has increased even the 1.5 K you mentioned as the low end? As a nurse I know that if I take a person’s temperature sublingual that 98.6 F is the “normal” but that is an average of many thousands of temperatures over time. 99.0 F might be normal for someone with a higher than typical metabolism. As would be a temp as low as 96.8 F for someone who has a lower than normal metabolism. If I change locations to the arm pit, different “normal” and if I check the ear drum different again. If I check anal or using a central line two more normals. My point being I don’t know where we stick the thermometer on a planet the size of the earth.

        And I’ve seen documented on this site that as many as 40% of the land and sea based temperature recording devices are off line at any given time. In addition I’ve read that their accuracy is as bad as in some instances + or – 5 degrees F with most averaging in the + or – 2 degree range. Then there is the “pause” in temperature change recorded by satellites over the last 18 years while CO2 almost doubled. Then there is the fact that mankind may be responsible for only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. So back to the point… do we even know that doubling the CO2 will produce a 1.5 to 4.5 K increase in temperature? Inquiring minds want to know. 🙂

        • “For during my life CO2 has more than doubled and I wonder if the earth’s temperature has increased even the 1.5 K you mentioned as the low end?”

          CO2 April historical levels -averages
          1958 – 317.45
          1959 – 317.72
          1960 – 319.02
          1961 – 319.48
          1962 – 320.63
          1963 – 321.39
          1964 – -99.99
          1965 – 322.13
          1966 – 323.87
          1967 – 324.42
          1968 – 325.02
          1969 – 326.66
          1970 – 328.13
          1971 – 327.78
          1972 – 329.72
          1973 – 331.5
          1974 – 332.65
          1975 – 333.17
          1976 – 334.64
          1977 – 336.13
          1978 – 337.69
          1979 – 338.96
          1980 – 340.93
          1981 – 342.54
          1982 – 343.97
          1983 – 345.25
          1984 – -99.99
          1985 – 348.33
          1986 – 349.77
          1987 – 351.31
          1988 – 353.69
          1989 – 355.64
          1990 – 356.32
          1991 – 358.66
          1992 – 359.09
          1993 – 359.27
          1994 – 361.23
          1995 – 363.3
          1996 – 364.57
          1997 – 366.35 1998 – 368.66
          1999 – 370.99
          2000 – 371.81
          2001 – 373.37
          2002 – 375.02
          2003 – 377.73
          2004 – 380.35
          2005 – 382.29
          2006 – 384.61
          2007 – 386.5
          2008 – 387.21
          2009 – 389.55
          2010 – 392.46
          2011 – 393.25
          2012 – 396.18
          2013 – 398.41
          2014 – 401.38
          2015 – 403.28
          2016 – 407.42
          2017 – 409.01
          http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm
          CO2 was at 280 ppm even before 1850 so it hasn’t doubled in your lifetime.
          Since 1850 the temperature has increased only 1C.

          To answer your other questions.

          http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm

          Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.

          When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
          A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
          In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.

          So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).

          So all we have to do is calculate Twet.

          Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.

          Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
          So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C?

          Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Alan, this is the reason this site has become my new go to site for climate information. I have to say that the memory I have of numbers for CO2 were much lower than those you cite from 7th grade earth science and at different times during my life (not that I’m challenging your link and numbers).

            You’ve posted a lot of information that it will take me a while to go through – Thank You!

          • Alan, (reply #2)
            As I recall what I learned was that CO2 was (and still is today) a trace gas (in 7th grade science). Your timeline puts the amount at 324.42, my recollection was that it was about 180 ppm. (so much for either my recollection or what I was told.) As I recall it was around 278 ppm from the MSM around the end of the last century. Again, either my recollection is faulty or they have been feeding people lies for quite a while.

            I’ve had more time to go through what you’ve written and I confess, on this site I totally feel like a novice. I appreciate that you didn’t flame me but tried to educate and BTW, I always like reading your comments.
            Thanks again.

        • Sam there is also hypothesis that suggests that even if for some reason the Earth’s temperature were to be increased beyond what has been suggested here there is a mechanism that puts an upper limit on it.

          Certainly, palaeontological records, ice cores etc. indicate that it has been warmer than now in the past without any ‘tipping point’ having been reached suggesting there must be such a mechanism.

