Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The next UN Climate Change Conference, COP30, will be held in Belém, Brazil, from November 10-21, 2025. Near as I can tell, “COP” stands for “Conference of Party-goers”, because most of what goes on at these quackathons is eating and drinking. And asking for money. Here’s Josh on the subject—previous COP, same story.

Each country was required to submit its plan for how it will fight the eeevil CO2, called an “NDC” for “Nationally Determined Contribution”, by February 25th.
I got to wondering how many of the 197 countries that belong to the United Nations have submitted updated national climate plans to the UN so far. Turns out it’s only about 8-10% depending on how you count … and tragically, one of them is from the US. I guess Biden holdovers slipped it out the door when Trump folks weren’t watching, or maybe before the inauguration.
So I went and got the document from the link.
It’s 35 pages of the usual doublespeak from some committee of pluted government bloatocrats. Being unwilling to hack my way through the detritus of govern-mental illness, to get an overview I used the technique I described in Learning With The Dumbest Genius Librarian. Details are in the appendix. After getting Level 1 data and then typing “more”, I get this:
Extended Factual Overview: U.S. 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)
Official Target
- The United States’ 2035 NDC aims for an economy-wide reduction of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 61–66% below 2005 levels by 2035.
- This target covers all GHG sectors and aligns with the nation’s net-zero goal for 2050.
Sectoral Contributions
Power/Electricity:
- Achieve 100% clean electricity by 2035, including phase-out of unabated coal plants by 2030 and strengthened regulations on gas plants.
- This requires a 2–4x increase in renewable capacity additions and a 73–100% reduction in electricity generation from fossil fuels.
Transportation:
- Target 83–100% share of electric vehicles in new car sales by 2035.
- Enforce advanced emissions and efficiency standards for all vehicle categories, including freight and aviation.
Industry:
- Promote widespread adoption of low-carbon manufacturing, carbon capture, and methane reductions, especially in oil, gas, and waste sectors.
- Methane emissions reductions of at least 35% from 2005 by 2035 are anticipated, with possible higher reductions through intensified measures.
Buildings:
- Strengthen energy codes, promote electrification, and improve efficiency standards for equipment and appliances.
Agriculture and Land Use:
- Enhance practices for soil carbon sequestration, reduce agricultural methane, and increase sustainable land management.
Federal and Subnational Roles
- Success depends on integrated efforts by federal, state, Tribal, and local governments, alongside businesses and civil society.
- Landmarks such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) form the backbone of federal investments. These are complemented by state policies and non-federal actions, critical for bridging the gap toward the NDC target.
Modeling and Ambition
Scientific Pathways and Analysis:
- Multi-model studies show that only expansive new policies and cross-sector action will deliver a 56–67% GHG reduction by 2035; current policies alone result in a 34–44% cut.
- Enhanced ambition scenarios require a national average annual decarbonization rate of 3.7% from 2020–2035, up from 2.2% under current laws.
Methane and Non-CO₂ Gases:
- Methane is addressed via fees and standards in oil, gas, coal, landfill, and agriculture, aiming up to a 48% reduction by 2035 in some scenarios.
Climate Justice and Equity
- The NDC emphasizes equity, ensuring that emissions-reduction strategies deliver benefits to vulnerable, Indigenous, and low-income populations.
- Justice-focused approaches are embedded through consultation and implementation at all levels, aiming to promote a just and inclusive transition.
Yeah, right. Let’s look at a few of those.
- The United States’ 2035 NDC aims for an economy-wide reduction of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 61–66% below 2005 levels by 2035.
- This target covers all GHG sectors and aligns with the nation’s net-zero goal for 2050.
Here are US CO2 emissions by year, along with the NDC goals.

Figure 1. US CO2 emissions by year. Red lines show the path to the 2035 goal (62.5% percent of the 2005 emissions, and the 2050 goal (zero). Red dotted line goes from 2005 to 2023, representing an average decrease of -69 megatonnes per year. To achieve the 2035 goal requires an average annual decrease of -117 megatonnes per year, and to achieve the 2050 goal requires -280 megatonnes per year.
It’s a wonderful fantasy, but totally unachievable. The gains since the peak have been because of the replacement of coal by gas, but much of that has already occurred. At present, only about a quarter of CO2 emissions come from electricity, so even if we could bring that to zero, how will we cut the other three-quarters of the emissions?
Then we have:
Power/Electricity:
- Achieve 100% clean electricity by 2035, including phase-out of unabated coal plants by 2030 and strengthened regulations on gas plants.
- This requires a 2–4x increase in renewable capacity additions and a 73–100% reduction in electricity generation from fossil fuels.
Yeah, right. Many of the best solar and wind sites are in use. After hundreds of billions in subsidies over decades, solar plus wind provide only 17% of US power. And because they are intermittent, we’ll need fossil-powered backup.
Next, their numbers make no sense. Given the limitations of batteries, to get to 100% clean energy, fossil use must go to zero. But they say it could drop by just 73% and we’d be able to get to clean energy … how?
And further on, we see:
Transportation:
- Target 83–100% share of electric vehicles in new car sales by 2035.
- Enforce advanced emissions and efficiency standards for all vehicle categories, including freight and aviation.
Yeah, sure. In 2024, after years of hype and billions in subsidies, EVs are 1.6% of the cars on the US highways. And even at that low level, it’s putting a strain on the grid. If they get to be a large percentage of cars on the road, the grid will crumble … and that’s not even including the huge and growing electricity need for AI.
There’s more, but I’ll stop there. My brain can’t take the bogus claims of “CLIMATE EQUITY”. I can hear my cranial gears stripping when I start thinking about it. The whole document is a farrago of lies, deceptions, fantasies, and green dreams.
However, there is some very good news.
First, President Trump has pulled the US out of the climate grift entirely, and second, this is a non-binding agreement. Every nation just puts in ridiculous goals and gets to feel all virtuous.
And hopefully, before the 25th Conference of the Party-goers, this document will be withdrawn.
Onwards, we’re gaining ground,
w.
PS—Here it is again. When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. If you can’t figure out why I’m asking this … think harder.
PPS—To replicate and extend my analysis, copy everything below the separator line below, paste it into your favorite AI (I use perplexity.ai), and hit enter. It lets you get a large overview and then dig in to obscure corners.
{https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2024-12/United%20States%202035%20NDC.pdf}= Topic of Study
1. Input Stage: Topic Declaration
- Insert your topic of interest between the curly braces above.
- From this point forward, your topic will be referred to as “M”.
- All output will be strictly factual, source-verified information related to M.
2. Core Operating Principles
A. Role Definition
- You are an independent researcher gathering information for article creation.
- I am strictly your research assistant.
- My only function is to deliver comprehensive, factual, and verifiable information on M.
- I do not advise, hypothesize, interpret, or suggest presentation formats regarding M.
B. Boundaries: What I Will Not Do
- I will not recommend articles or presentation formats for M.
- I will not provide advice, tips, or writing guidance on M.
- I will not summarize or interpret M unless quoting or directly citing a primary source.
- I will only deliver source-backed facts about M.
C. Data Standards & Source Policy
- All factual claims will be linked to a directly traceable, verified primary source.
- Examples: peer-reviewed journals, official government/public research databases, established scientific institutions.
- No data from AI models, platforms without access to the original source, or unverifiable summaries will be used.
- All links will be embedded as live hyperlinks at the end of the statement.
- Citations are placed immediately after the corresponding statement, never in a collective footnote or end-of-document format.
- Each factual claim must be verifiable through the actual URL of the cited source.
- If a claim cannot be verified by primary evidence, it will be omitted—with the limitation explicitly stated and speculation excluded.
D. Quality Control
- Before providing any answer, I perform a self-audit:
- If any component of my response lacks direct traceability to a verified source, it is flagged or excluded.
- I do not extrapolate, synthesize, or “guess” based on pattern recognition or indirect evidence.
- If evidence is unavailable or conflicting, this will be clearly stated.
3. Output System: Choose Your Desired Response Level
- After you submit your topic, you will receive the following prompt:
- “Which output do you need?”
- Type “1” for: Basic Information
- Overview-level summary about the study of M.
- Type “2” for: Specialized Information
- In-depth technical knowledge categorized by topics.
- You may also type “more” at any level to request extended output.
Output 1 – Basic Information on M
- Goal: Provide a foundational understanding of M.
- Includes:
- Introduction to the field
- General facts
- High-level points of importance
- Navigation:
- Type “2” at any point to move to Specialized Information.
- Type “more” to expand the Basic Information.
Output 2 – Specialized Information on M
- Goal: Access deep, subject-specific, and technical content on M.
- Process & Features:
- You receive a numbered Table of Contents listing specialized topics related to M.
- Each of the specialized topics will be followed by 3 numbered subtopics
- You select a topic by typing “option X” where X is the number of the item.
- I provide fully-sourced, comprehensive information on that topic.
- Expandable Topic Navigation:
- To explore deeper levels:
- Type “topics … (name of topic)” — and I will return all subtopics of that topic.
- This structure supports infinite hierarchy:
- Primary topics → Secondary topics → Tertiary topics … and so on.
- At any level, typing “more” fetches additional topics at that same level.
- At any time, type “1” to return to Basic Information.
Citation Enforcement:
- Every statement is accompanied by a live citation to its primary source in the -style format.
- No aggregation of sources at the end. Each claim stands alone with its citation.
- If a traceable, authoritative source is not available for a datum, I will not include the datum.
4. Checking and double-checking. Before delivering any answer, double-check that each citation and reference actually exists and is valid.
5. Workflow Summary
- Enter your topic between the curly braces — e.g., {constructal flow in climate modeling}.
- Receive a prompt to choose between:
- “1” — Basic Information
- “2” — Specialized Information
- Use logic commands to explore and navigate:
- “option X” to select topics
- “topics … X” to drill deeper into topic structure
- “more” to extend any current layer
- “1” to return to Basic view
- Now: Insert your topic between the curly braces above, and type your output selection (“1” or “2”) to begin.
Realistically, and if everyone actually wanted 2 in their garage (I sure don’t), the only way to electrify transportation (through BEV replacements) is to place small modular Nuclear Generation at EVERY charging station site (gas stations for EVs) and power them Off Grid.
We need Mr. Fusion!
Be careful what you ask for.
No one has asked what the intense magnetic confinement fields (let alone answered the question) will do to migrating birds depending on geomagnetic inclination and declination to find their destinations.
Their destination will be any of a Billion Wind Turbine Blades. They find them rather easily.
Hi Clyde,
Would be so kind to review this’d make suggestions to improve?
Or, should I have posed this question to Roy Spencer?
The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by at most 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which:
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for about 0.3 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. See URL
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
Dream on!
Actually what is needed is a portable generator capable of creating up to 1800 kWh of energy on demand. Something like an ICE, uh, that’s right we already have that.
Uh huh, I’m pretty sure they are banned in California which
means it’s coming to your state. It’s just a matter of when.
On page 3 of the US NDC it says was prepared by the National Climate Advisor and the White House Office of Climate Policy, and was approved by President Biden. So, like Fauci’s anticipatory pardon, it was slipped in at the last minute.
Elsewhere, greens have been wailing that Trump doesn’t have a National Climate Advisor and abolished the White House Office of Climate Policy. Drill, baby, drill.
Trump needs to send in a statement to the COP rescinding the US NDC statements made by the “Other Administration” and replace it with…”We will not comply, persistence is Futile”
“We will not comply, persistence is Futile.”
Or maybe:
“We will not be assimilated. Persistence if Futile.”
— The a nod to the Borg
Autopen, by any chance?
Yeah, they use words that they don’t even know their meaning, such as, capacity, clean, equity, Indigenous, sustainable…
One would have to be naive to not figure out what’s happening with the NDC. 197 countries but only a handful, mostly Western, are participating. The rest have been convinced by the UN that they are victims, and should receive reparations so why get involved with the NDC? I think people are finally seeing AGW for what it really is …. an attack on Capitalism …. and nothing to do with ‘climate’. Thank you Trump, all it took is a non politician 🙂
US gasoline consumption averages about 9 million barrels/day or about 378 million gallons/day. Where is that energy suppose to come from?
Wind. Right?
Mr. Fusion is a close second.
/humor
Add in Diesel for interstate trucking, plus heavy agricultural equipment.
No, no! Battery powered semi-trucks are almost ready for deployment. Who cares they would need hours and hours of recharging at nonexistent charging locations, and a large part of their hauling capacity would be used to move heavy batteries around the country!
Great! Let’s do it!
/humor
I read the NDC.
I can attest it was not written by K. Harris as it puts her word salads to shame.
So, summarizing bureaucratic bafflegab is a use case for AI.
Even “it” must whimper at times.
The planet is cooling, it’s all fraud.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but where on the earth’s surface is radiation in the 15 micron range released into the atmosphere? The average earth surface temperature of 15C is much too warm to release radiation that CO2 absorbs. Water vapor is a different story.
You seem to be under the impression that an object gives off only one frequency of radiation, depending on its temperature.
Sun-Earth Logarithmic Spectrums with Accurate Scaling – Outgoing longwave radiation – Wikipedia
Gases are not black bodies so don’t emit frequency based on temperature. CO2 has 3 notable absorption/emission lines at about 2.7, 4.7, and 15 micro. The physical structure of the gas determines its bending or rotation capability therefore its emission capability. Temperature not so much.
No, if CO2 colder than 15 C is exposed to sufficient radiation corresponding to a temperature of 15 C, it is absorbed, and heats until it is emitting exactly the same frequencies that it is receiving.
Thermal equilibrium. No net heat transfer between the CO2 at 15 C, and the surrounding 15 C environment.
You can in those cases always refer to Happer/ Wijngaarden’s ( now classic) paper..
Valence emissions do not require the molecule to “heat.”
Why all this obsessing and ink about CO2?
CO2 is an essential gas to create life, to grow flora, which support fauna, including us.
At present flora is on a starvation diet
We need more CO2 ppm to increase crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Don’t let the IPCC appropriate the narrative by claiming CO2 is evil; it is an unmitigated lie.
.
We should debunk the super-expensive BS touted during these COP junkets
Defrock these charlatans
Back in the mid-70s during the “ice age cometh” era, an official (lost the link and the name) from the UN Environmental group was asked and answered (words to these effects), We do not know if CO2 is the cause (for the cooling) but it is something that can be quantified and taxed.
That seems to be the first domino toppled.
The black body (or in this case grey body) is a spectrum. The peak is driven by the temperature. The EMR is a near infinite spectrum, although the power density varies greatly over the spectrum.
Here’s our NDC: An economy-wide increase of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 61–66% above 2005 levels by 2035. We are contributing to the level of GHGs, especially CO2, thereby helping to green the planet. It’s a tough goal, but we can do it! You’re welcome.
Thank You, BC.
I see what you’ve done there, taking the pledged ~ 2/3 reduction (- 66%) and converting it to ~ 5/3 multiplication (+ 2/3 <=> + 66%).
An alternative plan would take the ~ 1/3 remainder (33%) as a starting point…
… inverting that to a 3X multiplier, i.e. a Tripling (aka Trebling).
Now that would be truly heroic if over a decade period [2025 – 2035 A.D.]
But over a quarter century [2026 – 2051 A.D.]? Not so bad.
±±±±±±
As for the ‘N’ in the ‘NDCs’, one way to see how just what a sham [they are] is to listen carefully to what their advocates say, when they are among their fellow travelers. Their plan is to de-industrialise the wealthier countries — farming all the labor and unsightly mess to the poorer ones (think neo-colonialism) — and turn their own lovely lands into giant nature parks, while forcing the landed populace back into city-centers (15-minute towns and all that). That’s the only way to make the numbers work.
Or at least that’s what they — and I do mean the (over)educated puritanical elites — actually believe in, they are passionate about that vision.
The common folk sense that — and they resent it — accounting for the now ubiquitous expression “You can’t hate them enough“.
±±±±±±
Returning (finally!) to the Quarter-Century Tripling, that way of thinking puts humanity (not any one nation) on a different track, the one largely abandoned a half-century ago: Let the everyone (all ~ 8 billion of us) industrialise so as to deliver themselves out of desperate poverty and up to the same level as the now-wealthiest countries. A widely stated formulation is that it would take a Quadrupling of the present total worldwide Energy / Power production to bring everyone up to 50% of the living standard of the USA & Canada. Given that this would take place over ~ half-century (to 2076 A.D.), it should rather be a Quintupling (5X), to serve a maximum 10-billion souls.
Mathematically, a logistic-type growth curve that accomplishes a Quintupling over 50 years (2026 to A.D. 2076) has an exponent of +0.064/year, i.e. 6.4% annual growth (compounded). But since one-fifth of that is in the past (already accomplished), the initial growth rate is 5.3% … and declining to 3.2% at the mid-point i.e. 2051 A.D., which is the year that Tripling (3X) is reached, and to ~ 1.1% by the end-point (2076).
Of course that’s a much higher rate than the authorities are projecting right now (+1.6%), but is still lower than what one has seen in the PRChina over the past couple decades, or as has been occurring in India recently. Anyway, to accomplish this kind of development project would require an Energy Super-Abundance worthy of the name.
[As for Net Zero 2035, that’s just a transposition error: NZ-3025AD (a multicentury or millenial project) is more realistic, unless you’re a Georgia-Stones type.]
±±±±±±
Q.E.D. = Quite Enough Done (for one night’s dreaming)
Life is but a dream.
You have a nice dream.
Worth chasing.
±±±±±±±±±
Meaning: “… the MOST real part of life is the stuff of dreams”*
As expressed by Lewis Carroll (of Alice in Wonderland fame):
— 1—
— 2 —
— 3 —
— 4 —
— 5 —
— 6 —
— 7 —
Das Ende [der (Energie-)Wende]
*R. Eric Sawyer (retired funeral director, Houston TX)
Story tip:
The International Court of Justice have released a unanimous decision that nations and corporations can be held liable for activities that result in greenhouse gas emissions.
Let them try suing China… see how that works out for them. 😉
It’s an act of impotent rage, like a toddler screaming and stamping their feet. No nation with the wherewithal to enforce the ruling is likely to do so. The decision said that historic emissions were also actionable. What, are the ICJ going to encourage Russia to invade the UK because they perfected the steam engine two hundred years ago?
We invented the steam engine around 200 years ago, George, but perfecting it, some would claim, took took until the mid 20th century.
Your timing is good. Before reading your comment, I just finished a post on this very subject, to be published tomorrow.
w.
ROFL The ICJ’s jurisdiction is based on the consent of states/country … so it’s a non binding opinion.
Sure you can try to litigate in a country based on the ruling but in Australia for example the federal court has already handed a ruling
https://www.climateinthecourts.com/australia-does-not-owe-duty-of-care-to-torres-strait-islanders-court-rules-in-australian-climate-case/
Australia does not owe a duty of care that can be litigated it’s up to the Australian parliament to decide that.
The problem for the UK, Leon, is that we have a Prime Minister who likes being bound by the ICJ. He’s a sort of political bondage freak!
I saw that. Tragic. But i think it goes deeper than that. It means that countries can sue others for causing ‘damage’ because of hydro carbon emissions.
The ICJ are clueless followers of whomever pulls the strings. But i think this is a toothless exercise due to the pile up of cases and non compliance. Ie, it is virtue signalling.
We can hope that the pile on crashes the judicial system and the rebuild actually accomplishes “judicial equity.” In that expression, equity means fairness, not the hijacked/redefined/repurposed/weaponized version used in other activist declarations.
““Conference of Party-goers”, because most of what goes on at these quackathons is eating and drinking”
And discovery of what a “brazilian” is.
How many is a “Brazilian”, is it an order of magnitude greater than a gazillion? 😀
More than one order. They go to multiple meals and suck. 🙂
I’;ve noticed that all these climate conferences, treaties and agreements advise the same things; namely, a reduction of greenhouse gasses by the switch from fossil fuels to the adoption of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Then when we examine how close to their targets the various attendees and signatories to these get-togethers can claim they’ve achieved, we find they’re nowhere near them, so that facts prove there’s little commitment to these targets because their economies would contract sharply if they did. Nor do the citizens of these countries particularly care if the goals are met anyway. But one thing the proponents of these changes won’t give up is the free ride to these conferences regardless of their poor track records.
Very nice Willis. This is a perfect example of why the government shouldn’t be involved in this matter to any significant degree. Could you imagine turning something this convoluted and dishonest into your employer? You would be looking for a new job by the end of the week. Only the government can get away with crap like this. We need to find out who submitted this garbage and deal with them immediately.
Well, then there is the weather forecaster. In what other job can you be wrong 80% of the time and not only keep your job but get a raise and a promotion? 🙂
Note: I am not negative on weather forecasters. They do the best they can with what they have to work with and Mother Nature, by her nature, is unpredictable.
COPs come and go, but Nature goes on forever.
Speaking of the U.N. [Climate-Hysteria Department] —
the Secretary General* was raging again yesterday.
In his honor, we offer a quasi-poetic tribute:
… or so their bug-eyed Leader raged.
And ever louder, they all sang,
As merrily, downriver, they came,
Aboard that kayak Climate-Change,
Above Niagara’s Great Falls — deranged.
*From An Ode to Antonio del Odiosio
Apologies, forgot the link:
Trigger warning: attempting to read these ~ 200 bullet points may damage the growing brain
The obvious question is why anybody is concerned about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Is it supposed to have some negative effect?
People are surrounded by a dispersing cloud of about 40,000 ppm of CO2 they just breathed out. People seem to survive just fine.
Maybe CO2 has some hidden magical properties I don’t know about. Maybe somebody could say what they are?
Other estimates put it at around 20,000 ppm.
Opinions, like people, vary.
My figure is conservative, based on capnographic measurements. Patient lives depend on the equipment’s accuracy, so I assume it to be reasonably accurate in the main.
Maybe I’m wrong. Do you have other information?
Our NDC. To continue recycling Carbon to the atmosphere which was sequestered half a billion years ago. We aim to recreate the Mesozoic concentration of over 1000 ppm thereby recreating the lush verdant green planet it once was.
What activist could possibly be against such a noble cause except a deranged one?
Thanks, Willis, for your usual witty take on this gabfest. I hear that the local workers will be very busy, as usual, servicing all the international delegates and Hollywood stars. The sex workers, that is.
Where is Jeffrey when you need him..?😁
Buildings:
Can’t they see the mistake in this? What they need to do eliminate electricity. That would stop fuel production and distribution and also eliminate manufacturing. Also mass food production and distribution. There would also be a large decrease in population.
Never mind that electricity is not an energy source. Eliminating electricity would be the most effective way to cool the weather and save the planet.
“”Pluted” is not a recognized word in standard English dictionaries. It appears to be a misspelling of “polluted”. “Polluted” means made physically unclean, impure, or contaminated, often with harmful substances like chemicals or waste. It can also refer to moral impurity or corruption.”
Crap, I thought I was about to learn a new word.
“People also ask
What is the meaning of Plute?
a plutocrat
Plute, an informal term for a plutocrat in the context of Industrial Workers of the World philosophy and tactics. Plute or pluteus, a moveable shield used alongside siege engines in ancient Roman warfare.”
Verb created from slang-noun?
ok.
It was “pluted bloatocrats”, a play on words for “bloated plutocrats”.
w.
Kevin, the word pluted is surely “le mot juste” in this context. And if it is a new word for you, then this shows the creativity and originality of Willis.
“The whole document is a farrago of lies, deceptions, fantasies, and green dreams.”
When I want to get really upset, I ask how much it cost to produce.
Let’s see . . . the above article’s lead-in graph showing a global temperature anomaly rise (as published by Berkeley Earth) of 1°C over about 30 years duration should be put into these perspectives:
— In Earth’s northern hemisphere, averaged globally, winter temperature is around 8.1°C (46.6°F) while the summer average is about 22.4°C (72.3°F) . . . a total swing of about 14°C over 6 months.
— In Earth’s southern hemisphere, averaged globally, winter temperature is around 9.7°C (49.5°F) while summer average is around 17°C (62.6°F) . . . a total swing of about 7°C over 6 months.
— In Earth’s atmosphere, the dry adiabatic lapse rate is about 9.8°C per kilometer . . . so, on average, a 1°C rise is equivalent to a decrease of about 100m (330 feet) in elevation of one’s home, farmland, work location, vacation spot, etc.
So, if one wants to fully offset that global temperature anomaly rise reported by Berkeley Earth, just (a) wait for summer-to-winter change of season or (b) rotate between NH and SH to achieve more constant environmental temperatures, or (c) permanently move about 300 feet higher up in elevation.
/sarc
The Earth (“nature”) is doing its own thing—as it has for billions of years—and no amount of human panels, conventions, conferences, accords, protocols, agreements or treaties will do a darn thing to change that.
P.S. Need I invite discussion on the degree that Berkeley Earth temperature “data” is likely in error due to the progressive contamination of global temperature measurements by uncorrected urban heat island effects (let alone separate raw data “manipulations”) that have arisen over the last 30 years?
To reduce CO2 emissions they should hold all of their meetings over the Internet so that people attending can remain in climate lock down.