COP26 And The Hubris Of Our Political Overlords


Francis Menton

There is a very reasonable argument to be made that the climate-related Conferences of Parties (COPs) that occur annually under UN auspices are terrible things. They cost (i.e., waste) enormous resources, and they have the potential to do great damage to the world economy and the well-being of the people. Fair enough. But on balance, my view is that it’s a good thing we have them. I can think of no other comparable activities that put on such dramatic and widely-viewed display the immeasurable foolishness and hubris of our political overlords.

By the time you read this, COP26 will likely have opened in Glasgow, Scotland. Thousands will be in attendance. Most every country of the world has sent at least some high-level delegation, and the majority are sending the President or Prime Minister. U.S. President Joe Biden will be there in person, along with PM Boris Johnson of the UK, President Emanuel Macron of France, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and comparable heads of state from across Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Oceania, and North and South America. U.S. climate envoy John Kerry used his usual portentous tone to set the stage (as quoted by the BBC):

America’s climate envoy John Kerry says the COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow is the “last best hope for the world to get its act together”.

The idea is that hundreds of global leaders, not a one of whom has much if any idea how the world’s energy systems work, will come together to agree and order that those systems must be completely discarded and replaced. Currently, all the world economies run mostly on fossil fuel energy; but these political leaders are oh so much smarter than that, so they will order that use of such energy must be reduced and then ended, and associated carbon emissions will of course decline commensurately. These people equally have no idea how or whether the newly-ordered alternative energy systems might work, or how much the new systems might cost when fully implemented. Those things, you see, are mere engineering details, too insignificant to warrant the attention of great potentates. What they do know is, as the magnificent Barack Obama put it in 2008, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. . . .”

Given that this is COP26 — that is, the 26th of these mostly-annual lollapaloozas since the game got started at the Rio “Earth Summit” back in 1992 — perhaps it is time to look back over these close-to-three-decades at how the whole model for controlling the world’s climate has been working out. For example, you may be wondering, since world leaders started making agreements intended to lower emissions of CO2, how much have those emissions actually gone down? Fortunately, a UN agency, the IEA, keeps a graph of annual “energy-related” CO2 emissions. Here is that graph since 1990:

Hmmm. It sure looks from that that, despite nearly 30 years of UN “climate” confabs, the overall trend in emissions is sharply up, not down. Annual world CO2 emissions, according to the IEA, were 20.5 GT in 1992, the year of the Rio conference, and are said to be 33.0 GT this year. Yes, there was a downward blip in 2020, undoubtedly associated with the pandemic, but in 2021 we have already nearly equalled the prior level, and have returned to a steep upward climb.

Or perhaps we might look at the trend of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. My friends at the GWPF have helpfully put together a chart which combines the NOAA CO2 concentration data from the Mauna Loa Observatory with the times of the main UN conferences and agreements intended to slow the rise:

Do you spot there the close association of the main international UN conferences with the reverses in increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? If not, is there something wrong with you?

So the many UN conferences and the associated agreements and pledges of major countries to decrease carbon emissions have neither slowed the growth of emissions nor the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Has this whole exercise then been completely ineffective? Actually, there are many effects of these so-called “climate” policies that we can point to:

  • Western European countries have largely barred the further development of fossil fuel resources, including coal and natural gas. As a result, they have become increasingly dependent on Russia for those resources. Did I mention that Vladimir Putin is one of the few heads of state who have declined to attend COP26?
  • China has basically claimed to be exempt from the whole UN process by reason of being a “developing” country. In 1990 it was a distant third in emissions behind the U.S. and EU, and barely ahead of Russia. Today its emissions are well more than double those of either the U.S. or EU, and more like 6 times those of Russia.

Oh, China’s Xi Jinping is another one of those few world leaders who is not showing up at COP26.

  • Places like Germany that have most aggressively pursued fossil fuel suppression have managed to achieve consumer electricity rates in the range of triple international norms. All over Europe, energy prices are spiking. Here in the U.S., less than 10 months of a Biden presidency emphasizing suppression of fossil fuels have managed to see gasoline prices increase close to 50%.

Read the full article here.

4.7 25 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 2, 2021 6:06 am

If the participants really believed what they are preaching for the hoi polloi, they would hold a virtual meeting.QED

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 2, 2021 8:10 am

Tom, sounds like you saw the news that there are more than 400 private jets at Glasgow for the shindig. Classic “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”.

Reply to  Ron Long
November 2, 2021 8:59 am

Not to mention the huge motorcades of huge armored cars, and Biden’s large 4 engine jets. Yep, they really really care about emissions.

Peter East
Reply to  starzmom
November 2, 2021 2:04 pm

And then there’s the helicopter that shadows Biden’s motorcade from Edinburgh to Glasgow and back each day!

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 2, 2021 9:05 am

But they’re far too important to have to follow the rules, Tom.

The illustration at the top is appropriate.

Reply to  TonyG
November 2, 2021 9:49 am

Please leave these people alone!

They are more important than the rest of us and their CO2 emissions are forgivable when they’re spreading the good word.

We need to feed the leaders first when the food is scarce . . . otherwise, who would lead?

Richard Page
Reply to  Raven
November 2, 2021 1:05 pm

Who would lead? Just about anybody would at least as well, if not better; I’ve never seen such a well fed bunch of under-achievers in my life.
For the first time, I seriously hope there is a hidden cabal behind the scenes pulling their strings because I’d like to see someone competent in charge for a change!

Peter Barrett
Reply to  Richard Page
November 2, 2021 2:32 pm

William F Buckley once famously said he would rather be governed by the first 2000 people listed in the Boston telephone directory. Could be a plan.

