Who Is Winning The Climate Wars? (2)

Reposted from Manhattan Contrarian

December 17, 2019/ Francis Menton

A few weeks ago (November 22), in a post titled “Who Is Winning The Climate Wars?”, I undertook to begin documenting the ever-growing chasm between the unhinged rhetoric of climate campaigners and the reality out there in the world. Let’s collect a few data points over the past several weeks.

You probably know that the UN held its annual big climate conference this year in Madrid during the first two weeks of December. That event provided the occasion for many campaigners to ramp up the volume of their claims, trying once again to stampede government representatives into agreeing to impoverish their people. A few examples:

  • On November 26, in the run-up to the Madrid confab, the UN Environment Program came out with its annual Emissions Gap Report. Summary (from the New York Times of that date):  “With world leaders gathering in Madrid next week for their annual bargaining session over how to avert a climate catastrophe, the latest assessment issued by the United Nations said Tuesday that greenhouse gas emissions are still rising dangerously. ‘The summary findings are bleak,’ said the annual assessment. . . . The result, the authors added, is that ‘deeper and faster cuts are now required.’”
  • Two days later, on November 28, there was another cry of alarm from activists claiming to be “scientists,” published in the journal Nature. Summary (from CNN of that date): “The Earth is heading toward a ‘global tipping point’ if the climate crisis continues on its current path, scientists have warned, as they called for urgent action to avoid ‘an existential threat to civilization.’ The group of researchers, who published a commentary in the journal Nature, say there is growing evidence to suggest that irreversible changes to the Earth’s environmental systems are already taking place, and that we are now in a ‘state of planetary emergency.’” (The people at Nature and CNN don’t seem to remember that dozens of previous climate “tipping points” have come to nothing. To take the ten-part Manhattan Contrarian Climate Tipping Points Quiz, go here.)
  • On December 4, the hard left New York Times ran a big piece with the headline “Climate Change Is Accelerating, Bringing World ‘Dangerously Close’ to Irreversible Change.” Introduction: “More devastating fires in California. Persistent drought in the Southwest. Record flooding in Europe and Africa. A heat wave, of all things, in Greenland. Climate change and its effects are accelerating, with climate related disasters piling up, season after season.  ‘Things are getting worse,’ said Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization, which on Tuesday issued its annual state of the global climate report, concluding a decade of what it called exceptional global heat.” The Times article was accompanied by a great picture that you will not want to miss:

Climate Change Accelerating.jpg

  • And then on December 11, there was Greta Thunberg winning Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” award. (Did you even know that Time Magazine still exists?) One of the many quotes from Thunberg in the Time article: “‘I want you to panic,’ she told the annual convention of CEOs and world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January. ‘I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.’”

Well, that’s the rhetoric. Shall we check in on the reality? For this portion of the post I am grateful to Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who has put out a good roundup just today. Highlights:

  • The UN’s Madrid climate conference ended in what can only be called a total failure. No new compulsory agreements of any sort were reached. From the Washington Times, December 16: “The annual climate fest was widely panned as a failure after wrapping up Sunday with no agreement on hot-button issues such as the Green Climate Fund, an international carbon market, ‘common metrics’ for measuring non-CO2 emissions, and reimbursement to poorer nations for ‘loss and damage caused by man-made climate change.’ . . . After two weeks, delegates from about 200 countries could only agree that there is an ‘urgent need’ to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris agreement, despite pressure from activists who swarmed the Madrid gathering.”
  • From Rupert Darwall at RealClearEnergy, December 16: “Talk doesn’t cut greenhouse-gas emissions. The UN Environment Programme describes the last ten years as a lost decade, in terms of curbing global emissions. ‘There has been no real change in the global emissions pathway in the last decade,’ UNEP says. Global emissions have risen at an average of 1.5% a year over the last ten years, pausing in 2016 but resuming the upward trend in 2017. Emissions have now reached a new record, with no sign yet of a peak. The underlying driver is the strong economic growth of non-OECD economies, which have grown at more than 4.5% a year, compared with only 2% a year for OECD members.”
  • In a piece for the GWPF on December 12, Vijay Raj Jayaraj summarized the approach of India toward the UN’s carbon-emissions-cutting efforts as a “fossil fuel first attitude.” Excerpt: “The Indian government has adopted a fossil-fuel-first attitude and has made clear it will not compromise on India’s developmental goals. . . . India’s . . . proposed actions [under the Paris agreement] include no significant measures to curb India’s fossil fuel use or production. Moreover, the NDC states that the country reserves the right to overturn its commitments if the proposed climate mitigatory actions cause any impedance to the growth of individual economic sectors.”
  • And worldwide, is use of coal increasing or decreasing? It’s increasing, of course. From The Hindu, December 17: “Coal consumption is set to rise in the coming years as growing demand for electricity in developing countries outpaces a shift to cleaner sources of electricity in industrialised nations. . . . [T]he International Energy Agency anticipates steady increases [in coal consumption] in the next five years. . . .  [G]lobal coal consumption is likely to rise over the coming years, driven by demand in India, China and Southeast Asia. Power generation from coal rose almost 2% in 2018 to reach an all-time high, remaining the world’s largest source of electricity.” 
  • And finally, there are also increasing signs of sanity even outside the developing countries. Britain’s Tories have never been known as a climate skeptic party, and have largely gone along with “green” initiatives. However, in the recent election, they chose to make an issue out of how much Labour’s proposed climate policies would cost average consumers in increased energy prices. From the Telegraph, December 15: “The Conservatives targeted voters in the country’s most marginal seats with tailored Facebook and Instagram advertisements featuring warnings about how a Labour government would increase the cost of petrol and heating. . . .  A final Facebook assault launched last weekend included advertisements warning that Labour’s plans would put petrol up by 16p, heating bills up by £65. . . .” Obviously, this did not cost the Tories politically, and may well have substantially helped them.

