#COP25 – The Neverending $tory

Failure In Madrid As COP25 Climate Summit Ends In Disarray

Negotiations at a U.N. climate summit in Madrid broke down today as the two-week meeting ended without a crucial agreement on the global carbon market rules of the Paris Agreement.

After extending the two-week summit for an additional two days, the world’s countries agreed a text with vague pledges to enhance their Paris emissions reductions targets. But the watered-down text reflects a failure to agree on the key outcomes that were needed at the summit: setting a rulebook for the Paris Agreement and designing a global carbon market.

Donald Trump has filed paperwork to remove the United States from the Paris Agreement, signed by his predecessor Barack Obama, next November – the earliest date the U.S. can leave. The U.S. absence has left the EU alone in trying to bring developing countries like China and India on board.

“COP25 has been mired in the politics of low ambition that seek to serve individual agendas in a way that is totally out of step with the urgent need for collective action,” said Eliot Whittington, director of the European Corporate Leaders Group, a collection of climate-ambitious CEOs.

Full story here

Josh has updated his long running cartoon.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 15, 2019 10:53 am

I don’t think Josh had to spend much time updating his cartoon. He’s going to need more space in a couple of years, though.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 15, 2019 11:43 am

Trump’s coming re-election and then the US’s continued ignoring of these practitioners of sorcery and witchcraft gatherings might be the stake through the heart those blood suckers deserve.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 15, 2019 1:15 pm

Indeed with no one willing to put up the cash , they are dead in the water .

Reply to  knr
December 15, 2019 2:24 pm


Excellent observation but, with apologies, I offer a slight correction to your post. With the US not willing to put up the cash, they are dead in the water.
Nothing and no one is stopping any of them from putting up the cash, if they really want to do so. Well, maybe the Yellow Vests, Dutch farmers, truck drivers and such but no one else is stopping them.
One would think the cash and destroying their economies and freezing their poor to death because they can’t afford the utility bills etc. would be minor things compared with saving the Planet, if they really, really believe! 🙂

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  KcTaz
December 15, 2019 4:46 pm

Bloomberg, Steyer, the Rockefeller Fund is free to send them their money in lieu of the US tax dollars like 0bama did when he misappropriated funds to the climate aid fund.

nw sage
Reply to  knr
December 15, 2019 5:41 pm

Even Greta couldn’t save it – she didn’t bring enough cash with her on the sailboat!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 15, 2019 8:48 pm

Let’s hope so

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 15, 2019 11:22 pm

Haha , perhaps start equivocating the numbers with the participants , will it be linear or exponential ?
COP25 had 25000 who could not agree , except to COP26

Tarquin Wombat-Carruthers
Reply to  george1st:)
December 16, 2019 12:35 am

Maybe if they rename these gabfests “Tipping Points”?

Patrick Healy
Reply to  george1st:)
December 16, 2019 10:45 am

Well George1st,
Our wee pretend queen of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon (Yes the giver of caviear) is hosting next year’s great global warming scam in Glasgow.
Ignoring the fact that Scotland has the highest rate of winter cold related deaths in the UK and we do not have enough airport space to accommodate 1500 private jets or enough 5 star hotels spaces for 25000 delegates (mind you Mr Trump has 2000 6 star rooms in Turnberry), or sufficient pot hole free roads to convey the vips to the conference centre, she never the less is determined to stop global warming in its tracks.

Ian W
Reply to  Patrick Healy
December 16, 2019 11:53 am

It has been said that Scots roads are holes strung together by tarmac.

Tim Collins
December 15, 2019 11:05 am

Sorry, but i don’t know where to post this,
Has anyone here ever seen or can point to a whitepaper supporting AGW that fully complies with the acknowledged Scientific Method as outlined in say, Wikipedia?

Reply to  Tim Collins
December 15, 2019 11:52 am

Since the Climate Change Scientists never adhered to the Scientific Method, there likely is no such encapsulated summary of the “Proven Climate Science”.

But I will do some searching.

Climate Claims and Projections are found all over the place. Statements of Proofs along with verified evidence (according to the Scientific Method) seem to be lacking.

Reply to  Tim Collins
December 15, 2019 12:28 pm

If a conclusion conforms to the narrative driven by the UN/IPCC/UNFCCC, it must ignore the scientific method, so what you’re asking for not only doesn’t exist, it can’t.

Most of what’s published presumes that the IPCC is correct about the sensitivity. I’ve yet to find anything that supports the presumed sensitivity that doesn’t apply circular logic and/or make unsupportable assumptions, including everything referenced by IPCC reports and claimed to provide support for their assumptions.

It’s crucial to understand that it’s the IPCC’s assumed magnitude of the sensitivity quantifying the AGW effect that can’t be supported by the scientific method and not the AGW effect itself. Unfortunately, most alarmists fail to understand the difference.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 15, 2019 2:48 pm

And positive feedbacks. Without those, even the postulated warming is rather mild.