Reply to  Peter Barrett
November 2, 2021 3:00 pm

Swords handed out by women in lakes would probably work better too.

Phil R
Reply to  TonyG
November 2, 2021 3:40 pm

Watery tarts…

Reply to  Raven
November 2, 2021 6:06 pm

“otherwise, who would lead?”

A blow up sex doll has more charisma & leadership quality’s than the existing bunch

R. Morton
Reply to  saveenergy
November 3, 2021 9:36 pm

Hey – quit insulting blow up sex dolls!

Bill Everett
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 5, 2021 1:32 pm

I wonder how many realize that the Mauna Loa CO2 graph shows a CO2 increase of only1/100th of one percent of the atmosphere in the past sixty years? Or that the human contribution to that microscopic rise is only five percent or less of it.

Gregory Woods
November 2, 2021 6:11 am

That first graph sure looks like a hockey stick to me…

Reply to  Gregory Woods
November 2, 2021 6:42 am

Not your game then, I’m guessing.

Bill Toland
November 2, 2021 6:19 am

Our emperors have no clothes. Rather foolhardy in Glasgow in November.

Reply to  Bill Toland
November 2, 2021 7:20 am

How can Biden run around in pooped diapers if he has no clothes.
Or are diapers not classified as cloth?

Reply to  SxyxS
November 2, 2021 7:35 am

Not if they happen to be plastic

Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 8:07 am

Biden is the Pretendisent of most powerful country in the world.

I doubt his masters let him run around in plastic diapers.
I guess It’s merino wool(smell neutralsing) an silk.

Jon R
Reply to  SxyxS
November 2, 2021 8:01 am

Let’s Go Brandon!

Reply to  SxyxS
November 2, 2021 9:12 am

That’s not shit, that’s renewable biomass.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Scissor
November 2, 2021 9:47 am

It’s Bai Den; those might be the remnants of his brain!

Jeff L
November 2, 2021 6:21 am

The first 2 graphs in combination are very interesting!
The CO2 emitted from “energy related” sources has greatly flattened in the last 10 years
However, the second graph shows that this is having no effect on the continued upward trend in CO2 concentration.
It seem the logical conclusion is that there is more going on with CO2 concentration that just energy use.
And yet the huge push is to change all our energy systems.
Those 2 graphs combined pretty much already prove it is folly.
I need to cross plot those data later today to further emphasize the point. I ‘ll try to post that here later today (unless someone beats me to the punch).

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Jeff L
November 2, 2021 6:38 am

When I looked at the first two graphs I noticed that CO2 ppm is increasing at steady rate. But the amount of CO2 being emitted has greatly increased. Shouldn’t the rate of change of CO2 ppm be increasing also?

Hopefully your cross plot will show how they interact

John Hultquist
Reply to  Matt Kiro
November 2, 2021 8:31 am

 The natural world responds to more atmospheric CO2. When more is there those systems use (take out) more.
An analogy: In the USA millions of pounds of candy is added to the food supply because of the “trick or treat” part of Halloween. Subsequently there is a weight gain in children and their parents.  

Reply to  Matt Kiro
November 2, 2021 9:40 am

The extra CO2 is being used by the plants on land and in the oceans to grow. Thus, the greening of the earth. At least half of the human produced CO2 is used this way..

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Matt Kiro
November 2, 2021 9:45 am


The rate of of change of CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere IS increasing . . . the continuously increasing upward slope given in the second graph has a positive second derivative; that is, an increasing rate of increase over time.

The first graph only tells you about human-originated CO2 emissions, not about what is happening throughout nature. The IPCC and the glorified attendees of COP26 would like all people to believe these two factors are synonymous with one another, when in fact they are not.

M Courtney
Reply to  Jeff L
November 2, 2021 7:28 am

Since the pandemic I have been pointing out that mitigation cannot work.

We tried extreme lockdown in 2020 – stopped most of the planes for a start. Yet we had no impact on atmospheric CO2.

Some might think that that proves that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural and not anthropogenic at all. But that’s not proven in my eyes. We are burning fossil fuels and making concrete so that does make CO2.

Yet our lockdowns cannot be hard enough to make a difference. 2020 was not enough. We need to do ULTRA-2020 this year, next year and every year to come.

That’s not going to happen. We cannot persuade the whole world to do that.
We cannot persuade ourselves to do that.

Nor should we.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2021 8:13 am

Having people work from home merely moves the energy consumption from offices to homes.
The factories can’t stop because the same number of people will continue to consume the same amount of resources.
Transportation is the only place such lockdowns could make a difference, and even that is a small difference. Raw materials still need to be transported to factories, finished products still need to be transported to stores. People still need to drive to stores.

M Courtney
Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2021 8:42 am

Agreed. That may explain why we cannot mitigate.

It also makes a good case for tourism being Carbon Neural as we did shut that industry down with no impact,

Leo Smith
Reply to  MarkW
November 3, 2021 2:43 am

Having people work from home merely moves the energy consumption from offices to homes.

You can see the difference in a normal year between people going to work and the Christmas break, on electricity consumption. It is dramatic.
No : staying at home definitely reduces overall energy consumption

What it dpoes not seem to have done, is affected CO2 in anyway whatsoever.

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2021 8:35 am

Everything shuts down during the Christmas break, not just offices.
Even most stores shut down.

Not a valid comparison.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2021 11:55 am

“That’s not going to happen. We cannot persuade the whole world to do that. We cannot persuade ourselves to do that.

Nor should we.”