Bottom line: It’s not just uber hypocrites like Mike Bloomberg and his four private jets. The fact is that outside of some wildly guilty European countries and the loons of the U.S. Democratic Party far left, fewer and fewer people pay any attention whatsoever to the absurd climate apocalypse rhetoric.

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “Who Is Winning The Climate Wars? (2)

  1. For me it is very derpressing that the same people keep on making the same claims and are allowed to continue with this ridiculous falsehood of science. The sad thing is that it is about control of populations and people and nothing to do with climate.

    • Not to fear Andy. Poll after poll shows that something like 65% of people will parrot back Climate Catastrophe propaganda. That’s not surprising given the oceans of authoritative sounding stories of imminent climate catastrophe.

      But wait. When these same people are asked if they will accept the sacrifices needed to reverse Climate Change, the numbers flip. People almost EVERYWHERE… from Liberals in Oz and NW Blue States in the US, to Yellow Vests in France, refuse to let themselves be fleeced or reduced to Dark Ages penury. Even Green Germany has turned against wind power as a blight and a nuisance, and a pricey one at that.

      All of which drives the Climate Hysterics absolutely batty and in tears. ‘Cause nothing they can say to convince ordinary citizens to commit economic suicide. So coercion is that only tool left. And that’s hard to do if the Chief Executive openly derides the hoaxsters … hence the hate.

      • Also, in opinion polls around the world that ask people to choose from a list of issues such as economic welfare etc, the environment and climate change usually come in at the bottom of the list. This includes the UN global opinion poll, which is ironic as the UN is probably the biggest climate doom-monger.
        Chris

      • One has to be very suspect of just how opinion is solicited.

        Obviously opinion polls have two very obvious flaws. The phrasing of the question and ‘just give me an easy life’. People don’t want to argue with a pollster or be seen as a ‘climate’ Troglodyte.

        This applies in spades when it comes to ‘focus groups’. These are an absolute nightmare if one were really wanting to solicit genuine opinion. The previous two issues are amplified and you get the ‘additional bonus’ of having someone dynamically direct the flow of ‘debate’.

        Of course, none of these apply to the ballot box. Which is where, in privacy, people get to express their real opinion.

    • Absolutely! It’s nothing to do with the climate; it’s all about power and money. However, it’s a fight the eco-loons can’t win. Anytime they try to impose measures that REALLY touch ordinary people’s wallets (e.g. the carbon tax in France, or the climate election in Australia, etc.) they get kicked in the teeth. They only way they can impose their program is through totalitarianism. The fascistic nature of the green movement is ever more apparent, but they still won’t win because we have the numbers. So enjoy the great things that will happen in 2020, Andy, and stay away from Croydon (my hometown) unless you want to get really depressed about human nature! ::))

  2. cheering;-) but..
    until we find a msm outlet with balls enough to publish this where the “everyman” sees it

    that said visited friends this evening and all 6 or them around the table were utterly p’d off with the medias warmist crud
    and this while we have 3 fires burning round our town..
    lightning strikes last night, and they flared up again today
    reality, what a concept;-)

    • We too were surrounded by the Mid North Coast fires and it is still very dry here having received only a third of our average rainfall this year. Talking with my next door neighbour (37 yo) she said the next person that mentions climate change better have medical coverage. Most sensible folk know that it is a scam although 20 years ago they might have accepted it. Dear electricity and failed predictions have worked to persuade them that it is a ginormous hoax. Only the deluded still believe.

    • Unfortunately our education system force feeds our students and simultaneously through fear and intimidation limits the students questioning of their elite authority. Consequently, well educated (tongue in cheek) adults still can’t think for themselves and are incapable of critical thinking. In addition, most of mainstream media is owned by five global corporations which in turn dictate what is called news which is primarily emotional hype and falsehoods. In other words “fake news.”

      Fortunately the world wide web internet has provided an avenue or channel for which sites like this can be accessed, at least for now. The impact of truth driven web news has prompted globalist agenda driven giants like Google. Twitter, et cetera to filter and ban the voice of truth and opinion that they themselves fear.

  3. The data is definitely on the side of climate realists. But until the media decides to present this issue in an unbiased manner, climate realists are at a disadvantage.

    • But where do the eco-fascists go from here? When people realize that their climate “emergency” is just another cry wolf, what’s the next move? Climate Armageddon, Climate World War One, Two and Vietnam rolled into one? It’s a law of diminishing returns. As we saw in the recent UK election, people don’t like crazies. If XR and Greenpeace carry on their present campaigns, they will piss off even more normals. From past evidence, I expect there to be a split between crazies and “moderates” and the crazies will turn to violence. The bottom line is that no matter how much they lie to us, ordinary people will NEVER give up their cars, their livelihoods and their meat.