          Not sure if this one’s it but to me it seems to fit the bill.
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

  7. “It goes on to contend that we must “eradicate poverty” and reduce inequality across nations.”

    …aren’t these the same people that say we need open borders…because those people will do the work we won’t do?

    • They talk of equality and poverty not because they care – they don’t – rather because you do. It’s a false dichotomy setup – support our cause or the puppy gets it.

      They are supremely cynical. They will use the West’s concern for people to destroy the West.

  8. The wildness of the IPCC’s AR 15 will or should taint or discredit entirely the IPCC’s other reports..

  9. Quote: ” It’s a call for global central planning and income redistribution – a sort of “socialism lite” ”

    In my world that’s called full-blown communism.

    And that is what this is all about.
    An elite running society as they please.
    Peasants and subordinates be d#mned.
    Death and poverty guaranteed.
    But sooooooo sustainable. For the elite, that is.

  10. Correct on the UN, IPCC and poverty, utterly wrong on “free market” .
    The only country to eradicate poverty for 740 million people in a decade is China. It has less poor now than the USA of total 330 million v. China with 1.2 billion.
    Drastically large programs are urgently required.
    China has adopted the American System of Alexander Hamilton, FDR, JFK, easily melding it with Confucianism, to drive the unbelievable win-win BRI, he largest infrastructure program ever seen in history.
    China is not hoodwinked by that silly Keynes (of total state fame) nor Fraser Inst. von Hayek’s nutty spontaneous magic mumbo-jumbo, both of the London School of Economics.

    Trump often mentions American System, hits massive resistance from Wall Street, London.

    The smelly detail always lurking under the Climate wrestling ring, is an insane “free-market” push, in other words globalism. If some deluded commentators think they can roll out the rotting bankrupt corpse of that old paradigm under the CO2 fracas, they have never heard of the Gillets Jaunes.

    • Would this be the same China which will be demanding school children’s school uniforms incorporate a GPS tracker and which will install facial recognition cameras in classrooms to monitor the state of alertness of kids? That’s a funny shade of freedom ! Whatever concept of freedom such children will have will be within the framework of how they’re raised. I’m sure once they’re well educated by the state they’ll be very adept at telling us how free they are.

    • You seem to be eager to believe whatever figures the Chinese government provides. Why?
      Did you likewise believe the figures with which the Soviets of old proved that their communism had eliminated poverty and brought prosperity to all?

    • Hey guys, when someone quotes the Fraser Institute von Hayek mumbo-jumbo, or IMF stats, ye know they have reached the bottom of the barrel. Neither Trump nor the Gillets Jaunes believe any of that claptrap – they need a real alternative to London’s Keynes and von Hayek.
      Interestingly the 2 countries breaking free of this are China and the USA – both of whom historically defeated the British. Russia and India may still have some doubts, yet the BRI, Belt and Road Initiative is dispelling that.

        • Seems you missed the LSE connection – they are Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee. Even Alice spotted that they decided to have a battle over a rattle.
          Some here are indeed in Wonderland!

          • LSE means London School of Economics, both Keynes and Prof Hayek being alumni.
            Just giving a needed update, there, never mind the rattle.

          • Let me see if I have this straight.
            In your mind, the fact that they both attended the same school proves that there is no difference between the policies these two advocate????

            Try actually studying so economics before you start spouting off on the subject.

          • What don’t you understand about LSE Prof. Hayek, John Maynard Keynes 1st Baron Keynes CB FBA? Both of these characters theories are now rejected – two sides of a Bancor coin.
            LSE uses the term Austrian School (von Mises), quaint…

            Time for the American System and the BRI.

            Isn’t it time to move on from this pre-1783 “economics”? Whether you like it or not, that’s what’s driving Brexit and Gillets Jaunes – witness the disarray at Westminster and the Elysees.

          • What you fail to realize, is that you have no connection to reality.
            Keynes is still worshiped by most socialists, and vonHayek’s work has helped billions.

          • LSE means London School of Economics, both Keynes and Prof Hayek being alumni.

            Neither Keynes or Hayak were graduates of the London School of Economics. Professors are not usually referred to as alumni. That term is usually reserved for students who graduate from an institution. I know it may come as a shock to you that at one time universities actually valued diversity of thought.