Since ANY warming would invoke these feedbacks, and they did not in the past few climate optimum periods (as warm periods used to be known), these feedbacks are evidentially non-existent.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 17, 2019 5:05 am

Most alarmists are climate cultists who don’t delve that deep into their own grey matter.

Reply to  Tim Collins
December 15, 2019 12:44 pm

A simple assessment that shows that CO2 has nothing to do with climate is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

Reply to  Tim Collins
December 15, 2019 1:05 pm

The paper that seems to have got everything going was this one by James Hansen et al. It postulates a positive feedback mechanism whereby CO2 would warm the atmosphere somewhat. That, in turn, would evaporate more water. Water vapor, being the most important greenhouse gas, would cause even more warming.

In his analysis of the positive feedback, Hansen cites Bode 1945. Our beloved Christopher Monckton showed that Hansen did that analysis wrong. So, we could say that the paper that underlies CAGW is debunked.

Here’s a link to a retrospective of Hansen 1988. In that link there is a good graph showing a couple of Hansen’s scenarios as well as two observed temperature records, HadCRUT4 and UAH6.

Note that the temperature trend of HadCRUT4, which is surface temperature, is greater than UAH6, which is the lower troposphere temperature. It seems to me that implies that the lapse rate is increasing and that, in turn, implies decreased atmospheric water vapor.

Hansen’s theory predicts increased water vapor. So, the above observed temperatures indicate that he was wrong. There is no positive feedback due to water vapor. There is no Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

Of course it could just be that the divergence of HadCRUT4 and UAH6 is because of adjustments to HadCRUT4. 🙂

Reply to  commieBob
December 15, 2019 2:31 pm

NASA/RSS have been measuring TPW (Total Precipitable Water, i.e. sum of water vapor molecules all the way up) by satellite and reporting it monthly since 1988. Numerical data through Nov 2019 is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201911.time_series.txt . Fig 5 at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com is a graph of the NASA/RSS numerical data which shows an increasing trend of about 1.5% per decade.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
December 15, 2019 3:19 pm

… an increasing trend of about 1.5% per decade.

That should decrease the lapse rate. Instead, the trend of surface temperatures and lower troposphere temperatures implies the opposite.

Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 10:57 am

The population decline of WV molecules is about 1200 to 1 from ground to tropopause because of temperature and pressure decline with altitude. Because there are far more WV molecules at ground level, WV increase would INCREASE the lapse rate.

Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 3:28 pm

Congratulations Dan. You just revolutionized all of meteorology.

Reply to  commieBob
December 17, 2019 1:09 am

Congratulations Dan. You just revolutionized all of meteorology.

I spent a lot of time googling and couldn’t find anything to back up his contention. Maybe he could provide us with a link or two. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is complex but I couldn’t find any evidence that more water vapor would result in a higher lapse rate.

Reply to  commieBob
December 17, 2019 11:18 am

When normalized by dividing by the averages, the NASA/RSS 1.5% per decade data are corroborated by NCEP R1 and NCEP R2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/09/does-global-warming-increase-total-atmospheric-water-vapor-tpw/

Reply to  commieBob
December 15, 2019 6:01 pm

If you look carefully at Hansen’s paper, he mixes up the gain, g, and feedback, f, terms. He also assumes unit open loop gain, without saying so or even knowing so, because he seems to not know the difference between the open and closed loop gains, nor does he understand Bode’s simplifying assumptions of strict linearity and an implicit, infinite source of Joules that disconnects the output Joules from the limitations of the input Joules.

If G is the open loop gain, g is the closed loop gain and f is the fraction of the output returned to the input as feedback, the gain equation is 1/G = 1/g + f. If you set G == 1 (unit open loop gain) and solve for g, you get g = 1/(1 – f). In the Hansen paper, equation 7 has g and f reversed. Thereafter, it’s all GIGO reaffirmed by confirmation bias.

Just in time for AR1, Schlesinger got a paper published that corrected the Hansen error and was cited along with Hansen’s paper in AR1 as the scientific foundation for an absurdly high ECS arising from feedback. Schlesinger fixed [hid] the assumption of unit open loop gain by assuming it in one place, but not in another by conflating the feedback fraction, f, with the feedback factor given as f*G. The two are only the same when G is 1. He used this assumption to cancel out what he claimed was an open loop gain that converted forcing into a temperature, which was really just the incremental application of the SB law converting a change in W/m^2 into a change in temperature. More GIGO followed and both papers became ‘settled’ science in AR1.

Roe followed in about 2008 and made the same exact mistake of conflating the feedback factor and the feedback fraction, except that he changed some of the variable names from those used by Schlesinger. These fundamental errors are still with us today.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 15, 2019 11:44 pm

IMHO, Hansen’s basic approach isn’t even valid. He applies feedback analysis but doesn’t present a strong justification for doing so. As you point out, the implicit infinite power supply assumption violates conservation of energy for the climate system.

Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 4:32 am

but wasn’t Hansen original work on that done for Venus?
because he was on the team planning a mission there that got canned n he got moved out? or left?
I reckon he used the same lousy surmises for eath when he couldnt use it elsewhere
i see theyr now planning a mission there again after many decades

Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 9:06 am

The most broken piece of climate feedback analysis is the claim that approximate linearity around the mean relationship between forcing and temperature satisfies Bode’s linearity requirement, especially considering that there’s a preexisting and demonstrably linear relationship between W/m^2 of total forcing and W/m^2 LWIR emissions of the surface corresponding to its temperature. Bode requires linearity across all inputs and outputs which means that the output temperature must be linear to the forcing across across all possible forcing from 0 W/m^2 up to the maximum solar input which is impossible given the T^4 relationship between W/m^2 and temperature as required by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. There’s no possible contortion of a system with W/m^2 of input and temperature output can satisfy the linearity requirement for applying feedback analysis.

The nefariousness of this error is that it lends plausibility to an incremental sensitivity several times larger than the average sensitivity which is otherwise precluded by COE since the planet has no way to tell the next Joule from the average Joule so that it can do so much more work sustaining the planets tempreature. This nasty piece of garbage called ‘settled science’ is the error upon which all others depend.

Ian Magness
December 15, 2019 11:06 am

It’s a neverending story all right: see this important video of what may have been Scoldilocks’s dad fighting climate change at her age in the 1980s:
It was unprecedented then.

Reply to  Ian Magness
December 15, 2019 12:24 pm
Reply to  Scissor
December 15, 2019 1:05 pm

She expects us all to ride the train yet she’s going to whine and complain that there aren’t enough seats? Boo hoo, welcome to the real world honey bunch. I ride the train 1.1 hours each way every day. Not to save gas / reduce CO2, but simply because it’s easier to commute into the city via train. If I pick the wrong train, or the weather is bad, it’s SRO for me, too. Sic biscutus disintegrat.

Reply to  Cube
December 15, 2019 1:42 pm

She gave the impression that she had to sit on the floor, when in fact for at least some portion of the journey she was sitting within first class.

Reply to  Ian Magness
December 15, 2019 3:12 pm

The best kept secret is her father went back on the boat to Madrid with her….how did he get here

A C Osborn
December 15, 2019 11:48 am

26000 person boondoggle.
Massive Carbon footprint.
Outcome – kick the can down the road.

Reply to  A C Osborn
December 15, 2019 1:06 pm

There is no can to be kicked. Its a religious convention.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  A C Osborn
December 15, 2019 5:02 pm

And most got to the conference by fossil fuel powered land yachts commonly called cars.

Reply to  A C Osborn
December 16, 2019 4:51 am

I can’t wrap my head around this whole ‘conference culture’ that the eco-loons love so much.

Have the never heard of teleconferencing? There is absolutely NO REASON they have to be physically present at these things, and it is blatantly obvious that most of them are there for a boondoggle vacation on the company/public dime. That’s a huge part of the reason why us ‘normals’ can’t take them seriously. When they start doing these conferences remotely over the internet, then I might start paying attention.

Reply to  Steve
December 16, 2019 11:58 am

Conference Of the Partiers. No conference, no parties to attend.

A C Osborn
December 15, 2019 11:49 am

Poor St Greta must be feeling suicidal all over again.

Reply to  A C Osborn
December 15, 2019 12:19 pm

“How Dare you!”

Reply to  A C Osborn
December 15, 2019 3:46 pm

At first I thought this must be The Onion or Babylon Bee, but …

Greta Thunberg apologizes, blames “Swenglish” for threatening violence

During her speech in Madrid, she uttered a sentence that sure sounded like a potentially violent threat. If world leaders don’t bow to the Fridays for Future movement, “We will make sure we put them against the wall and that they will have to do their job.” That’s quite a loaded statement, historically speaking. It certainly implies putting someone to death by firing squad to most of us. It’s a graphic reference to violence.

Her apology issued Saturday included a caveat – the confusion came about because she was improvising her speech. She blamed “Swenglish” for the poor translation of that “against the wall” comment.

Reply to  Neo
December 16, 2019 8:08 am

It would appear that everything she says has been scripted by her handlers.
Even the weak apology.

Reply to  Neo
December 17, 2019 7:12 am

She is probably truthful in this particular case, “ställa någon mot väggen” (“stand someone agianst the wall”) in Swedish does not have at all the same connotations as in english. It means forcing someone to take action or choose sides.

Her handlers are apparently careless, or less than proficient in idiomatic english. I certainly wouldn’t have let her say that, but then I’ve translated english/swedish professionally.

Mike Smith
December 15, 2019 11:56 am

I would like to buy all the readers of WUWT a round of drinks. Provided someone else picks up the tab.

Reply to  Mike Smith
December 15, 2019 12:34 pm

I’ll gladly order the second round, same deal.

Reply to  Mike Smith
December 15, 2019 1:28 pm

Diet Coke for Donald please, surely the most distinguished anonymous reader of the blog.

Tom Abbott
December 15, 2019 12:06 pm

This lack of urgency kind of belies all the human-caused climate change scaremongering, doesn’t it?

December 15, 2019 12:08 pm

These COP “get togethers”remind me of the Vatican Council meeting’s the Catholic Church have held in the past to update church laws@ regulations.Any difference?

