The following is transcribed from the visually annoying United Nations website.
About the Global Stocktake
Why the Global Stocktake is a Critical Moment for Climate Action
The global stocktake is a critical turning point in our battle against the escalating climate crisis – a moment to take a long, hard look at the state of our planet and chart a better course for the future.
“The global stocktake is an ambition exercise. It’s an accountability exercise. It’s an acceleration exercise,” said UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell. “It’s an exercise that is intended to make sure every Party is holding up their end of the bargain, knows where they need to go next and how rapidly they need to move to fulfill the goals of the Paris Agreement.”
What is the Global Stocktake?
The global stocktake is a process for countries and stakeholders to see where they’re collectively making progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement – and where they’re not.
It’s like taking inventory. It means looking at everything related to where the world stands on climate action and support, identifying the gaps, and working together to chart a better course forward to accelerate climate action.
The stocktake takes place every five years, with the first-ever stocktake scheduled to conclude at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) at the end of this year.
But this is not just a routine check-up. Stiell calls the stocktake a “moment for course correction,” an opportunity to ramp up ambition to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. The stocktake itself isn’t the gamechanger – it’s the global response to it that will make all the difference.
Stiell’s ideal outcome from the stocktake? A roadmap with ‘solutions pathways’ that drive immediate action. Pathways that guide us sector by sector, region by region, actor by actor, to get to where we need to go during the next seven years.
The global stocktake will end up being just another report unless governments and those that they represent can look at it and ultimately understand what it means for them and what they can and must do next. It’s the same for businesses, communities and other key stakeholders. – Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary
Why is this so urgent?
The global stocktake is unfolding in a critical decade for climate action.
Global emissions need to be nearly halved by 2030 for the world to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In addition, transformational adaptation is also needed to help communities and ecosystems cope with the climate impacts that are already occurring and are expected to intensify.
Every day, we see the devastating impacts of climate change, from raging wildfires to catastrophic floods to more frequent and intense heatwaves, as well as food and water scarcity, sea level rise, and biodiversity loss.
In March this year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest Synthesis Report, which summarizes all the scientific reports it has published during its sixth assessment cycle. This marked the first comprehensive IPCC report in nine years.
It highlighted just how far off-track the world is, reinforcing last year’s UN Climate Change report, which stated the combined climate pledges of 194 Parties under the Paris Agreement could put the world on track for around 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
The science is unequivocal: a course correction is needed. And it needs to happen now.
In order to keep 1.5 within reach we need deep and immediate emission cuts across all sectors and regions. We know what we have to do. Now we must boost political will to make that course correction through action and support possible. – Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary
The IPCC Synthesis Report clearly demonstrates that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius with feasible, effective and low-cost mitigation and adaptation options to scale up across sectors and countries. This report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable, sustainable future for all.
The next few years will be critical in determining whether we can make the necessary changes in time to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
The success of the global stocktake will ultimately determine the success of COP28. It is the defining moment of this year, this COP and — as one of the only two stocktaking moments in this decisive decade of climate action — ultimately pivotal to whether or not we meet our 2030 goals. – Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary
How does the stocktake tie into other key deliverables?
The global stocktake is not the only key deliverable of COP28. The conference also needs to make progress in several other workstreams: hammering out the details of the loss and damage finance facility, driving towards a global goal on finance, accelerating both an energy and a just transition, closing the massive emissions gap, just to name a few.
This will be no small feat.
According to Stiell, we already know we face enormous gaps in achieving the objectives and goals of the Paris Agreement: particularly in cutting emissions, adapting to the worsening effects of climate change, and providing finance and support to developing countries.
This is where the global stocktake comes in. Delivering a stocktake outcome at COP28 with specific pathways, as well as concrete milestones and targets, for each workstream can help narrow those gaps.
The stocktake will also lay the foundation for countries to update and enhance their national climate action plans (known as Nationally Determined Contributions), which they are required to do in 2025.
What happens next?
There are three components to the global stocktake process:
Information collection and preparation
Technical assessment
Consideration of outputs
The technical assessment and information collection and preparation components of the stocktake are currently running concurrently.
This is where the stocktake’s ‘technical dialogues’ come in. The dialogues are a forum for sharing the best-available science and assessments of mitigation, including response measures; adaptation, including loss and damage; and means of implementation (climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building). They also showcase climate solutions and identify barriers that stand in the way of taking action.
The first dialogue took place at the Bonn Climate Change Conference last June, with the second dialogue taking place at COP27 in Egypt last November. The third and final technical dialogue will take place at the Bonn Climate Change Conference this June.
Although the dialogues centre on taking stock of past actions, they are also about forward momentum to unlock more ambitious climate action and support.
The last phase, consideration of outputs, will start following the June session and conclude at COP28 in 2023. That’s when the findings of the technical assessment will be presented, and their implications discussed and considered.
In addition, throughout the year, countries and stakeholders will gather at different times to begin shaping the outcome of the stocktake. This collaborative effort helps ensure that everyone’s voices are heard and that the resulting solutions pathways (to 2030 and beyond) reflect the needs and concerns of all involved.
But we’ve seen this kind of liberal “inclusivity” many times over the years – inclusive, but only if you agree with them.
The funniest part, liberals and UN apparatchiks can’t even see why lack of inclusivity is the main reason they fail. Getting agreement is difficult, if you refuse to talk to the people whose actions you believe are blocking progress, and if you are not powerful enough to force them to stop.
Or maybe they do see, but don’t actually care if the process succeeds.
One thing for sure, the emissions reductions promoted by the United Nations cannot possibly succeed. As our Willis pointed out in Bright Green Impossibilities, simple math dictates that hundreds of square miles of new wind turbines or solar panels would have to be built every single day, to hit Net Zero by 2050 – along with a colossal build out of nuclear, battery backup, or whatever else was required to make intermittent wind and solar dispatchable. This simply isn’t going to happen.
They’re doing nothing and are happy, probably because they’re spending other people’s money, not theirs, and are getting plenty of publicity for ‘saving the world’. Nice work if you can get it.
No, the Paris Agreement is entirely rational. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United Nations has had no reason whatsoever to exist. The threat of global nuclear war had receded, and China, for better or worse, was becoming incorporated into the global economic network.
All of this added up to the UN serving no useful purpose whatsoever. So it adopted a new mission starting at the Rio 93 conference: global warming. Paris Agreement was simply the latest atttempt in a string of failures starting with the rejection of Agenda 21, the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol, the failure of the Bali Roadmap, the collapse of carbon trading schemes in Europe under a welter of mafia corruption.
There is a very real political goal here. The price of bastardizing science seems a small thing to the plutocrats carrying this out.
Number of directly employed UN Personnel in 2022: 125,436
Region Numbers of UN Personnel
Africa 45,308
Europe 31,850
Asia 28,370
Americas 19,144
Oceania 764 Total = 125,436
a high % are career diplomats trying(succeeding) to be indispensable … with noses firmly in the trough.
There are two types of people in thew world, realists and dreamers.
The UN is overcopoked with dreamers. They flock to it.
Users replace “action plan” with “ambition”.
If I hear that word “ambition” again I will spew.
Get out of my life, UN. I did not ever invite you in.
Geoff S
The UN made itself totally irrelevant when they were powerless to stop a Russian invasion of Ukraine. BTW, Russia and the US are proud guarantors of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
strativarius
September 9, 2023 2:35 am
“”if you refuse to talk to the people””
That’s what elites tend to do. Even when they do consult the public the public is ignored – completely. As they say, it’s going to happen anyway.
When all has been decided public opinion becomes an impediment, democracy an obstacle.
“Even when they do consult the public the public is ignored – completely.”. Well, I do agree that the public’s opinion is ignored completely, but the public is not completely ignored: they have to pay for it.
According to Wikipedia, this is the ‘mission statement’ of the UN:
The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
With around 71 major conflicts throughout the world since 1945 involving US/NATO nations, clearly, the United Nations has failed in its principle task and has been attempting to justify it’s existence by climbing on the Climate Change bandwagon and using it’s enormous reach around the world to coerce nations to collude in this self sustaining venture.
The UN is a failure and should have been shut down decades ago.