      • bonbon, you are quite wrong on all this. First, Keynes had no connection to LSE (London School of Economics). He took one course in economics in his life, at Cambridge, from Alfred Marshall. Hayek was from University of Vienna; he worked at LSE for a few years. Regardless, you know nothing about economics, either. Freedom for entrepreneurs to test different products and services in the free market is what makes economies grow, not government management. Government management — Alexander Hamilton proposed in his “Report on Manufactures,” doesn’t work.

        Your thinking is not much much different from that of the current socialists — they too imagine government can work miracles so long as the “right” people are in power.

      • Have a go and see if you can say anything more stupid … you would struggle.

        If you want an Australian perspective on it we have 1million tourists from China per year and we are there 14th most popular destination.

        Since you are really clever do you want to guess what the number of poor US citizens that visit us?

        Yeah they struggle to buy a plane ticket.

        • Oh, they buy lots of plane tickets. I guess geography was not your best subject in school. Perhaps a large wall map and a 10c rule could alert you to why you have more Chinese than America tourists? Though I doubt it.

    • Before you start admiring the Chinese Communist system too much consider the following facts.
      1) The Chinese communist party either owns or controls 2/3 of the GNP of China.
      2) Of the remaining 1/3 any business over a certain minimum size must have a member of the CCP on its staff who has available to him all the company secrets,data and financial info that he wants. And that info must be provided upon request to the main CCP HQ
      3) Any businessman or woman can be arrested without charge at any time and jailed indefinitely. When they come to court the conviction rate is 99.9999%
      4) Any lawyer who dares to defend the defendant in court is liable himself to be prosecuted for endangering the state.
      5) With massive organ transplanting from live prisoners , I wouldnt want to be in the Chinese prison system even if I wasn’t Falun Gong.
      6) Corruption is so rife that businesses routinely get their businesses stolen by connected members of the Chinese Communist party.
      7) There are financial export controls on money and no protection for those have their land stolen by local authorities.
      8) Anybody that dares to complain about any grievance, risks being thrown into special “black jails”.
      9) The pollution(land,water and atmosphere) is so bad that life expectancy has dropped in last 30 years.
      10) With the 1 party system, there is an internet firewall plus publishing negative statistics is now a crime. This last blight on the justice system condemns any data coming out of China to be worthless.

      Anybody that holds that system up to the light of day, and admires it, should be committed.

      • “Anybody that holds that system up to the light of day, and admires it, should be committed.”

        that would be Oreskes, among others.

      • Methinks if one were to view China as being one giant company with many interlocking subsidiaries all owned directly or indirectly by the government it wouldn’t be far off. In other words it looks like capitalism but the state still owns the means of production.

  11. Any climate assessment report that speaks only of “costs of warming” and ignores “benefits of warming” is worthless as decision support document.

    The climate alarmists never ever talk about the benefits of warming, or of higher CO2 concentrations. Only the “costs”.

    This is a complete violation of the scientific principle, and therefore renders it, as the author says, a pure political document and not a science document.

    Warming is good for humanity, it always has been, and always will be .. well, at least until the sun loses most of its nuclear fuel and turns into a red giant star that burns off earth’s atmosphere and boils away the oceans. In roughly four to five billion years.

    • We will be hit by a giant asteroid long before that. The actual amount of time that humans have to get off this planet is unknowable but a lot less than 2 billion years I would say. Because the costs of living anywhere else in our solar system are so high, we have to get to another star with a goldilocks planet near it. Since space is so vast and the odds of goldilocks planets so small, betting on the survival of the human race is iffy at best. Star Trek really did have it right. The ultimate search for somewhere else to live.

  12. we must “eradicate poverty” and reduce inequality across nations.

    As part of these efforts, governments must impose draconian carbon taxes and other measures to effectively shut down existing energy production, re-direct finance to alternative energy, and transfer wealth from developed countries to less developed countries.

    And just what does the members of the IPCC think that those less developed countries are going to purchase via use of the “transferred wealth” given to them …… given the fact that the aforesaid “developed countries” will no longer be capable of producing and exporting any saleable goods.

      • HotScot

        I think the more appropriate phrase in this case is:

        “Build a man a fire and he’s warm for the night;
        Set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life.”

        Socialism is always about razing society to a new level.

      • HotScot – December 28, 2018 at 7:27 am

        Samuel C Cogar

        Give a man a fish………..