Exactly. Time has already run out on their CO2 reduction ambitions.

But we don’t need to worry about the CO2 because there is no evidence showing us we should worry. There is no evidence CO2 controls the temperatures, and scientists have been looking for such evidence for many decades and haven’t found it yet.

And the globe is currently cooling even though CO2 continues to increase.

Reply to  Jeff L
November 2, 2021 8:14 am

If output is flat, then the rate of increase will continue unchanged.

Jeff L
Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2021 11:23 am

Poor phrasing/ inadequate phrasing on my point – rate of change on total CO2 appears to be accelerating, not linear, thus the discrepancy between the plots

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Jeff L
November 2, 2021 10:17 am

Jeff you nailed it.

What’s the correlation like between ‘population’ and CO2
Also the correlation ‘tween CO2 and food production

I assert, continue to assert, that that is where CO2 is coming from :
Food production aka Farming

No – I Do Not Hate Farmers – don’t project.

I am A Farmer, a one who used large amounts of Nitrate.
After 55 years of on-the-ground-experience I know, almost down to the molecular level, how that stuff works and what it does

btw: What’s going on here then….

Abolition Man
Reply to  Jeff L
November 2, 2021 2:45 pm

I believe that the continuing rise of atmospheric CO2 is due to our oceans slowly warming since the end of the Little Ice Age! The oceans contain 45X the CO2 of the atmosphere! Compared to that anthropogenic CO2 is a grain of sand on the beach!
The climate catastrophists are like a parent that telling a child that they will warm the ocean by dumping a bucket of hot water in it! They might convince the child, but they won’t fool a thermometer! The CO2 level is determined by cloud cover in the tropics, the ocean conveyors transporting heat to the poles and numerous other factors that make all human efforts look puny and foolhardy in comparison!

Bill Everett
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 6, 2021 3:51 am

I think that various CO2 mapping using OCO-2 data has shown a relationship between locations of high density vegetation ( such as the Amazon Rain Forest) and higher levels of CO2 presence. It leads me to wonder if increased global vegetation levels caused by global warming is the source of increased atmospheric CO2.

Charles Higley
November 2, 2021 6:21 am

It is useful to include the scientific observation that there is a delay of up to 800 years between ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration, as seen in ice core studies. The delay in shorter period ocean changes and CO2 appear to be on the decadal scale. Remember that, at any given time, colder waters are absorbing CO2 and warmer waters are releasing CO2, so there is a clear two-way flux occurring.

AND, the GWPF curve above does not at all mean that our emissions are causing this rise, as global CO2 has been much higher during three times in the last 220 years. The latest high CO2 was in the 1940s in response to the hot 1930s, being up to 500 ppm CO2, much higher than our current ~400 ppm CO2. Conveniently, the graph starts at 1960 and does not include real chemical CO2 data that show that there was a high peak around 1940.

Reply to  Charles Higley
November 2, 2021 6:47 am

Would love to see the chart going back to 1940, it’s got to be one hell of a talking point.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Rhs
November 2, 2021 9:58 am

There is one out there somewhere.
What I noticed immediately was the CO2 up-tick starting in the mid 40’s

At the very moment that the Nitrate coming out of munitions factories was taken out onto farms, under Governmental exhortation globally, to be used as fertiliser instead of high explosive as it had been.

There is no difference, it is EXACTLY The Same Stuff
The change happened literally: overnight

And what Nitrate does primarily is feed the soil bacteria – it is their Liebig Limiter -= and when you fertilise them, they go on eating orgy and in doing so, release epic amounts of CO2
That is the reason farmers don’t spread Nitrate when soil temps are 5°C or less.
The bacteria are dormant (just like in your home refrigerator) and by being as water soluble as Nitrate is, it is will wash away in the first rain shower that happens

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 2, 2021 11:08 am

If your theory was correct (hint: it isn’t), the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration would accelerate in the spring and summer when farmers apply fertilizer and microbes start producing CO2. It doesn’t. CO2 has a seasonal cycle that you can easily see – it actually declines in the spring and summer when plants are growing and only increases in the fall and winter when plant matter decays (and microbial CO2 production slows or stops).

Don’t get me wrong as I’m the first to say that the “climate crisis” is a scam, but climate realists must stick to scientifically supported data, not easily debunked totally fabricated garbage. It’s not the soil, Peta. Give it up.

Don Perry
Reply to  meab
November 2, 2021 12:51 pm

Please explain to me the process by which “plant matter decays” without microbial action? How do plants decay without microbes? I’m a biologist and that goes against everything I know.

Reply to  meab
November 2, 2021 8:26 pm

Probably the growing plant fixes the Carbon. When it is no more growing, carbon fixation stops. When it decays, some of the fixed carbon get released as CO2.

It may not be the nitrogen in fertilizer that releases CO2. Rather the nitrogen helps the plant grow more and the more biomass increases CO2 release later during decay. If there were no such growth, CO2 release may have stayed flat.

Reply to  Charles Higley
November 2, 2021 7:58 am

There is a graph here

Measurements at Mauna Loa began in 1958, previous to that ice core data is used

Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 9:52 am

“previous to that ice core data is used”
because “they” don’t like the direct atmospheric measurement data gathered before 1958.

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 3:09 pm


Reply to  Charles Higley
November 2, 2021 8:12 am
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 2, 2021 8:16 am

I would love to see a chart showing that CO2 levels were 500ppm in the 1930’s. You are the only person I have ever seen make such a claim.

Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2021 9:47 am

Try reading the following:

Ernst-Georg Beck

I had a copy but cant find it (must be on an old laptop).