Agreed FIFA under Sepp Blatter was a more competent and less corrupt than the coterie of the little fat Portugoose bureaucrat who despite a degree in physics swallowed the KoolAde which he now intends to administer to the rest of us however unwilling we are
“With around 71 major conflicts throughout the world since 1945 involving US/NATO nations”
Were the US/NATO nations fighting among themselves, or did they have a mutual enemy they were fighting? Answer: They fought against that mutual enemy. What was that mutual enemy? Answer: Tyranny.
Fighting tyranny is a good thing, no matter how many times it becomes necessary.
What business is it of the west to impose its values on other countries to eliminate tyranny? And kindly describe to me precisely where the west has eliminated tyranny?
Apart from anything else, the western collective deep state has caused much of that tyranny with clandestinely (and sometimes not so clandestinely) induced regime changes in oil rich nations, causing internal violence and inducing a situation where the west can march in and tyrannise the citizens with our own brand of ‘Democracy’; bombing people into submission.
You just don’t get it do you? Much of the worlds problems are caused by western aggression. Until we admit that, we are never going to solve anything.
The United States Department of Defense isn’t called the Department of ‘Offence’ for a very good reason. It’s supposed to be devoted to the Defence of the United States and as the country has never suffered a military attack on it’s shores in the modern era, what is it doing exporting violence?
My criticism is not isolated to the US, every other NATO member state deserves the same scrutiny.
Unfortunately we do not know what the world would look like if we stayed out of everything. As of late I tend to agree that the “ road to hell is paved with good intentions” ( and the military industrial complex, climate industrial complex, censorship MSM industry complex….)
Unfortunately we do not know what the world would look like if we stayed out of everything.
It’s looking pretty sh!t with NATO intervention. We are staring down the barrel of nuclear war in a country that isn’t a member of NATO, and yet the west deems to interfere anyway, furnishing that country with Depleted Uranium and Cluster munitions.
Simply because NATO does not have boots on the ground does not absolve it from responsibility when almost every piece of military equipment, military training, and space based surveillance is given to Ukraine free of charge as though it were a NATO member.
It would be utterly astonishing were it not that every NGO in the world, the UN, IMF, NATO, World Bank, WHO etc. etc. etc. is bought and paid for by the west which also deems to impose global governance across the planet.
My worry is that having set the precedent for this kind of behaviour, if the worm turns, the boot may well be on the other foot.
Agreed, HS. The Arab Spring intervention starting in 2010 was a spectacular disaster of western intervention. It created two bloody civil wars in Libya and Syria, arguably the worst since the Chinese civil war starting in 1912. Both were far worse than the Spanish civil war of 1936. The only reason the effects of Arab Spring were not worse was because of the military overthrow of the so-called ‘democratically elected government’ in Egypt.
None of this can be fixed until people in the west stop blaming everyone else across the world for our appalling governments and bad decision making.
China is condemned for stealing western IP. Sorry, but that’s what happens when you offshore your manufacturing base to a totalitarian state. What did western businesses expect?
China didn’t force the west to ship it’s businesses to their country, they said we have cheap land and labour, and here’s the rules you play by, one of them being that we have access to your business.
How on earth are tyrants going to impose them selves on the US? And why would they want to?
This is just paranoic nonsense.
The US is an island with two borders, Canada and Mexico. Nothing about this is difficult to defend.
When has a tyrannical nation ever imposed itself on America in the modern era, with the single exception of Pearl Harbour for which Japan paid a heavy price.
How is Syria or the Lebanon gong to impose their “values” on the US?
Did Afghanistan or Iraq impose their values on the US?
How about Korea or Vietnam?
And when, precisely, has Russia ever threatened US shores? And yes, the Cuban missile crisis was because America was pointing missiles at Russia from Europe long before Russia sailed those ships toward Cuba. So who was they tyrant then?
Now we have a Ukrainian military, trained and armed by the US/NATO (the US is not alone in this behaviour) when it is not a NATO member, bombing it’s own civilians since 2014.
But Putin is the tyrant stepping in to stop it. Did the US or NATO attempt to stop it, ever?
Nope, they just kept the ammunition coming to continue the bombing of eastern Ukraine.
If you don’t get that the west is the aggressor since 1945 then this will never end.
Notably, whilst the west lost a lot of people fighting Germany in WW2, it comes nowhere near the 26 million people the USSR/Russia lost defeating Hitler.
That which can’t work. won’t work. Who’d have thunk it?
They are going to ban new internal combustion engine vehicles in the UK by 2030.
Except that it won’t happen because it can’t work. There are already signs that reality is creeping in on them. Who knows which political party will be the one with nowhere to sit when the game of musical chairs ends?
I think the 2030 ban will go ahead (and yes, I have changed my mind) because Hybrids are a credible compromise between ICE and BEV’s.
I don’t believe the 2035 ban on all ICE vehicles will be enforced because western car makers are howling already that they simply can’t compete with ultra cheap Chinese BEV’s, and western car manufacture will simply die.
The head of BMW has come out recently to say just that.
HS, highly unlikely. Endurance and battery safety issues are all problems with no solution. And remember, none of these political scum who call for these bans will be in office, or even still among the living, when they are supposed to take place. Politics is ALWAYS about the very short term.
Endurance and battery safety issues are all problems with no solution.
Not with hybrids.
I said, I believe BEV’s (Battery Electric Vehicles) only will likely not go ahead in 2035, for those reasons, amongst many others; largely that western BEV manufacturers will be crushed by Chinese BEV businesses. China basically owns 50% of the lithium in the world, and is scooping up more. Their cheapest BEV in China is $8,000. The cheapest BEV in the UK is the Fiat 500, it’s Recommended Retail price is £26,435, and it is tiny!
Catalytic converters were fiercely resisted with claims of sapping power from ICE’s. Now no one knows or cares if they are fitted. The performance of cars has improved beyond what was imagined at the time.
I’m taking delivery of a 2 Litre, ICE, 300bhp, small SUV next month. It will accelerate 0-60mph in 4.9 seconds and go on to an electronically limited 155mph. That just wasn’t conceived of when catalytic converters were introduced. (Cupra Ateca)
In the same way, hybrids will improve to the point no one knows there is a large 48v battery fitted to their car and performance will be improved.
Our government can look like the good guys to the regular motorist by not imposing BEV’s on the country, but at least partly satisfy the green fanatics by ‘banning’ ICE’s.
The green blob doesn’t know how an engine works far less a hybrid. Say hybrid to them, and that the ICE is only there to charge it up, and they’ll gobble it up.
As you say, politics is about the short term, but our current Conservative government has been in power now for 14 years. They won’t go down without a fight.
The fact is, public opinion on the climate change is still largely positive in the UK, caused in great part by government propaganda of course. But that’s not working.
There are draconian regulations being passed by our Conservative government right now, as they are staring down the barrel of a monumental general election defeat next year.
They are setting a trap for the incoming labour party by piling on painful and expensive climate regulations, and the labour government will get a monumental backlash when the public feels the financial pain of it all in a couple of years time.
Labour will have the choice of slashing green policies and reversing green legislation or face their own monumental defeat in five years time when the next general election comes round.
In 2020 President Xi of China remarked in public to President Putin of Russia, ‘the world is going to change more than it has in 100 years and we are in charge‘. (paraphrasing).
The west is getting the biggest wake up call imaginable right now. It either responds by competing with the global south, or the US and Europe slide to 3rd world status over the next generation.
It can’t possibly compete whist clinging to virtue signalling, Globalist, climate policies.
By extrapolation of his/their wording, I can presume that the goal of holding temperature rise to no more than 1.5⁰C isn’t based on the preindustrial average, but the assumed global average at the time of the Paris agreement (2015, IIRC). Otherwise, we just this summer hit +1.5 degrees above preindustrial (and the private jets are still flying).
“Otherwise, we just this summer hit +1.5 degrees above preindustrial”
Not if you go by the UAH satellite chart, which shows today as being just slightly cooler than 2016. The year 2016 was claimed by NOAA to be 1.2C above the pre-industrial average, so going by the UAH chart, today is about 1.2C above their average, not 1.5C.