        “HA”, you know very well that those less developed countries have been given tons, n’ tons, n’ tons, n’ tons, n’ tons of fish over the past 70+ years …… and they don’t have a damn thing to show for it ……. except their outstretched hands asking for more n’ more. 😊

        Just like here in the US, …. after the expenditure of several TRILLION DOLLARS, ….. there is far, far more people today, per capita, that are living in “poverty”, than there was when LBJ signed the Great Appalachian Program into Law that was supposed to eliminate poverty in the US

  13. “And governments cannot effectively manage the economy. A century of consistent failures of socialism shows this.”

    China doesn’t seem to be doing too badly, though, does it? Nor, indeed, does Russia.

    • J Murphy, according to the IMF, the gdp per head for 2017 was:
      USA : $59792
      Russia: $10955
      China : $8643

      • According to IMF “facts” voters would never have elected Trump, nor would Gillet Jaunes call for Marcon’s seat, nor would Brexit be in full throttle, nor Italy in direct confrontation with the EU.
        And Argentina’s Macri in full emergency following IMF “recommendations”.
        Who was it that said lies , damned lies and statistics?
        The IMF is the other side of the IPCC coin, a tossup who is more nuts.

        • You got those globalist, anti-sovereignty open borders talking points down pat. Do they email that crap to you? Or does it just spontaneously appear on your screen each morning?

          • Gillet Jaunes means Yellow Jackets, the safety apparel for overtaxed French auto owners.
            Not Haute Couture, you know? Brexit means sovereignty reclaimed. Trump means MAGA.
            Just giving a needed update.

          • And yet ever thing you are posting here comes down to “global government good, nation states bad”. Let us know how that works out for you, it has totally sucked for Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Cuba so far.

          • What don’t you understand about Gillet Jaunes, MAGA, Brexit?
            The last Cold War ended in 1989, things have moved along since then.
            It might be a shock to cold warriors…

          • You speak out both sides of your mouth quite adroitly. Post some more random gobblediygook and then post some dribbling in the opposite direction, you appear to be having fun doing that. Tell us again how great and free China is. That was special.

          • globalist, anti-sovereignty open borders talking points down pat.
            ≠======
            ???????
            You must have misposted this to the wrong comment.

          • Precisely. The “open borders” crowd can’t kick off their Grand Revolution without first bankrupting America. They have been working towards that diligently for decades.

        • J Murphy, even applying your own link’s calculation of ppp only increases China’s gdp per head to $16378 compared the the USA’s $59792. You really don’t understand numbers very well, do you?

    • JMurphy,
      Both of them have adopted capitalist elements in order to survive this long, but even that won’t save them from the endemic failures of Socialism in the long run. I would be surprised if either goes for another 30 years without significant upheavals/reforms. I don’t suppose you would like to talk about the dismal failures like the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela?

    • The parts of China that are doing well are precisely those parts that have abandoned socialism and adopted free market.

      Russia doing well? Where? The only time Russia does well is when energy prices are high and they can use the income from selling oil and gas to cover over their many problems.

      • You haven’t seen Cohens new book War with Russia: From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate.
        Some homework is recommended.

        • Oh joy, another “person” who gets all of it’s information from propaganda that it already agrees with.

    • Oh Christ and many many small deities.

      I’ve seldom seen such stupidity in action. First, China and Russia only started to work economically when they let something called lassez faire in. Second, both places are currently much more cleptocracies than examples of socialism.

      The communism didn’t work at all, so they got rid of that. They didn’t get rid of their totalitarian system.

  14. Driving thru Asheville, NC yesterday the NPR news (WNCW) made the wild claim that ALL natural disasters world wide last year (hurricanes, forest fires, etc.) were due to climate change and cost BILLIONS of dollars and that ALL carbon use must stop ASAP. Why are my taxes used to fund this and only this point of view?

    Hey, Asheville will probably break it’s annual rainfall record this year…GREAT! Water is good and my guess is more rainy years means cooling, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico…am I all wet or is there really a cooling trend that the alarmists fear and must “do something” fast so they can then take credit for “saving the planet??”

    • Oh jeez, that is priceless funny, but then not. Did you see on here page the Nancy P. Twitter about appointing a chair person to the climate crisis committee? I have few words that can get a handle on this. These are fanatical fools. While I hope for cooler heads to prevail, I realize that it is a very long shot that this will madness will die of it’s on accord. Perhaps some loving “treatment” is necessary.