December 15, 2019 12:16 pm


I’m still at #COP25 and going to the final plenary. I’m hearing many small nations have left because they weren’t being included. People have been here all night, some slept on the floor. Many COP veterans have said they’ve never seen it fall apart this badly. This is a failure.


Reply to  icisil
December 15, 2019 2:44 pm


“I’m hearing many small nations have left because they weren’t being included.” Haha!

Should read, “I’m hearing many small nations have left because there was no money being handed out to them.”

Reply to  icisil
December 15, 2019 3:05 pm

Many COP veterans have said they’ve never seen it fall apart this badly. This is a failure.

So, does that mean it’s a good cop or a bad cop?

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2019 12:33 pm

And again a jamboree that was a success only for taxi drivers and prostitutes.

Next time in Glasgow. Thinking of being there with a banner stating: ‘Why don’t you go home and do something worthwhile?’

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2019 1:08 pm

A success for the prostitutes outside the conference but not the ones inside.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Cube
December 15, 2019 3:21 pm


mary Brown
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 15, 2019 5:28 pm


Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2019 1:21 pm

In Glasgow?
Bring your own Solar Panels. November is particularly sunny there.
And your own Bird-batterers, as the forecast is for a whole lot of hot air.


Bring some warming here!
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2019 2:22 pm

I stay 30 miles away and I’ll be too busy keeping warm to stand around waving a placard. Guaranteed to be the coldest December Glasgow has ever had.
That’ll teach them.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2019 3:37 pm

They’re not going to like Glasgow where the local cuisine only extends as far as deep-fried Mars bars

Tarquin Wombat-Carruthers
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 16, 2019 12:44 am

Haggis-only smorgasbords!

December 15, 2019 12:35 pm

Since Obama never submitted the Paris Accord for ratification as a treaty by the Senate, why does Trump have to wait to get the US out of it? It’s an illegal agreement, non-binding thanks to trying to end run around the Senate.

Reply to  Severian
December 15, 2019 2:03 pm

If Trump were to ignore its terms he could be sued by an ‘injured party’ and there’s a huge risk that a judge could decree that the agreement is binding, triggering years of appellate lawfare in the courts.

So he is withdrawing in a manner complying with its terms. He is betting he will win reelection. He doesn’t trust the courts to follow the law… with good reason.

Reply to  tarran
December 15, 2019 3:00 pm

Good point, sadly too many activist judges on the courts in the US.

Reply to  Severian
December 16, 2019 2:46 am

180 fewer than before President Trump took office though.

Promises made, promises kept.

Reply to  tarran
December 15, 2019 11:46 pm

I believe the drop dead date is just after the 2020 election so, even if, God forbid, Trump loses, he will still be President and can pull us out of it. He would still be President until Jan, 20, 2021.

Reply to  tarran
December 16, 2019 2:27 pm

Withdrawal will be complete before Trump leaves office, even if he doesn’t win in November.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
December 15, 2019 12:37 pm

I am not sure if the implications of the failure to address concerns over the content of Article 6 will reach public ears. As many will know, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was the basis of carbon trading, generating billions and billions in turnover, and is what feeds the value of an offset (1 ton of CO2 or its equivalent forcing). They are called certified emission reduction Certificates (CER’s).

Every article I have managed to find in the useless media that we have, avoided the actual nitty gritty about what the dispute was, what the positions of various countries was (especially Brazil) and text what was proposed.

While it is well and good and bully-for-them to protest saying “We have to get serious about this and really, really, really cut CO2 emissions…” it is not enough to agree and shake hands. There has to be some mechanism for trading carbon reductions and CO2 generation that is punitive enough to raise the billions needed to fund the transition from absolute national sovereignty to dependent implementers of the plans of an unanswerable global elite.

The breakdown is over what happens to existing CDM projects, especially a requirement (in the CDM text but not as forcefully) that requires all paid-for CERs to be ‘real’, or absolute, no cheating this time. The key single issue, if there was one and there isn’t, is the rolling over of all existing CDM projects into the Paris Accord trading system, without re-doing the baselines, and a desire to avoid a rather strict interpretation of the “additionality” requirement. If you are new to the subject, additionality means that a project activity that would have gone ahead anyway, cannot apply for CER’s to be generated by that activity.

If the Great US Eastern Forest is going to regrow all by itself, the USA cannot sell CER’s based on the billions of tons of CO2 it will remove from the atmosphere when doing so. You can’t sell what is already happening, or what will happen soon anyway. If the project (afforestation) would not go ahead unless there was additional funding, then additionality has been demonstrated. In short, only economically unviable projects can receive CDM or Article 6 funding.

Obviously progress has to be measured using some baseline. That baseline has been “declared” in the past in many cases, based on the rules published by the CDM Executive Board. The Paris Accord’s Article 6 requires that all baselines be redetermined to eliminate cheating, they say. So with a stricter requirement for demonstrating additionality, a recalculated baseline and meeting the requirement that there has to be an absolute drop in atmospheric CO2 as a result of the project, many of the current activities in developing countries will be cancelled. Developing countries realise this and are hankering for a slice of the future carbon pie to be set aside for them. As a group, they got little of the funding available through the Kyoto Protocol and they want guarantees that will not happen again. The biggest thing on the agenda, Article 6, cuts them off at the knees, just as they were working out how to milk the system the way the rich countries did for 23 years.