The results don’t tally with the ice core record so were discarded by the warmists and ignored by the msm.

Reply to  Simonfromashby
November 2, 2021 12:46 pm

Where and how the measurements are taken make a big difference.
Most of the measurements you mention were contaminated by being taken in or around cities.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Jay Willis
Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2021 11:35 am

Here are some genuine CO2 measurements over 500 in the 1940’s

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 2, 2021 10:07 am

Carbon Dioxide, being acidic when in aqueaous solution (Carbonic Acid) will be The Very Last Thing that The Ocean will release no matter how warm it gets
The ocean is alkaline – the release of acidic species will work to make it more alkaline

Doing so thus breaks every rule in the book, not least both Entropy and Chatelier’s Principle

Once something anything falls into The Ocean it NEVER comes back.
Apart from water of course but it needs something with the mind-blowing grunt ## of El Sol to do it

Or a volcano puffs stuff out and thank fook they do. Notably CO2 and Sulphur
Earth would have become, and be, another Mars had they not
And a very long time ago to boot.

## Is the figure for Sol’s radiative power = 10 MegaWatts per square metre or 60MW/sqm?
I’ll stay with 10, plenty for anybody.

November 2, 2021 6:26 am

My observations on the Manhattan Contrarians site was that it appears the first and third graph are computer models, not measured entities.

The first graph includes the supposed ‘dip’ in emissions thanks to covid which simply doesn’t appear on the second graph.

The reason being is simple enough, the dip is entirely theoretical and not measured and were that graph superimposed on the second graph the inconsequence of it would be revealed; the first graph would be bumping along the bottom of the second, almost invisible.

Reply to  HotScot
November 2, 2021 9:54 am

No, the decrease in emissions was too small a percentage of anything relevant to make a measurable change in the rate of increase.

November 2, 2021 6:36 am

“China has basically claimed to be exempt from the whole UN process by reason of being a “developing” country.”

China’s claims are bogus, it began to industrialise in the late 19th century. They might have been on the slow side doing it, but they’ve got a pass anyway.

“a grotesque spectacle of decadence and hypocrisy

COP26 is gearing up to be a grotesque spectacle. We are about to witness Versailles levels of extravagance and hypocrisy. The rich, the powerful and the full of puffed-up virtue will gather in Glasgow to pontificate to the rest of us about how much we are harming the planet with all our waste and hubris. They’ll arrive in their private jets to bemoan the scourge of air-industry emissions. They’ll tuck in to five-star meals in between wondering out loud if the little people should eat less meat. They’ll rest their weary, virtuous heads on plump, silk pillows after long days of discussing how to rein in the material aspirations of the masses. It promises to be one of most nauseating displays of oligarchical conceit of recent times.

It feels like the elites are just laughing in our faces now. So the other day we had the UK’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, saying everyone will have to eat less meat and fly less if we are going to get a handle on this climate-change thing. A little later it was reported that around 400 private jets will fly into COP26, carrying world leaders and big-business execs to the plush surrounds in which they’ll wring their manicured hands over mankind’s carbon crimes. Ordinary people are guilt-tripped for taking one poxy flight a year to escape the trials and vagaries of life in capitalist society for a couple of weeks, while those who quaff champagne on airplanes that it costs $10,000 an hour to hire out get to pose as hyper-aware defenders of poor Mother Nature.”

It is a sick joke.

M Courtney
Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 7:30 am

Why blame China for being sensible?

Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2021 7:36 am

I thought I said the Chinese claims were bogus

M Courtney
Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 7:52 am

Sorry. Misunderstood your meaning.

Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 9:04 am

China already has the type of government these people want. Therefore, it is exempt.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 9:53 am


But China IS a developing country . . .
— they are developing advanced hypersonic glide vehicles as offensive weapons
— they are developing advanced cyber attack techniques and software
— they are developing advanced biowarfare agents (e.g., SARS-Cov-2)
— they are developing advanced coal-fired power plants

. . . I could go on and on, but need I?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 2, 2021 2:52 pm

One of the most important ones:
—they are developing huge numbers of agents and apologists in the US

Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 10:01 am

How many other ‘developing countries’ are on their third space station.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Raven
November 2, 2021 12:07 pm

Bill Clinton was the Father of China’s space program.

China’s rockets kept blowing up upon launch, and Bill took measures to help them out.

The Chicoms should name their next space station after Clinton.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 2, 2021 1:09 pm

“Big Willy” – how does that translate into Cantonese?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Richard Page
November 2, 2021 2:30 pm

“Big Willy” – how does that translate into Cantonese?

I don’t know about Cantonese, but in Vietnamese, it translates as “Milong Dong”.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Richard Page
November 2, 2021 3:01 pm

Gwai lou!

Richard Page
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 2, 2021 3:24 pm

I know very little Cantonese but even I know it ain’t that!

Abolition Man
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 2, 2021 3:00 pm

The Russian and ChiCom hypersonic missile technology may have come out of the Skolkovo Project; the Russian “Silicon Valley” pushed by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton that netted the Clinton Foundation and other players in the Obama Admin millions!

Old Gobie Jumper
Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 12:44 pm

COP26: Corrupt Oligarch Party

November 2, 2021 6:57 am

Just in Time for FLOP26, 2 announcements of hydrogen burning engines.
Fabulous engineering, they burn GH2, that is Green H2, not your run-of-the-mill H2, mind you.
And no CO2, just GH2O, Green water emissions!

Oh wait – isn’t water the major green house gas?

Back to the drawing boards, lads!