Don’t pay attention to NASA and NOAA surface “temperature” charts. Their sole purpose is to try to juggle the data so they can claim “hotter and hotter” about something, all the time.
They claimed that 10 years in the 21st century were the “hottest year evah!”. Year after year, they claimed the each year was hotter than the last, but if you go by the UAH satellite chart, you will see that NONE of the years between 1998 and 2015 could be claimed to be the “hottest year evah!” because none of them were hotter than 1998. So NASA and NOAA bastardized the temperature record in order to promote the idea that CO2 was making things hotter and hotter every year. And they are still doing it today, only now they are messing with the months.
Here’s the UAH satellite chart. See if you can locate any years after 1998, that were hotter than 1998. And then ask yourself, how did NASA and NOAA claim those years were the “hottest year evah!”?
How did they do it? They are crooked as a dog’s hind leg. NASA Climate and NOAA are political propagandists promoting unsubstantiated fears about CO2.
It was certainly warmer many times “preindustrial.”
But to answer one of your questions, just by eyeball, 1998, 2016 and 2020 are about the same. Depending on what the last four months do, there’s a Lloyd Christmas kind of chance for 2023.
The “hottest year evah” claim is dishonest nonsense.
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. 4.6 million people are dying each year because of heart attacks and strokes caused by blood vessels constricting due to the inhaled cold air compared to 500,000 dying from heat-related causes.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
“See if you can locate any years after 1998, that were hotter than 1998.”
2016 and 2023, apparently. But not by much. I don’t really care, the point being that they can’t possibly expect to use +1.5⁰ as a target based off of the preindustrial baseline, regardless of whether they’re going off of UAH MSU data, global surface stations, or if they include the oceans or not. It’s a sham “goal” designed to “fail” in order to justify more radical controls and push through the green agenda even faster.
T Abbott, do you imagine that actual measurements have anything to do with the issue? The temperature will be whatever they say it is. And as shown by MBH98, they will simply doctor or edit the data selection to produce whatever result they want. Facts don’t matter, the science doesn’t matter. It’s all subject to the political and social goals of those driving the AGW agenda.
Even NOAA cannot show a year hotter than 1998 or 1997 even. From the annual reports.
Been tracking for years.
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index “The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997″ = 16.92°C. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813
Global Analysis – Annual 1998 – Does not give any “Annual Temperature” but the 2015 report does state – The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, So 1998 was 0.63°C – 0.51°C = 0.12°C warmer than 1997
62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997″ = 16.92°C + 0.12°C = for 1998 = 17.04°C
(3) For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 0.62°C + 13.9°C = 14.52°C http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201013
(4) 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
0.62°C + 13.9°C = 14.52°C http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313
(5) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature “The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)= 0.69°C above 13.9°C => 0.69°C + 13.9°C = 14.59°C http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
(6) 2015 – the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)
=> 0.90°C + 13.9°C = 14.80°C http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
Now for 2016 and they report <i>average temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces was 58.69 Fahrenheit</i> <b> 14.83°C</b>
2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.13°C (0.23°F) less than the record set in 2016
=> 0.86°C + 13.9°C =<b> 14.76°C </b>
So the results are 16.92 or 17.04 << 14.52 or 14.52 or 14.59 or 14.80 or 14.83 or 14.76 using data written at the time.
Also 2010 ties with 2005 @ur momisugly 14.52°C which is what 2013 and 2003 are at. But 2010 is a record and 2013, 3 years later, is only the 4th warmest?
They cannot even keep the same 20th century average of 15.6°C or 15.8°C or 14.8°C or 13.9°C the same 15 years after it was over?
Since 1997 was not even the peak year (per 2015 write-up 1998 was 0.12°C warmer), which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).
What we read here is a rather tame and sanitised version of what BBC has published…
e.g. quote:“”Either we transform society in a way that avoids the worst of climate change, or climate change will transform society for us, in ways that are difficult to foresee but likely not to be very pleasant.”
Is Auntie ‘simply’ Gilding the Lily – or is she full of shît
I wonder if Guterres eats meat? If so, how dare he! We should insist he go on a diet. Doesn’t he know that agriculture contributes to the climate catastrophe? Ergo, he must lead by example and go on a severe diet. 🙂
UN backed by a cabal of people who consider themselves enlightened, want “tonnes of CO2” to be the new international exchange medium with obviously the UN in control of the system. It is beyond Marxism in its goals. And also an “ends-justify-the-means” mentality….
Paris is “off course”, because it was, and still is, built on a lie;
many NATURAL forces cause the observed global temperature changes, already for 4 billion years
The increase in interest rates, long overdue, due to excessive printing of money, plus increased inflation, and increased energy costs, and increased materials cost, and increased skilled labor costs, and supply chain bottlenecks have combined to increase the capital cost per MW of installed wind/solar/battery capacity by about 70%, according to Bloomberg.
People are finally beginning to realize, the costs of Paris are astronomical, and even the richest countries on the planet cannot afford it going forward.
This gave rise to BRISC+6, soon to be BRISC+12, including two nuclear super powers, and two oil super powers, which will control the majority of the world’s resources, oil is at $95/barrel, as decided by Russia and SaudiArabia
BRISC does no longer want its resources used for the West to play world domination and climate fantasy games
It is curtains for the US/EU, and the imposing of its self-serving, rules-based, bull manure
“oil is at $95/barrel, as decided by Russia and SaudiArabia”
And Biden.
“It is curtains for the US/EU”
Maybe. Maybe not. Let’s see how the 2024 U.S. presidential election goes. The U.S. might get lucky and get a real leader, like Trump, in office.
“Drill baby, drill!” is what Trump says. Trump says Biden is alienating Saudi Arabia and we shouldn’t be doing that.
Trump gave a speech last night in South Dakota, where Governor Kristi Noem endorsed him for president.
As for foreign wars, Trump did complain about spending money in other nations and not spending money in Maui, but he never mentioned Ukraine by name in his complaints, other than when he said the war would have never happened had he been elected president in 2020. He didn’t go as far as some Republican candidates who have voiced big reservations about helping the people of Ukraine. I thought Trump took just the right tone.
One reporter, after listening to Trump’s long speech, asked those in the room if they had “ever seen Trump tired”? And none of them said they had ever seen Trump looked tired.
Trump says Crooked Joe Biden can’t put two sentences together.
Trump is leading in all the polls, the Republican nomination polls, and the national presidential polls, and his numbers keep getting bigger.
Oil and wars are not the problem the west faces. The real problem is the acceleration of the BRICS cross border trading architecture they’re developing.
As I understand it, it’s not a currency, it’s the concept of trading in local currencies thereby obviating the need for a reserve currency altogether.
The problem that seems to create is that western nations are saddled with their extraordinary debt and will lose the ability to manipulate conditions to suit that debt. In short, we will have to pay it off.
I’m not a financial guy so if anyone can offer a more qualified opinion I would welcome it.
Ultimately the debt will have to be paid one way or the other. The sooner something happens to prevent the accumulation of anymore of it here in the US the better for all in my opinion. It’s getting dangerous now.
If Republicans get a super majority in the next election, they will be in a position to implement a budget that brings fiscal sanity back into the mix.
A super majority is a possiblity. When you have Black Rappers calling on their supporters in the Black community to vote for Trump, you have to think something is up with the American electorate.
I want to believe that the American voters are getting ready to give a big slapdown to the radical Democrats. Maybe big enough for a super majority in both Houses of Congress. Of course, that’s just wishful thinking right now.
A super majority of Republicans could get the budget back on track. They have the ideas, they just don’t have quite enough votes to push it through just now. Maybe that will change. We need change.
“Oil and wars are not the problem the west faces. The real problem is the acceleration of the BRICS cross border trading architecture they’re developing.”
I think all this boils down to: Who can you trust?
Do you trust the Chicoms more than the United States?
Admittedlty, under Joe Biden, confidence in the United States has plummeted, but if we can get a real leader like Trump in office soon enough, then Joe Biden will be seen as an outliar, so maybe confidence in the U.S. will be restored in some areas of the world and people will decide it’s not a good idea to do business with murderous dictators like those in Beijing.