  15. The IPCC was never about science, only the appearance of it. As time went on, they have made less and less of an effort to even appear scientific, much less actually doing any.

  16. “The IPCC, the UN, and national governments are not capable of eliminating poverty. They don’t know how.” Quite the contrary. They have a plan and have just published it – the SR-15. Eliminate poverty by eliminating all poor people. We can ignore it at our peril, just like many Germans did not believe the Mein Kampf.

  17. The UN has never been suitable for governance which is what SR 15 is attempting to do. The organization was set up as a talk shop and framework between Nation States to avoid war if possible. Really hasn’t worked all that well for it’s stated purpose but why stick to that when its failing.

    Leftists and elites wishing to enact policies they are unable to realize through a democratic process wish to use UN treaties and conventions to accomplish their goals. That makes sense as a political strategy but is deeply harmful to democratic government. Then again they really don’t care about that. SR 15 “adoption” I understand was posited by the Maldives which should such insanity be adopted stands to receive money under the plan. Why is the conference headed by someone from a tiny overbuilt island with a rounding error fraction of the World’s population?

    SR 15 and the IPCC process should be getting a serious examination by investigative journalists. Won’t hold my breath.

  18. Poor countries always have the economic advantage of lower wages, which enables them to roduce at lower cost – this has happened again and again thruout the 20th century – postwar Japan, Korea, Germany, all of Asia, Mexico, etc As they get wealthier, their wages increase and they eventually reach equilibrium. All of this occurs as long as their is a free market.

    • One of the funniest stories I ever read was back during the 90’s. Seems that a lot of people in Japan were complaining to their government about the low wages being paid to people in Korea and how the government needed to implement import restrictions to protect Japanese jobs from Korean competition.

      I’m sure the Koreans likewise complained about Taiwan and Singapore.

  19. “IPCC’s report is not really about climate change. It’s less a scientific report and more a political platform, driven by ideology, not science.”

    That has been obvious for almost 2 decades now. When the Climate Crowd enlisted a career politician with a science resume that listed only a “gentleman’s C” for Earth Science as the extent of his Science knowledge and then the community enlisted a Mister Rogers Look-a-like with an engineering degree to scare the children, as if ALGORE wasn’t enough Bill Nye will give them night terrors, the astute observer had all the evidence necessary to realize that this was not about Science or CAGW.

    This has always been about power and control over the masses and their economic quality of life. Under their new totalitarianism, energy for me but not for thee, Leonardo DiCrapio clowns, operate as propaganda spokes people, to agitate the public school graduated idiots to protest the individual freedom loving souls. Political movements don’t need a sound hypothesis or verifiable data they only need control of the propaganda (peer review) and voting majorities (consensus).

    • That’s only because the vast majority either have something to gain, or nothing to lose, or think they have nothing to lose.
      Take China. Please.

    • The rules of the game are already out there and almost every country stands to gain financially by their attendance and voting pattern. If you know anything about everyday UN vote buying, this is just more of the same.

  20. Socialism “lite”?
    I don’t think so.
    Sounds pretty damnm heavy to me.
    This is nothing more or less than a zombie return of Cold War Marxism, only in a more extreme and dangerous form.
    Going even 1% down this road is what would produce true catastrophe.

    • Saw that too. That is imperialism, simply put. At least Macron and Merkel a that conference didn’t mention (yet) the currency for this new empire – look at Varufakis and Sanders pushing Bitcoin, and Keynes. At the Bretton Woods Conference 1944, Keynes of the London School of Economics, pushed the “Bancor”, a global “basket of currencies”, successfully opposed by FDR and Dexter White. Today they are going for a Bitcoin Bancor – will someone try a Euro-cor?
      The smelly detail is the preface to Keynes first edition of the tome : FOREWORD TO GENERAL THEORY German Edition
      “The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. ”
      Thin ice anyone?

  21. Scary realizing that if Hillary had won we would have embraced the IPCC insanity with the world’s warmest welcome.

    • Even hotter with war with Russia, a thermonuclear welcome.
      We barely squeezed by. See War with Russia: From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate by Stephen F. Cohen. He is very worried and any de-escalation is to be praised.