Reply to  bonbon
November 2, 2021 6:20 pm

Zero emission for hydrogen is a theoretical value.
(only possible using pure Hydrogen & pure Oxygen).

In practice hydrogen burned in air produces more NOx than natural gas due to the high flame speed
Burning hydrogen in pure oxygen just produces H2O … However, hydrogen would normally be burnt in air and some of the ferociously active oxygen atoms combine with nitrogen in the air to form NOx. There are no carbon atoms for the oxygen atoms to combine with, so a higher proportion combines with nitrogen from the air to form NOx.

For this reason burning hydrogen in air produces up to 6 times as many NOx emissions as burning methane in air. There is therefore a seriously increased health risk of burning hydrogen for heating as compared to burning fossil gas

Burning hydrogen in air can produce up to six times as much NOx as burning methane in airSee: H2 Emission Potential Literature Review by E4tech for BEIS, April 2019 page 26, paragraph 4.4, Emissions from end-use of hydrogen.

November 2, 2021 7:12 am

Boris Johnson — who proclaimed this week that the world is at “one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock” due to the alleged climate crisis — will travel back to London from the climate summit by private jet because a train journey would be too inconvenient due to “significant time restraints”.

Downing Street confirmed on Monday that the Prime Minister will be flying back to London on a private jet from the COP26 meeting in Glasgow at the end of this week rather than opting for the more environmentally friendly method of taking a four and a half hour train journey.
“It is important that the Prime Minister is able to move around the country and obviously we face significant time constraints,” the spokesman said per the Evening Standard,

It is important that the Prime Minister is able to move around the country, he’s an important person and you are not.

Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 9:10 am

It is also inconvenient that a big tree fell on the train tracks, and has messed up rail transportation.

Richard Page
Reply to  starzmom
November 3, 2021 2:13 am

I think it was a conspiracy of the met and Glasgow police to prevent hordes of extinction rebellion protesters from turning up. I’ll just go and get me little tinfoil hat now!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  fretslider
November 3, 2021 7:48 am

It is important the Prime Minister is able to move around the country because he has a lot of photo ops to attend and his dislike of hard work and of ascertaining the facts about anything are well known!

Nick Schroeder
November 2, 2021 7:13 am

The albedo makes the Earth cooler w atmos.
GHGs “extra” BB upwelling energy not possible.
All fall down!

November 2, 2021 7:16 am

The grand panjandrums of the Climate Change scam have not controlled CO2 nor the weather. But that’s not the real point anyway. The scam isn’t about weather control, it’s about people control and looting. Despite recurring doomsaying (just ten more years to the next ten years before Earth is destroyed) and trillions of taxpayer dollars “invested” in junk science, the unwoke portion of the rabble resists the global elitist power and money grab and continues to believe CO2 is plant food not a pollutant.

November 2, 2021 7:34 am

 COP26 will likely have opened in Glasgow, Scotland.

CNN went to Edinburgh…Wolf Blitzer reporting!

November 2, 2021 7:40 am

Does anybody know if James Hansen is speaking or attending the conference? He is a poster child for useful idiot.

Richard Page
Reply to  Joel
November 2, 2021 8:32 am

No idea. I did see that Leonardo DiCaprio has arrived in Glasgow though and Greta Thunberg has developed a new catchphrase for this copfest: “you can shove your climate crisis up your a€$e!”

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Richard Page
November 2, 2021 2:34 pm

Greta Thunberg has developed a new catchphrase for this copfest: “you can shove your climate crisis up your a€$e!”

For once, I fully agree with the Doom Goblin!

M Courtney
November 2, 2021 7:42 am

Reporting on the COP is flawed in many ways. Here is one.

They report on Country X has pledged to be Carbon Neutral by the Year…
Which is meaningless.

There are only three stages of action on Carbon Neutrality.
A) They are Carbon Neutral.
B) They are taking actions to be Carbon Neutral.
C) They have promised to take actions to be Carbon Neutral at some time in the future.

No country is at A because it’s impossible with current technology.
Some countries are doing B. My own, the UK, for instance.
Some countries are at C e.g. China.

The key difference between B and C is that those pursuing C can decide to change their minds before they get to the expensive bit.

When the UK’s lease on Hong Kong ran out China promised to look after Hong Kong, preserving the democratic freedoms there for another 100 years, at least. They changed their minds. And no-one could do anything about it.

If China changes it’s mind about Carbon Neutrality what could anyone do about it? They will have gotten away scot-free as the only punishment (Nuclear War) is no more environmentally friendly than a gas barbecue.

So really all countries can be classified as; not actually achieved anything yet or hoping to achieve something at great cost sometime if everyone else goes along with it or… Trust Me, I’ll save the World later, honestly (it’s in my diary).

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2021 9:57 am

Being “carbon neutral” depends on the official accounting ledgers . . . and guess who has exclusive control of the official accounting ledgers?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 2, 2021 3:06 pm

I’m guessing it’s the same folks who were counting the votes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania!

November 2, 2021 8:12 am

Despite all the press, propaganda, and virtue signaling the world is stuck in reality. No one wants to die but everyone wants to go to heaven.

November 2, 2021 8:14 am

Another interesting chart would be one that plots trade agreements on the emissions line for China. The powerful EPA force appealing to NIMBY has translated into long distance global trade in carbon-powered goods production and complex supply chain movement. Each click on the order button of Amazon means fewer miles driven locally and more carbon-intensive production and distribution globally. You won’t hear any of that at a COP26 session.