BRICS and all this other stuff is self-inflicted. Correcting Biden’s stupid policies, and knowing Biden will never be in office again, should help a lot.
Do you trust the Chicoms more than the United States?
Frankly, at this moment in time, yes.
so maybe confidence in the U.S. will be restored in some areas of the world
You’re kidding, right?
No one in the world trusts the US. The only reason they deal with it is because of the stranglehold the reserve US dollar has on them.
and people will decide it’s not a good idea to do business with murderous dictators like those in Beijing.
But the 71 wars the US/NATO has been involved with since 1945 are not murderous and dictatorial, spreading the good word of imposed ‘Democracy’ much of the world doesn’t want.
Then there the 251 times US troops have been sent into service since 1991 when the USSR collapsed.
Neither of those are dictatorial I suppose.
China’s business is their own. You would get pretty upset at China passing public judgement on the US, but it’s just fine for the US to do it to China.
China now has uncountable billionaires and millionaires. You might not like the sound of their government but managing 1.4 billion people takes a different approach to managing 350 million Americans, and no POTUS has done good job in the last 50 years or so.
Your commie Chicoms and Russkies are a hangover from the 1950’s/60’s.
Get over it, they are no longer living in that era, nor should you.
And whilst I may seem to be having a go at the US, I’m not. The term is shorthand for the global west, Europe being at least as bad as America.
The Chinese and Russians aren’t importing as many immigrants as they possibly can. They aren’t the ones obsessing over the climate.
Keep blaming everyone else for the problems we created for ourselves and we get absolutely nowhere, other than down the path of the next third world.
“Trump is leading in all the polls, the Republican nomination polls, and the national presidential polls, and his numbers keep getting bigger.”
Do you think that matters? That’s why they are frantically engaged in trying to put him in jail. After all, if you can’t take him out electorally, a jail cell will do just fine, regardless of how obviously fake the criminal charges are. It should be obvious by now that the FBI and CIA have been weaponized against a section of the American voters. They will do whatever is necessary to ensure they get the result they need.
Even were that not the case, Trump is not a Knight is shining armour. I like the guy, and were I American I would vote for him, but the global south is now flexing it’s muscle since Biden screwed up the war in Ukraine.
I can just see the bureaucrats at the UN sitting around a table trying to come up with a catchy word or phrase to name their new effort. We’re trying to take stock of the situation, they say to themselves, so let’s call it “Stocktake”!
“said UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell”
That’s the first time I knew the UN had a Climate Change Executive Secretary. These guys are trying to run every aspect of our lives and we don’t even know their names.
“The global stocktake is a process for countries and stakeholders to see where they’re collectively making progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement – and where they’re not.
It’s like taking inventory. It means looking at everything related to where the world stands on climate action and support, identifying the gaps, and working together to chart a better course forward to accelerate climate action.”
We get it. They must think we are as stupd as they are.
“The stocktake takes place every five years, with the first-ever stocktake scheduled to conclude at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) at the end of this year.”
Shouldn’t that be “will take place”, seeing as how it hasn’t been done before? Or, at least, the stock taking hasn’t been called “Stocktake” before.
“Global emissions need to be nearly halved by 2030 for the world to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
He says, with absolutely no evidence to back up this claim. Nobody on the planet knows how much warmth a given amount of CO2 adds to the atmosphere. After feedbacks, there is a possiblity that CO2 actually ends up having a net cooling effect. Yet, here we have fools planning our future based on nothing but speculation. It’s not going to end well going down this path. And it looks like this is becoming clearer to more people as windmills and solar fail to get the job done.
“Every day, we see the devastating impacts of climate change, from raging wildfires to catastrophic floods to more frequent and intense heatwaves, as well as food and water scarcity, sea level rise, and biodiversity loss.”
The secreatary is obviously a very deluded and/or conniving person. There’s no evidence that any bad thing is caused by human-caused climate change because there is no evidence humans are causing the climate to change.
“The science is unequivocal: a course correction is needed.”
No, that’s not true. The secretary couldn’t prove this if his life depended on doing so. He’s making claims he can’t back up with facts. Like all the human-caused climate change alarmists do. I guess they think if they repeat this lie often enough, people will believe it. That works sometimes, until reality finally breaks in and bursts that false reality bubble.
The UN should focus its “Stocktake” on China, and India and all the other nations who are burning coal, oil and natural gas to power their societies. They are preaching to the Choir with regard to Western Democracies, who are doing all they can to bankrupt themselves by trying to reduce CO2 output.
If the UN does not seriously browbeat the Chicoms at the first Stocktake, then they are not serious sbout reducing CO2.
Jumping through all these hoops and there’s no evidence that CO2 needs to be controlled. There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. Demonizing CO2 is insanity. Especially after 50 years of trying to make CO2 out to be something sinister, they still can’t show any evidence for it. They are reduced to claiming they see CO2 in every severe weather event, as if severe weather events didn’t happen before our modern age.
CO2-phobia is a mental illness. And for some, promoting CO2-phobia is a road to riches and political power. The promoters are herding humanity towards the cliff.
At what point is Guterrez going to be arrested?
He’s not only yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, he’s pouring gas on it.
Besides I thought I read the other day that with this summer being the hottest in 125,000 years we are now at 1.5C and are officially dead?
So we can stop pretending now?
Ugh, I always hate to see the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” metaphor. It comes from a Supreme Court decision that allowed the imprisonment of war protesters, which later was happily overturned. So despite the phrase’s prominence, it is not part of current law or precedent. And it’s almost always used to shut down free speech.
In March this year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest Synthesis Report,…
I gave up checking if the “Full volume” version of the SYR had finally been posted in early summer, but an actual (4.7 MB, 186 page long) PDF file is now available (apparently last modified on “Tue 15 Aug 2023”, 2 or 3 months after I gave up).
The IPCC Synthesis Report clearly demonstrates that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius with feasible, effective and low-cost mitigation and adaptation options to scale up across sectors and countries.
On page 113 of the SYR can be found Figure 4.6, a screenshot of which is attached below, which shows just the mitigation “flows” which will be “required” to limit AGW to +1.5°C.
NB : “Adaptation” costs / flows will be in addition to these.
The IPCC’s SYR team is saying that developing countries need increased mitigation flows from the recent ~400 billion (US) dollars per year to anything from 1.4 to 2.8 trillion dollars per year, averaged to 2030, instead.
Developed countries will need to see their mitigation flows increase from ~300-350 billion (US) dollars per year to “only” around 0.8 to 1.7 trillion dollars … per year.
NB : The direction of each “flow” in Figure 4.6 is unclear, but I’m not betting money on China + India (+ …) “volunteering” to help contribute towards that scale of funding anytime soon.
_ _ _ _ _
2.2 to 4.5 trillion dollars per year — every year until 2030 — may count as “clearly demonstrating” that mitigation policies can be “low cost” to whoever wrote those words on the UN website, but it sure as hell isn’t “low cost” from my point of view.
Rud Istvan
September 9, 2023 6:19 am
First Paris stocktake. The idea was to ‘name and shame’ since the ‘contributions’ are voluntary. I predict there will be many names but no shames. The intrinsic problems are becoming self evident (except to the UN and it’s IPCC):
No past climate predictions have materialized—sea level rise didn’t accelerate, Arctic summer sea ice didn’t disappear, Glacier National Park still has glaciers.
At any meaningful penetration, renewables are ruinables.
Those who tried (UK, Germany) have crippling energy costs and failing industry.
China and India won’t play along and have no shame.
Nutcases are in charge of the Western World, Rud. We’ll see how low the nutcases can drive Western standards of living before normal people take action. It may be that normal people’s reactions to Leftist economic and social (its OK for men to weenie-wag in girl’s showers) depredations will both peak over the coming year or so. [IIRC, a judge recently ruled that it was OK for a pervert to parade naked in front of little girls because his obscenely fat belly sagged over his junk.]
The geological climate of the Earth is still a 2.56 million-year ice age that won’t end until there is no natural ice on the Earth.
The Earth is in a warmer interglacial period that alternates with colder glacial periods. The interglacial period usually last about 10,000 years. This one has lasted 11,700 years.