  4. well we’re not winning it….forget the science…it’s toxic and polarizing
    Start pounding on how the UN set it up to increase emissions…how we have not increased emissions, but we have to pay them to increase it
    ..and how can it be dangerous at all…when ground zero, UN/IPCC…puts policies in place to increase it

    worst case…liberals wake up…finally start blaming China….and China tells them all to pound sand

    • As time goes on, more people are learning to ignore the fake media, just as they did behind the Iron curtain.
      Reality always wins in the end.

    • I do not agree “Forget the science … it’s toxic and polarizing’.

      This is a physical problem. not a debate problem. The only true end of the climate wars is to solve the scientific problem in a manner that convinces everyone and/or there is sufficient cooling.

      If you like park the science issue and talk about the fact that the schemes sun and wind gathering cannot for basic economic and engineering reasons, be used to get a country (say the US, Germany, or the UK) to carbon neutral.

      I completely agree CAGW the idea is very dangerous and out of control.

      Who is winning the Climate Wars?

      Chinese.

      We are getting whipped by the crafty Chinese. The Chinese appear to be playing a game where they will use our fear of CAGW, to help them dominate the world economically.

      China will have cheap power, cheap labor, cheap high technology, and so on.

      China Builds Massive Railway to transport Coal

      https://twitter.com/PDChina

      China Builds Massive Railway to transport Coal

      We will have massive debt, high unemployment, out of control government spending, years of political all in fights, super high power costs, and so on.

      • If China makes the solar panels that it only pays propaganda lip-service to using itself, while selling the vast bulk of them to developed countries to be used, it is effectively developing itself as a nation as we developed countries go about undeveloping ourselves.

        That’s a win-win for China.

      • +1,000 William.

        Also, I agree that this bit – “If you like park the science issue and talk about the fact that the schemes sun and wind gathering cannot for basic economic and engineering reasons, be used to get a country (say the US, Germany, or the UK) to carbon neutral” is where the main thrust of skeptical commentary in the msm should be focused.

        Patronize the wind & solar proponents by seeming to agree with their objective of zero CO2 electricity generation emissions, then ask them to explain how the manufacture, installation, operation, power distribution, decommissioning and disposal of the wind & solar apparatus will ever generate and store all grid-scale domestic & industrial power on demand in an uninterrupted constant supply, and be CO2 neutral.

        Ask about the amount of real estate required for wind farms, and the transmission infrastructure and losses complexities (maybe suggest that regional parks & forests will have to be closed and given over to vast landscapes of wind turbines?)

        Ask them to really think about what they’re proposing, and do they really think their plans are realistic. Without debating the validity or otherwise of the CO2 conjecture.

      • “This is a physical problem. not a debate problem. The only true end of the climate wars is to solve the scientific problem in a manner that convinces everyone and/or there is sufficient cooling.”

        nope…global warming pushers don’t even know the science or care….too many climate scientists will say the opposite…and it’s right back to where it is now

        It’s political…treat it like it’s political…blame China the UN and developing countries for killing us all.. we can win that one easily…it’s obvious…it couldn’t be more green…and puts the green attack dogs on them and off us…and that’s one they can’t win

      • “This is a physical problem. not a debate problem. The only true end of the climate wars is to solve the scientific problem in a manner that convinces everyone and/or there is sufficient cooling.”

        nope…global warming pushers don’t even know the science or care….too many climate scientists will say the opposite…and it’s right back to where it is now

        It’s political…treat it like it’s political…blame China the UN and developing countries for k1 ll1ng us all.. we can win that one easily…it’s obvious…it couldn’t be more green…and puts the green attack dogs on them and off us…and that’s one they can’t win

      • You’ve got to admire the Chinese. They bald-facedly declare they’ve met their climate goals and then continue churning out coal power stations every ten days. The greens are cowards and don’t have the cojones to confront them, and anyway, communism is good. Trump is doing a similar thing. The real losers are the soft liberal western Europeans who follow every crazy edict of Big Green and enjoy basking in the virtue-signal glow.

  5. And because fewer people are paying attention the politicians will be able to pass legislation promoting climate change boondoggles, more business regulation, and higher taxes to “save the planet” under our noses.

  6. The climate alarmists have been extremely successful in promoting their garbage in the media and in blocking all other voices in the name of saving the planet from denialism. Until the media doing stop this, we have not accomplished much. For example, CBC has about one climate alarmist article per day and they moderate out comments they decide are denialism and often don’t allow comments at all.

  7. Yesterday, Greta was back in Sweden demonstrating with a handful or two of other protesters. This poor showing suggests that at least in freezing cold weather, her popularity is waning.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/watch/greta-thunberg-back-to-protesting-outside-swedish-parliament/vp-BBYcJJq

    In the U.S. at least, air travel for the Christmas holidays is setting records for the highest number of passengers. This too would suggest that in reality consumers are not cutting back on the convenience of modern travel.

    • Travel is much reduced in France right now.

      Nothing to do with saving the planet, just government employees striking to keep their cushy pension schemes at taxpayers’ expense.

      • Why are they bothering? Don’t they know that the world will end in Climate Catastrophe before they can ever collect on their pensions?

        Once Macaroon explains that to them, they will become quiet and compliant.

        (/sarc)

    • “This poor showing suggests that at least in freezing cold weather, her popularity is waning.”