John Hultquist
November 2, 2021 8:24 am

 This past September CO2 at Mauna Loa was recorded as 413.3 ppm; up from 411.52 in September of 2020. (∆ = 1.78)
Regardless of what the COP26 speakers say, in 2050 the ppm of CO2 will be 52 +or- 4.
My charred remains and that of a few million close friends will have added to that.
Number of deaths per year, World (
{I posted this yesterday on The Reference Frame}

Kit P
Reply to  John Hultquist
November 2, 2021 12:04 pm

We all die. It is how we live that is important.if

I am living longer and better because of many factors including cheap energy use.

I think it is great that politicians have to invent problems that it does not if they are not solved.

Gerald Machnee
November 2, 2021 8:28 am

Everyone is still missing the point. All they talk about is emissions because they do not need science to prove anything.
NOBODY has measured any temperature change due to CO2. They have missed Step ONE. Next, they have NO way of measuring if any decrease in emissions has done anything other than declaring themselves a false success.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 2, 2021 9:58 am

NOBODY has measured any temperature change due to CO2

Of course they have!

Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 10:33 am

Griff, still no evidence I see.

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 10:43 am

Go for it then griff, show us the study that has given that detail. I will ask for a definite separation of natural CO2 evolution, from human induced CO2 of course, so we can clearly see what we are responsible for.
Over to you.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 11:55 am

Griffy, they have measured temperature increases, they have measured CO2 increases but nobody has, as yet, connected the two together. Correlation is not causation. Until that evidence is produced it is just a baseless correlation.

Reply to  Richard Page
November 2, 2021 12:50 pm

CO2 has gone up at a fairly constant clip. At the same time temperatures have gone up, down and sideways.
Even the so called correlation is quite weak.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2021 1:17 pm

The ice core evidence shows a similar correlation – CO2 increases lagging temperature increases but still not one shred of evidence linking the two things together. Mind you, I still think the ice cores are incomplete data – unless someone disproves the idea that ice absorbs higher levels of CO2, leaving only lower levels in the trapped gas bubbles.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 12:22 pm

Of course they have!

There is nothing but conjecture to support your assumption.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 3, 2021 3:51 am

It’s an unsubstantiated assertion.

All of alarmist climate science is unsubstantiated assertions. Every bit of it.

Griff is following the example of the UN IPCC.

Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 12:49 pm

The output of a model is not a measurement.
The rate of warming is the same now as it was prior to the rise of CO2. In both cases, very small and entirely beneficial.

Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 1:09 pm


Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 1:10 pm

Griff, here is an equation from thermodynamics. Q = Cp * m * dT

Please using this equation show me how adding more CO2 can cause an increase in temperature.

If you don’t understand the equation please stop saying junk like this.

Peter East
Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 2:23 pm

assertion = evidence??

Abolition Man
Reply to  griff
November 2, 2021 3:11 pm

Interglacial temps go up, interglacial temps go down; what are YOU doing to prepare for the next glacial onset and prevent CO2 from dropping below 150ppm?

Reply to  griff
November 3, 2021 12:04 am

Further proof only that the “Griff” entity is a nutter.

Kent Gatewood
November 2, 2021 8:43 am

If the Swiss chemists’ analysis is correct that the cause of warming is clouds, is there a viable human response?

Richard Page
Reply to  Kent Gatewood
November 2, 2021 9:13 am

Yes. Accept it and move on.

Reply to  Kent Gatewood
November 2, 2021 9:29 am

It can still be the result of CO2, but the fact of the matter is it’s still far too small to be obsessing about, especially as a justification to waste trillions in green waste, fraud and abuse.

How can it be CO2 you ask?

CO2 certainly increases the clear sky absorption of surface emissions, but clouds have an even greater effect on absorption. Also note that cloud absorption negates GHG absorption between the clouds and the surface since clouds would be absorbing those emissions anyway. The average absorption of surface emissions is the cloud weighted average of clear sky absorption and cloudy sky absorption. Clear sky absorption is increasing owing to more CO2 while cloudy sky absorption is decreasing owing to fewer clouds maintaining a constant average absorption of surface emissions.

It turns out that the fraction of absorption wants to be constant so that the ratio between surface emissions and planet emissions also remains constant. The data is clear that this ratio has a preferred value, the math of self organization by clouds predicts what this preferred value will be and the data confirms that the measured value of this ratio is within about 1% of its predicted value.

This ratio wants to be constant in order to maximize surface warmth given the available post albedo solar input. The reason is that changing this ratio takes work that is not otherwise available to heat the surface, which from thermodynamic considerations means that a constant ratio minimizes the change in entropy as the system changes state.

See ‘what model does work’.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Kent Gatewood
November 2, 2021 9:48 am

Farmers and tillage have removed the water retentiveness and content of the land = Less clouds
We know that because in some, but not all, places on Earth the sea level has risen.
Aided by the systematic draining of ancient aquifers

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kent Gatewood
November 2, 2021 10:00 am

It all depends on which class of human you want to poll for a response.

November 2, 2021 8:54 am

How did the world get so upside down where those who oppose freedom, capitalism, fairness, ethics and equity are on the right side of an issue specifically designed to destroy all that they are apparently opposed to?

November 2, 2021 9:24 am

comment image
Greta Thunberg : “you can shove your climate crisis up your a*** ”
Let’s go Greta.

Reply to  Vuk
November 2, 2021 10:16 am

What meds will staff come up with to keep them alert? And is Uncle Joe being propped up with a brace?