Most of the world is too cold to live in without technology in the form of warm clothes, warm houses, warm transportation, and warm workplaces.
Rick C
September 9, 2023 7:49 am
To sum up the result of this stocktake:
165 recipient countries, “Where’s our money?”
30 Donor countries: “Sorry, we’re sending it all to China to buy wind turbines and solar panels.”
Coeur de Lion
September 9, 2023 8:13 am
I love all these words! Now we are ‘stocktaking’. We’re stocktaking because we’ve made no progress since COP27. And since COP26. And since COP25. And since COP24.
Need I go on? The PA only got agreed at the last minute when ‘mist’ became ‘should’. And there was a shameful explosion of joy in the Press Office. No gnarled fedora wearing crusty journo to say “Hey fellers-this is all b…ls isn’ it?
Jeff
September 9, 2023 8:54 am
The science is unequivocal? Actually quite the opposite.
Ronald Stein
September 10, 2023 7:41 am
A few satirical comments about the lack of Energy Lieteracy among President Biden and his counterparts in Europe:
The best part of President Biden and his counterparts in Europe to stop the use of fossil fuels is that it would ground Air Force One!!!!
However, it would also ground the other 50,000 jets in the would leave the 50,000 merchant ships at the dock, AND discontinue the 6,000 products made from oil that are supporting the 8 billion on this planet!
Wind and solar can only generate electricity, but cannot manufacture anything for society!
Thus, without a replacement for fossil fuels that provides the products supporting today’s humanity, President Biden and his counterparts are focused on jumping out of an airplane without a parachute!
The Paris Agreement was going totally the opposite direction of any rational science, thought and economics, from the very start.
It is based on virtue-seeking imaginary and fake non-science nonsense. !
Therefore, they double down.
“Why is it so important (to get back on track)”?
Because left alone, nothing is going to happen.
They’re doing nothing and are happy, probably because they’re spending other people’s money, not theirs, and are getting plenty of publicity for ‘saving the world’. Nice work if you can get it.
No, the Paris Agreement is entirely rational. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United Nations has had no reason whatsoever to exist. The threat of global nuclear war had receded, and China, for better or worse, was becoming incorporated into the global economic network.
All of this added up to the UN serving no useful purpose whatsoever. So it adopted a new mission starting at the Rio 93 conference: global warming. Paris Agreement was simply the latest atttempt in a string of failures starting with the rejection of Agenda 21, the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol, the failure of the Bali Roadmap, the collapse of carbon trading schemes in Europe under a welter of mafia corruption.
There is a very real political goal here. The price of bastardizing science seems a small thing to the plutocrats carrying this out.
Number of directly employed UN Personnel in 2022: 125,436
Region Numbers of UN Personnel
Africa 45,308
Europe 31,850
Asia 28,370
Americas 19,144
Oceania 764
Total = 125,436
a high % are career diplomats trying(succeeding) to be indispensable … with noses firmly in the trough.
https://unsceb.org/hr-duty-station
There are two types of people in thew world, realists and dreamers.
The UN is overcopoked with dreamers. They flock to it.
Users replace “action plan” with “ambition”.
If I hear that word “ambition” again I will spew.
Get out of my life, UN. I did not ever invite you in.
Geoff S
I have no trouble with dreamers, per se. My problem is when those dreamers insist that everyone else must partake in their dreams.
Or worse, must pay through the nose to partake in their dreams.
or worse, believe that their dreams are realist and achievable
realistic
The UN made itself totally irrelevant when they were powerless to stop a Russian invasion of Ukraine. BTW, Russia and the US are proud guarantors of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
“”if you refuse to talk to the people””
That’s what elites tend to do. Even when they do consult the public the public is ignored – completely. As they say, it’s going to happen anyway.
When all has been decided public opinion becomes an impediment, democracy an obstacle.
It’s a push toward a command economy and society
“Even when they do consult the public the public is ignored – completely.”. Well, I do agree that the public’s opinion is ignored completely, but the public is not completely ignored: they have to pay for it.
They can opt out, Mike?
How ???
Off course.
Off balance.
Off its head.
There are lots more possible offs we could think of.
How bout F*** Off.
According to Wikipedia, this is the ‘mission statement’ of the UN:
With around 71 major conflicts throughout the world since 1945 involving US/NATO nations, clearly, the United Nations has failed in its principle task and has been attempting to justify it’s existence by climbing on the Climate Change bandwagon and using it’s enormous reach around the world to coerce nations to collude in this self sustaining venture.
The UN is a failure and should have been shut down decades ago.
Agreed FIFA under Sepp Blatter was a more competent and less corrupt than the coterie of the little fat Portugoose bureaucrat who despite a degree in physics swallowed the KoolAde which he now intends to administer to the rest of us however unwilling we are
Unfortunately, the UN has unstated purposes also.
“With around 71 major conflicts throughout the world since 1945 involving US/NATO nations”
Were the US/NATO nations fighting among themselves, or did they have a mutual enemy they were fighting? Answer: They fought against that mutual enemy. What was that mutual enemy? Answer: Tyranny.
Fighting tyranny is a good thing, no matter how many times it becomes necessary.
What business is it of the west to impose its values on other countries to eliminate tyranny? And kindly describe to me precisely where the west has eliminated tyranny?
Apart from anything else, the western collective deep state has caused much of that tyranny with clandestinely (and sometimes not so clandestinely) induced regime changes in oil rich nations, causing internal violence and inducing a situation where the west can march in and tyrannise the citizens with our own brand of ‘Democracy’; bombing people into submission.
You just don’t get it do you? Much of the worlds problems are caused by western aggression. Until we admit that, we are never going to solve anything.
The United States Department of Defense isn’t called the Department of ‘Offence’ for a very good reason. It’s supposed to be devoted to the Defence of the United States and as the country has never suffered a military attack on it’s shores in the modern era, what is it doing exporting violence?
My criticism is not isolated to the US, every other NATO member state deserves the same scrutiny.
Unfortunately we do not know what the world would look like if we stayed out of everything. As of late I tend to agree that the “ road to hell is paved with good intentions” ( and the military industrial complex, climate industrial complex, censorship MSM industry complex….)
It’s looking pretty sh!t with NATO intervention. We are staring down the barrel of nuclear war in a country that isn’t a member of NATO, and yet the west deems to interfere anyway, furnishing that country with Depleted Uranium and Cluster munitions.
Simply because NATO does not have boots on the ground does not absolve it from responsibility when almost every piece of military equipment, military training, and space based surveillance is given to Ukraine free of charge as though it were a NATO member.
It would be utterly astonishing were it not that every NGO in the world, the UN, IMF, NATO, World Bank, WHO etc. etc. etc. is bought and paid for by the west which also deems to impose global governance across the planet.
My worry is that having set the precedent for this kind of behaviour, if the worm turns, the boot may well be on the other foot.
Agreed, HS. The Arab Spring intervention starting in 2010 was a spectacular disaster of western intervention. It created two bloody civil wars in Libya and Syria, arguably the worst since the Chinese civil war starting in 1912. Both were far worse than the Spanish civil war of 1936. The only reason the effects of Arab Spring were not worse was because of the military overthrow of the so-called ‘democratically elected government’ in Egypt.
Thanks cgh.
None of this can be fixed until people in the west stop blaming everyone else across the world for our appalling governments and bad decision making.
China is condemned for stealing western IP. Sorry, but that’s what happens when you offshore your manufacturing base to a totalitarian state. What did western businesses expect?
China didn’t force the west to ship it’s businesses to their country, they said we have cheap land and labour, and here’s the rules you play by, one of them being that we have access to your business.
“What business is it of the west to impose its values on other countries to eliminate tyranny?”
The idea is to prevent the tyrants from imposing their “values” on us. If you don’t want trouble with us, then don’t be a tyrant.
How on earth are tyrants going to impose them selves on the US? And why would they want to?
This is just paranoic nonsense.
The US is an island with two borders, Canada and Mexico. Nothing about this is difficult to defend.
When has a tyrannical nation ever imposed itself on America in the modern era, with the single exception of Pearl Harbour for which Japan paid a heavy price.
