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:

- 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.
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.
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).
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.
“The man on the wherever it is omnibus”
Clapham, IIRC.
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?
No, no, and yes.
The Climate Consensus Destroyed…
Who is winning the climate wars?
The climate
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.
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.
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.
In the classroom An Inconvenient Truth has been replaced by The Day After Tomorrow, so a geography teacher friend of mine informs me.
“the unhinged rhetoric of climate campaigners”
Here’s an example
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/16/global-warming-melting-greenland/
@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!
Who is winning the climate wars?
Rather brilliant, that, haha.
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?
“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.
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.