      • Though the “news” won’t tell you because it would expose the collusion lie, Trump is putting the hurt on Putin. That’s why Russia is starting to act like N. Korea did. New aggressive actions against Ukraine, multiple announcements of new offensive weapons, and the announcement of establishing an air base in Venezuela, more aggressive actions by Russia’s Navy, etc.

        Price of gas here in my part of Hoosierland is $1.99 a gallon for regular today. Russia’s oil sales are being hurt through competition lowering prices and sanctions. Texas alone is now producing more oil than Russia. And there is a bigger threat to Putin’s oil based economy on the horizon because their customer base in their primary market, which is Europe, is going to be really cut when the oil pipe line gets run across the eastern Mediterranean to Europe. Remember that huge reserves have been recently found off Israel.

      • bonbon
        I’m 63 years old. When I was seven years old my father fabricated a bomb shelter for a customer in his steel fabrication business. At the time we constantly heard sonic booms from B-58 Hustler supersonic nuclear bombers flying out of what was then named Bunker Hill AFB in Kokomo, IN (Now Grissom). The Cuban Missile Crisis went down at that time. Later as an SF soldier during “the cold war” I was trained in the transport, placement, and operation of a SADM device. Please excuse me if I have become a little jaundiced by the harping on the possibility of nuclear Armageddon over the course of almost all of my life time.

        • 57, here. Atomic Cannon, Eight Inch course grad, a heaping helping of Insurgency/Counter Insurgency courtesy of USA Infantry School on multiple “campus” locations with some OJT thrown in. Not overwhelmingly influenced by the “Russia gonna nuke us!” angle. “Mad Mullahs of Iran gonna nuke us!” I am a bit more concerned about MMI yanking the lanyard, Putin wants to be in-charge of everything, MMI will be happy with destroying half of everything.

    • The arrow of time is full of scary twists and turns like the chads in Florida with Al Gore, the V2 rocket production rate in Germany, and the anti-WWII movement around Chicago in the late 30s and early 40s.

  22. So we only have 12 years left until the gloom-and-doom prognostications start being realized? It is rather amusing that The Guardian (surprise, surprise) reported on something like this back at the end of July, 2008. Back then, we only had 100 months left according to “scientists,” which worked out to November of 2016:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

    Quote from the piece:
    “..Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change…”

    And now, according to the IPCC, we still have 12 years (until 2030). When you keep crying that there is a wolf at the door when the wolf is never there…..

    • In 12 years, so in 2030, surely not coincidentally the year China is projected to reach max CO2-output and has no obligattion to do anything about it until then.

      I smell a rat.

      The West in the meantime kills its economy, et voila,in 2030 a world government with China in charge.

    • It is always a decade. Two years would be too little, and two decades would not cause enough panic. It has been like that for 30 years. It will be for at least 10 to 20 years. I guess by 2040 we will have new generation with new estimates on CO2.

  23. But the interesting thing is, none of it is applied to China and India.

    The ‘we’ that must do all these dramatic and draconian things is the West. Its never specified as such, but that is the unavoidable implication. China and India and the developing world are not thought of as any part of any problem, whether its their contribution to global warming by doing 75% of the CO2 emissions globally, or by being either terminally unequal or authoritarian or both.

    Always ask, when you hear or read that ‘we’ must do something, who exactly this ‘we’ consists of. Ask whether it includes, for instance, China. ‘We’ have to reduce emissions. Does that mean China has to?

    Silence. Repeat the question. Get banned from that forum.

    Now ask another question. Why is this?

  24. Why the sudden panic? Hasn’t consensus science told us that the present levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will remain for hundreds to a thousand years even if we immediately ceased all mankind-originated emissions into the atmosphere? Therefore, a twelve-year fundamental transformation of civilization’s sources of energy and methods of managing economies and income inequality around the world won’t make any difference if CAGW is real . . . our goose is already cooked, as it were.

    But let not your heart be troubled, for in that last sentence above there rests on mighty big “IF.”

  25. “..It goes on to contend that we must “eradicate poverty” …”

    I contend they meant “eradicate the poor”

  26. Climate change has been going on for eons. Current climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. We must not mix up weather cycles with true climate change.

    Based on the paleoclimate record and the work down 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 there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even is we could remove all of the CO2 from our atmosphere which would end life as we know it on this planet, the climate change we are experiencing today would continue unabated.