How is Syria or the Lebanon gong to impose their “values” on the US?
Did Afghanistan or Iraq impose their values on the US?
How about Korea or Vietnam?
And when, precisely, has Russia ever threatened US shores? And yes, the Cuban missile crisis was because America was pointing missiles at Russia from Europe long before Russia sailed those ships toward Cuba. So who was they tyrant then?
Now we have a Ukrainian military, trained and armed by the US/NATO (the US is not alone in this behaviour) when it is not a NATO member, bombing it’s own civilians since 2014.
But Putin is the tyrant stepping in to stop it. Did the US or NATO attempt to stop it, ever?
Nope, they just kept the ammunition coming to continue the bombing of eastern Ukraine.
If you don’t get that the west is the aggressor since 1945 then this will never end.
Notably, whilst the west lost a lot of people fighting Germany in WW2, it comes nowhere near the 26 million people the USSR/Russia lost defeating Hitler.
The ‘allies’ didn’t win WW2, Russia did.
The only reason Russia was able to even compete was due to the absolutely enormous level of military aid it received from the US and UK.
Can we make a list of all the “climate …..” terms in current use.
Climate Change
Climate Crisis
Climate Emergency
Climate catastrophe
Climate Breakdown
I’m sure there are others, but I have a movie to watch…. 🙂
Equity, justice, denial, blah blah blah.
Blather…
Well, you could blow me down with a feather.
That which can’t work. won’t work. Who’d have thunk it?
They are going to ban new internal combustion engine vehicles in the UK by 2030.
Except that it won’t happen because it can’t work. There are already signs that reality is creeping in on them. Who knows which political party will be the one with nowhere to sit when the game of musical chairs ends?
I think the 2030 ban will go ahead (and yes, I have changed my mind) because Hybrids are a credible compromise between ICE and BEV’s.
I don’t believe the 2035 ban on all ICE vehicles will be enforced because western car makers are howling already that they simply can’t compete with ultra cheap Chinese BEV’s, and western car manufacture will simply die.
The head of BMW has come out recently to say just that.
It is very hard to compete….roadworthy vehicles with pothole capable tires and long haul engines versus government subsidized electric golf carts….
Read my post carefully. Hybrids will be retained.
BEV’s (Battery Electric Vehicles) will not be imposed.
Hybrids being ICE vehicles with a larger 48v battery fitted (depending on spec).
HS, highly unlikely. Endurance and battery safety issues are all problems with no solution. And remember, none of these political scum who call for these bans will be in office, or even still among the living, when they are supposed to take place. Politics is ALWAYS about the very short term.
Not with hybrids.
I said, I believe BEV’s (Battery Electric Vehicles) only will likely not go ahead in 2035, for those reasons, amongst many others; largely that western BEV manufacturers will be crushed by Chinese BEV businesses. China basically owns 50% of the lithium in the world, and is scooping up more. Their cheapest BEV in China is $8,000. The cheapest BEV in the UK is the Fiat 500, it’s Recommended Retail price is £26,435, and it is tiny!
Catalytic converters were fiercely resisted with claims of sapping power from ICE’s. Now no one knows or cares if they are fitted. The performance of cars has improved beyond what was imagined at the time.
I’m taking delivery of a 2 Litre, ICE, 300bhp, small SUV next month. It will accelerate 0-60mph in 4.9 seconds and go on to an electronically limited 155mph. That just wasn’t conceived of when catalytic converters were introduced. (Cupra Ateca)
In the same way, hybrids will improve to the point no one knows there is a large 48v battery fitted to their car and performance will be improved.
Our government can look like the good guys to the regular motorist by not imposing BEV’s on the country, but at least partly satisfy the green fanatics by ‘banning’ ICE’s.
The green blob doesn’t know how an engine works far less a hybrid. Say hybrid to them, and that the ICE is only there to charge it up, and they’ll gobble it up.
As you say, politics is about the short term, but our current Conservative government has been in power now for 14 years. They won’t go down without a fight.
The fact is, public opinion on the climate change is still largely positive in the UK, caused in great part by government propaganda of course. But that’s not working.
There are draconian regulations being passed by our Conservative government right now, as they are staring down the barrel of a monumental general election defeat next year.
They are setting a trap for the incoming labour party by piling on painful and expensive climate regulations, and the labour government will get a monumental backlash when the public feels the financial pain of it all in a couple of years time.
Labour will have the choice of slashing green policies and reversing green legislation or face their own monumental defeat in five years time when the next general election comes round.
In 2020 President Xi of China remarked in public to President Putin of Russia, ‘the world is going to change more than it has in 100 years and we are in charge‘. (paraphrasing).
The west is getting the biggest wake up call imaginable right now. It either responds by competing with the global south, or the US and Europe slide to 3rd world status over the next generation.
It can’t possibly compete whist clinging to virtue signalling, Globalist, climate policies.
By extrapolation of his/their wording, I can presume that the goal of holding temperature rise to no more than 1.5⁰C isn’t based on the preindustrial average, but the assumed global average at the time of the Paris agreement (2015, IIRC). Otherwise, we just this summer hit +1.5 degrees above preindustrial (and the private jets are still flying).
“Otherwise, we just this summer hit +1.5 degrees above preindustrial”
Not if you go by the UAH satellite chart, which shows today as being just slightly cooler than 2016. The year 2016 was claimed by NOAA to be 1.2C above the pre-industrial average, so going by the UAH chart, today is about 1.2C above their average, not 1.5C.
Don’t pay attention to NASA and NOAA surface “temperature” charts. Their sole purpose is to try to juggle the data so they can claim “hotter and hotter” about something, all the time.
They claimed that 10 years in the 21st century were the “hottest year evah!”. Year after year, they claimed the each year was hotter than the last, but if you go by the UAH satellite chart, you will see that NONE of the years between 1998 and 2015 could be claimed to be the “hottest year evah!” because none of them were hotter than 1998. So NASA and NOAA bastardized the temperature record in order to promote the idea that CO2 was making things hotter and hotter every year. And they are still doing it today, only now they are messing with the months.
Here’s the UAH satellite chart. See if you can locate any years after 1998, that were hotter than 1998. And then ask yourself, how did NASA and NOAA claim those years were the “hottest year evah!”?
How did they do it? They are crooked as a dog’s hind leg. NASA Climate and NOAA are political propagandists promoting unsubstantiated fears about CO2.
It’s criminal.
It was certainly warmer many times “preindustrial.”
But to answer one of your questions, just by eyeball, 1998, 2016 and 2020 are about the same. Depending on what the last four months do, there’s a Lloyd Christmas kind of chance for 2023.
The “hottest year evah” claim is dishonest nonsense.
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. 4.6 million people are dying each year because of heart attacks and strokes caused by blood vessels constricting due to the inhaled cold air compared to 500,000 dying from heat-related causes.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
“See if you can locate any years after 1998, that were hotter than 1998.”
2016 and 2023, apparently. But not by much. I don’t really care, the point being that they can’t possibly expect to use +1.5⁰ as a target based off of the preindustrial baseline, regardless of whether they’re going off of UAH MSU data, global surface stations, or if they include the oceans or not. It’s a sham “goal” designed to “fail” in order to justify more radical controls and push through the green agenda even faster.
My point being that NASA Climate and NOAA lie about the temperature record.
T Abbott, do you imagine that actual measurements have anything to do with the issue? The temperature will be whatever they say it is. And as shown by MBH98, they will simply doctor or edit the data selection to produce whatever result they want. Facts don’t matter, the science doesn’t matter. It’s all subject to the political and social goals of those driving the AGW agenda.
Do you imagine that I don’t understand all that?
Even NOAA cannot show a year hotter than 1998 or 1997 even. From the annual reports.
Been tracking for years.
