This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
World Leaders Just Agreed To A "Historic" Climate Accord... Which Is Non-Binding And Has No Enforcement Language
Great news! The "greatest threat to future generations of the world" has apparently been solved. World leaders Saturday adopted an historic international climate accord in Paris, the first-ever agreement to commit almost every country to fight climate change. However, as we knew all along and just got confirmation, the 31-page pact does not have binding language or a mechanism to force countries to live up to the promises to cut greenhouse gases emissions or provide money for developing and poor nations to cope with the effects of global warming.
Basically, COP21 was a massive taxpayer-funded boondoggle, in which "leaders" enjoyed all the perks of Paris for two weeks, burned through hundreds of millions in public funding, and created millions of tons in greenhouse gases (what do you think to private jets and government 747s use to fly?) that has achieved absolutely nothing.
In other words...
Nonetheless, leaders and the environmental community hailed the United Nations agreement has a historic turning point that has the potential to stave off the worst expected effects of global warming.
And The UN reports a large round of mutual masturbation...
A joyful atmosphere fills the plenary hall at #COP21. #ParisAgreement pic.twitter.com/ukwZgFdUZr
— United Nations (@UN) December 12, 2015
The Borg press is happy, clearly having no idea that absolutely nothing just took place:
Journo says she's watching #ParisAgreement with press (https://t.co/GOi0pu4clW), tweets video of their reaction. pic.twitter.com/bKn51UlyNS
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) December 12, 2015
Obama was delighted that "American leadership" was responsible for an agreement that is neither binding nor enforceable, in other words, something one would write on the back of a napkin:
This is huge: Almost every country in the world just signed on to the #ParisAgreement on climate change—thanks to American leadership.
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) December 12, 2015
So, on one hand, and the hand that the same Borged media as shown in the tweet above will bombard everyone with over the next week, moments ago world leaders Saturday adopted an historic international climate accord in Paris, the first-ever agreement to commit almost every country to fight climate change.
On the other hand, the hand which will get zero mention at all, the pact has zero binding language or a mechanism to force countries to live up to the promises to cut greenhouse gases emissions or provide money for developing and poor nations to cope with the effects of global warming.
In other words, world leaders just spent hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds on an epic boondoggle in Paris to write a 31-page pamphlet summarizing everyone's best intentions about the future and... that's it.
* * *
So if the document is such a farce, what does it contain? This.
As The FT reports,
The latest draft says governments should stick to a previously agreed goal to keep warming below 2C from pre-industrial times and “pursue efforts” to stop temperatures rising more than 1.5C, a target favoured by a large number of countries at the talks but opposed by China, Saudi Arabia and others.
In order to meet this temperature goal, earlier drafts of the accord had echoed a call by G7 leaders in June for the “decarbonisation” of the global economy over the course of this century and a specific cut in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 40 per cent by 2050.
This was opposed by several countries including Saudi Arabia, a leading exporter of fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide when burnt to produce energy.
In a statement explaining its position on Thursday, Saudi delegates said the agreement should “consider all greenhouse gas emissions and not just CO2”.
Policies to reduce emissions “must cover all sectors instead of focusing exclusively on energy” and should not “discriminate against any of the energy sources”, the Saudi delegates said.
In other words, the world's leaders are releasing a non-binding, long-enough-away-target-as-not-to-matter-for-any-of-those-involved-in-its-drafting document watered down to meet the needs of, drum roll please.. The Saudis.
After all the warm words of developed countries on a 1.5C limit, the new text contains no obligation to stay under this threshold. Shockingly, the text could allow for carbon emissions to continue until 2099.
If implemented, it would force companies and citizens to sharply reduce their use of fossil fuels and could herald in a transformation of the world economy. Which, judging by this week in Beijing...
If enforced by authorities, means China is heading for its very own Great Depression.
We leave it to Raul Ilargi Meijer (of The Automatic Earth) to explain the utter CON of this 'pact' that The IMF's Christine Lagarde has called "a critical step forward."
* * *
I understand some people may get offended by some of the things I have to say about this – though not all for the same reasons either-, but please try and understand that and why the entire CON21 conference has offended me. After watching the horse and pony show just now, I thought I’d let ‘er rip:
I don’t know what makes me lose faith in mankind faster, the way we destroy our habitat through wanton random killing of everything alive, plants, animals and people, through pollution and climate change and blood-thirsty sheer stupidity, or if it is the way these things are being ‘protested’.
I’m certainly not a climate denier or anything like that, though I do think there are questions people gloss over very easily. And one of those questions has to be that of priorities. Is there anyone who has thought over whether the COP21 stage in Paris is the right one to target in protest, whatever shape it takes? Is there anyone who doesn’t think the ‘leaders’ are laughing out loud in -plush, fine wine and gourmet filled- private about the protests?
Protesters and other well-intended folk, from what I can see, are falling into the trap set for them: they are the frame to the picture in a political photo-op. They allow the ‘leaders’ to emanate the image that yes, there are protests and disagreements as everyone would expect, but that’s just a sign that people’s interests are properly presented, so all’s well.
COP21 is not a major event, that’s only what politicians and media make of it. In reality, it’s a mere showcase in which the protesters have been co-opted. They’re not in the director’s chair, they’re not even actors, they’re just extras.
I fully agree, and more than fully sympathize, with the notion of saving this planet before it’s too late. But I wouldn’t want to rely on a bunch of sociopaths to make it happen. There are children drowning every single day in the sea between Turkey and Greece, and the very same world leaders who are gathered in Paris are letting that happen. They have for a long time, without lifting a finger. And they’ve done worse -if that is possible-.
The only thing standing between the refugees and even greater and more lethal carnage are a wide, even confusingly so, array of volunteers, and the people of the Greek coastguard, who by now must be so traumatized from picking up little wide-eyed lifeless bodies from the water and the beaches, they’ll live the rest of their lives through sleepless nightmares.
Neither Obama nor Merkel nor Hollande will have those same nightmares. And let’s be honest, will you? You weren’t even there. And still, you guys are targeting a conference in Paris on climate change that features the exact same leaders that let babies drown with impunity. Drowned babies, climate change and warfare, these things all come from the same source. And you’re appealing to that very same source to stop climate change.
What on earth makes you think the leaders you appeal to would care about the climate when they can’t be bothered for a minute with people, and the conditions they live in, if they’re lucky enough to live at all? Why are you not instead protesting the preventable drownings of innocent children? Or is it that you think the climate is more important than human life? That perhaps one is a bigger issue than the other?
Moreover, the very same leaders that you for some reason expect to save the planet -which they won’t- don’t just let babies drown, they also, in the lands the refugees are fleeing, kill children and their parents on a daily basis with bombs and drones. Dozens, hundreds, if not thousands, every single day. That’s how much they care for a ‘healthy’ planet (how about we discuss what that actually is?).
And in the hallways of the CON21 conference they’ve been actively discussing plans to do more of the same, more killing, more war. Save the world, bombs away! That’s their view of the planet. And they’re supposed to save ‘the climate’?
