Your correspondent is a kind chap who doesn’t care to intrude on private grief. For that reason I shall not be attending the upcoming COP30 conference in the Brazilian city of Belém. With the Net Zero fantasy falling to pieces, the faces of those attending will be as long as the local eight-mile highway that cleared 100,000 mature rainforest trees to help speed the 70,000 climate cultists on their way. In a pre-conference interview, the UN chief Antonio ‘boiling’ Guterres told the Guardian that “we don’t want to see the Amazon as a savannah”. As always, when the bloviating Guterres and the COP brigade rolls into town, you couldn’t make this stuff up, although they frequently do.
Alas, it seems some of the over-priced hotel accommodation might fall short of the usual standards of comfort expected by the annual saviours of the planet. It is reported that thousands of rooms in ‘love’ motels have been turned into ‘diplomatic suites’ by replacing heart-shaped beds, dance poles and leopard-print décor. It seems hourly rates are not on offer and prices are as high as $1,000 a night, with ceiling mirrors presumably thrown in at no extra charge.
Whatever the rooms are called, it seems unlikely they will be occupied by the grander members of the corps diplomatique, such as East Timor’s Adão Soares Barbosa. He recently informed BBC radio that his country was very much affected by sea level rise, a claim that might be less risible if it was not for the fact that over the long term the land of East Timor is leaping out of the sea due to complex underground plate movements. In common with many other Pacific islands, East Timor is growing in size helped by natural forces that also include surface accretions. Despite this, hundreds of billions of dollars are being sought at this COP for alleged climate damage caused by wealth-producing industrialised countries burning hydrocarbons.
At the COP meeting, someone always ends up getting screwed.
Alas, again, the money spigot has been turned off. In the United States, until last year the biggest supporter of all things Net Zero and the ‘climate-stopping’ Paris Agreement, the Donald has been kicking ten bells out of the whole boondoggle. Where possible, green energy projects have been cancelled, federal funding of climate alarmism wiped out, foreign aid to boost said alarmism overseas removed, while climate scientists have been told to stop peddling nonsense and resume the scientific process. The UN already knows what President Trump thinks of the Net Zero project – it’s a scam and a con job he told them at the General Assembly. They laughed at him during his first term, but they are not laughing now.
Few heads of state are expected to show up this year although the UK, secure in its role as the sacrificial canary in the Net Zero mine, is being represented by the Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer and the Prince of Wales. Not much point asking Starmer for more money, he is flat broke, while the Mountbatten Windsors have been having a few extra calls on their finances of late. While money will be in generally short supply, the tipping will be plentiful. Tips as in the Gulf Stream collapsing, the Arctic ice vanishing and the corals disappearing. However many times we hear them, they remain firm favourites, something mere evidence and observation have little chance of ever removing from the public stages and prints.
Things just ain’t what they used to be. Mark Poynting of the BBC, presumably one of those destined to travel down the Belém ‘Highway of Shame’ in the next few days, did his best with a “What is COP30 and why does it matter?” It was a dull, routine article, one that in future could easily be outsourced to AI. “A major step forward looks challenging this year, not least because of the effect of the Trump administration”, he concluded. Er, duh.
Elsewhere, support is slowly fading as the costs and impracticalities of Net Zero become apparent. Not to put too fine a point on it, renewables are useless for running a modern industrial economy and hydrocarbons are vital and likely to remain so. Who really wants to be on the side of those who would ban artificial fertiliser made from natural gas and condemn half the world to death by starvation? More questions are being asked about the underlying science of climate change, a subject that has been essentially banned by elite activists for the last 25 years. A considered and well-sourced report on the climate science that has not been able to speak its name for decades was written by five eminent scientists this year and officially published by the US Department of Energy. Activists were enraged and there were a number of ‘fact checks’ run by Green Blob-funded operations. Not a punch has been laid, but it has had the effect of pushing the entire debate into the open. The abuse showered on the five scientists has given a clear signal that politics has been at play here, not science.
COP30 is supposed to be significant since it is 10 years since Paris and the agreement that was supposed to save the world by a programme of global decarbonisation. But this year, barely a third of countries have submitted supposedly binding plans to decarbonise. The fact is that voters don’t care about decarbonisation schemes when they are asked to spend money. They will not pay to avoid imaginary climate scenarios based on junk climate models. Even if there is a problem, and natural weather variation makes that impossible to ascertain, the extent of generosity is limited. If the temperature ticks up a tad, so be it. The rises are tiny and have been seen countless times in the past. The USA is out of it, and the rest of the world is bound to follow in the end.
Last year, the president of COP29 in hydrocarbon-rich Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev praised oil and gas as “gifts from God”. This year as the war-on-humanity party reassembles in the Amazon, we remember the words of the Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu: “If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s the irony, that AI could replace the lot of them, and can be trained to parrot the entire production, yet is so energy hungry that it needs what they despise most and can never supply with sunbeams and breezes.
One has to be totally self-unaware to cruise down a road to a COP that was completely unnecessary. Why not hold it in Rio, Sao Paulo or Brasilia etc. Why a backwater like Belem?
Green jobs?
UNFCCC has a habit of doing this repeatedly. It’s held COP meetings in Sharm El-Shaikh, Bali, and Lima, There was no reason for any of these locations except to provide COP delegates with a new exotic holiday location at taxpayer expense. Two of them, Sharm and Bali, were notable by the huge number of prostitutes arriving in herds to service the delegates. One of them, Lima, provided an excuse for Greenpeace to destroy a world heritage site at Nazca.
As to the selection of Belem, that was done by the Brazilian government to highlight the importance of the Amazon tropical forest. (Presumably to show their dedication to the cause by bulldozing down a hundred thousand mature trees.)
Green habitat murder, green ecological and environmental destruction…what the green freaks do best.
BRIBERY and SHOW are the answers.
That’s the reason why they don’t do those meetings at a single (and barely attractive ) place
and why there are so many experts(as if 7000 “experts” would not be enough).
The climate scam has created many parasites – and that’s how you reward them and keep them in the cult.
Free everything,hookers,drugs and on top of that someone will drop an envelope with money in your pocket.
You don’t want that to stop.
It’s kind of a moving Epstein Island – and moving it from place to place is important to show how important and connected everything is.
Either that, or they are like the aliens from “Independence Day”, they strip a site bare, then move on to the next.
There probably haven’t been 131 deaths in the last week in Belem, as opposed to Rio. That’s just a thought.
I hope they have a look how 90% of the population in Belém lives . But why should they because there is a 4km straight road from the airport to where the conference place is.
I suppose the airport has enough space for all those private jets.
And if you want to know where the other 10% lives than look where there is no street view on Google Earth.
ManBearPig would be SO proud…
Sun Tzu, I have been standing by the river since 1990, but no enemy bodies have floated by. Maybe my enemies in the climate change research business have been endowed with special properties like immaculate conception and eternal life, because only friends have headed for the pearly gates.
I have failed to understand how the topic of global warming ever launched. The science behind it was so poor. Last week I again met Dr Alan Moran who was part of the history of that horrible anti-science statement from a cheer leader named Prof Phil Jones of East Anglia uni, around 1992. ‘Why should I give you my data when you only want to use it against me’, or words like that. We asked Phil to correct his mistakes and let the public know the proper story, but that did not happen.
It was the start of the wrong way for science to advance, because it was a start to the now trendy technique of not responding and the ‘cancel culture’.
As I say, I cannot understand how this ever took off because it was all so wrong. Was it mainly because some very rich people spent a huge sum to buy the opinions of bodies like mass media, science journal owners/publishers, those handing government $$$ to university professors in green faculties? Or have I still to understand how liftoff was achieved despite many educated hands trying to turn off the fuel switches at global warming takeoff?
It will now be amusing to see past fervent supporters of Net Zero inventing excuses about why they got it all so terribly wrong. Perhaps they are simply not intelligent enough to recognise the proper science but cunning enough to lift loose change from enormous piles of money floating around national economies and stuffing them up big time.
What ever happened to truth, honesty, hard science, polite replies to questions, measurement not guesswork, ethics, morals, charity not greed, observation not dogma?
Geoff S
‘Sun Tzu, I have been standing by the river since 1990, but no enemy bodies have floated by.’
Probably a good thing for Sun Tzu et al if they wanted to avoid dying from cholera.
Dark humor aside, the answer to the question you asked in your excellent comment, i.e., ‘how this ever took off’, is that climate alarmism was the perfect weapon for the Left to wield in its quest to supplant Western civilization with Communism.
It takes time for this to happen. But it is indeed about to happen. Funding has been cut. Institutions like GISS have been shut down. Renewables like wind and solar have been reduced largely to a quaint religious cult. Solar companies have been collapsing in bankruptcy for some time. Seas-are-boiling Guterres is about to hold a global warming party this month were no one of consequence comes.
It is not that hard to understand how it took of,
once you know about the Bilderberg meetings etc.
You just need to keep in mind how easy was to start war after war after – all based on coordinated lies amongst journalists,MSM,politicians,military,secret service and experts.
Again and again and again.
Even when they got caught lying (yellow cake) they instantly pulled another lie(WMD’s)
and the war happened.
Now add to this mix scientists and AGW(it is way easier to sell dogooding than war) and treat those scientists and poor countries the same way.
Pay to play.(and if you don’t play along you’ll get fired) and they will say whatever you want.
Btw – Covid was way more impressive than AGW in terms of impact and how fast it was implemented and the level of tyranny.
That’s where you should start asking questions.
Sherro01 wrote: “I have failed to understand how the topic of global warming ever launched.”
There are at least two sub-parts to this. First, was there an effort by some few (SxyxS says Bilderberg). I read years ago (15?) that it was members of the East German communists. This would be a good investigation for an unbiased person or group. The second issue is how did “global warming” get wholly bought into by large swathes of low science knowledge folks of the advanced economies (UK, USA, AU). How did Al Gore, Cate Blanchett, DiCapprio, Jane Fonda, Greta Thunberg become oracles. There are more:
Greta Thunberg wasn’t the first to demand climate action. Meet more young activists. | National Geographic
“I have failed to understand how the topic of global warming ever launched.”
There was ‘A brief history of climate change’ published on 20 September 2013 by the BBC (on the internet at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560). At least according to the BBC, the term ‘global warming’ dates back to 1975 when a US scientist Wallace Broecker put it into the public domain in the title of a scientific paper.
The correct answer is that the whole thing was never about climate or climate change. It has always been about changing the world’s economic system to something more to their liking. Climate change was merely the vehicle they chose. There was no problem with not following the scientific method, because the correct answer had been selected long before the first “study” was ever started.
Those who stood in the way of the grand project, to rework the world’s economy had to be moved out of the way, or eliminated if they refused to move voluntarily.
It took hold because there was something in it for everyone. “Scientists” get more funding. Government bureaucracy gets more departments headcount and funding. Control freaks get more control. Insurance companies get to raise rates, the UN sees a way to get taxing authority, banksters get to sell phony carbon credits… on and on.
Take heart! Those trees did not die in vain, they were turned into lumber, utility poles, plywood and various other highly useful and sought after products! Capitalism, like C02, improves everything it touches. And THAT pisses off the environistas no end. 😉
That quote doesn’t appear in the art of war. Everyone in SV used to have that book on their shelf, but no one had actually read it.
It didn’t sound like something he would say.
Nothing profound there.
It’s one big mental hospital.
I have heard a rumour that the road may not be completed on time anyway.
That would be a laugh 🙂
Undercover videos of the mass gathering and their transportation and entertainment would be appreciated. Pair the videos with actual living conditions and industrial activity in the rain forest.
Very nice Chris.
If governments were honest and responsible to their citizens, they’d follow the lead of the US and withdraw from attendance at not only the COPs but also similar conferences immediately since they’re consistently proving that they’re achieving nothing. Except to do so would be to getting off the gravy train and pass up taxpayer-funded free rides without having to show any positive results, so I’m afraid we’re stuck with having to prop up this nonsense for awhile yet.