    The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science. At first it might seem plausible but upon further inspection it is full of flaws. 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. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. If CO2 really did affect climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

    Radically changing society will have no effect on climate and will create many new problems as has happened in the past. Look at communist countries like China that have greatly improved their nation’s wealth by switching to a market economy. Look at nations like North Korea that has a low per capita carbon foot print with poverty and missary for most. Communist countries become nations of slaves where all but a few masters are in poverty. The system just does not work.

    • http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm

      Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.

      When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
      A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
      In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.

      So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).

      So all we have to do is calculate Twet.

      Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.

      Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
      So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C?

      Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  27. Reading the IPCC document SR-15 leaves one in no doubt that it is not based on science but is purely based on politics and a politics that seems to be aimed at reducing the World population by eliminating the poor and weak, leaving a World dominated by the present rich Elite.

  28. The UN, the UNFCCC and various left-wing groups have never wanted to eradicate poverty. They want to eradicate wealth, out of a hatred of rich and successful people.

  29. With so many countries apparently supporting the UN/IPCC declarations of doom and “welcoming” SR-15, surely there must be one country ready to be the “guinea pig” for the world and “decarbonise” by 2030 and demonstrate the economic benefits.
    President Macron started, but was thwarted by the yellow vests.
    Chancellor Merkel was leading the charge, but now seems reluctant to destroy Germany’s coal industry.
    Anyone else ready to step up to the plate? Perhaps Canada?
    The climateactiontracker website lists Morocco and The Gambia as likely to meet 1.5C target,
    and Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India and Philippines as likely to meet 2C target, all based on “fair share” allocations – that seem to allow them all to increase CO2 emissions.

    • In Canada ,Trudeau attempted it until the top manufacturing emitters forced a meeting with him and threatened to leave the country unless he watered down the Carbon tax rules. He did so. They will apply in 3 days. At the end of 4 years the CO2 taxes will be about 5 billion and the special extra fuel taxes will be another 9 billion for a total of $ 14 billion. If the CO2 taxes dont get paid because the top 620 emitters change to a non CO2 fuel, the temperature will go down 1/1000 C by the end of the century. Inflation will go up because the fuel that they wsitch to will be more expensive. The people of Canada will only get the extra fuel surcharge money back. However both the switch and the fuel surcharges cause their own separate inflations. Therefore even though we get all the fuel surcharge back, the total of the 2 separate inflations will be more than the government rebate, so the people lose. If the 620 emitters pay the $5 billion CO2 tax and don’t switch ,there are still 2 separate inflation causes( the tax on the CO2 and the tax on the fuel surcharge. In this case the people will come out even if the rebates are from both the CO2 tax and the fuel rebate tax. However the same amount of CO2 will still be put into the air. We wont stop driving our cars because of an extra 11.5 cents per litre on gsoline tax. Therefore, what good did either of the 2 taxes do?

      This is ABSOLUTE MADNESS

  30. Socialism doesn’t address the creation of wealth, it only addresses the redistribution of it. Socialism assumes that wealth is self-creating and that only so much exists, and everyone deserves an equal portion except for an elite class that deserve most of it.

    The elite class get to run the government, make policy, decide who gets what, and treat the rest of humanity as a bunch of stupid cattle (or maybe sheep). Just look at out own U.S. Washington D.C. elite for examples.

    The problem is, of course, that a lot of humanity is fine with this, at least until they are starving to death. Just look at Valenzuela as an example.

    Climate Doom is just a tool to get people so scared they will go for outrageous plans. The worst case scenario for climate change, assuming they are even a little-bit right about CO2, is that the world becomes more temperate, more food is grown, forests grow faster, large areas of the world become more habitable, and some areas will have to build sea-walls or move communities to higher ground. That’s the WORST case.

    How this turns into “We have to completely change all of society” is nothing but politics – a power grab.

  31. You can’t have wealth transfers justified by failure unless you have failure. And you can’t make $500 billion in annual transfers seem like a small number unless you can compare it to a much larger number.

  32. What has a change in the average global annual temperature got to do with climate change? Is there an average global annual climate that fluctuates as this average global annual temperature changes?

    If it is around 288K does that mean the planet radiates an average global annual radiation of 390 watts/m2? (S-B)

    Sounds like there should the same weather all over the planet on an annual basis. Am I wasting my time booking flights for Tenerife if I can stay at home and experience the same cool temperature 15C (night time too)?