There are a number of reasons why the CON21 conference will not move us one inch towards saving this planet. One of the biggest is outlined in just a few quoted words from a senior member of India’s delegation -nothing new, but a useful reminder.
India Opposes Deal To Phase Out Fossil Fuels By 2100
India would reject a deal to combat climate change that includes a pledge for the world to wean itself off fossil fuels this century, a senior official said, underlying the difficulties countries face in agreeing how to slow global warming.
India, the world’s third largest carbon emitter, is dependent on coal for most of its energy needs, and despite a pledge to expand solar and wind power has said its economy is too small and its people too poor to end use of the fossil fuel anytime soon. “It’s problematic for us to make that commitment at this point in time. It’s certainly a stumbling block (to a deal),” Ajay Mathur, a senior member of India’s negotiating team for Paris, told Reuters in an interview this week.
“The entire prosperity of the world has been built on cheap energy. And suddenly we are being forced into higher cost energy. That’s grossly unfair,” he said.
This means the ‘poorer’ countries, -by no means just India; China has 155 more coal plants in the pipeline despite their pollution levels moving ‘beyond index’-, the poorer counties won’t volunteer to lower their emissions unless richer nations lower theirs even a lot more. US per capita emissions are over 10 times higher than India’s, those of the EU six times. Ergo: Step 1: lower US emissions by 90%. It also means that richer nations won’t do this, because it would kill their economies.
Which, in case you haven’t noticed, are already doing very poorly, much worse than the media -let alone politicians- will tell you. In fact, the chances that the richer countries will ‘recover’ from the effects of their debt binge are about on par with those of renewable energy sources becoming cheaper than fossil fuels -barring subsidies. If only because producing them depends entirely on those same fossil fuels. All the rest of what you hear is just con.
The people of India obviously know it, and you might as well. It’s going to cost many trillions of dollars to replace even a halfway substantial part of our fossil energy use with renewables, and we already don’t have that kind of money today. We will have much less tomorrow.
Besides, despite all the talk of Big Oil turning into Big Energy, Shell et al are not energy companies, they’re oil -and gas- companies, and they’ll defend their (near) monopolies tooth and claw. Especially now that their market caps are sinking like so many stones. They have no money left to invest in anything, let alone an industry that’s not theirs. They lost some $250 billion in ‘value’ this week alone. They’re getting killed.
In the same vein, China can’t close more than a token few of its most polluting plants. China’s getting killed economically. And for all nations and corporations there’s one principle that trumps all: competitive advantage. If going ‘green’ means losing that, or even some of it, forget it. We won’t volunteer to go green if it makes us less rich.
And who do you think represents big oil -and the bankers that finance them- more than anyone else? Right, your same leaders again, who make you pay for the by now very extensive and expensive security details that keep them from having to face you. Just like they’re planning to make you pay dearly for the illusion of a world running on renewables.
Because that’s where the profit is: in the illusion.
Whatever makes most money is what will drive people’s, corporations’, and nations’ actions going forward. Saving energy and/or substituting energy sources is not what makes most money, and it will therefore not happen. Not on any meaningful scale, that is.
There will be attempts to force people to pay through the nose to soothe their consciences -which will be very profitable for those on the receiving end-, but people’s ability to pay for this is shrinking fast, so that won’t go anywhere.
The only thing that could help save this planet is for all westerners to reduce their energy use by 90%+, but, though it is theoretically and technically feasible, it won’t happen because the majority of us won’t give up even a part of our wealth, and the powers that be in today’s economies refuse to see their profits (re: power) and those of their backers go up in -ever hotter- air.
The current economic model depends on our profligate use of energy. A new economic model, then, you say? Good luck with that. The current one has left all political power with those who profit most from it. And besides, that’s a whole other problem, and a whole other issue to protest.
If you’re serious about wanting to save the planet, and I have no doubt you are, then I think you need to refocus. COP21 is not your thing, it’s not your stage. It’s your leaders’ stage, and your leaders are not your friends. They don’t even represent you either. The decisions that you want made will not be made there.
There will be lofty declarations loaded with targets for 2030, 2050 and 2100, and none of it will have any real value. Because none of the ‘leaders’ will be around to be held accountable when any of those dates will come to pass.
An imploding global economy may be your best shot at lowering emissions. But then again, it will lead to people burning anything they can get their hands on just to keep warm. Not a pretty prospect either. To be successful, we would need to abandon our current political and economic organizational structures, national governments and ‘up’, which select for the sociopaths that gather behind their heavy security details to decide on your future while gloating with glee in their power positions.
Better still, we should make it impossible for any single one of them to ever be elected to any important position ever again. For now, though, our political systems don’t select for those who care most for the world, or its children. We select for those who promise us the most wealth. And we’re willing to turn a blind eye to very many things to acquire that wealth and hold on to it.
The entire conference is just an exercise in “feel good”, on all sides. Is there anyone out there who really thinks the likes of Bill Gates and Richard Branson will do anything at all to stop this world from burning to the ground? You have any idea what their ecological footprints are?
Sometimes I think it’s the very ignorance of the protesting side that dooms this planet. There’s a huge profit-seeking sociopathic part of the equation, which has caused the problems in the first place, and there’s no serious counterweight in sight.
Having these oversized walking talking ego’s sign petitions and declarations they know they will never have to live up to is completely useless. Branson will still fly his planes, Gates will keep running his ultra-cooled server parks, and Obama and Merkel will make sure their economies churn out growth ahead of anything else. Every single country still demands growth. Whatever gains you make in terms of lower emissions will be nullified by that growth.
And in the hallways, ‘smart’ entrepreneurs stand ready to pocket a ‘smart’ profit from the alleged switch to clean energy. At the cost of you, the taxpayer. And you believe them, because you want to, and because it makes you feel good. And you don’t have the knowledge available to dispute their claims (hint: try thermodynamics).
You’re seeking the cooperation of people who let babies drown and who incessantly bomb the countries these babies and their families were seeking to escape.
I’m sorry, I know a lot of you have a lot of emotion invested in this, and it’s a good emotion, and you’re thinking this conference is really important and all, and our ‘last chance’ to save the planet. But you’ve been had, it’s as simple as that. And co-opted. And conned.
And it’s not the first time, either. All these conferences go the same way. To halt the demise of the planet, you can’t rely on the same people who cause it. Never works.
* * *
And now we can sit back and calculate how many million tons of greenhouse gasses the private and government jets that ferried world leaders to (and soon, from) Paris, burned to get this epic farce "signed."
- 35 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -





Now that the Paris Agreement on Climate Change has been passed, it must be ratified by the nations that signed on. Given that the next big economic crisis will likely be triggered by the Fed rate hike next week, there is an obvious question that must be asked…
Will ratifying the Climate Change Agreement be required before a nation can receive multilateral economic aid during the Economic Crisis of 2016?
So on the eve of the big downturn, the globalists get the nation-states to sign on to an agreement that will give the global government a stranglehold on their economies. Then, they deliberately trigger a giant economic downturn that will bring the nations hat-in-hand to the globalist lenders. But to get aid, you have to ratify the stranglehold agreement. Check and mate.
An elegant setup, is it not?
I am so excited that the greatest threat to future generations has been daelt with.
/s
Just moar hot air...
We can save the world if you people will just appease the climate gods by giving us more money!
Which is rich (ha), because the wealthiest 10% do most of the polluting.
Part of me still refuses to believe that there are people fucking retarted enough to actually think climate change is a pressing matter, especially with the state of things as they are right now.
Hooray! No more ice ages, no more tectonic plate shifts, no more volcanos, no more asteroids, no more solar storms, no more anything that could make a single difference to the incredibly complex system that is in a state of perpetual change! Eat shit and die Mother Nature - humans have just proved that we are the superior force in this universe!
We need moar ClimateGate Taxes and Fat Subsidies to political leaders' best friends who put up a windmill or two.
"Non-binding".... In other words, we will need to waste more time and money next year in hopes of reaching a 'binding' agreement.
If any of these people actually gave a shit about the environment, they would be dealing with Fukushima first and foremost. That's all they would be focusing on. In fact, I wonder if the money they wasted on this farcical conference could have made some tiny bit of difference towards helping out there?
Just more evidence it has nothing to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with stealing more of your money and establishing greater control over you.
Release zero point energy and achieve the goal in 5 years...
I mean... We all agree now that we should lower levels....does it really matter how we get there?
One World Government Initially Emerging As Global CO2 ‘Management’ Regime
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=15986
do you know how sad it is that a hard core Capitalist website like ZH has to pull ' journalists ' up on their lack of green credentials
Hillary will somehow take the credit for it. “One of my visions I shared with the President was my need to lead global climate…….”
Hmm, a climate accord that is non-binding and has no enforcement language, yet Obama claims he just saved the world... Much like the Iran nuclear deal that has not been signed by parties from either country... A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, unless of course it's Barry Obama, who is a fraud in a tutu...
Quick! Let's build more nuclear power plants on EQ fault lines so as to avoid 'evil' carbon emissions!
& while you're at it, don't forget to seat Chelsea Gorebergerclintonstein on the Board of Directors of the awarded company & give her a fat salary for all her hard work.
No need for more nuclear plants on fault lines as Fukashima #4 is slowly but surely doing the job as intended...
We are FUCKED FOR SURE NOW. I wish this collapse would hurry up so We can deal with these world leaders
...and don't forget, NO MORE TERRORISM! YAY! /S
Let's outlaw heart attacks while we're at it! Just think of all the human suffering we could alleviate and money saved. It's for the fucking children for Christsakes!
Miffed;-)
The article still seems to support the Climate Change™ agenda even though it criticizes the conference. 1 starred.
No moar volcanoes? Where the hell are we going to sacrifice our virgins to appeas the climate gods?!?!
Mother Nature is a slut!
Couple buddies made shirts with that printed.
Welfare Tycoon
You fucking retard(to repeat YOUR expression). What grades did you get in science? Or did you take any?
BTW, CO2 is no big deal. The oceans will absorb the heat for a thousand years.
Arctic Methane will kill our children.
Fire in the ice. Greenhouse gases 20x more effective at cooking the planet than CO2 are being released from permafrost.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/methane01-e13609...
And I wonder how people are stupid enough to think man made 'climate change' is real. And, are they really so dumb as to not even wonder why they changed the term from "global warming" ?
Better a few hundred million down the tubes than a railroad to a global tax based upon a hockey stick graph that has been proven to be erroneous.
NWO is going to be so sweet, as a global citizen I am excited about what our amazing leaders are presenting. Don't you people understand that it's more importnat to be a global citizen, than an American! Stop living in hte past we are in the 21st centrury.
Who paid for all the meals, travel and lodging, in of all places Paris? Wouldn't somewhere of the likes of Oklahoma, or such, been more prudent. They could of used the extra savings for more climate control initiatives.
If you were organising a smoke n mirrors shitfest and wanted lots of important fuckwits to attend would you not pick a place such as Paris.....Just thimk of the tons of food and thousands of litres of wine consumed just to create all that wind......COP21 shindig just one huge extended FART!
Comment. of. the. century.
...at taxpayers' expense.
COP21, a walking shadow, delusion-ed players
That strut and fret their hour upon the stage
And then are heard no more. It is a tale
Told by idiots, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Keep those bastards the hell out of my state!
Who paid for all the meals, travel and lodging, in of all places Paris? Wouldn't somewhere of the likes of Oklahoma, or such, been more prudent. They could of used the extra savings for more climate control initiatives.
You can say that again.
Actually, why couldn't they have just done it all via videoconferencing? The jubilant press was certainly all caught up in the joy of the moment and they were just watching it on a big screen. No need for burning the carbon on planes, trains and automobiles. Obama wouldn't need to drag his 1,000+ coterie along. During breaks, off camera, everybody could just eat a peanut butter sammich and get back to work. All kinds of savings.
Some folks may be wondering, what if I don't like CON21, can I keep the old con? Well, sure you can.
@Veriton,
see my link below.
no one relinquishes power willingly.
Everything you need to know is on ZH. Thank you Tyler(s).
I now sometimes wish I could un-know a lot of that I've learned here........
It is. And then, to squelch the inevitable protests of the few remaining patriots, look for those friendly boys in the blue helmets to be invited by Obama to enter on a peace-keeping mission. (Hide your daughters if you got any.)
More idiocy on the climate front.
Complaining because the agreement is non-binding!???! That is the only good thing about it.
Besides the CO2 myth, global governance is the goal.
" the creation of a tradable permits market opens up further financialization of the economy and, from there, to new opportunities to continue the plundering of poor countries."
Guess who wrote the rules underlying this carbon tax regime,
"Ultimately, a holding company -the Climate Exchange- is created in the form of a Limited Public Company under British law (that is to say that its shares were sold in a public offering and the liability of its shareholders is limited to contributions). Its articles are written by a director of the Joyce Foundation, a lawyer then totally unknown to the public, Barack Obama. The public call for investors is launched by former US Vice President Al Gore and David Blood (former director of Goldman Sachs)."
Obama was literally born of Blood and Gore! He was well rewarded for his efforts.
Climate change doesn't need to be either a myth or a reality for this scheme to be reprehensible.
Check this legitimate ways to mak? money from home, working on your own time and being your own boss... Join the many successful people who have already used the system. Only reliable internet connection needed, no prior experience neccessary, that's why where are here. Start here... www.wallstreet34.com
Some interns will get a good fucking tonight.
ya seem to have a clue
r
good angle...power
small glimmer of hope. she worked her ass off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3H2LPigfoI
"[...] the 31-page pact does not have binding language or a mechanism to force countries to live up to the promises to cut greenhouse gases emissions [...]"
Well PHEW, that's a relief.
With all the political slimeballs and their hangers-on flying to Paris in their private jets (mostly for christmas shopping), I thought for a while they might actually do some more damage to the global economy.
Gordoom Brown and HRH Tony Blair will be feeling cheated.
What a ridiculous fantasy; talk about chasing rainbows!
"Climate change" = ignoring pollution while allowing the kleptoligarchy to fleece and oppress us serfs.
My fantasy they will at some point all be shot is the only thing keeping me going now.
Miffed
What, hangin too good for um?
Ah, yes so many to shoot, so few to do the shooting!
Mutha Nature don't give a flip and will deal with the human race in due time - if the human race doesn't do themselves in first.
Fuck YAY! Cant wait to invest in the Chicago Climate Exchange! TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of more dollars created out of thin air!
Carbon Could Be No. 1 Commodity: Exchange Chiefhttp://www.cnbc.com/id/36782147
THis is the best possible outcome. Just placate the global warming lunatics and then let the whole issue die on the vine as the world slides towards global cooling.
How was the friekin food dammit?
Can't finish the article, Raul has more than his share of 'sheer stupidity' as he put it. He puts the blame for everything on the wrong people and blames people for some things that we are not responsible for. I'm glad he is a thinker but I wish his thinking was not so twisted.
Climate change is a threat to $555 trillion in derivatives. Can't have that. Cigar?
No problem....get Agenda 21 rolling along a little faster.
Well, I guess we can be thankful that these charlatans only wasted a boatload of money for a hypocritical, nonsensical circle jerk and dinner parties which accomplished absolutely nothing but self-congratulatory spit-swapping regarding their own fraud.
Personally I couldn't be more impressed at the summary failure of this ongoing fiasco.
"Personally I couldn't be more impressed at the summary failure of this ongoing fiasco."
What in the world causes you to think it was ever designed to succeed? those bastards behind
the curtain are far more tricky than they are given credit for.
HAHAHAHAHA
What a fucking waste of time and resources.
I guess they gave up on cleaning up pollution.
Climate change, No climate change, Either Way, "To be successful, we would need to abandon our current political and economic organizational structures, national governments and ‘up’, which select for the sociopaths that gather behind their heavy security details to decide on your future while gloating with glee in their power positions."
Amen, Amen. I, for one, agree. But HOW the hell do we go about doing this?
I agree too, but *we* will never solve the problem because we *ARE* the problem. Mother nature needs to do a reset in the form of an extinction level event, clear all of us littl *baaaaad* sheeple off of the planet, and then she would have a chance.
Learn to swim...
Golf Claps for all the useless eaters. I'm sure Mr. Kohn [Kerry] had a hand in this non-deal.
Now all the sheep will be duped into thinking some sort of deal was done so that when MOAR of their freedums are taken, and taxes move higher, they won't question their Overlords.
Where, in the fine print, will they be attempting to disarm us?
Check the language in the Doha treaty.
Only 31 pages....?! Hell that's no kind of Pact. Amateurs.........
this is a fucking joke if u dont perceive it you are a part of it
"Basically, COP21 was a massive taxpayer-funded boondoggle, in which "leaders" enjoyed all the perks of Paris for two weeks, burned through hundreds of millions in public funding, and created millions of tons in greenhouse gases (what do you think to private jets and government 747s use to fly?
___________________________________________________________________________
And THAT friends is exactly why all this is 100% bullshit. If they were REALLY concerned about "climate change" they would not ADD to the supposed problem. They would have all stayed in there respective countries and just had a teleconference.
They know no bounds when it comes to hypocrisy.
North Korean propagandists for Dear Leader couldn’t touch this boilerplate.
Meaningless Objective:
The enhancement of enabling environments for and the addressing of barriers to the development and transfer of socially and environmentally sound technologies
Meaningless Timeline:
Requests those Parties whose intended nationally determined contribution pursuant to decision contains a time frame up to 2030 to communicate or update by 2020 these contributions and to do so every five years thereafter
No Binding:
Recognizes the social, economic and environmental value of voluntary mitigation actions and their co-benefits for adaptation, health and sustainable development
The only concrete established action:
Recognizes the need to strengthen knowledge, technologies, practices and efforts of local communities and indigenous peoples related to addressing and responding to climate change, and establishes a platform for the exchange of experiences and sharing of best practices on mitigation and adaptation in a holistic and integrated manner
Possibility of Corporate Welfare:
Recognizes the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; encouraging the coordination of support from, inter alia, public and private, bilateral and multilateral sources, such as the Green Climate Fund
And... the Cop-out:
1.
At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement
Obama and Merkel will make sure their economies churn out growth ahead of anything else.
*snort* Maybe in China. Even the pollution that there's no room for doubt is harmful to human health hasn't been reduced, just offshored to lower-wage countries.
No, nobody who matters, least of all the House of Saud, will be affected in any meaningful way.
If our masters thought any petroleum needed "leaving it in the ground," it would have been easy to arrange. A few well-placed cobalt-salted H-bombs would have seen to it Saudi Arabia's oil wealth stayed in the ground for a hundred years, and ended the war of Islam against civilization for good measure. All that would have required is a little courage in Washington, no 20 years of pointless meetings necessary.
(As it is, the House of Saud will have much bigger problems by 2040 anyway, warming or no warming. By then the oil will be gone and they will have no other way to raise the money to prevent wholesale famine and/or food riots. I digress.)
COP21's real role will be as an excuse to impose higher taxes and energy costs on those people in the developed world whose services as wage-slaves are still required, while scientists work on robots that can replace them and are much more tolerate of pollution (leaving our masters free to finally exterminate us all).
Our masters want the profits from the higher prices they know are coming when the Arab oil runs out to go in their pockets, and not to white Christians who are not above working to feed and house themselves and their wives and children.
The only thing accomplished: World Leaders Get Blown, Eaten or Laid...
They will die along with their phony cause.
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/102468/25615029/1415021522677/Synt...
I just read the other day that the 18 largest ships make more pollution than all the cars together.
All these people attending are Stupid Self-Righteous Pricks no one likes who only push these fake agendas so they can get fake pats on the backs later and money in their pocket.
I'm so glad the parasite class was able to see some success in advancing their globalist enslavement agenda, gorging themselves at banquets while children starve, hop onto their massive carbon footprint inducing private jets and then right home to their mansions for the weekend.
If it wasn't for their global criminal negligence, incompetence and collusion with their corporate partners in crime we wouldn't even have the environmental disaster around us to start.
hum... no talk about chemtrails or the impacts of Fukushima, they don't care about saving the world and making it a better place, its all about who profits the most!
Because that’s where the profit is: in the illusion.......And that sums up Barry O. The illusionary Presidency. The empty suit. The empty chair. The cardboard man. The pidgeon playing chess with Rutin Tutin Putin. Follow the money, show me the money.
Whew! For a while there I thought we were in trouble.
This is huge: Almost every country in the world just signed on to the #ParisAgreement on climate change—thanks to American leadership. American leadership...what is the monkey chittering about...when did we get leadership...is this something new?
"American leadership" = "payments were made"
"Promises" of payments were made.
FIFY
"...Which Is Non-Binding And Has No Enforcement Language..."
But the old farts got to ditch their wives and fill up their hotel rooms with hookers, the booze and food was free and they get to do it all over again in a few years.
USELESS BIG FAT FUCKING GOOBERMINT!!!
Other than a nice junket on the taxpayers' dime for the poobahs involved (nice work if you can get it), it's a nothingburger.
Expect Trump to soon say it is another useless, destructive impost on most Americans which, incidentally, has not been agreed as constitutionally required and as President he will be totally ignoring it.
That will leave those countries, mainly western, whose stupid leaders take this sort of seriously, publicly out on a limb of "agreeing" to harm their countries to no effect.
And another of Obama's "legacies" will go down the plughole before the ink is dry.
Much hysteria, gnashing of teeth and frothing at the mouth.
Climate Change - A Back Door to World Government, says George Hunt. George Hunt also said, in 1992, that if the Globalists did not succeed in implementing their environmentalist/climate change policy that they would bring down the financial system and world economy.
https://youtu.be/rQn-1hy6I0M
Humans have little or no control over their own fate at this point in their history. It's on autopilot now. First the world economy breaks, then technology, war all the while and finally we are back to war with sticks and stones. Enjoy every sandwich and be willing to adapt to a rapidly changing future.
At least we have a recurrent process of monitoring.
Uptil now nobody even cared. Now we can follow country by country performance vs target. And, the civil society can put pressure on governments.
Governments are prostitutes to short term pressures.
Civil society can create the projects to implement longer term changes. A lot of governments wil be in regions which will be on the RED line of climate destruction. In the final analysis if the scientific community is right the need to act will make itself felt more and more urgently.
At least PAris is a watershed that will DOCUMENT how the carbon imprint moves year by year. We have the mechanisms to monitor which will act as the accelerator.
We know who the key players in carbon emission are. We know have to make the renewable revolution more cost effective. That is the real challenge. Governments are just hollow shells until they aren't.
Uptil now nobody even cared.....Right so now we care.
"Uptil now nobody even cared."
Whereas now most everybody is pretending to care.
Victory for skeptics.
Yes!
Pretense and bureaucratic procedure have a way of creating intense pressures to conform. You begin with the "this is just idiotic paperwork" attitude, but 20 years down the road the young employees BELIEVE in the crap, and the older ones get fired or even prosecuted for not following the written procedure that nobody fought to begin with because they all silently agreed to ignore it.
This *is* something. Probably not enough on its own, but it's not going to be on its own. A global depression for the next 20 years will have some effects, too.
Carbon emissions to continue? Like there is some plan down the line to cut carbon emitions to zero and totally eliminate fossil fuels? Crackpotery right there. Lets see you run a steel foundry with renewable energy. Aluminium? Yeah sure. Silicon? Get real. This is just an excuse for more Marxism disguised as something else.
Pro tip: If you really want to piss of an eco-warrior and see what this is really about ask him why Patrick Moore left Greenpeace in disgust.
Just because everything can't be run with renewable energy doesn't mean nothing can be. Although this agreement is not perfect it is a good start that everyone has acknowledged the problem and committed to do something about it. Like treating an alcoholic!
Pink unicorn much?
Iceland smelts aluminum using geothermal power. America could power 50% of the country's energy needs if we harnessed the hotspot under Yellowstone. We could most certainly move whatever smelting and high-temperature industry we want to the geothermally active area (about 1/3 of the country situated over the Rockies), given that while it's difficult to adapt geothermal to transportation or agriculture, it is purblind EASY to use it to provide HEAT for centralized manufacturing.
While Yellowstone has been a national monument for a century, the fact is that most of the landscape in the area is NOT particularly productive, being the result of millenia of repeated volcanic eruptions and low rainfall. It's a National Park mainly because it hasn't been good for much of anything else. Using it as the major energy source it is could allow us to bring back American manufacturing, not only recovering some of our economic clout from China, but cutting down CHINESE emissions by stealing back the manufacturing that they are powering with coal.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Leftist-Marxist hoax aided and abetted by people who built faulty general circulation models of the Earth's climate full of mathematical errors and erroneous feedback connections.
Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics
A mistake in the climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead.
Short and Sweet
Many scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory because of “basic physics”, or rather its application to climate, the basic climate model. Other scientists are skeptical, because of the considerable contrary empirical evidence.
Dating back to 1896, the basic climate model contains serious architectural errors. Keeping the physics but fixing the architecture, and using modern climate data, shows that future warming due to carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.
Increasing carbon dioxide “thickens the blanket”, reducing the heat radiated to space by carbon dioxide. In reality, the blocked heat mainly just reroutes out to space by being radiated from water vapor instead, all in the upper atmosphere. In the current climate models, however, that blocked heat travels down to the Earth’s surface where it is treated like extra sunlight, and instead less heat is radiated to space from water vapor.
The belief in the danger of increasing carbon dioxide is wholly due to a poor modeling assumption made over a century ago. This error presumably went unnoticed because critics focused on the values of the parameter values in the model (such as how much heat is trapped by increasing carbon dioxide) rather than on how the model combines them to estimate future warming.
The Error
The physicists got it right. The climate scientists got it wrong.
In 1896 when sensitivity to carbon dioxide was first estimated, climate scientists could estimate how much the world would warm if absorbed sunlight increased. But while they could estimate how much heat was blocked from leaving Earth by increasing carbon dioxide, they couldn’t figure out how much surface warming that would cause.
Here is the poor modeling assumption responsible for the alarm over carbon dioxide: the climate scientists assumed that blocking some heat to space by increasing carbon dioxide causes the same surface warming as if absorbed sunlight increased by the same amount, instead. Their basic climate model calculates the warming due to extra carbon dioxide precisely as if it were extra absorbed sunlight.
But while this assumption was convenient and made a sensitivity estimate possible in 1896, it is obviously wrong. Extra absorbed sunlight changes the total heat radiated by the Earth, but extra carbon dioxide does not*—because total outflow is just equal to the inflow (once steady state resumes). Increasing carbon dioxide merely redistributes the emissions between the various emitters to space: water vapor, carbon dioxide, the surface, cloud tops, etc.
Ever since 1896, climate scientists have been convincing themselves that a decrease in heat outflow is equivalent to a matching increase in heat inflow, as assumed in their basic model. While it is equivalent with respect to the amount of heat on Earth, it is not equivalent in terms of how the outgoing heat is distributed between the various emitters—which is what matters, because surface warming is determined only by the change in emissions from the surface (a warmer surface emits more to space).
The large computerized climate models are tailored** to give the same answer as the basic climate model. While there are obviously some differences in the way they treat extra carbon dioxide and extra absorbed sunlight, essentially they treat them the same—in both cases they reduce the heat radiated to space by water vapor (“water vapor amplification” of the surface warming), but it has been clear from the empirical evidence since before 2000 that this was not happening.
Documents
Example Tweets:
CO2 alarm entirely due to bad modeling assumption from 1896. Overestimated 5 to 10 times. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Climate Fear caused by nineteeth century accounting error — new findings show. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
New Climate model says man not to blame! http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Media Release (1 page) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/media-release-evans-cl...
Essays (all share the same introduction):
Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics (2,500 words, includes politics) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay1-misapplied.pdf
Why More Carbon Dioxide Makes Little Difference (1,350 words, dam analogy, short version) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay2-little-differen...
Why More Carbon Dioxide Makes Little Difference (2,400 words, dam analogy, long version) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay3-little-differen...
Summary (13 pages). http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/summary-of-basic-clima...
Synopsis (24 pages, last update 28 Nov 2015). http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/synopsis-of-basic-clim...
Spreadsheet (Excel, 250 KB). Contains the alternative basic climate model, as applied to recent decades. Also contains the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) model, and a computation of the Planck sensitivity/feedback.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/alternative-model.xlsx
Media
Miranda Devine http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-e...
UK Express
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-di...
Blog Posts
This material is being introduced in a series of blog posts on Joanne's blog. Those with a climate science background will likely find the posts tagged in red of more interest.
New Science 1: Introduction to the Series. The conventional basic climate model is the application of “basic physics” to climate. The idea that “it’s the physics” makes the CO2 theory impregnable in the minds of the establishment. Despite the numerous mismatches between theory and climate observations to date, many climate scientists remain firm in their belief in the danger of carbon dioxide essentially because of this model, rather than because of huge opaque computer models. The basic model ignited concern about carbon dioxide; without it we probably wouldn’t be too worried.
New Science 2: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — Simple. Presenting the conventional basic climate model, in its simplest configuration—the only input is the change in carbon dioxide level, and there are no feedbacks. Computes the no-feedbacks equilibrium climate sensitivity as 1.2 °C.
New Science 3: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — In Full. Presenting the conventional basic climate model, in full—multiple inputs, and feedbacks. Computes the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) as 2.5 °C.
New Science 4: Error 1: Partial Derivatives. The basic model relies heavily on partial derivatives. A partial derivative is the ratio of the changes in two variables, when everything apart from those two variables is held constant. But in climate everything depends on everything, so it is not possible to hold everything constant except for only two variables, as required for a partial derivative to exist. The partial derivatives are not empirically verifiable, so employing them in a climate model incurs unknown approximations.
New Science 5: Error 2: Omitting Feedbacks that are not Temperature-Dependent. In the conventional model every “feedback” (something that affects what caused it) is in response to surface warming—directly dependent on the surface temperature, but not on the climate drivers or on other feedbacks. Feedbacks rule the climate. Due to its architecture, if there feedbacks to climate drivers exist (such as the rerouting feedback in post 7 below) the model omits them.
New Science 6: How the Greenhouse Effect Works. Heat radiated to space (outgoing longwave radiation, or OLR) is mostly emitted by four disparate emissions layers: the water vapor emissions layer, the CO2 emissions layer, cloud tops, and the surface. The hotter a layer, the more it emits. The so-called greenhouse effect exists because OLR is emitted from an emission layer high in the atmosphere, where it is cold, rather than from the surface, where it is warm. The total emissions must equal the heat absorbed from the Sun and has to be emitted somehow, so the surface is much warmer than it would be if most of the OLR wasn’t emitted from high in the cold atmosphere.
New Science 7: The Rerouting Feedback. We propose the “rerouting feedback”, in which OLR blocked by an increasing CO2 concentration is mostly just rerouted to space via emission from water vapor and clouds tops instead. Occurring high in the atmosphere, this feedback to increasing CO2 is omitted from the conventional basic climate model, which can only contain feedbacks in response to surface warming. Increasing CO2 warms the upper troposphere, because less OLR is emitted from there by CO2 molecules. This heats neighboring molecules, including water vapor molecules in the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL), so more OLR is emitted by water vapor molecules. Because the WVEL emits more it must be at a higher average temperature. The average height of the WVEL declines, as the upper troposphere is more stable and convection is less vigorous. Humidity builds up and clouds condense at lower levels, suggesting the average height of the cloud top emission layer would also decline, and more OLR is emitted from cloud tops.
New Science 8: Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth.The Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to a solid isothermal surface, so it cannot be literally applied to Earth. However it can effectively be applied to the Earth as seen from space if the Earth's temperature is considered to be its “radiating temperature”, defined simply as the temperature that satisfies the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with the OLR and emissivity (~0.995) of the Earth.
New Science 9: Error 3: All Radiation Imbalances Treated the Same. The response of any climate model to increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is its “solar response”. Due to its architecture, the conventional basic climate model applies its solar response to the radiation imbalance caused by any influence on climate, even a radiation imbalance due to increased CO2—one size fits all. However increased ASR causes increased OLR, whereas increased CO2 does not change the total OLR (when steady state resumes, ignoring minor surface albedo feedbacks). Also, increased ASR mainly adds energy to the surface, but increased CO2 blocks energy leaving Earth from the upper atmosphere. So it is physically unrealistic to apply the solar response to the influence of extra CO2.
New Science 10: Externally-Driven Albedo (EDA). Albedo is the fraction of incoming radiation reflected back out to space without heating the Earth, about 30%. Externally-driven albedo (EDA) is the albedo other than that due to feedback in response to surface warming—presumably it is caused by external influences. Here we show that EDA has at least twice as much influence on surface warming, and maybe much more than that, as the direct effect of variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI).
New Science 11: An Alternative Modeling Strategy. The road-map for building an alternative model without the problems of the conventional basic climate model. A paradigm shift from summing forcings to summing warmings is proposed. Each climate influence has its own response (sensitivity and feedbacks), instead of all using the solar response as in the conventional basic model. Radiation must still balance, so this constraint is applied to the sum-of-warmings model. An OLR model based on physical parameters of emission layers estimates the change in OLR, leaving only the CO2 response parameter as an unknown when the sum-of-warmings model is joined to the OLR model to form the alternative model. Observations over a period allow the CO2 response parameter to be estimated, and thus the sensitivity to CO2.
New Science 12: Modeling the Thermal Inertia of the Earth. The relationship between absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and the radiating temperature is a low pass filter. This is at the heart of the solar response in the sum-of-warmings model within the alternative model.
New Science 13: The Sum-of-Warmings Model. The sum-of-warmings model independently calculates the surface warming due to each climate driver (such as increasing absorbed solar radiation, or increasing carbon dioxide), then adds them. This allows each climate driver to have its own specific response, including feedbacks.
New Science 14: Emission Layer Parameters. Basic information about the layers that emit OLR—such as how much OLR comes from each emission layer, and the heights of the emissions layers.
New Science 15: The OLR Model. The OLR model estimates how much the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space changes with changes to the heights of the emission layers, the lapse rate, the surface temperature, the cloud fraction, and the CO2 concentration.
New Science 16: The Alternative Basic Climate Model. The sum-of-warmings model (post 13) and the OLR model (post 15) are joined together to form the alternative basic climate model.
New Science 17: Solving the Mystery of the Missing “Hotspot”. In the conventional models (including the GCMs), surface warming for any reason causes the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL) to ascend, creating “the hotspot”. In the alternative model, surface warming and the solar response both cause the WVEL to ascend, while the CO2 response (how the planet reacts to increased CO2) causes the WVEL to descend—which is consistent with the rerouting feedback. The last few decades saw surface warming, increased ASR, and increased CO2, while the empirical data from the radiosondes and the better satellite analysis showed that the WVEL did not ascend and may have descended. The conventional models (including the GCMs) are wrong—they apply the solar response to both increased ASR and increased CO2, so they say all the forces on the WVEL were causing it to ascend. The alternative model resolves the data—there were opposing forces acting on the WVEL, the hotspot is indeed missing, and the CO2 response was stronger than the solar response over the last few decades.
New Science 18: Calculating the ECS Using the Alternative Model. Fitting the data to the alternative model, we conclude that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the surface warming per doubling of the CO2 concentration, might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C. Most likely, less than 20% of the global warming since 1970 is due to increasing carbon dioxide. The CO2 response is less than a third as strong as the solar response—both measured in degrees of surface warming per unit of radiation imbalance.
New Science 19: Comments on Conventional versus Alternative. General comments tying together some of the main ideas of the series to date.
New Science 19b: Synopsis. Released for download.
New Science 20: Introduction. The series of blog posts continues on from the critique of climate model architecture that showed that carbon dioxide caused less than 20% of the recent global warming. This post begins the solar part of the series, where we search for what did cause the warming.
New Science 21: The Notch. The empirical transfer function from total solar irradiance (TSI) to surface temperature has a notch at 11 years, the frequency of the sunspots. The extra radiation at every sunspot peak is not producing any discernible warming at the Earth's surface, where it should be detectable. Therefore a countervailing cooling influence is present at precisely the times when TSI peaks, is synchronized to the Sun, and is as strong as the direct heating effect of TSI. Furthermore, the transfer function is flat for low frequencies, suggesting that there is exists an indirect solar sensitivity that is ~14 times greater than the direct heating effect of TSI.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-clima...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-2-the-conventional-basic-cl...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-3-the-conventional-basic-cl...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-4-error-1-partial-derivatives/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-5-error-2-model-architectur...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-6-how-the-greenhouse-effect...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-7-rerouting-feedback-in-cli...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-8-applying-the-stefan-boltz...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-9-error-3-all-radiation-imb...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-10-whatever-controls-clouds...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-11-an-alternative-modeling-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-12-how-do-we-model-the-ther...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-13-the-start-of-a-new-archi...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-14-emission-layers-which-pi...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-15-modeling-outgoing-radiat...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-17-solving-the-mystery-of-t...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitiv...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19-the-invisible-nameless-m...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19b-a-synopsis/
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/synopsis-of-basic-clim...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-20-its-not-co2-so-what-is-t...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-21-the-mysterious-notch-in-...
Related blog posts:
Lucia has a Bad Day with Partial Derivatives. Over at the Blackboard, Lucia thought David had made some errors with partial derivatives in post 3, and was talking about GCMs in post 4. This post is a reply, showing her how to do partial differentiation, and correcting her misconception.
Lucia has a Bad Week on Partial Derivatives. Over at the Blackboard, Lucia dug a deeper hole, this time focusing on the existence of the partial derivatives in the basic model. This post is a reply, showing that her alternative development was mere notational trickery. Having read carefully through Lucia‘s two posts and their comments, we are still waiting for Lucia to find any mistakes in our posts above or even made any informed criticism of them.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-day-with-partial-deriva...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-week-on-partial-derivat...
* Ignoring the minor surface albedo changes due to surface warming.
** The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are bottom up models that try to produce observable macro trends by modelling masses of minor details. GCMs are effectively tailored to produce the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the conventional basic climate model, in three steps:
The conventional basic climate model estimates the sensitivity to carbon dioxide as ~2.5 °C (the equilbrium climate sensitivity, or ECS). But this is an overestimate: fixing the faulty architecture shows it is less than 0.5 °C.
A sensitivity of ~2.5 °C very roughly accounts for observed warming since 1910. To believers in the conventional basic climate model, this implies that increasing carbon dioxide alone can explain 20th century warming.
So GCMs use increasing carbon dioxide as the dominant driver to reproduce 20th century warming. GCMs that do not succeed in this task are not published (see p. 32).
Externally-driven albedo involving the Sun is the main cause of warming, but it is omitted from all current climate models.
© Science Speak 2015
The most troubling aspect of this AGW & climate change distraction is not so much that the science is wrong and the data have been deliberately fiddled, falsified and manipulated to deceive people by otherwise respectable climatologists & Co, but that a long time after the word got out, the political elites are still trying to peddle the same old lies and false data, as if we are entirely stupid and still expected to buy the lie.
What planet to the political elites come from?
WRATGAS ?
Recommended: Today's edition of RT.com "Sputnik" hosted by George Galloway interviews Piers Corbyn, brother of the British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He is a very qualified scientist and disputes all the AGW claptrap garbage peddled by the political elites.
Interview is at the beginning and lasts about 11 minutes:
"RT.com-Sputnik-Piers Corbyn-climate change"
RT: "He’s a top climate scientist and one who challenges what Doctor Johnson called “the grimmest dictatorship of them all: the dictatorship of the prevailing orthodoxy.” Most others are ranged against him, but that was also the fate of Galileo. So, facing not the Spanish inquisition but the Sputnik inquisition this week is Piers Corbyn."
Dude, cut it short with the video. Youtube is easy:
https://youtu.be/_t6984vyPZw?t=33
Both links go to the same video. What's your point?
well I have the Adobe flash player disabled....
And because of zero, Addblock enabled
Flash player affects YT as it does many other videos.
I also have Adblock enabled, it makes no difference.
That said, if I'd known the video was already on YT (it's today's show), I'd probably have quoted that link.
Boris Alotovkrap fucking absolutely nailed this farce over a year ago. What a visionary and I will re-post because its so god damn true and hilarious at the same time...
In cave in rural France is painting circa 5000 BC, and is tell story. One day is rain much and lightening is loud and scary. Leader of cave community is explain danger of lightening and is predict end of world if citizenry is not work hard for stopping of lightening. Every citizenry of community must bring it portion of berries and meat for sacrificial god and make incantation. Leader of cave community is so very smart, is not help hunt and gather, but is must make strategy and "guide" community for self-preservation technique. One day, citizen is look up and see is still lightening, but is look around and is still alive. Other is still alive. Lightening is come and go, and community is survive. Citizen is make comment at cave meeting and next day is fall in tar pit."
Leader of cave community is explain danger of tar pit and is predict end of world if citizenry is not work hard for prevention of tar pit...
No one can fight climate change, if an when the earth warms or cools is not within human power to avoid. this is a known. Now global warming by anthropogenic co2 emissions is another kettle of fish and that kettle really stinks of pseudo science and corporate and financial hunger games, after 18 years 9 months of no warming. The pseudos are scambling trying to find the missing heat energy....is it in the oceans, underground, up Al Gore's ass? Well they fudged taking the ocean measurements and cheated on much of the rest so even the godfather of global warming and Gaia Theory (which I like) James Lovelock has given up on the anthropogenic causation theory....http://www.qando.net/2012/04/24/british-climate-alarmist-recants-his-ala...
so in reality the Paris confab is about driving someone else's agenda by faking this crisis when other environmental concerns, like the health effects from smog or acidification and other polluting of waters, are much more important than this diversionary tactic.
"[...] even the godfather of global warming and Gaia Theory (which I like) James Lovelock has given up on the anthropogenic causation theory"
I know someone in another place who will have choked on his cornflakes when he learned about Lovelock's recant. He used to quote him all over the place.
What a waste of time and money we're heading to WWIII this accord will never be implemented.
Global warming - 1922 style
The following article appeared November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen , Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. * * * * * * * * *Check it on SNOPES... http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp
Fuck me!
One more event that makes me glad I'm an old fart with only a few good years left to enjoy before...
I'm dead, or, a "drooler" and I totally won't give a fuck.
any kids you can advise to have few good years a head?
AGW is another Hoax Flag.
And what do False Flags and Hoax Flags have in common?
More power for the psycho's...
....."thanks to American leadership"
We are so blessed to have a leader like Obama. He is a fraud taking "the lead" on promoting a global fraud.
Not that anyone (i.e. such as the worldwide media) should actually concern themselves with something called "the truth", such as the following:
1) No temperature change in atmosphere for past 19 years (as per RSS satellite data)
2) No change in global ocean temperature
3) No change in extent of global sea ice (Antarctica and Arctic combined)
4) No change in extent of drought globally
5) No change in incidence of floods globally
6) No change in incidence of hurricanes/cyclones globally
The extent of lies, stupidity and ignorance pervading the government and media on a global basis is the only thing that is consistently growing over time. The only thing that is "historic" about this charade is what a total disgrace all of it is.
Oh, and I forgot point #7 (which seems to elude all these "climate leaders")....
7) No change in global sea levels
Not that these things should actually matter at all and actually be (god forbid) DISCUSSED at a global climate change conference. After all, we have so many "bold changes" to implement and so many bothersome and inconvenient facts to ignore.
Has the world gone completely mad?
All these climate change people seem to be driven by the need to "look like a good person" for the sake of social acceptance rather than by any need to find the truth and solve real world problems.
Do these fuckers realise we are in an interglacial period, CO2 may offset the chill................fucking morons.
Yes, we are incredibly lucky. Due to the timing of our Industrial Age JUST when another Ice Age might have begun, we might avert both the Ice Age and the worst consequences of runaway heating. That doesn't mean you want to be around three hundred years from now when we move away from solar minimum if we have NOT reduced the carbon-forcing in the meantime.
It depends how many humans are around in 300 years, doesn't it?
It could be quite nice if the glaciers have stayed away.
no worries, I'll "probably" be retired by then....
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).
Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses on which to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found was “unbelievable”:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.
But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.
The whole political construct known as the "UN/IPCC" should be rounded up and arrested for fraud.
Changes to the data like this are usually justified in the literature as "corrections" to previous poor collection or interpretation. Science DOES change its claims over time, you know; that's part of the process. Supposedly, the reiterative refinement of theory produces better information.
So it would be wise to withold judgment about these claims until you hear the other side of the story. Just sayin'. Let's hear what the defense has to say before we make up our minds.
Ewert is a member of EIKE http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Europ%C3%A4isches_Institut_f%C3%BCr..., a group of engineers and mostly non-climatologists that lobbies the German government against measures to reduce carbon emmissions; many of its members are affilicated with CFACT another lobby group that is funded by the oil industry: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
My city is going to do something because the Province and Federal govt are too slow to act. I imagine we will have warning signs on gasoline pumps and, oh ya, a 3 cent a litre city carbon tax.
Oh great, moar taxes! I can't wait, where do I go to sign up?
Side note...un seasonal temp here in Toronto so far this winter...today was 8C (46F) so obviously the sky is falling!!!!
Oh, wait record high for dec.12 in Toronto was 19C (66F) in 1946
Global Lying by TPTB is a much greater threat to the human race than global warming....
Climate Change is another weapon in the NWO globalists' armoury. You see, a Global Solution will be required. And that means more power to Global Organizations and the subordinating of national laws to such organizations.
Non-binding and no enforcement language= USA citizens get fkd royal again.
Sounds more like a Greek referendum.
American leadership, yes, with carbon pollution. What clowns.
Paris is very significant. The Paris Climate Agreement strips fossil fuels of their political legitimacy. Henceforth, fossil fuels will be seen across the world as immoral. Henceforth, those who advocate fossil fuels will be seen in same bracket as those advocating paedophilia, child soldiers, harvesting whales, selling heroin to children, beheading people and slavery.
Oh yes, but all that keeps happening if not increasing as if nothing were. Keep on dreaming.
LMAO
A very true article and I do like a clause very much : try THERMODYNAMICS. Politicians have no clue what science is about, they are nothing more than preprogrammed and bought talking heads of bankers and tycoons. In Belgium, they go subsidised "green" using solar and wind ( onder the socialist party ) and now the bills arrive : big industrial cies got huge subsidies running over 20 years and they keep cashig while now, there is a big deficit as a consequence ( billions of US$ ) which has to be paid for by the citizens by meand of expensive "distribution costs" and higher VAT. All that green stuff eventuelly reduces to a big rip-off of the citizens. Germany : same story, they built 25000+ wind turbines, shut down their nuclear power plants and are now forced to burn brown-coal in order to maintain a reliable power supply because wind energy is unreliable and on the wrong place ( wind is north, their heavy industry is south and there are not enough power lines to transport the current ) Cost of electricity in Germany : doubled after "going green". And they are FAR from being independent on fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Even a young school kid can tell you that the scientific units for measuring warmth/heat/energy is not degrees Celcius, yet these politicians and their mindless media entourage will somehow try to convince the sheeple that an increase in temperature measured from some adhoc network of ground station thermometers, is a measurment of heat.
As we already knew this is a complete fraud. Hell, even John Kerry agreed it will make no difference.
https://youtu.be/aAtiygrbTSg
Here are Kerry’s exact words:
… "The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world."
Go over and take a look at huffpo and msnbc (if you can stomach it), they're acting as if Obama just saved the planet - are their viewers completely brain dead - void of basic thinking aptitude...?
But But But
In the UK, SkyJews on the tee vee just told me it was legally binding.
Shocked I tell you, how could ZH get it so wrong? It's not as if the tee vee would ever tell lies.
Oh look, a squirrel.........
SkyNews has become a disgrace. It's ridiculous news prioritisation, inaccurate/bias reporting of events, non-reporting of important events, excessive attention given to social/feminist issues and its plain propaganda makes me puke.
Any body know why developing countries or poor countries in Africa sign this Climate Scam shit ?
I remember there was a genius leader in Africa who plaid this Global Climate game to African advantage claiming it is not Africans fault for global warming except we are the victims so that developed countries should pay Africa $10 billion annual to be doubled in every year.
Unfortunately that sound get silenced by killing the master mind behind it,now Africans seemed to not catch up what they are entering into.Somebody pls could tell us about this?
Sad,but not surprised.When i see all these 199 countries agreeing to this global Climate Bull Shit deal, either all governments are in bed together for this crime on humanity or they are proceeding political correctness despite anything or they are fucked.In whichever case it is willful ignorance.
CNN(infact all media) anounced the cheer that "Historic Climate deal reached" and "Paris climate deal will save a lot of People" by this time my cat mewed me @ the news and i automatically understood it saying as "...will kill a lot of people". yeah bulshit us more.