      It is actually unusually mild in Sweden just now, making the poor turnout remarkable.

  8. I think we all agree the planet has warmed some over the past decade or two. Nothing out of the ordinary.

    But sooner or later the trend will reverse and when it becomes obvious to the point adjusting the numbers will no longer help perpetuate the scam, the warming part will be over. But then the blame on the cooling will be put right back up there on we humans. It is inevitable, and unfortunately the small, very vocal minority will still be out there.

    There is just too much money and power involved for it to go away.

    • Note: even if the warming continues but at a reduced rate, that means it’s decelerating instead of accelerating. That blows all the alarmist predictions out of the water.

    • “I think we all agree the planet has warmed some over the past decade or two. Nothing out of the ordinary.”

      Don’t agree. Some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained the same. Honestly we don’t really know what “the planet” is doing with any accuracy.

      • The oceans are still rising. That means that either the oceans are warming (and therefore expanding) or that glaciers and ice fields are melting.

      • The warming is scattered and accompanied by non-warming. We don’t know exactly what the climate is doing, but we do know what some meteorologists in Australia are up to.

        They’re reducing the accuracy of the old records in order to make the data fit the models. This also allows new temperature records to be set constantly. A false heat record was set just a few days ago.

        Thus, we have less and less real knowledge about the recorded climatic conditions here in a whole continent and one of the World’s largest islands, which is a wonderful starting point for the indoctrination of the naive.

  9. That was rather a disappointing piece with a rather click-bait-y headline. Listing countries that are simply ignoring alarmist rhetoric doesn’t refute the basis of said rhetoric. I was hoping for something a little more data-based. Simply comparing the number of entities identifying as alarmists vs “ignore-ists” doesn’t say anything about the underlying reality of the situation. It’s irrelevant if 97% of skeptics don’t “believe” in man-made climate change just as it was irrelevant that 97% of scientists do! Science isn’t about consensus. And the so-called “climate war” is PR nonsense. Let’s get sensible and deal with data: observable, reproducible, durable, reliable, defensible, sensible data.

    • I think the point of Manhattan Contrarian’s article was that the reality of no alternative to fossil fuels shows up implicitly in how various nations behave as opposed to their COP rhetoric — science aside.

    • “Let’s get sensible and deal with data: observable, reproducible, durable, reliable, defensible, sensible data. ”
      you must be knew to this blog…

    • Little Lady- unfortunately, the press gives all the Phd’s(piled higher and deeper) great attention and nearly none to Pretty High Degree of intelligence people.
      Another fact- the public debate is not about science. None or the zealots wants to hear “observable, reproducible, durable, reliable, defensible, sensible data”. They want the civil law to be changed to support their views regardless of whether or not Mother Nature agrees.

      The whole climate debate has been a Trojan Horse(apologies to the Trojans, they were honest warriors, so were the Greeks)to take over the reins of power. It started about 1972 when Maurice Strong, a sometime Canadian oil millionaire and a politically savvy campaigner instigate the United Nations to form the United Nations Environmental Program. While UNEP has done some good things its primary purpose was to put political power and money in the hands of the UN in order to bring about a socialist world government. Rio Conference, the UNEP programs, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCC), the World Meteorological Organization, and countless other programs in various countries and between countries were all aimed in the same direction- for some 40 years. The Council of Parties(COP) annual programs(all 25 so far) are conventions to push the climate catastrophe idea, allow country programs to coordinate, lobby for money and political position, and all the other problems well-funded politicians want to get/maintain power.

      All the information is still on the UNFCC website(s). It is all power politics with dribbles of science and aid to developing countries along the way.

    • Well, we didn’t bother with “data” with the ozone hole. It is as big as ever but nobody wants to go back and fight over whether banning fluorohydrocarbons helped or hurt or did nothing.
      Despite all the billions spent, CO2 levels are still rising in the atmosphere.
      It is like our efforts don’t impact the “data” but nobody cares.
      And, what data could ever impact a rational debate on CO2 and climate? THERE IS NO WAY for us to know what the impact of rising CO2 will be based on computer models or pathetically short-term observations like 30 years.
      I feel a rant coming on, but….
      To use the word “data” to refer to the body of OBSERVATIONAL information obtained regarding the climate (various types of temperatures, glacier thickness, butterflies, etc) and to also refer to obsessively measured numerical results in a laboratory setting, where multiple factors of interest can be precisely controlled and whose interactions can be mathematically calculated and whose impact on the outcome can be stated with precision, and repeated by other laboratory workers independently, is a true bastardization of the language of science. The word “data” is used not to advance the discussion, but to becloud the minds of the listeners.

      The same bastardization is used when the phrase “computer model” is used in the context of the prediction of future climate. The phrase “computer model” had gained respectability earlier in situations where there were no unknown factors, and the models were ran within the range of the parameters used to create the model.
      In short, what data would prove that rising CO2 levels cause climate disruption? I cannot think of any.

      • CFC research is still being carried out, along with impacts on the “ozone layer.”

        You might be right about the effect of CO2 but if temperature dropped or remained the same for several years, then that would certainly impact rational debate over climate change over the short term.

        • We recently had temperatures that remained the same for almost 20 years. Where is your rational debate?

          It’s not about temperature. Even if they dropped to those of the LIA there would be no debate.