Coeur de Lion
November 2, 2021 9:51 am

There’s a more detailed close-up graph of the Moana Loa atmospheric CO2 levels. The peaks and troughs of the sawtooth are idiosyncratic. There is no effect of the COVID downturn to be seen in the steady climb with sawteeth matching the previous in detail

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 2, 2021 12:53 pm

Given that the total decrease was only a small fraction of each years saw tooth pattern, I would not expect it to have easily visible impact on the pattern.

November 2, 2021 10:03 am

Ha ha

Mr Johnson said on Tuesday that current global targets around sustainable aviation fuel were “pathetic” and that the world could do more as he announced plans to drive the adoption of green technology globally.

He’s flying back to London on Friday – in a private jet of course

Reply to  fretslider
November 2, 2021 10:18 am

I’m flying economy class and the UK is off my list along with a lot of other policy risk exporters.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 2, 2021 10:24 am

I wish I could take it off my list now

November 2, 2021 10:19 am

Some winter heating systems are more equal than others.

Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2021 10:46 am

These people equally have no idea how or whether the newly-ordered alternative energy systems might work, or how much the new systems might cost when fully implemented.”

That is a feature, not a flaw of the UN COP process. They won’t work because they can’t. And the refusal to allow nuclear energy power to come to the emissions-free energy rescue is the clear est piece of evidence of what is happening.
That’s because the Climate Scam has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with change. That change of course is the replacement of Western ideas of capitalism, individual liberty, and the democratic political institutions that permit such things with Marxist-style socialism.

The classic observation of the two economic systems: Capitalism is where you go to the store, and a dozen (or more) types of bread await your purchase. Socialism is where you go to the store, stand in line,and wait for bread to be delivered and take what you get.

It is a 1984-style level of political change that requires crushing the middle class with unaffordable energy. With unaffordable energy, everything disappears from the store shelves from basic necessities of life to especially discretionary consumer goods without generous state-provided welfare hand-outs to masses to remain in power, a la Venezuela and Cuba. The cost of everything rises so only governments operations, the party elites, the bureaucratic apparatchik, and the billionaire-oligarchs can afford to live lavish lifestyles.

It’s all straight out of 1984 on who can be allowed good cuts of meat in their diets, vacations and 2nd homes, and private jet travel to those exotic locales.

The time to fight back against this Marxist socialist climate crap is now.

Let’s Go Brandon!! and that’s just the start.

Rod Evans
November 2, 2021 10:48 am

The actual level of interest to this Climate Crisis debate is best summarised by the pictures of Boris J and Sleepy old Joe paying full attention to the speakers by nodding off.
Joe has an excuse it was past his nap time.

Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2021 11:04 am

The other observation to make here is to remind folks that when this Climate Scam started in 1990’s, two things were taken for granted by the Climate Marxists.

First, the near universal dogmatic belief that peak oil would happen sometime between 2000 and 2010, and after that declining supply would force prices rises for a barrel of oil well past $150 bbl. Thus the increasingly unaffordable economics of fossil fuel energy would be the necessity that drove the change and energy innovations. The supply side of the supply-demand equation would take care of itself was the belief.

The fracking revolution along with other drilling innovations (horizontal drilling with 3D seismology) and continuing to find more fossil fuel reserves, especially many more decades of shale gas in the US and copious natural gas in the Timor Sea for Japan and South Korean economies were the Black Swan the Climate Marxists of Y2K never saw coming. But by 2014, it became apparent that a shift in strategy had to occur by the Marxists, thus was born the #ExxonKnew scam and other attempts to go after the supply side of the fossil fuel equation.

The second point to make is that in the 1990’s it was the Western democratic capitalist countries where the dominant CO2 emissions were ocurring and those could be attacked on the demand side via political controls with sufficent media propaganda campaigns to gaslight voters.
The Climate Marxists in Y2K did not foresee the rise of China as the world’s industrial giant (thanks to its 2002 admission to world trade relations schemes) in a dozen years and thus the emissions growth via coal burning and a near total lack of ability to restrain that via any COP process. That was the second Black Swan for the Y2K Climate Marxists. It is a problem they still have no answers for, because China and Russia have already paid their Marxist dues in the blood of tens of millions of their own, except to try to ignore it via a lapdog, complicit western media campaign.

Now the Marxists come for you and me in the West. They want our blood.

John Larson
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 3, 2021 2:34 pm

I get that tactics demonstrated by what were perhaps actual Marxists in the past, to be effective at undermining existing order/societies, are being employed by those trying to undermine the West’s, but I don’t get what makes you (many) think these are actually Marxists doing this.
They seem to me to just be “elitists”, of the most callous sort, using whatever tactics have proven effective at undermining existing order/societies. Basically just “elite” gangsters, with no intention whatsoever of creating a “worker’s paradise” or “classless society” or anything remotely like that. So, not actually Marxist.
Just gangsters with enough money to hire the best strategists money can buy, and proceeding to use whatever tactics those strategists have come up with. And they came up with what we’re seeing . . (Just announcing you’re intent on taking over Western civilization, was apparently not seen as a workable option ; )

And I suggest that it actually pleases these gangsters and their strategists, that many speak of Marxists/socialists being our wanna be “ruling elites”, since it helps keep the “useful idiot” types from realizing they’re just ruthless gangsters.

Tom Abbott
November 2, 2021 11:39 am

From the article: “The idea is that hundreds of global leaders, not a one of whom has much if any idea how the world’s energy systems work, will come together to agree and order that those systems must be completely discarded and replaced.”

I think that is the main problem. Too many people who think they know what they are doing, really don’t know what they are doing, but they are in charge.

The good thing is reality is eventually going to show their CO2 scaremongering for the delusions they are. The only question is how much can the alarmists bilk out of us before this realty sets in?