  33. So, this time the re-allocation of all human capital and resources to produce all that is needed to satisfy all human needs and desires is going to be organized by the UN, under the convenient catch-all of ‘saving the planet’.

    And, like so many other schemes before it, it starts with the concept of “Tax yourself richer.”

    The thing these people have never learned from history is that while the most powerful of rulers may get to write the history books for a few generations, they can no more rule human destiny than they can rule the autumn leaves falling from the trees in the wind, or rule the movement of sand grains on the beach during a winter storm. They are utterly deluded. They have neither the desire, nor the ability, to create something new that other humans might value, only the desire to control what other humans create by their own abilities and labour.

  34. Any reasonable, thoughtful person would conclude that the world is unable to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the extreme ways that the Climate Establishment is demanding.
    Most, if not all, of the Climate Establishment individuals would know this. They know the demands they invent are unable to be met without immense civil disruption, for which ‘war’ is another word. They must know that their demands are much the same as a declaration of war, or at least a signal that they intend to make such a declaration.
    Thereby there is revealed a problem, a problem of a failing of the human mind.
    Even in the last 150 years, we have well-documented examples of declarations of wars or of wars without formal declarations, by people who know that their acts will kill fellow humans. Yet, they persist through some strange process of charisma or propaganda or some elusive deception of the normal minds of others.
    Why do humans periodically take up arms to kill each other? Darwin offered no explanation in terms of the origins of species. Less scientific thinkers have offered explanations from the trite to the downright deranged.

    We should admit to the probability of at least a small amount of planned warfare if the Climate Establishment continues to push its agenda. Maybe they justify their homicide by guessing that the physics of climate change, if unchecked, will kill more humans than their little wars will. That is by way of an excuse based on unproven principles. There is no excuse for homicide based on purposeful misunderstanding.

    As the impending clouds darken, historians should be looking to and publicizing the signs of imminent past wars. Who were the players, what were their words and acts, did they admit to knowing war would follow? Were there any signs useful for prediction of war today or tomorrow? What defenses should be mounted, what preparations made?

    It should be surprising to some to note the lack of awareness of impending conflict in statements offered by current national leaders. Before some past wars, WWII in particular, the nations about to be invaded were preparing for invasion years ahead of the outbreak. What preparation do we see now? There is not much for the public to see. The public is left to imagine what might be happening at private, top level. We, the potential victims, can but hope that our present leaders are aware of the potential for conflict and are preparing appropriately. That is what leaders are for.

    However, this time, the leaders have a strange twist to the task. The main proponent of drastic change is the United Nations, a body originally formed with a charter to do what it could to create peace. Now, it is fomenting war. That situation remains so untenable that the dominant solution is to change the leaders of the UN and all who are promoting mass murder because of their ’cause’. Geoff

  35. Just google ” Die große Transformation”(The Great Transformation) by Otmar Edenhofer , head of the PIK (Potsdamer Institut für Klimafolgenforschung) in Germany. In an interview he states frankly, that
    the CO2 climate change agenda has nothing to do with environmental protection.
    In fact it serves as a pretext for a planned economic program for renewable energy production,”The Great Transformation”, created by leftists!
    If done, the consequences will be as dramatic and disastrous as Mao’s “Big Leap Forward” !

  36. I humbly suggest that the UN move its offices to a more neutral location and that we as citizens of the nations of the world find a way to provide them with a reasonable territory. I suggest that the two ice covered continents, Greenland and Antarctica be considered as appropriate territories that might greatly benefit from some future warming and provide for the UN a suitable number of sunpowered and/or windpowered vehicles such as skidos to get around on. A timber rich nation like Russia or Canada could also contribute a significant amount of lumber for the UN to construct their on habitat outright of wooden structures or wood reinforced igloos ie nice places although perhaps somewhat chilly places to sleep while resting from plotting their plans for world domination, check that, I mean socialist-lite world future.

  37. I have found a way to find the people who completely make up stories about Alien Abduction. The ones who claim our Alien friends are warning about Man Made Global Warming going to destroy the Earth in 10 years. They then start talking about their 1993 abduction experience when the Fallen Angels disguised as Big Eyed Grey begin the Global Warming Story. It is not even go fiction then.

Comments are closed.