    • Our problem is we just fight about the data, fight about the data analysis, and fight about the IPCC models.

      We have the ‘data’ or more correctly we have the observations to scientifically defeat CAGW.

      The cult of CAGW are incorrect at the level of physical assumptions.

      That is different than problems with a data set or data analysis.

      For example. (This is the easiest issue to ‘win’ on because of the number of independent confirming observations. If this finding is correct there would be and are other physical errors in the assumptions for CO2 forcing and feedbacks.)

      There are a dozen observations and analysis results that support the assertion that humans caused no more than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels are tracking planetary temperature not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

      For that finding to be true physically there must be a large unaccounted-for source of CO2 that is coming into the biosphere and an unaccounted-for source large sink of CO2 of in biosphere.

      This recent observation that C14 (C14 that was created by the atomic bomb testing) is making to the deepest ocean with no delay is an observational fact that disproves the CAGW team created absurdly non-physical so-called IPCC Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times.

      The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

      “The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990). ”

      https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html

      Bomb C14 Found in Ocean Deepest Trenches

      ‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches

      Bottom feeders
      Organic matter in the amphipods’ guts held carbon-14, but the carbon-14 levels in the amphipods’ bodies were much higher. Over time, a diet rich in carbon-14 likely flooded the amphipods’ tissues with bomb carbon, the scientists concluded.

      Ocean circulation alone would take centuries to carry bomb carbon to the deep sea.

      But thanks to the ocean food chain, bomb carbon arrived at the seafloor far sooner than expected, lead study author Ning Wang, a geochemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, said in a statement.

    • Data? Here’s a good start – graphs of UK temperatures, rainfall and sunshine going back to 1910 from the Met Office:
      https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
      Unimaginably huge amounts of money have been wasted (and continue to be) on ‘mitigating climate change.’
      I’m 70 years old, and I’ve lived in the UK for all of that time. The British climate subjectively hasn’t changed, and the Met office data confirms this. We are being fed a constant barrage of lies by the media, not to mention the doom-mongering on the Met Office website itself – despite the graphs of historical records on the link I’ve supplied.

  10. The Earth is heading toward a ‘global tipping point’ – article

    Yeah, yeah, yeah — how about a reality check here? Right now (winter solstice!!!) , Earth’s northern half IS tipped away from the Sun. Happens every year. We get cold weather, dormant trees, short days, long nights, sometime snow – sometimes not – and then we go back to the warm climate. It’s part of the Cycle of Life.

    If only those Warmunistas were smart enough to know that the planet’s been inhabited for something like 3.5 billion years, and somehow life survived, expanded, became different orders, classes, species and types and nothing – not even a Big Rock from Outer Space – has resulted in the demise or extinction of life, period. Don’t start with that stuff about the dinosaurs going extinct. They were already on their way out. Mammals took over the land spaces and part of the seas, and the Earth was a whole lot warmer back then than it is now when all those changes were going on.

    These people are the most lamebrained control freaks I’ve ever run across. While it might be fun to yank their chains, an obsession like theirs is unhealthy. The louder they shout, stamp their feet and squawk (and demand money), the less people will listen to them. Time for the rest of us to move on.

    They need some professional help with their problems.

  11. No country in the world has elected the UN to rule them. They hold no power over anyone, anywhere unless such is freely handed to them. Time WE told them to pound sand, and the loony lefty nutters everywhere who want to make us say 2 + 2 = 5.

  12. Have I got this correct ?
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas bouncing the infrared from the earth surface causing warming.
    Water vapour ( clouds ) reflects more infrared than CO2. Clouds are high up.
    If in a few metres of atmosphere above ground the infrared is going to interact with a molecule of CO2 and 50% of the infrared is going to go upwards by the time it reaches 1000 metres there will be little of the infrared for the water vapour to interact with.

    • zemlik, when 0.04% of the atmosphere controls the weather give me a call. Don’t call anyone else.

      • well instinctively I’m thinking this climate emergency is all bullshit but I just like to know what’s going on.

    • Zemlik, “Have I got this correct ?
      CO2 is a greenhouse gas bouncing the infrared from the earth surface causing warming.”
      NO!

      A greenhouse gas does not “capture indefinitely” as your analogy implies. It does capture IR for a very short time, then re-radiates it. How short? Microseconds to milliseconds. Less than 1/2 of re-radiation is back toward the surface. Most is lateral or upwards. So even this: “50% of the infrared is going to go upwards…” is incorrect since we live on a ball.

      The odds of IR even hitting a greenhouse gas molecule is very low when radiated at the surface and even lower as it rises through the atmosphere.

    • zemlik, this too is incorrect: “Water vapour ( clouds ) reflects more infrared than CO2. ” Clouds reflect solar energy. Not just that in the IR wavelengths.

      • Well…

        Clouds are actually suspended liquid water. They may reflect sunlight at high altitude (as I understand it, I’m no expert), but will reflect IR back to earth at low altitudes.

        Water vapour itself, as in a very humid climate, will reflect IR, keeping the heat near the surface for a bit longer overall, mainly obvious at night.

        I also understand (from this website) that some of that IR will be transformed into warming of the atmosphere. That would invoke cooling by convection (hot air rising and eventually radiation to space).

        That is my (probably poor) understanding and experience, anyway. It’s certainly not a simple nor terribly well-understood process as far as I can see. I’m amazed that this has not been fully tested in real-world situations before gambling entire economies on it anyway. Correct me if it has, by all means.

  13. “Emissions have now reached a new record, with no sign yet of a peak. The underlying driver is the strong economic growth of non-OECD economies, which have grown at more than 4.5% a year, compared with only 2% a year for OECD members.”

    Do the doomsters and EU not see the self damning reality in this?

    • why haven’t the native Australians adapted they’ve had millenia and now they have the temerity to say it is too hot.. Why haven’t the koalas adapted – inflammable fur in a eucalyptus forest – just asking for trouble. Why haven’t the Europeans adapted to floods it only takes a few gills after all
      You say adaption is easy. tell that to the flora and fauna.

      • Australian native animals adapt to conditions. They move to more accommodating locations.
        Just like the Aborigines did.

      • Native Australian flora – eucalypts – have adapted very successfully. They survive bushfires by dying. I kid you not. Eucalypts are very inflammable, as you would be well aware given the Australian bushfires in the news. The fire kills ‘all’ plants, but the Eucalypt produces seeds that use the heat to germinate. Bit by bit, they use this mechanism to gain domination over other flora. Remember – the gene uses its host for its survival.

        Eucalypts have been so successful at this that they completely dominate virtually all of Australia’s forests. But you can still see the process in action in the Tasmanian Tarkine rainforest. The Eucalypts are spreading through the rainforest from the south, using fire to strangle it and promote themselves. They have recently crossed the Pieman river and have a significant foothold on its north side. There is now nothing to stop them destroying all of the rest of the rainforest in the years to come. The Greenies use the Tarkine as a lever to stop mining – with its tiny footprint – but ignore the main threat: Eucalypts.

        • News flash from the front.

          “Our glorious forces have met the enemy on the outskirts of the Tarkine Rainforest and have defeated them utterly. The Eucalypt forces are currently retreating in disarray towards the center of the Rainforest.”

      • What is it about trolls and their inability to construct coherent arguments.
        The only way to adapt to floods is by developing gills?
        Please stop embarrassing yourself.

  14. Surely doomsters and sceptics see that we are going to go ahead with the “Big CO2 Experiment” no matter what silliness the so-called Developed Countries do.

    We are going to know exactly what the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is to several decimal points. We are going to know precisely how this doubling will effect weather extremes. We will know unequivocally the cost-benefit picture for expansion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Nothing CAN be done to avoid the Big CO2 Experiment. CO2 policy will only hurt (is hurting) those countries who play the game.

    I’m surprised so few seem to see that the “debate” is entirely academic, moot. Events have passed it by and so far, “The Great Greening “, expanded habitat, bumper crops and, at most marginal warming is the only unequivocal climate change that has appeared.

  15. ‘I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.’

    Well you have to blame your parents for that dear since they stole your childhood knowing full well when they had you after the impeccable UN warning in July 1989 that if we didn’t get off fossil fuels by 2000 we were all doomed. My last child was born in 1987 so my wife and I are off the hook but what excuse do your parents have given they knew all about the dooming? You need to sit them down and have a good long chat with them and please explain?

    OTOH if you’re interested in science and the scientific method do drop in dear and we can give you the help you need or else you stick with mum and dad and the dooming and don’t let them slyly move the tipping points on you to skin out of it. After all if they doubt for one moment that edict from the UN then all sorts of doubts could gain traction and Gaia forbid that you might come to believe you’re not doomed dearie.

  16. I would say the warmists are winning but only just. There may have been some regional cooling but overall the world is warmer than it was thirty years ago. Most of the warming has occurred over the North Pole. I have noticed that northerly winds in winter on the east coast in UK are more likely to produce rain now than snow. If the earth is to cool then the artic ice needs to start increasing its maximum extent in March and more ice left over in September. The warming that has occurred is much smaller than the overly exaggerated climate model predictions.

    • More Arctic ice means more insulation of a warmer (than the ice) Arctic ocean. Less Arctic ice means more cooling of a warmer Arctic ocean.

      Since when the ice is at its minimum, the sun is so low as to be irrelevant, ice is not making much difference to absorbtion of solar radiation, sea having similar reflective abilities at low angles (think of a sunset over water).

      Climate is dominated by negative feedbacks, not positive ones, or the climate would swing to extremes all the time. As it is, we only get extreme cold most of the time, and occasionally drift into more beneficial warm times like this interglacial, and few warmer optimums (warmer than today) where climate is very benign and civilization flourished. We still have no idea why these fluctuations occur, but we can be certain it’s not CO2 causing them.

      Not quite the PC view, I know, but history and palaeontology appear to agree.

    • I don’t think they are winning. Sure, some nations like Germany have burnt their boats and invested heavily in inefficient and unenvironmental energy “solutions” such as wind and solar, but most other nations are just going through the motions. Also, in the place where REAL change has to happen if the ecofascists are to triumph – everyday life – things goes on as normal. Did you see people cutting back on their consumption and expenditure this Xmas? Me neither. On the motorway, there were just as many cars as ever. The ecofascists know that they cannot impose their regime through democratic means – hence their hatred of democracy and love of undemocratic monoliths like the EU and UN. They also know that if they make a real move to destroy the systems that have lifted billions of people out of poverty, they will not survive. Bring on the next existential scare campaign. This one’s done.