I think we are already to the point where the windmill route is starting to lose its luster as electrical grids fail, or are on the brink of failure, because the wind doesn’t blow the right way all the time. I think we are coming to an inflection point. With more to come.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 2, 2021 1:26 pm

The damaging part for the Green crowd is that there will be too much time before any planned nuclear can be brought online; energy shortages and infilling with fossil fuels will only work against them. The longer this goes on with no thermageddon, the less influence they’ll have, it’s likely to slip through their fingers.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 2, 2021 2:15 pm

“Too many people who think they know what they are doing, really don’t know what they are doing, but they are in charge.”

And they don’t WANT to know what they’re doing. I recently heard part of some congressional testimony where some oil executives were testifying, and when one of them tried to explain how drilling and exploration worked, the congress-critter shut him down.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
November 3, 2021 4:07 am

All the Democrats in that hearing were interested in doing was to smear the oil companies and make the oil companies out to be the villains.

I saw a headline the other day that said: “Exxon knew as far back as the 1950’s”, implying that the oil companies knew CO2 was harmful to humans but said nothing about it in order to continue selling their oil.

Of course, claiming the oil companies knew any more about CO2 than anyone else back in the 1950’s is absurd. And the oil companies certainly didn’t know CO2 was harmful to humans because it is not harmful to humans, so the claim that oil companies “knew” is ridiculous.

Exxon, nor anyone else, still don’t know what CO2 does in the atmosphere. All they really know is CO2 is a radiative gas, but they have no idea how that translates into changing the Earth’s weather, or even if it does change the weather.

We have to assume that extra warmth is going to have some effect on the atmosphere, but that effect could be to actually cool the Earth’s atmosphere, rather than net warm it, after feedbacks, and noone can say otherwise.

Exxon doesn’t know.

November 2, 2021 12:09 pm

Sometime after COP35 there will need to be a truth and reconciliation court to admit all the policy sins of the Climate Crusades. But at this scale of problem, I’m not sure a Nuremberg Trial will work when a majority of world leaders are in on the con. At least start the investigations of all the beach-side villas, jets, and Swiss bank accounts.

November 2, 2021 12:27 pm

Here’s what they are up to in Glasgow. Not so long ago this was a terrible idea from Trump. Now it’s on the table at COP26. Go figure


Tariffs to Tackle Climate Change Gain Momentum. The Idea Could Reshape Industries.Wealthy nations are proposing tariffs on imports like steel and cement that result in high carbon emissions. The proposals could boost U.S. manufacturers—but could also undermine world trade rules and even trigger trade disputes.

Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2021 12:50 pm

Greta is apparently enjoying herself outside the conference, taking pot shots at them, and mocking them. And, she has developed a bit of a potty mouth, singing “they can shove their climate crisis up their arse!”, and also, “No more blah blah blah, and no more whatever the f***k they are doing in there!” She’s delusional, and brainwahed about climate, but boy does she have the climate party-goer’s number! What fun.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2021 1:33 pm

It would be a bit more convincing if she could remember the words – presumably the people who drilled her over and over with her lines weren’t in attendance. I so want to be in the crowd and when she falters after “What do we want?” just to lean over and whisper “free jelly babies for all” to see if she knows the difference.

John Bell
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2021 4:19 pm

I thought she was a BIG PART of COP26, shmoozing and partying, all on the tax payers nickel.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Bell
November 3, 2021 2:16 am

Nah, she got snubbed this year.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
November 3, 2021 4:18 am

Yes, if you criticize the leadership for doing nothing, then the leadership won’t invite you to the party.

It looks like Greta has her own party going.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 3, 2021 1:51 am

Does that make her a climate crisis denier?

Richard Page
Reply to  Old Cocky
November 3, 2021 2:18 am

Or a realist – she knows that the CO2 caused AGW can only be true where the sun don’t shine!

November 2, 2021 1:04 pm

Alok Sharma has indicated that success “would be for independent parties to come out of the conference and say that we have kept 1.5°C within reach”. COP26, and future COPs will therefore have to negotiate this challenge:
Ah, lots more COPs and lots more junketting. That’s the whole point of COP, isn’t it? But what will COP do when we get to the 8, 10, 12 years or whatever it currently is when time runs out?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alba
November 3, 2021 4:24 am

I think these alarmist elites are living in a dream world. While the U.S., the UK, the EU, Australia and New Zealand bankrupt themselves trying to reduce CO2 emissions, China, and India and the Developing World will be increasing their CO2 emissions, which will nullify all the efforts of those trying to reduce emissions.

It’s over people. Based on the amount of CO2 in our future, the 1.5C goal will not be met. The alarmist elites at COP26 are just spinning their wheels trying to reduce CO2 emissions.

But don’t worry. There’s no evidence CO2 is harmful to human life, and plant life loves it.

The only real problem we have is alarmist elites wasting Trillions of our dollars on trying to reduce CO2 output.

Bob Hunter
November 2, 2021 4:01 pm

How can any leader claim COP26 to be a success when 2 of the world’s largest CO2 emitters — China & Russia — were no shows. And the 4th, has set its net zero goal for 2070.

However, when the likes of Gore, Bloomberg, Kerry, Obama, Biden choose to live in one 2000 sq ft home, one EV for the household and fly commercial, then I will begin to believe their commitment to Net Zero.

Peter K
November 2, 2021 8:19 pm

I still haven’t seen any collective agreement, from the CO26, on any return on investment. So it’s still just supposed to make us all feel warm and fuzzy. China must be laughing at these Lemmings.

Verified by MonsterInsights