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index “The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997″ = 16.92°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813
Global Analysis – Annual 1998 – Does not give any “Annual Temperature” but the 2015 report does state – The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, So 1998 was 0.63°C – 0.51°C = 0.12°C warmer than 1997
62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997″ = 16.92°C + 0.12°C = for 1998 = 17.04°C
(3) For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 0.62°C + 13.9°C = 14.52°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201013
(4) 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
0.62°C + 13.9°C = 14.52°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313
(5) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature “The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)= 0.69°C above 13.9°C => 0.69°C + 13.9°C = 14.59°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
(6) 2015 – the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)
=> 0.90°C + 13.9°C = 14.80°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
Now for 2016 and they report <i>average temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces was 58.69 Fahrenheit</i> <b> 14.83°C</b>
2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.13°C (0.23°F) less than the record set in 2016
=> 0.86°C + 13.9°C =<b> 14.76°C </b>
So the results are 16.92 or 17.04 << 14.52 or 14.52 or 14.59 or 14.80 or 14.83 or 14.76 using data written at the time.
Also 2010 ties with 2005 @ur momisugly 14.52°C which is what 2013 and 2003 are at. But 2010 is a record and 2013, 3 years later, is only the 4th warmest?
They cannot even keep the same 20th century average of 15.6°C or 15.8°C or 14.8°C or 13.9°C the same 15 years after it was over?
Thanks to Nick at WUWT for the original find. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/09/warming-stays-on-the-great-shelf/#comment-1856325
Since 1997 was not even the peak year (per 2015 write-up 1998 was 0.12°C warmer), which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).
What we read here is a rather tame and sanitised version of what BBC has published…
e.g. quote:“”Either we transform society in a way that avoids the worst of climate change, or climate change will transform society for us, in ways that are difficult to foresee but likely not to be very pleasant.”
Is Auntie ‘simply’ Gilding the Lily – or is she full of shît
you judge
Definitely the latter.
Look at the people Auntie employs…. people like Marianna Spring…
“Telling me you are a brilliant reporter who exercises integrity and honesty when you have literally demonstrated the opposite was a terrible idea”
When the BBC’s disinformation correspondent lied on her CV
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/how-the-bbcs-disinformation-correspondent-lied-on-her-cv/
I wonder if Guterres eats meat? If so, how dare he! We should insist he go on a diet. Doesn’t he know that agriculture contributes to the climate catastrophe? Ergo, he must lead by example and go on a severe diet. 🙂
Probably he eats good meat, but definitely he eats more than his fair share of calories, probably in the form of carbohydrates.
I think he should remain silent until he reduces his BMI to 1.5 units less than pre-obesity levels.
Guterres isn’t serious unless he starts haranguing the Chicoms about the CO2 output.
I don’t recall him ever mentioning China by name when he castigates people for not getting the CO2-reduction-job done.
His focus seems to be on destroying the Western world exclusively.
UN backed by a cabal of people who consider themselves enlightened, want “tonnes of CO2” to be the new international exchange medium with obviously the UN in control of the system. It is beyond Marxism in its goals. And also an “ends-justify-the-means” mentality….
One has to be holier than thou….
“”The Cop26 menu has been criticised for having almost 60% meat and dairy dishes with high-carbon foods at every stand.
Environmental campaigners criticised the move as “utterly reckless” and said it is “like serving cigarettes at a lung cancer conference”.””
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cop26-unsustainable-menu-b964410.html
I’m having a dreadfully planet unfriendly chilli tonight, guilt factor 0
Surely he looks rather prosperous.
Here is a summary of climate change points that I have just found.
It seems to be from a writer who is expressing a personal view arrived at voluntarily.
Recommended reading. Convenient source of references.
Some parts are better than others. I don’t agree with all of it, esp nuclear.
Geoff S
….
https://medium.com/@jspritzler/why-does-the-rockefeller-family-fund-want-you-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-bc8ae4fa7b95
Warming in this 2.56-million ice age the earth is in should be celebrated not condemned. 4.6 million people die each year from strokes and heart attacks caused by cold air constricting our blood vessels compared to 500,000 dying from heat-related causes.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
This earlier paper says cold-related deaths outnumber heat-related deaths 20 to 1.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
2.56 million year ice age
His statements on nuclear power are simply idiotic and have no basis in fact. This act of religion alone makes it NOT recommended.
Paris is “off course”, because it was, and still is, built on a lie;
many NATURAL forces cause the observed global temperature changes, already for 4 billion years
The increase in interest rates, long overdue, due to excessive printing of money, plus increased inflation, and increased energy costs, and increased materials cost, and increased skilled labor costs, and supply chain bottlenecks have combined to increase the capital cost per MW of installed wind/solar/battery capacity by about 70%, according to Bloomberg.
People are finally beginning to realize, the costs of Paris are astronomical, and even the richest countries on the planet cannot afford it going forward.
This gave rise to BRISC+6, soon to be BRISC+12, including two nuclear super powers, and two oil super powers, which will control the majority of the world’s resources, oil is at $95/barrel, as decided by Russia and SaudiArabia
BRISC does no longer want its resources used for the West to play world domination and climate fantasy games
It is curtains for the US/EU, and the imposing of its self-serving, rules-based, bull manure
“oil is at $95/barrel, as decided by Russia and SaudiArabia”
And Biden.
“It is curtains for the US/EU”
Maybe. Maybe not. Let’s see how the 2024 U.S. presidential election goes. The U.S. might get lucky and get a real leader, like Trump, in office.
“Drill baby, drill!” is what Trump says. Trump says Biden is alienating Saudi Arabia and we shouldn’t be doing that.
Trump gave a speech last night in South Dakota, where Governor Kristi Noem endorsed him for president.
As for foreign wars, Trump did complain about spending money in other nations and not spending money in Maui, but he never mentioned Ukraine by name in his complaints, other than when he said the war would have never happened had he been elected president in 2020. He didn’t go as far as some Republican candidates who have voiced big reservations about helping the people of Ukraine. I thought Trump took just the right tone.
One reporter, after listening to Trump’s long speech, asked those in the room if they had “ever seen Trump tired”? And none of them said they had ever seen Trump looked tired.
Trump says Crooked Joe Biden can’t put two sentences together.
Trump is leading in all the polls, the Republican nomination polls, and the national presidential polls, and his numbers keep getting bigger.
I’m voting for him.
So will I
Oil and wars are not the problem the west faces. The real problem is the acceleration of the BRICS cross border trading architecture they’re developing.
As I understand it, it’s not a currency, it’s the concept of trading in local currencies thereby obviating the need for a reserve currency altogether.
The problem that seems to create is that western nations are saddled with their extraordinary debt and will lose the ability to manipulate conditions to suit that debt. In short, we will have to pay it off.
I’m not a financial guy so if anyone can offer a more qualified opinion I would welcome it.
Ultimately the debt will have to be paid one way or the other. The sooner something happens to prevent the accumulation of anymore of it here in the US the better for all in my opinion. It’s getting dangerous now.
If Republicans get a super majority in the next election, they will be in a position to implement a budget that brings fiscal sanity back into the mix.
A super majority is a possiblity. When you have Black Rappers calling on their supporters in the Black community to vote for Trump, you have to think something is up with the American electorate.
I want to believe that the American voters are getting ready to give a big slapdown to the radical Democrats. Maybe big enough for a super majority in both Houses of Congress. Of course, that’s just wishful thinking right now.
A super majority of Republicans could get the budget back on track. They have the ideas, they just don’t have quite enough votes to push it through just now. Maybe that will change. We need change.
Does a super majority get rid of RINO’s and cheating Democrats?
This is all fantasy. Our western political systems are so corrupt any dreams of a positive outcome from an election are just pie in the sky.
“Oil and wars are not the problem the west faces. The real problem is the acceleration of the BRICS cross border trading architecture they’re developing.”
I think all this boils down to: Who can you trust?
Do you trust the Chicoms more than the United States?
Admittedlty, under Joe Biden, confidence in the United States has plummeted, but if we can get a real leader like Trump in office soon enough, then Joe Biden will be seen as an outliar, so maybe confidence in the U.S. will be restored in some areas of the world and people will decide it’s not a good idea to do business with murderous dictators like those in Beijing.
BRICS and all this other stuff is self-inflicted. Correcting Biden’s stupid policies, and knowing Biden will never be in office again, should help a lot.
Frankly, at this moment in time, yes.
You’re kidding, right?
No one in the world trusts the US. The only reason they deal with it is because of the stranglehold the reserve US dollar has on them.