The mad crowds hollering outside for deep, deep cuts do not realise what a financial disaster it will be for the developing countries to have all or most of their projects reassessed and downgraded, particularly those involving forestry over large areas. Many Gold Standard Projects (a kind of easier version of CDM that permits many things to be estimated instead of measured for the baseline and compliance) cannot survive a baseline recalculation as the funds “generated” don’t cover the cost involved. Selling hot air isn’t as easy as it used to be.

The breakdown is over money, power, control, and a demand (led by Brazil since June) that this round the poor countries are guaranteed half the loaf. Half a loaf is better than no bread, they say.

Without Article 6 in place and the details of its operation agreed, all carbon trading will stop save in the voluntary market and certain national plans. Undermining all this ambition is the plain fact that if I emit CO2 and you absorb it (offset it) there is no net reduction in CO2. The protesters want to see that reduction guaranteed. The carbon traders want to trade offsets and speculate in them, not actually reduced emissions. Every ton of absolute reduction is a ton not traded. It is gone. You only buy an offset when you are emitting. A carbon tax yields zero if no one emits. If you are emitting, offsetting provides zero net reduction.
This brutal reality sets the agenda of the fat-cat carbon traders against that of the ideologically possessed protesters. The skeptics aren’t even invited to the fight. They are watching, slack-jawed, on the sidelines.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
December 15, 2019 1:29 pm

Thanks, very good clarification of the main issue.
If I had GT’s email address, I would forward your comment to her.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
December 15, 2019 6:33 pm

We skeptics are not watching, slack-jawed, Crispin.

We, The Skeptics are watching in utter amusement as the climate liars try to “out lie” one another about which Emperor’s clothes are the most magnificent.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2019 12:27 am

Joel – I think you’re right.

What amazes me is how well-buried the real story is. Beneath all the fluff about saving the planet, it is really about saving the funding mechanism. Fundamentally, this carbon trading thing is supposed to replace foreign aid, instead of being country-directed according to the various national interests. The idea of the Copenhagen agreement (read it in full) is to place a benevolent dictatorship of climate-curers in the seats that will direct all aid for all reasons. The idea in 2015 was to call everything from lack of roads to bad housing a “consequence of global warming”. Then “mitigation” would kick in to pay for schools, wells, traffic cones, drainage and so on – absolutely everything – all in the name of creating a sustainable world.

There is some benevolence in this plan. The idea is to bypass the bickering UN and the inveterate foolishness of absolute national sovereigntists each planning to “win” what they assume is a zero-sum game. Aid between nations can be based on being our brother’s keepers, not just empathy and sympathy when some disaster strikes. We don’t do that between provinces, why would we do it between states? Makes no sense. It is at least possible that Island America could lead this initiative. Climate scientists can’t.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
December 16, 2019 7:10 pm

Every public policy the Progressives ever try to implement has the opposite of intended effect.
Look no further than the US West Coast Homeless crisis for strong evidence the Left’s well intentions are the Road to Hell for the middle class.
Another one:
Growing income and wealth inequalities… Leftist policies.
Highly regressive energy taxes:
Impoverishment of the working class to need welfare handouts for their ballot vote.

Coeur de Lion
December 15, 2019 12:39 pm

20,000 delegates 20,000 delegates 20,000 delegates 20,000 delegates. Ivory Coast sent some 600. UK 48. 2 more women than men so that’s OK then. Ridiculous

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 15, 2019 1:20 pm

The IC delegate brought his women.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2019 6:09 pm

You sure it wasn’t bought?

Bill Powers
December 15, 2019 12:41 pm

Since America funds 80% of this global Bureaucratic scam. Trump’s exit plan means the flim flam will run out of money for everybody next year. The conference at whatever exotic location the planners are scoping out this year should ask for their money in advance since there are going to be a lot of cancellations.

Reply to  Bill Powers
December 15, 2019 1:02 pm

COP is scheduled for Glasgow, sounds like a step back in terms of climate.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 15, 2019 7:44 pm

COP26 Glasgow; 30,000 delegates are expected to attend the event at Glasgow’s Scottish Events Campus – 9-19 November 2020

Looks like a nice place – – when not crowded with 30,000 crazy people.
Also, I think the 30,000 is total folks, not UN-registered crazies.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 16, 2019 2:53 am

Perhaps not but they will all have to be paid for and the ultimate source for all that cash will be western taxpayers.

December 15, 2019 1:13 pm

Since the U.S. can’t leave until Nov. 2020, did the U.S. send someone to the summit this year?

Reply to  littlepeaks
December 15, 2019 3:54 pm

Can you shake a stick?

More than that.

Reply to  littlepeaks
December 15, 2019 5:30 pm

The US did send some low level diplomats, but not to worry Pelosi went to assure everyone US is still in. She left out the few things that have to happen to make that work.

William Haas
December 15, 2019 1:18 pm

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is very small and 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 that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So reducing all CO2 emissions to zero will have no effect on climate. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

Carl Friis-Hansen
December 15, 2019 1:47 pm

As COP25 jamboree os now over so is the Schipool Protestival by Greenpeace and XR. The Dutch military police set an end to that, dragging the hundreds of protesters out from the airport one-by-one.

December 15, 2019 1:50 pm

Make Greenland green again….exercise more…exhale more CO2…but don’t make Greta too angry….please Greta….not the wall….anything but the wall…..we’ll bend to your will if you forego the wall.

Reply to  T. C. Clark
December 15, 2019 2:12 pm

Unfortunately for the Alarmists, Greenland has stopped cooperating with them.

Greenland’s SMB gained 14 Gigatons over the past 2 Days alone, pushing this Season above the 1981-2010 average
December 3, 2019
Despite decades of doom-and-gloom prophecies, Greenland’s Ice Sheet is currently GAINING monster amounts of snow — 14 gigatons over the past 2 days alone (Dec 01 – Dec 02).
Crucial to the survival of a glacier is its surface mass balance (SMB) — the difference between accumulation and ablation (sublimation and melting). Changes in mass balance control a glacier’s long-term behavior, and are its most sensitive climate indicators (wikipedia.org).
And I’m innocent of any NOAA-like cherry picks here — Dec 01 and 02 just happen the latest two days. The truth is, since September, 2019 –the official start of this season– SMB spikes above the 2/2.5 gigaton daily average have been a regular occurrence in Greenland — in mid-November, for example, the sheet gained a whopping 10 Gt in a single day.
All this sublimation has seen the Acc. SMB rise above the 1981-2010 average, as visualized below in the Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) chart…”
If Greenland keeps this up, it will soon fall off the media’s Face of the Earth and neither they nor the Warmists will act like Greenland even exists.
A moment of silence, please, for the impending death of poor Greenland.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  KcTaz
December 15, 2019 2:58 pm

Don’t panic. They will find a different way to measure it so that it’s once more “worser than we thought!”

December 15, 2019 1:50 pm

Which 5 star destination will be holding COP26?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ack
December 15, 2019 3:00 pm


I will be interested to see how protests etc work out there. There’s nothing like freezing weather and drunken Glaswegians to warm the cockles of your heart (or not).

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 15, 2019 3:37 pm

“Eskimos have over 50 words for snow, Glaswegians have over 50 words for drunk.” link

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 15, 2019 3:43 pm

More likely to get a Glasgow Kiss.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 15, 2019 5:00 pm

Glasgow, Glaswegian handshakes and this guy;

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 16, 2019 4:39 am

shouldnt that can have been irn bru?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 15, 2019 5:20 pm

Isn’t Glasgow the home of the deep fried Mars Bar?

It doesn't add up...
December 15, 2019 1:55 pm


They may keep on fighting until they are dead. I asked Benny Peiser what single piece of evidence would persuade him climate change was a serious threat and he never replied. I would still be interested in an answer to that question

I’ve a suggestion for Harrabin: when China decides to pursue zero carbon by 2050 for themselves I might be persuaded to believe it is serious. Meanwhile, it appears that Harrabin is the one with his head in the sand.

December 15, 2019 2:00 pm

From the link in the article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ibm/2019/12/12/cuny-ibm-and-business-roundtable-collaboration-a-model-for-filling-the-tech-skills-gap/#34f76a2863eb).

“…But away from the negotiations at the UNFCC, new indications of climate leadership did emerge this week – from Brussels – where the EU delivered its Green Deal, and climate neutrality by 2050 was finally agreed. For businesses this sends the signal that the transition to a net zero economy can really start to accelerate.”

Actually,to the extent businesses believe that THIS TIME the EU really, really means it, this sends a signal to
them to get the heck out of Europe and go to India, China or other nations where they can manufacture at a profit. Since those nations have low to non-existent environmental standards, let alone any concerns about CO2 reductions, the EU guarantees that Earth will have more human-caused CO2 emitted as well as more real pollutants.
On the bright side, maybe they will all move to the US which is the only developed nation to have reduced CO2 and other emissions and that is no thanks to the Paris Accord.
Electric Utility Emissions Continue to Decline Through 2018

“…Due to policies and economic technology, emissions from electric utilities continue to decline. According to an EPA report, sulfur dioxide emissions declined by 92 percent between 1990 and 2018, nitrogen oxides emissions declined by 84 percent between those years, ozone season nitrogen oxides declined 83 percent between 1997 and 2018, and carbon dioxide emissions declined by 24 percent between 2005 and 2018. The large reductions in emissions occurred despite increasing output from U.S. electric generators. Electric output increased by 19 percent between 1990 and 2018.
Clean Air Act Amendments
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established the Acid Rain Program and required reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the electric generating sector. These pollutants are the primary precursors of acid rain. The sulfur dioxide program sets a permanent cap on the total amount of sulfur dioxide that may be emitted by electric generating units in the contiguous United States. The program set a cap on sulfur dioxide at 8.95 million tons in 2010, a level of about one-half of the emissions from the power sector in 1980. U.S. electric utilities surpassed that reduction in 2010 and sulfur dioxide emissions in 2018 were a mere 1.26 million tons, down from 17.3 million tons in 1980. Sulfur dioxide emissions are now about one-fourteenth of what they were in 1980
…Americans now enjoy the cleanest air many of them have ever experienced, and all signs point to increasingly healthy air, even as the United States has become the largest oil and gas producer in the world. The future of energy in America is bright; our air is clean and getting cleaner every day.”