  17. The atmosphere is reasonably well mixed so it will take all countries to reduce emissions of co2 to make a difference. All this about “if I drive a suv it will only increase the temp by 0.001°C so why should I change my habits” is just nonsense.

      • I drive my 2 ton 4wd (not a city-pansy ‘pretend 4wd’ which is what I call an SUV) because I need one, having a property that is very non-flat and mostly bush. I would also get cut off during flooding (aka every wet season) without it.

        I also like it, as I love to go off road when possible, which is quite often in Australia.

      • And there, Fleghorn, you’ve just described why the ecofascists will never win. It’s one thing installing recycling bins here and a “low emissions zone” there; it’s entirely another trying to deprive people of their jobs, money and mobility. Imposing serious green measures at the personal level is a bit like trying to confiscate guns in the US: people can talk about it as much as they want but it ain’t never gonna happen! Sorry, ecofascists!

    • Actually, one person’s SUV usage will only increase the temperature of the planet by at most 0.00000000000001C.
      0.001C is what a moderate sized country’s would be, based on the broken models.

    • “The atmosphere is reasonably well mixed so it will take all countries to reduce emissions of co2 to make a difference. All this about “if I drive a suv it will only increase the temp by 0.001°C so why should I change my habits” is just nonsense.”

      Yet you’re still using the fossil fuel infrastructure to post messages on blogs. That makes you a hypocrite.

  18. From the article: “growing evidence to suggest”

    Can you get a little more definitive than that? No, I didn’t think so. That’s about as definitive as alarmist climate scientists get.

    From the article: “Things are getting worse,’ said Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization”

    This is the same guy who just months ago said that activists and journalists were indulging in too much extravagant exaggeration with regard to human-caused climate change. Now, a few months later, he has climbed on board the Climate Change Crazy Train. I guess someone had a talk with him and got his head right.

    • That recalled to me Crazy Train by Ozzy Osborne. Very fitting, as one line is
      “the media sells (sic) it and you live the role”

  19. As long as the USA has President Trump,the C.A.G.W scam is stymied.
    No money coming from American Taxpayers,means “No Progress” over at the UN IPCC.
    And as the reality of ever increased theft via a carbon tax,even pious virtue signallers like “Enlightened Canadian” will gradually realize they have been gulled.

    “we control the climate” is an amazing claim,for which there is no positive evidence.
    As with most all of the IPCC’s previous “projections”.
    100% failure rate is nothing to sneer at.
    In some ways it takes real talent,or an erronious ideology,to be so wrong.

  20. GP wrote:

    “Surely doomsters and sceptics see that we are going to go ahead with the “Big CO2 Experiment” ”

    My thoughts exactly. We are already partway through the great experiment where reality does not match predictions.

    Activists are either too stupid to realise this, or are in a state of denial. Economics and self preservation rule this world. The experiment will play itself out regardless.

    The dynamics of the war are totally dependent on future change in global temperature. Get a decade of decline and the rhetoric will decay to a whimper. Get even 0.1 C rise over a decade and they will feel they are winning.

    Their greatest weapon remains “unprecedented” extreme weather events that occur somewhere every day of the year.

    • “Activists are either too stupid to realise this, or are in a state of denial. Economics and self preservation rule this world. ”

      No. They don’t care. Their only goal is destruction of Western civilization.

  21. WUWT has run many articles on why attacking fossil fuels will not impact CO2 levels much. They’re rising, and will rise.

    This has no impact on global temperatures, but it still gets too hot in the Summer, and anyhow absolutely any catastrophe can be blamed on global warming, and half of the public will believe anything.

    But the most important thing is photosynthesis and plants. Atmosphere CO2 can and SHOULD be sequestered into the SOIL, where it enhances fertility. And poison-based irrigated agriculture REALLY IS causing climate change by savaging the water cycles. Water moderates temperatures, so damaging and drying the soil causes BOTH extreme highs AND lower low temperatures. Restoration agriculture (Regenerative, Permaculture) fixes these things PROFITABLY. Perhaps best of all, the “greens” are into it. You can hobnob with them, make them right, and casually point out that higher atmospheric CO2 actually is a good thing.

    If you make them right enough, they can calm down. And maybe we can survive.

  22. Perspective is how a person sees an issue, based upon their knowledge of the issue. While CO2 has steadily increased by ppm since the Industrial Revolution. The global temperature has not increased by the amount of warming scientist have said CO2 would increase the temperature. Atmospheric Water is a greater “greenhouse gas” than CO2 is and Atmospheric Water is much more than the 415 ppm of CO2 of our atmosphere. Humans contributions of CO2 have been around 4% of the total 415 ppm by an article in WUWT in 2017 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/21/examining-the-carbon-dioxide-cycle/#comment-2508459

    If Anthropogenic Global Warming/Anthropogenic Climate Change is based upon our 4% contributions of CO2. Then the Global Termites Contributions that are estimated to be ten times what humans contribute, then Global Warming and Climate Change is caused 10 times more by Termites than humans.
    https://www.iceagenow.info/termites-produce-co2-year-living-combined/

    What Termites do is natural to their species of Fauna and whatever Humans do is natural to their species of Fauna. But the alarmist cannot tax the Termites for their contributions. Burning fossil fuels is considered unnatural by alarmist, that like all other humans, they use the energy as much and some by much greater percentage than most poor human, are hypocrites.