But the 71 wars the US/NATO has been involved with since 1945 are not murderous and dictatorial, spreading the good word of imposed ‘Democracy’ much of the world doesn’t want.
Then there the 251 times US troops have been sent into service since 1991 when the USSR collapsed.
Neither of those are dictatorial I suppose.
China’s business is their own. You would get pretty upset at China passing public judgement on the US, but it’s just fine for the US to do it to China.
China now has uncountable billionaires and millionaires. You might not like the sound of their government but managing 1.4 billion people takes a different approach to managing 350 million Americans, and no POTUS has done good job in the last 50 years or so.
Your commie Chicoms and Russkies are a hangover from the 1950’s/60’s.
Get over it, they are no longer living in that era, nor should you.
And whilst I may seem to be having a go at the US, I’m not. The term is shorthand for the global west, Europe being at least as bad as America.
The Chinese and Russians aren’t importing as many immigrants as they possibly can. They aren’t the ones obsessing over the climate.
Keep blaming everyone else for the problems we created for ourselves and we get absolutely nowhere, other than down the path of the next third world.
“Trump is leading in all the polls, the Republican nomination polls, and the national presidential polls, and his numbers keep getting bigger.”
Do you think that matters? That’s why they are frantically engaged in trying to put him in jail. After all, if you can’t take him out electorally, a jail cell will do just fine, regardless of how obviously fake the criminal charges are. It should be obvious by now that the FBI and CIA have been weaponized against a section of the American voters. They will do whatever is necessary to ensure they get the result they need.
What do you suggest? We just give up and let the radicals win?
Tump leading the polls is better than Trump not leading the polls, whatever you think of polls.
Even were that not the case, Trump is not a Knight is shining armour. I like the guy, and were I American I would vote for him, but the global south is now flexing it’s muscle since Biden screwed up the war in Ukraine.
The UN says “stocktake.”
I hear this as “theft.”
From the article:
“Stocktake”
I can just see the bureaucrats at the UN sitting around a table trying to come up with a catchy word or phrase to name their new effort. We’re trying to take stock of the situation, they say to themselves, so let’s call it “Stocktake”!
“said UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell”
That’s the first time I knew the UN had a Climate Change Executive Secretary. These guys are trying to run every aspect of our lives and we don’t even know their names.
“The global stocktake is a process for countries and stakeholders to see where they’re collectively making progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement – and where they’re not.
It’s like taking inventory. It means looking at everything related to where the world stands on climate action and support, identifying the gaps, and working together to chart a better course forward to accelerate climate action.”
We get it. They must think we are as stupd as they are.
“The stocktake takes place every five years, with the first-ever stocktake scheduled to conclude at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) at the end of this year.”
Shouldn’t that be “will take place”, seeing as how it hasn’t been done before? Or, at least, the stock taking hasn’t been called “Stocktake” before.
“Global emissions need to be nearly halved by 2030 for the world to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
He says, with absolutely no evidence to back up this claim. Nobody on the planet knows how much warmth a given amount of CO2 adds to the atmosphere. After feedbacks, there is a possiblity that CO2 actually ends up having a net cooling effect. Yet, here we have fools planning our future based on nothing but speculation. It’s not going to end well going down this path. And it looks like this is becoming clearer to more people as windmills and solar fail to get the job done.
“Every day, we see the devastating impacts of climate change, from raging wildfires to catastrophic floods to more frequent and intense heatwaves, as well as food and water scarcity, sea level rise, and biodiversity loss.”
The secreatary is obviously a very deluded and/or conniving person. There’s no evidence that any bad thing is caused by human-caused climate change because there is no evidence humans are causing the climate to change.
“The science is unequivocal: a course correction is needed.”
No, that’s not true. The secretary couldn’t prove this if his life depended on doing so. He’s making claims he can’t back up with facts. Like all the human-caused climate change alarmists do. I guess they think if they repeat this lie often enough, people will believe it. That works sometimes, until reality finally breaks in and bursts that false reality bubble.
The UN should focus its “Stocktake” on China, and India and all the other nations who are burning coal, oil and natural gas to power their societies. They are preaching to the Choir with regard to Western Democracies, who are doing all they can to bankrupt themselves by trying to reduce CO2 output.
If the UN does not seriously browbeat the Chicoms at the first Stocktake, then they are not serious sbout reducing CO2.
Jumping through all these hoops and there’s no evidence that CO2 needs to be controlled. There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. Demonizing CO2 is insanity. Especially after 50 years of trying to make CO2 out to be something sinister, they still can’t show any evidence for it. They are reduced to claiming they see CO2 in every severe weather event, as if severe weather events didn’t happen before our modern age.
CO2-phobia is a mental illness. And for some, promoting CO2-phobia is a road to riches and political power. The promoters are herding humanity towards the cliff.
Great comment.
At what point is Guterrez going to be arrested?
He’s not only yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, he’s pouring gas on it.
Besides I thought I read the other day that with this summer being the hottest in 125,000 years we are now at 1.5C and are officially dead?
So we can stop pretending now?
Ugh, I always hate to see the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” metaphor. It comes from a Supreme Court decision that allowed the imprisonment of war protesters, which later was happily overturned. So despite the phrase’s prominence, it is not part of current law or precedent. And it’s almost always used to shut down free speech.
I gave up checking if the “Full volume” version of the SYR had finally been posted in early summer, but an actual (4.7 MB, 186 page long) PDF file is now available (apparently last modified on “Tue 15 Aug 2023”, 2 or 3 months after I gave up).
On page 113 of the SYR can be found Figure 4.6, a screenshot of which is attached below, which shows just the mitigation “flows” which will be “required” to limit AGW to +1.5°C.
NB : “Adaptation” costs / flows will be in addition to these.
The IPCC’s SYR team is saying that developing countries need increased mitigation flows from the recent ~400 billion (US) dollars per year to anything from 1.4 to 2.8 trillion dollars per year, averaged to 2030, instead.
Developed countries will need to see their mitigation flows increase from ~300-350 billion (US) dollars per year to “only” around 0.8 to 1.7 trillion dollars … per year.
NB : The direction of each “flow” in Figure 4.6 is unclear, but I’m not betting money on China + India (+ …) “volunteering” to help contribute towards that scale of funding anytime soon.
_ _ _ _ _
2.2 to 4.5 trillion dollars per year — every year until 2030 — may count as “clearly demonstrating” that mitigation policies can be “low cost” to whoever wrote those words on the UN website, but it sure as hell isn’t “low cost” from my point of view.
First Paris stocktake. The idea was to ‘name and shame’ since the ‘contributions’ are voluntary. I predict there will be many names but no shames. The intrinsic problems are becoming self evident (except to the UN and it’s IPCC):
Nutcases are in charge of the Western World, Rud. We’ll see how low the nutcases can drive Western standards of living before normal people take action. It may be that normal people’s reactions to Leftist economic and social (its OK for men to weenie-wag in girl’s showers) depredations will both peak over the coming year or so. [IIRC, a judge recently ruled that it was OK for a pervert to parade naked in front of little girls because his obscenely fat belly sagged over his junk.]
The geological climate of the Earth is still a 2.56 million-year ice age that won’t end until there is no natural ice on the Earth.
The Earth is in a warmer interglacial period that alternates with colder glacial periods. The interglacial period usually last about 10,000 years. This one has lasted 11,700 years.
Most of the world is too cold to live in without technology in the form of warm clothes, warm houses, warm transportation, and warm workplaces.
To sum up the result of this stocktake:
165 recipient countries, “Where’s our money?”
30 Donor countries: “Sorry, we’re sending it all to China to buy wind turbines and solar panels.”
I love all these words! Now we are ‘stocktaking’. We’re stocktaking because we’ve made no progress since COP27. And since COP26. And since COP25. And since COP24.
Need I go on? The PA only got agreed at the last minute when ‘mist’ became ‘should’. And there was a shameful explosion of joy in the Press Office. No gnarled fedora wearing crusty journo to say “Hey fellers-this is all b…ls isn’ it?
The science is unequivocal? Actually quite the opposite.
A few satirical comments about the lack of Energy Lieteracy among President Biden and his counterparts in Europe: