This report from a New Zealand youth delegation at COP-21 gives significant insight into the real drivers of this dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) nonsense, especially as seen by the young.
Many of our youth unschooled in reason by watchful family or teachers are being systematically indoctrinated both to expect a cataclysmic future and to distrust science. Cataclysmic expectations are created by endless descriptions of it; distrust of science is efficiently created by refusing to teach it. It is a campaign of exceptional lunacy shot through with avarice.
The alarmists have claimed for decades that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind and they’re right: if we’re not careful their evil campaign will destroy us.
Three quotations convey the essence.
1. Today’s update from COP21 comes from Ben Abraham, who is part of the youth delegation’s policy team. Ben loves Dunedin, where he finished his undergraduate degree, but he is now living in the UK, doing a PhD in public policy, with a focus on climate change governance, at Oxford University.
Western education systems are now herding our best and brightest into career avenues that aim to destroy western capitalism, and breed future David Suzukis and Tim Flannerys.
2. Another sticking point in the finance discussions is how to make sure that money goes towards both mitigation (the reduction of emissions) and adaptation (efforts to live with impacts of climate change that have now become unavoidable). There’s a very large bias among donor countries to want to give towards mitigation because that’s where the business opportunities are, for example for energy companies, whereas there’s a lot less potential for returns from adaptation measures.
Out of the mouths of babes… whoever would have guessed that commerce rather than saving the planet was the prime motivation for the powerful among the DAGW set?
3. Following the news that New Zealand’s government has adopted the 1.5 degree temperature limit, the youth delegation is calling for an immediate ban on further exploration for oil, gas and coal reserves in New Zealand.
Words almost fail me. We all use oil, gas and coal to improve our health and productivity. Since growth in energy demand is not allowed to be serviced by hydro or nuclear, presumably future demand is to be met by linking hands in a candle-lit circle at the bottom of the garden and chanting kumbaya.
Following Green activist “logic”, of the available sources of energy these poor young people imagine that only solar and wind generated power are acceptable — despite each being both uneconomic and environmentally damaging.
It is very hard to imagine how our processes of democratic government could have led to such malignantly diseased attitudes among younger (and many older) people. It is no satisfaction at all that as they make their bed, so in future they are going to have to lie in it.
Views: 102
I was having a discussion on Desmog by a group who insisted that CO2 is not plant food, and that water (vapour) is not a greenhouse gas.
They outed me as a “denier” because I let slip the phrase “CO2 is plant food” which is verboten under the Scriptures of SkS.
The Red Guard were then able to set the Stasi upon me and re-educate my “denier’ brain.
CO2 is not plant food, in the real world. In the unreal world of the tomato greenhouse, CO2 actually is plant food, however.
We are DOOMED, Capn Mainwaring, DOOMED…..
The day science died:
https://stream.org/cop21-december-12-2015-day-science-died/
If the aspirational target is a maximum increase of 1.5 degree C, then there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere already. There would be no point in further exploration because no one would ever be able to use it.
You should consider the very real possibility that this Oxford PhD student knows what he is talking about and that you are actually the one who has been systematically indoctrinated into distrusting science.
If we have already used to much CO2 then the Oxford student should have stayed in Dunedin and not gone to COP21 with his church group to lecture us about not using air travel.
Maybe air travel is only for the ubermenschen?
Yes of course we have been “indoctrinated”. If only I could accept the Scriptures of SkS that Co2 is not plant food. Maybe I could also accept that Islam is the Religion of Peace?
If we can’t explore for oil anymore, who would make the plastic for the kayaks for the anti-oil protestors?
How would we make the windmills that are needed for the “100% renewable low carbon economy”? How would we power the diesel generators required to back up the windmills when the wind isn’t blowing?
How would we smelt the steel and fabricate the silicon for the PV panels?
Warning, “denier” words. You may be “triggered”.
>”Maybe air travel is only for the ubermenschen?”
Exactly, the words “aviation” and “shipping” were conspicuously absent from COP21. So was the word “teleconference”. How did Ben Abraham get to the UK? Hitchhike? I know a guy who did the overland by motorcycle but given some of his near-death experiences on the way I don’t think that’s a realistic alternative.
Shipping is actually a real polluter (except for CO2) although there are pollution control measures being introduced to new designs just as there are for new coal-fired power stations that pass emission control regs.
However, for national economies and many people, including climate activists, it’s “next cruise/container ship into dock please” or “next flight to Paris/UK please”.
>”If the aspirational target is a maximum increase of 1.5 degree C, then there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere already.”
Huh? This is woollier than usual Simon.
I think they should call for a ban on all further air travel, with a priority given to climate activists. Ben and his chums can stay in Oxford amongst the dreaming spires and perspiring dreams and lecture us via Skype
They can also use hemp canoes when making anti-oil flotillas
Bloody hippies…
From the feature article linked in the post:
Well yes (duh). That’s the only reason there was an agreement. It’s an aspiration statement for show. Carrying out the aspirations is another matter entirely. There was nothing really new, INDC’s and $100 billion per year are from past years and of no real consequence:
It’s not going to happen and to think it might is extraordinarily naive. And what has already been pledged has little to do with climate:
66% of pledges have nothing to do with the climate. Billions in claims “inflated”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/billions-of-dollars-on-irrelevant-pledges-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-climate/
The global recession underway will do more to mitigate fossil fuel emissions than INDC’s ever will (the “I” in INDC being “intended”), as 2009 showed. The recession is real, the outcome of aspirations and intentions not so much.
Zoe Lenzie-Smith takes the prize for ignorance though (Day Nine):
How much is it going to take for people like Zoe (and news outlets like Al Jazeera) to discover that the air pollution they see or feel in the air is not CO2, or climate change?
Sudhvir Singh (Day Seven) sees it a little better:
Yes sort of, if the notion that CO2 is a pollutant is discarded and climate conflation removed. If China had learned from the industrialized West and imposed pollution control on flues from the outset of their industrial boom then they wouldn’t have the pollution they have now. But they didn’t learn, they were gung-ho for growth and skipped that initial cost. Now they’re just closing factories temporarily. I haven’t heard much about retrofit from them. Ask the US about the economics of that.
What China didn’t do…..
‘Advanced Emissions Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Power Plants’
Introduction
Coal is one of the most abundant energy sources in the world. Advanced emission control technologies are needed to cleanly use coal for electricity generation. Environmental regulations of coal-fired power plants in Asia cover a broad range of requirements. Depending on the area within Asia and the type of coal to be burned, different combinations of technologies are needed to meet local regulations. There are a multitude of advanced emissions control technologies available to address the most common targeted pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM), as well as other pollutants which are increasingly becoming targeted worldwide, such as mercury, sulfur trioxide (SO3), condensable PM, and other trace metals. This paper examines state-of-the-art emissions control systems that are available to meet the multi-pollutant requirements for coal-fired power plants. These technologies include selective catalytic reduction (SCR), electrostatic precipitators (ESP), fabric filters, flue gas desulfurization (FGD), wet ESP, dry sorbent injection, and mercury control methods.
http://www.babcock.com/library/Documents/BR-1886.pdf
# # #
This is what the activists don’t want to know about and don’t want known by anyone else. But when this is done, all we’re left with is water vapour billowing out of cooling towers for activists to photograph and rail against. Not sure what can be done about that.
They get to have a nice career in “public policy”, inventing new acronyms, flying to pointless conferences where they hold hands, sing songs, and cuddle fake polar bears.
I just wish they would leave us alone. I don’t even mind paying a little for it. At least it keeps them off the streets and I think most jobs at Burger King are taken already.
>”I haven’t heard much about [pollution control] retrofit from [China]. Ask the US about the economics of that.”
Or India:
‘Retrofitting Pollution Control Equipment In Indian Power Plants and Other Industries To Meet The Present More Stringent Norms’
http://www.isesp.org/ICESP%20IX%20PAPERS/ICESP%2009%20B06.pdf
The US Administration is hell-bent on shutting down coal stations but there are retrofit projects going on, for example:
‘Power plants install emissions controls’ — San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant
October 13, 2015
Four Corners Power Plant
The plant, owned and operated by Arizona Public Service Company, or APS, shut down its three older generating units in December 2013. Those units are expected to be demolished and removed from the plant by 2017.
The remaining two units, Units No. 4 and No. 5, which are two separate flues housed together in one common stack, will be retrofitted with pollution controls starting this week.
The work, which began several years ago, involves the installation of pollution controls, called SCRs, or selective catalytic reduction technology. The technology and installation will cost approximately $635 million and is expected to be operational by July 2018.
http://www.daily-times.com/story/news/local/four-corners/2015/10/12/power-plants-install-emissions-controls/73823014/
>”They get to have a nice career in “public policy”, inventing new acronyms”
But is there a career progression after CBDRILONCWRC ?