  23. I love the term “irreversible climate change”. The climate is always changing, albeit slowly, and there’s not much we can do about it. We can flagellate our economy as some Christians do their bodies on Easter but in the end all you get is scars and pain.

    • Curious how a degree or two is “irreversible climate change”, yet the graphs that Al Gore used in <An Inconvenient Truth showed four cycles of 10-12 degrees of warming followed by the same amount of cooling.

  24. Unfortunately, in Canada the climate alarmists are everywhere, even in the petrol provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It’s crazy. CBC and CTV are the worst, but the big (but dying!) newspapers are also off their rocker. The pundits are almost all literally screaming that one of the major reasons the Conservatives lost the recent Federal election (but won the popular vote) was their lack of ‘a credible climate plan’ ( that and not pandering to the LGBTQ crowd, however small that group actually is).

  25. The man on the wherever it is omnibus, regards ‘Expert’ prognostication as completely credible. Unfortunately he has not quite caught on to the the fact that the massive expansion of further education has led to a surfeit of the supposedly qualified who may not be as expert as in days of yore, but who need to make a living.

    Be nice to think that we are due, or overdue for an extended solar minimum ? Such an event and its attendant misfortune is about the only thing that will derail the Planetary Emergency train.

  26. I have a question on the sensitivity side of the debate and negative feedback:

    The historical data we have shows that that in our planets past, we have experienced times of higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels (much higher). The fact we currently live in a relatively stable climate with lower temperature and CO2 levels means that at some point in the cycle, a strong negative feedback loop had to kick in (or is always present in some form). At that time the negative feedback had to dominate the positive feedback loops to bring the temp and CO2 levels back down.

    My question would be then, as this effect must exist, have the IPCC modellers and alarmists in general understood clearly what this negative feedback system was, how powerful it can be and when it kicks in?Following from that have they included it in the models. 

    If not, at least 1/2 the equation is missing then. Would that be a correct assumption?

    • MarkW: the UK climate hasn’t changed in my lifetime (71 years so far!) – see my earlier post and link to Met Office graphical data since around 1900. Work your way way through those graphs.
      Do they suggest impending climatic Armageddon?
      Definitely not.

  27. As a UK resident, I’m pleased that finally ‘Brexit’ looks as if it will happen.
    I ferverently hope to see an end to the ‘climate change’ garbage we’re constantly bombarded with, but sadly I think that this will take a lot longer than the 3-year+ political stalling of Brexit which has finally been overcome.
    I can’t imagine how sense will finally prevail on the CO2/climate issue, given the entrenched interests of certain second-rate scientists, politicians, and the media in keeping the scary stories going.

    • The common sense prevails whenever the doomsters ask the populace to dig into their wallets for their technically and economically illiterate prescriptions. That doesn’t stop the fallacy of composition and its costs with giving them some free LED light bulbs or subsidised solar panels on their roof, etc but eventually that cost becomes apparent. They won’t be able to hide when the lights go out by not mandating a level playing field with suppliers to the communal grid and facilitating the purest form of State sponsored dumping imaginable.

      It’s only a matter of time now before they go the way of Lysenko but it’s hard to watch and be silent about it. The good part is a generation will get to learn that more Gummint is not the answer to everything that goes bump in the night and neither is squandering the intergenerational wealth transfer of one’s ancestors. Another app on the phone won’t kiss it all better either and some serious introspection will be required. One generation earns the wealth with sweat and hard work the next enjoys the benefits of it and the third pisses it up against the wall so perhaps it’s all about unusual demographics in the West.

  28. Virtually every child in virtually every school in the western world is taught this bunk. Data and facts be damned.
    No, good sense is not winning this argument.

  29. @Carbon500. Let’s have high hopes on Boris Johnson. Hope he would take enough initiatives to bring the Climate Science Research in the UK in the right direction. There are lots of manipulation going on and many true scientists are suffering. Our plea to Boris Johnson is to investigate those secretly and to take action for the true progress of climate science. It is a good sign that under his leadership Extinction Rebellion stopped flexing muscles.

    We are also tired of watching false alarmist propaganda every day in the BBC news. It is nothing but playing with the emotion of common people without much scientific basis. Being a taxpayer-funded organisation BBC should be unbiased. Boris Johnson, please take appropriate steps.

    • Mark: agreed entirely – we’ve had a good clear-out in Parliament; it would be uplifting to see a similar purge of talentless so-called scientists.
      Don’t get me started regarding the BBC – another clear-out is needed here, and urgently!

  30. I wonder what the climate action now brigade actually want?
    What measurable results do they expect? (yes I know they manufacture them, like the temp record)
    When do they expect those results to be evident?
    What are the consequences when the are not realised?

  31. “The Indian government has adopted a fossil-fuel-first attitude and has made clear it will not compromise on India’s developmental goals. . . .”

    Good for India! It suddenly occurs to me that the only “climate refugees” will be the people in industrialized nations who are impoverished by draconian climate change laws and are forced to seek better economic conditions elsewhere.

  32. And yet laws have been and are being implemented all over the first world compelling governments to introduce draconian measures to reduce emissions drastically. It matters not what the populous think or say.

Comments are closed.