A Keen
December 15, 2019 2:03 pm

Tim Collins : here is a nice presentation by Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer on why climate CO2 sensitivity is probably low .
Sorry I cannot offer the scientific method supporting a high sensitivity ………
Crispin of Waterloo but really in Piggs Peak : thank you for informing us of the real discussion problems at COP25 , which stuff we do not usually hear about .

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  A Keen
December 16, 2019 10:37 am

I believe that the usual ‘albedo’ of 30% is an underestimate of actual total reflectivity for Earth. Thus, the models would tend to run warm using 30%.

Craig Moore
December 15, 2019 2:38 pm

I wish the youth would lead by example and a real message. The other day I saw young people from a local high school out along the boulevard with placards about the climate crisis. Along this street litter lines the gutters from the school to a nearby teriyaki place. Not one of those students made an effort to retrieve the refuse.

December 15, 2019 2:50 pm

What a circle jerk. When you look at the results accomplished so far the world is adding, not depleting, CO2 on a steady basis. Based on future projections this will continue. Who’s fooling who?

Martin Howard Keith Brumby
December 15, 2019 3:26 pm

I think it would be helpful and kind to meet delegates to the 2020 COP26 in Glasgow with a nice ‘Welcome Pack”.

The delegates should certainly be encouraged to ‘meet the locals’, starting with the denizens of the traditional hostelries along Sauchiehall Street.

The delegates might be encouraged to try the fun pastime of waving little St. George’s Cross flags and singing a verse or so of ‘There’ll always be an England”. If you don’t know the words, hum a bit of Rule Britannia.

The local lads may very well treat them to a pint or two of the local beer. Ask if they have Fuller’s London Pride. Quite a speciality!

After all, it is all harmless fun and, as I think it was P.G.Wodehouse who said, you really can’t distinguish between a Scotsman and a ray of sunshine.
Or something like that.

William Astley
December 15, 2019 3:31 pm

All of the COPs and the Greta pep talk is working.

The EU have committed to economic destruction to attempt to do something that is physically impossible by 2050.

Apparently, the UK have signed on with the EU to mutually assured destruction and/or public rioting well before that date if the idiots stay the course.


Delegates drew some consolation from an agreement reached in Brussels last week by the European Union’s 28 member states, bar Poland, to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, under a “Green Deal” to wean the continent off fossil fuels.

BBC world news:
Krista Mikkonen, Finnish environment minister and EU representative at the conference
“It seems that the EU now needs to be the leader and we want to be and we are going to be and that is what we are doing.”

Parking the fact 100% of the IPCC science is incorrect. Humans caused no more than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2. Obviously no CAGW. Expect cooling early next year.

December 15, 2019 4:35 pm

When is the next “How Dare You” conference ??

Reply to  Triffin
December 15, 2019 5:54 pm

9-19 November 2020, in Glasgow and they have an issue they can’t kick things down the road if they don’t have a full agreement the Paris Agreement becomes invalid. They can choose to vary the Paris agreement but that I think most would say there would be no point if they were not at least close to agreement.

The two big sticking points wont be resolved because they have underlying problems
(1) The developed nations are never going to agree to formal reparations they want as they can afford approach. There would be few democratic countries that there leader would be able to do that because the public would vote them out. I know what the reaction in Australia would be if our leader suggested we were going to send massive amounts while we still have our own poor and disadvantaged. So it isn’t remotely possible our Politicians could agree to that because the public support is to low.

(2) The carbon trading scheme is problematic because the rich countries can simply out source there carbon neutrality. In the same way all the jetsetting celebs and royals claim carbon neutral by buying a few trees. The general idea is you are supposed to at least try and cut your emissions first and use the offsets as a last resort.

John Bell
December 15, 2019 4:49 pm

What is the US currently doing to be in the Paris agreement? I know of no C02 restrictions on anything in the US.

Reply to  John Bell
December 15, 2019 5:35 pm

US is still in because Obama signed you in to the agreement (which isn’t a treaty) and it had a 2 year exit clause. So you get to stay in and throw hand grenades although this time around you didn’t have to throw many China won the hand grenade throwing contest, India and Brazil were close second, followed by Japan, Australia and the Saudies.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  LdB
December 15, 2019 6:36 pm

LdB, as I recall….Signatory Parties could notify their exit from Paris Agreement 3 years after signing, with a then 1 year withdrawal period.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John Bell
December 15, 2019 6:12 pm


The Obama EPA-directed Clean Power Plan (CPP) was intended to be Obama’s end-around Congress to impose Paris Agreement US national declared intentions on CO2 emission reduction.

The Supreme Court put a court-order “Stay” (by a 5-4 majority vote) on the implementation against the states by EPA’s CPP in February 2016 until pending CPP challenges in the lower courts could be heard and appeals made. What Obama was trying to do with his Paris Agreement CPP rules from the EPA was without Congressional authority. The Executive has no power to impose new legal requirements on the States without some kind of Congressional authority, something based on laws passed by Congress. Obama had no Congressional authority for CPP. It was thus unconstitutional with a Supreme Court majority that remained faithful to an original US constitution interpretation.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death 1 week after the CPP Stay then allowed Obama to make a Supreme Court nomination (Merrick Garland) that would, if confirmed by the Senate, probably would have tipped the majority back to the Liberals to allow the CPP go forward. Fortunately Senate Majority Leader McConnell made one of the most consequential decisions of our lifetime. He told Obama his Supreme Court nominee would not get a confirmation vote from the Senate Majority, fulfilling his advise and consent duty under the Constitution. The CPP stay by the Supreme Court was never lifted as Obama had obviously hoped for. The fact that the Supreme Court balance was in play for the 2016 election drove many Conservatives to the polls to vote. A reality of many silent conservatives the media and pollsters could not account for in their polling methods, polling which consistently showed Hillary winning, thus lulling the Democrats to some complacency about a sure win for Crooked Hillary who could then fill Scalia’s seat with a Lib and remove the stay on CPP.

The Supreme Court stay on CPP implementation was still in effect when Trump took office in January 2017. The Trump EPA has since withdrew the CPP implementation and the court challenges became moot. The US under President Trump has no intention of committing economic suicide while China and India have no emissions limits under the UNFCCC COP process.

If the US elects a Democrat President in 2020, that President will be facing a solid conservative majority Supreme Court.

The Democrats hope to have two options at that point in 2021… if they can exercise them by winning the Senate majority in next year’s 2020 election.

1) Eliminate the Senate filibuster rule for legislation so that a simple majority vote in the US Senate can pass a CPP legislation and carbon taxes, or a cap and trade scheme like the one that died in 2010.

2) pack the Supreme Court with 4 more Liberal Justices that will allow the executive (President) to rule by fiat.

Reply to  John Bell
December 15, 2019 11:42 pm

John Bell,
The US is now and has been for well over three decades reducing pollution, the real kind and CO2, as well. (We’ve been working on it since Nixon and the 70s, in reality.)
I posted this article above but in a longer version. The US has been cutting CO2 for a long time–without Paris and without wrecking our economy, esp., in the last 3 years, unlike Europe while cutting CO2 emissions. Fracking and natural gas, all done without the Gov., is the biggest but not the only reason.
The US is the only developed nation of which I am aware that is on target to meet 2050 CO2 emission standards. No Paris A, needed, thank you very much.
Electric Utility Emissions Continue to Decline Through 2018

December 15, 2019 5:15 pm

The origin of this never ending story is the structural weakness that created a complete absence of accountability in in a never ending organization.


December 15, 2019 6:05 pm

Little entitled Thunberg is annoyed at Deutsche Bundesbahn…
She twitted:
“Traveling on overcrowded trains through Germany. And I’m finally on my way home!”
To which DB responded:
“We were pleased that you were on the ICE 74 with us on Saturday, and with 100 percent green electricity,”
“It would have been even nicer had you acknowledged how well and competently our team treated you in your First Class seat,”
Billionaire sailing yacht, special flown skipper, Telsa littered with plastic bottles and one use plastic cups… that’s your green hypocrite of the day!


Reply to  TomRude
December 16, 2019 4:49 am

Maybe if they had a Diesel powered loco at the front end they could have had more seats .

Serge Wright
December 16, 2019 2:38 am

When it comes to jumping off a cliff it’s hard to find a volunteer to go first.

jeff gold
December 16, 2019 5:52 am

norway should be putting mega billions into the fight since they make mega billions from their state owned fossil fuel company which has put away hundreds of billions of dollars in profits . its more fun to just whine about everyone else”s inaction . its
why theyre not in the EU . when youre that rich you want your independence

jeff gold
December 16, 2019 5:59 am

norway should be throwing billions into the fight from the hundreds of billions of dollars of profits from their state owned fossil fuel industry . but its much more fun whining about the lack of action . its why theyre not in the EU . whats norways is norways . sharing stops at the border .

December 16, 2019 8:13 am

When that crowd all turn up in Glasgow, tell them to go to the 11th Floor of the hotel :

December 17, 2019 1:50 am

The teenage girl campaign against farting cattle continues!
1857 Nonqawuse (300 000 – 400 000 cattle slaughtered. CO2 & methane output massively reduced)

2019 Greta (Scoldilocks) Thunberg (No figures officially recorded)

A luta continua

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights