My Thoughts: Post-Madrid #COP25

The Heartland Institute’s Climate Reality Forum provided a powerful counterweight to COP 25, with speakers ranging from Dr. Will Happer, former science adviser to President Trump, to Chilean engineer Douglas Pollock, to youth climate realist, and foil to Greta Thunberg, Naomi Seibt.

Listen to Senior Fellow Anthony Watts go over his time there and his conclusion that UN climate conferences are not about saving the environment, but rather about transferring money from developed countries to developing countries.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 16, 2019 3:02 pm

In sum, COP25 has been another cop out on reality.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
December 16, 2019 5:18 pm

No it was an interesting show where fools like you blame the politicians for not doing enough. You are actually so stupid you fail to grasp that politicians can only do as much as there population will allow. The failure of COP25 just shows that there isn’t enough public support to do anything.

Even green group favorite countries like China and India came in and threw hand grenades effectively derailing agreements because they could not accept the outcome. Any thinking person expected China to killed all the human rights clauses but I think most were surprised at other things it objected to.

It is pretty clear COP26 is dead before it gets underway and that is the reality.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  LdB
December 17, 2019 12:45 pm

The failure of COP25 just shows that there isn’t enough public support to do anything.

Tell me, LdB, do you have the arrogance to believe that Man can control the weather? (30 years’ of which = climate)

Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2019 3:13 pm

“but rather about transferring money from developed countries to developing countries.

Oh if such beneficence for developing countries was real from the UN and its UNFCCC bureaucrats. The $100 Billion/year Climate Aid Fund offers huge “piece of the action” to fund their jobs, their conferences, their power to decide who gets the money.
Tis the holiday season and “Dreams of sugar plums” are dancing in UN bureaucrats heads at the thought of skimming even just a small part of $100Billion/year in that money transfer. The same applies for the Vatican in it’s support for the climate scam as its Catholic NGOs would be in line for some of that aid money, with the Rome getting its overhead share. Same with all the other Climate think tanks and climate NGOs looking for their cut. It’s all about getting a piece of that enormous pie — the climate hiustle has always been about the money.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2019 4:22 pm

It CAN’T be about the money. Yes, most of the visible screamers are hoping to steal lots of money from more productive people. Yes, alarmists get 100 to 1000 times more money than we do.
But we said that and the problem did not go away.
It is partly about driving to world to Socialism. But that didn’t fix it either.
I have been waiting for somebody to point out that since CO2 is the basis of all life on Land, there is a motivation to kill every living thing, down to the bacteria, even. Finally, a month ago I saw the craziest conspiracy theory I have ever seen: the Earth is being terraformed for space aliens who want to kill the humans and need colder temperatures and less carbon dioxide. I figure any space aliens have been around for a long time, and would have finished this eons ago if they were so inclined. But it does fit the facts.
This life destruction could benefit AI once they no longer needed humans to make them. Some power elites think they can upload themselves to a computer, and this might benefit them.
Most likely, it is something else, but genocide is surely a component.
We had better find out what the real reason is.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 16, 2019 5:35 pm

D. All of the above.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 16, 2019 5:45 pm

Money = power.
More money = more power.
A story old as Cain and Able.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2019 5:49 pm

and more power always results in more money.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2019 7:05 pm

I hate to be picky, but…


Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  BobM
December 16, 2019 7:30 pm

Good catch Bob. “Abel” is certainly is.
If I’d thought about it for more several seconds I’d have realized it. I lost the trees for the forest.

Reply to  BobM
December 16, 2019 8:22 pm

I hate auto correct sometimes 🙂

John Hadley
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 17, 2019 1:57 am

Money = power = (what they really, really, really want) CONTROL!

michael hart
Reply to  John Hadley
December 17, 2019 8:18 am

Control and power are the same thing.
I recently awoke from a dream with an unpleasant ending. Somewhat disgruntled, after a while I realized that, hey, it’s my dream, I decide what happens here! I then happily dozed off again while writing several very different endings in my head, where the opposition truly got more than their just deserts.

I suspect this is not entirely dissimilar to what goes on in the heads of delegates at these UN conferences.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 16, 2019 6:22 pm

Planned population has long been a component of their conception of progress. And, true to their ideology, their path is monotonic, with the recurring factional schisms and divergence in methods and motives.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 17, 2019 6:23 pm

My version of conspiracy theory is that certain powerful people, Bilderburger Club of Rome types, believe mankind’s Malthusian end is nigh….and climate change is a red herring lead-in financed by them but planned to show failure of democratic government control, all so they can say “well CO2 control failed, the only thing left is forced totalitarian population control”. If they push population control directly, it would be considered “racist” and fail. Maybe it will make a movie plot like “Day After Tomorrow”. Hollywood, Anthony has my email address.

Robert Beckman
Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 18, 2019 1:24 am

In fairness Socialism would solve any CO2 problems out there, with the accompanying mass die off of humanity every time it’s been tried.

Something about it being evil in theory but fatal in fact.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2019 4:50 pm

..and when they found out they weren’t getting paid…they all walked on their commitments

they had no intention of keeping in the first place

The UN/IPCC was formed in 1988…to lower emissions
..since the IPCC was formed emissions have skyrocketed..and all from countries that get paid

The USA has not contributed to global warming in 50 years…our emissions have been basically flat
..all of the increase has come from China and developing countries..that get paid

comment image

December 16, 2019 3:37 pm

Anthony’s story is much like my own. He started out believing in global warming and then someone pointed out some inconvenient facts. Critical thinkers find that CAGW doesn’t pass the sniff test.

In my case, Dr. Mann’s hockey stick contradicted my knowledge of history. There was a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) all over the globe and then there was the Little Ice Age (LIA). The hockey stick was obviously concocted to erase the MWP and LIA in order to make it look as if the recent warming has not been mostly natural. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Mann for making me a skeptic.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 4:46 pm

The Climate Gate emails did it for me circa 2011-2012. Until then I was too busy with research and studies, my now ex and her kids, my trail running to bother with other areas of science. I simply believed the climateers at their word and what the media said before then. A fellow post-doc in the lab I was at the time (late-2011 right after the CGv2.0 emails) suggested I might should take a look at what was happening in climate science.

It took several years pf coming back to the subject just to understand-decode all the lingua-franca of climate, what a GCM was, and how they stuck the model putputs together into an ensemble. The model ensemble stuff made no sense to me having both a a civil and electrical engineering education and experience and a strong biochemistry lab training for my PhD.
The IPCC’s CMIP made no sense to me immediately; realizing that only a few could be right. But rolling them ALL together into the CMIP scheme and pushing a single mean projection without comparing to reality which of the few were likely closer to correct just turned the whole climate projection effort into one BIG stinking, steaming, heaping pile of dog poo. Once I realized that, I knew the whole Climate Change thing was scam of immense proportions being perpetrated by a community wedded to GroupThink and Rent Seeking.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 5:22 pm

In my case it was Al Gore talking about pending “tipping points”. Again, completely contradicting the geological record.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 16, 2019 6:32 pm

In my case it was the Human-caused Global Cooling scare of the 1970’s not panning out that caused me to be skeptical of what climate scientists were saying.

When the Human-caused Global Cooling speculation first came out I didn’t have any reason to doubt it. I accepted what they said, thinking that detailed evidence was soon to follow. No evidence ever followed. I waited, and waited and waited, and all we got was one speculation after another and never any evidence

We are in the same situation today except the temperatures are warming so now the speculation is about Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change, and to date, no evidence has ever been provided to back up these claims. It’s been 40 years and still no evidence. Anyone who isn’t skeptical isn’t paying attention.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 17, 2019 5:17 am

In my case it was the sequence of Coming Ice Age, Nuclear Winter, Acid Rain, Ozone Hole, OMG the frogs are all dying, OMG the bees are all dying, then Global Warming….all perpetrated by the same kinds of people, all with a hysterical tone, all with moral smugness, all without scientific clarity

Craig from Oz
Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 6:21 pm

“He started out believing in global warming and then someone pointed out some inconvenient facts.”

I feel this is an important observation that needs to be commented on further.

Started out believing A. Exposed to counter argument. Transferred acceptance to B.

Sounds simple, right? Well… Only if you think like a Conservative. Many of you would be familiar with the idea of the Conservative Advantage – the observation that Conservatives can pick what a Left would answer more often than a Left picking a Conservative.

This, In My Opinion, is because of the way a Left and Conservative processes idea which is in extension based on their core way of looking at the world. A Left often believes the world is unfair and if only everyone followed the correct path everything would be better for everyone. A Conservative also often believes the world is unfair, but can’t solve everything for everyone and is better off concentrating on making the best for their immediate social circle (friends, loved ones, family et al).

So to pick the ‘best’ a conservative is more willing to examine multiple choices. There is no real right/wrong, only ‘best’ and ‘best’ is subject to change.

BETA was best video, but VHS was better supported, making it best compromise and you would be foolish not to have a VHS unit… until DVD came along and then who wants to watch movies on tape? There is no definitive lasting best, only best at the time. Choices evolve and change.

However Lefties…

Lefties often believe that problems can be solved if only the right people were in charge. Okay, often those right people happen to be them personally, but hey, they mean well… don’t they?

They believe strongly in this ‘right’ with a passion. True one person’s passion is another’s foaming at the mouth nut job, but each to their own. The point is that to believe passionately is to believe in absolutes. There is no ‘best for you’ or picking and changing to suit the circumstances, there is RIGHT and there is WRONG.

The problem is when you are clearly RIGHT, how do you change your mind to believe in WRONG? Remember you deal in absolutes, so if you were actually wrong about ‘A’, what else were you wrong about? Could it be that your entire life has been a complete lie? Are all your friends wrong as well? How do you deal with these things?

Well for the most case you don’t. Simpler that way. Stick to the original plan. A is right and B is wrong and it is not you who is misguided, it is THEM.

Conservatives are open minded, because deal down they are focused on only their immediate needs (friends/family/loved ones) and those needs can change. They need to keep updating their world view in order to get the best out of life. Provide a better argument and they will consider it. Provide a compelling better argument and they will come to agree with you.

A Left is not open minded, because they already know what is best for everyone and already know it is for EVERYONE’S good if only this came to pass. They cannot change because change proves they were originally wrong and the reason they don’t have the great successful happy life conservatives seem to be privileged from birth to enjoy is actually because they made a few bad life choices and (gasp) some of it is actually THEIR own fault.

In My Opinion 😀

Reply to  Craig from Oz
December 17, 2019 12:57 am

“A liberal, finding a bee in the hive suffering from injustice, is motivated more or less exclusively by the desire to get justice for the bee. A conservative, being partially driven by the Care/Harm foundation, also desires to alleviate the injustice, but tries to find a solution that also contemplates the survival of the hive itself.” link

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
Reply to  Craig from Oz
December 17, 2019 12:49 pm

“BETA was best video, but VHS was better supported”

BETA owners would not let their technology be used for porn. Simple as that. They were insistent.

VHS owners allowed it and they immediately won the format war. Porn boomed globally as soon as it was available on video tape. It also demanded the internet revolution in terms of access to high speed data, certainly as much as online gaming.

That’s the naked truth.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  commieBob
December 16, 2019 9:50 pm

I don’t think I was ever fully convinced. I could never match what I understood about this and previous interglacials with CO2 being such a threat. I couldn’t match what was in the history of Earth’s atmosphere with the predicted oncoming disaster with the previous climate. But the main thing was nothing seemed to be close to going outside previously experienced global climatic conditions. I for one am still expecting an ice Age quite soon, in geological terms at least.

December 16, 2019 4:12 pm

All countries are constantly developing. Some quicker than others and it’s not money that’s holding those back that are slow.

Carl Friis-Hansen
December 16, 2019 4:14 pm

Anthony, thanks for the overview of the events in Madrid.
Seemed to be business as usual. Looked at a written overview from Copenhagen 2009 and the biggest difference I found, was the it was snowing in Copenhagen at COP15, Monckton got more less arrested and Obama signed the suicide bill, which Trump now unsigned.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
December 16, 2019 6:16 pm

Yes, I agree. A very articulate and concise summary of COP events. He’s a good spokesman for the skeptical position toward CAGW. Hope he keeps it up.

Colorado statewide snow-water equivalent now at %122. (Killer droughts predicted by summer!)

Steve Keohane
December 16, 2019 4:16 pm

Acquisition25 flopped.

December 16, 2019 4:17 pm

It’s with great reGreta that…

Reply to  clipe
December 16, 2019 8:23 pm

LOL. You win the “daily groaner” award. Well played (spelled?) sir.

December 16, 2019 4:23 pm

And how much of the money flowing into 3rd world countries will just coincidentally flow into “green” companies that are coincidentally owned by the principle leaders so strongly advocating the money transfer in the first place? Solyndra comes to mind…

December 16, 2019 4:44 pm

“but rather about transferring money from developed countries to developing countries.”

You think?….CO2 is causing global warming that’s going to kill us all

But the vast majority of countries are developing and they get to increase it because of per capita and GDP…

GDP was a little too obvious…so the trolls have dropped that one…now it’s per capita
All we have to do to drop out emissions…is get more people..with enough people we can drop “per capita” behind China and get us some of that global warming money too!

Reply to  Latitude
December 16, 2019 5:28 pm

Yes the choice of per capita was strange it sort of fed into the human rights junk that some on the left were pushing. GDP which is a measure of your capacity to pay was the obvious choice. That would mean the worlds second largest economy in China would have to pay and apparently they haven’t had there historic use of the resource 🙂

If you accept there is a problem it is a bit like rocking up to save people from the Titanic, and those in economy class insisting they get more seats in the life boat because they didn’t get the first class cabin and meals.

Reply to  LdB
December 16, 2019 6:25 pm

both sides of their mouth……global warming is going to kill us all….but it’s not fair to developing countries, they get to increase it

Increasing CO2 can’t be dangerous at all…if it was…no one would be making rules..or excuses.. for countries to increase it

Reply to  Latitude
December 16, 2019 10:59 pm

And history doesn’t count you could have been there burning fossil fuels like the rest of us except obviously your country sucked at the game of civilization.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
Reply to  Latitude
December 17, 2019 1:22 pm


You are on the right track. A carbon trade is to emit carbon somewhere and absorb it somewhere else. There is no “reduction” involved. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul and to pass the cost of the transaction along to everyone else.

December 16, 2019 6:29 pm

If they can’t convince you. If they can’t force you. Then they will gerrymander the outcome. People in urbane environments are especially vulnerable to consensus politics.

December 16, 2019 7:08 pm

“but rather about transferring money from developed countries to developing countries.”

Sorry, President Trump tried that one too but the distinguished Henry “Jake” Jacoby of the MIT Joint Programme for Global Change called him out for misleading us.

Apparently Trump misread the 44 references to transfers of wealth from developed countries to developing countries enshrined in the Paris Agreement…

December 16, 2019 7:14 pm

Wasn’t Tuvalu first claimed to be sinking sometime before Greta Thunberg was born?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Pigg's Peak
Reply to  Damon
December 17, 2019 1:53 pm

Yes it was. Good memory.

December 16, 2019 7:27 pm

Oh, the poor dears at COP25.
“Exhausted delegates reached agreement on the key question of increasing the global response to curbing carbon. All countries will need to put new climate pledges on the table by the time of the next major conference in Glasgow next year.” Supported by the European Union and small island states, the push for higher ambition was opposed by a range of countries including the US, Brazil, India and China. But lots of work to prepare for the next party at COP26 in Glasgow.

Dennis G Sandberg
December 16, 2019 9:20 pm

Amazing, seems I’m the only commentator that thought, wait a minute, when the libs decided that fermenting a carbohydrate to produce a hydrocarbon replacement was going to save the economy AND the planet. My thought was that makes about as much sense as converting electricity into coal. The more I learned the more incredible it became. Even the libs that supported ethanol now realize it’s insane. Ethanol is worse for the economy AND the planet than windmills but the libs still haven’t had their “wait a minute” with wind. …just a few more $trillion and they’ll get it.

Bill Nichol
December 17, 2019 12:53 am

The Maldives are in the Arabian Sea of the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific Ocean (4:06).

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 17, 2019 1:39 am

How many more tons of CO2 are these eco-parasites going to expend on yet another pointless gabfest in Glasgow?

Another Ian
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 18, 2019 8:53 pm

What’s the betting that it will be more than Madrid, not less?

Coach Springer
December 17, 2019 6:00 am

” … transferring money from developed countries to developing countries. ” No, not even that. That is just a strategy for control. It is about one-world control. Over something vague and fearful, but always just far enough away to allow the appearance of meaningfulness.

Kevin kilty
December 17, 2019 6:07 am

As Craig from Oz quotes

“He started out believing in global warming and then someone pointed out some inconvenient facts.”

How many people have arrived here via this very same route? How many more people have also observed some discrepancy, but rationalize it in some cockeyed way so as to continue their prior beliefs?

One can point out discrepancies in the stories of one’s opponents all day long, but it does very little good. One can write letters to the editor; give public talks; run a foundation with the express goal of educating the public; and even run a popular blog. But it is neigh impossible to reach the folks who really need to introspect a bit.

Planck once said that physics advances one funeral at a time. One might think, optimistically, that the currently climate crazed folks will eventually pass on and those who replace them will engage in a new hysteria. But the more likely outcome is that as a climate crazed citizen passes on, our educational system will indoctrinate a young recruit to take their place. Equilibrium results.

Al Miller
December 17, 2019 7:38 am

COP 25 (and the rest) a giant hypocrite fest! I’m amazed and appalled that anyone could take these things seriously…

Harry Passfield
December 17, 2019 12:54 pm

Anthony, I’ve been on this site since just after it launched; the great thing was that comments pretty much appeared just after they were submitted. I just wish that was the case now. Please tell me the new registration system will speed up the appearance of comments.

Happy Christmas – and a great 2020 – when all shall see the light.

December 18, 2019 11:18 am

“… negotiators could not reach a consensus on how to move forward with carbon emission reductions or climate-based wealth distribution without the compliant United States.“

How about the biggest polluter, China, put on the big-boy money-bags pants

December 18, 2019 9:03 pm

If I was a religious person, the fear of AGW could be God’s (or perhaps our alien curators’) mechanism for encouraging human progress to the next stage beyond stone age fire making, effectively what we are still doing by burning fossil fuels. That next stage is to create energy using the same method as our Sun and every star. All the investment currently being wasted on attempting to ‘stop’ creating CO2 needs to go into developing practical nuclear fusion based power generation within the next few decades. With that it really will be within our grasp to control the climate.

Verified by MonsterInsights