Story here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/11/fallacy-of-carbon-footprint/comment-page-1/#comment-1388045
Hard to top I would have thought. Aren’t they working themselves out of a job?
SJW’s will need to balance their CBDRILONCWRC when reaching out to the LBGTIQWERTY community.
I wonder if our new PhD in public policy will use tools like RCPs that are not designed for public policy, just as our PCE (who also has a PhD in public policy) does?
When something says “do not use for X”, why do they use for X?
Especially when they have a PhD in X
>”The global recession underway will do more to mitigate fossil fuel emissions than INDC’s ever will”
That’s kicking in already. From previous thread (don’t be fooled by global economic growth – see below):
‘Global Growth In CO2 Emissions Stagnates’
A new report claims that the rate of growth in global CO2 emissions has fallen and indeed, stalled. The report does not explain how this links to the continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
From the European Commission Joint Research Centre 30.11.2015
After a decade of rapid growth in global CO2 emissions, which increased at an average annual rate of 4%, much smaller increases were registered in 2012 (0.8%), 2013 (1.5%) and 2014 (0.5%). In 2014, when the emissions growth was almost at a standstill, the world’s economy continued to grow by 3%.
The trend over the last three years thus sends an encouraging signal on the decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth. However, it is still too early to confirm a positive global trend. For instance India, with its emerging economy and large population, increased its emissions by 7.8% and became the fourth largest emitter globally.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-growth-in-co2-emissions-stagnates.html
Citation
Trends in Global CO2 Emissions 2015 Report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Get the report here.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2015-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2015-report-98184.pdf
Source. EC JRC news release here
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/global-growth-co2-emissions-stagnates
# # #
>”don’t be fooled by global economic growth”
‘We are shrinking! The neglected drop in Gross Planet Product’
Peter A.G. van Bergeijk 07 December 2015
Presenting the October 2015 IMF World Economic Outlook, Maurice Obstfeld (2015) identified the fall of commodity prices as one of the powerful forces shaping the outlook for the world economy. The strength of this force, however, is underestimated by the official forecasts in the IMF’s flagship publication. As illustrated in Figure 1 the IMF world economic outlook database reports a reduction of Gross Planet Product (GPP) for the year 2015 by -3,8 trillion dollar (-4.9%). A nominal reduction of GPP of this size has occurred only once since 1980 (the starting year of the IMF database), namely at the start of the Great Recession when GPP contracted by -5.3%. Table 1 illustrates that all previous contractions of nominal GPP are associated with major crises in the world economy.
Figure 1. Gross Planet Product at current prices (trillions of dollars, 1980 – 2015)
http://www.voxeu.org/article/shrinking-planetary-gdp
>”I wonder if our new PhD in public policy will use tools like RCPs that are not designed for public policy”
Speaking of which:
‘A closer look at scenario RCP8.5’ Posted on December 13, 2015 | by Larry Kummer
Unfortunately scientists often inaccurately describe RCP8.5 as the baseline scenario — a future without policy action: “a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity” from “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011, This is a material misrepresentation of RCP8.5. Scientists then use RCP8.5 to construct horrific visions of the future. They seldom mention its unlikely assumptions.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/
“The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/dec/14/the-paris-agreement-signals-that-deniers-have-lost-the-climate-wars
Hooray! The Eco-Fascists have won the climate wars! Hip hip hooray!
Time to go out and hug a local eco fascist.
be a good sport!
.
Yes I posted the JC RCP article to the CCRU facebook page. The message is getting though that the one metre sea level projections are in fantasy land
One of Herr Thomas of Hot Topic’s Year 9 students has come up with a really great idea called “climate saver”
The idea is you put money into an account, and then withdraw it later so you can buy “low carbon” products like electric cars and solar panels.
You could, of course, just buy them in the first place. This seems to be a point that remains unanswered at this stage.
Maybe one of the “Youth Delegation” can pick this idea up. In between hugging each other.
From the Kummer post above:
Theoretical CO2 forcing as at 2015 is 1.9 W.m-2 and increasing.
Actual TOA energy imbalance 2000 – 2012 is 0.62 W.m-2 and trendless.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/earths-energy-imbalance/ [Ed Hawkins]
Why does anyone bother with this RCP rubbish?
AR5 Summary for Policymakers:
Below 2°C is the COP21 agreement so RCP2.6 it is – strong mitigation policies required.
Except we are at theoretical CP1.9 and actual 1°C at 2015 but the theoretical CP is 3 times greater than the actual TOA energy imbalance of 0.6 which according to the IPCC “controls” temperature i.e. CP is unrelated to energy or temperature whether recommended for the future or estimated right now.
>”Except we are at theoretical CP1.9″
Theory: dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co). Where: Co = 280ppm, C = 400ppm, dF = 1.9 W.m-2
Actual forcing observed: = 0.6 W.m-2
>”the words “aviation” and “shipping” were conspicuously absent from COP21.”
Not quite, they were exempted:
‘In Paris, Climate Change Alarmists Con Everyone, Including Themselves’
Written by Robert Tracinski, Federalist on 14 December 2015.
The same Guardian report that proclaims “the end of the fossil fuel era” also admits that “The overall agreement is legally binding, but some elements — including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements [a multi-billion-dollar giveaway to poor countries] — are not.” So everything is legally binding, except the actual heart of the agreement. Moreover, several big industries are exempted [hotlink – see below], including air travel, shipping, and the biggest one, agriculture. Together these industries account for about a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/in-paris-climate-change-alarmists-con-everyone-including-themselves.html
‘3 big polluters (sic) the Paris climate deal won’t touch’
by Jim Boulden @CNNMoney December 12, 2015:
You would be forgiven for thinking the COP21 climate talks in Paris would take on some of the biggest polluters (sic, again). If governments have any hope of reaching the goal of capping global temperatures, environmentalists say there must be binding targets to cut emissions on food, aviation and shipping.
Not one is on the agenda, and that’s on purpose. It just proved too politically sensitive.
Airplanes and Shipping
Environmentalists have dubbed aviation and shipping the “Elephants in the Room” in Paris. They claim that air travel is responsible for 5% of man-made emissions and shipping 3%. Aviation is expected to boom in the coming decades and environmentalists want binding caps on the sector. The European parliament called for transport to face binding emissions targets, saying the sector is the “second-largest sector generating greenhouse gas emissions.”
The U.N. has encouraged aviation and shipping to work “with a view to agreeing to concrete measures addressing these emissions.” Aviation says it accounts for only 1.3% of man-made carbon emissions and that each new airplane that takes flight brings a 15% to 20% drop in emissions compared to older planes. The International Maritime Organization says it will “continue its endeavors to reduce environmental impacts from international maritime transport,” noting 900 new ships meet enhanced fuel efficiency standards.
Agriculture
Blame the animals. As the world eats more meat and converts forests into farm land, carbon emissions will surely rise. Agriculture already accounts for about 14% of global emissions and 25% when deforestation and other land use is included, according to the Brookings Institution. It warns food production will have to increase by 50% by 2050 as populations increase.
Think tank Chatham House says demand for meat will rise 76% by mid century and says livestock alone accounts for 15% of carbon emissions, equal to “tailpipe emissions from all the world’s vehicles.” Emissions caused by the livestock sector range from converting land to grow feed, to transporting the livestock, and particularly the methane emitted, especially from belching cattle.
But how do you slow the uptake of pork in India and beef in China, and tell Americans to eat less steak? Chatham House says nothing less than a radical shift in our eating patterns will cap agriculture emissions.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/11/news/cop21-3-polluters-not-on-agenda/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
# # #
What a sham.
>”What a sham.”
‘The Non-Binding Paris Deal And Its Implications’
Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on 14 December 2015.
It’s is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned. –James Hansen, The Guardian, 12 December 2015
At the Paris climate conference, China has won praise for pledging to stop the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, largely by reducing its use of coal. But these reductions are being undercut as Chinese state-owned companies, backed by state loans, build coal-fired power plants across the developing world despite concerns about global warming and air pollution. Once complete, the 92 projects will have a combined capacity of 107 gigawatts, more than enough to completely offset the planned closing of coal-fired plants in the United States through 2020. Coal-fueled power plants account for 68 percent of the electrical generation capacity built by China in the rest of Asia, and that figure is set to rise. –Michael Forsythe, The New York Times, 12 December 2015
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-non-binding-paris-deal-and-its-implications.html
@NASAGISS 2015 meteorological year (Dec-Nov) crushes previous record by more than 0.1C
https://twitter.com/thingsbreak/status/676590129230647300/photo/1
“Crushes” by 0.1C
oh please
>Wherefore art thou, Reason?
Sadly lacking. Hansen’s not fooled by the Paris Agreement though:
Not hard to conclude one thinks. But in the same paper (Guardian), this:
Paris climate agreement ‘may signal end of fossil fuel era’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-agreement-signal-end-of-fossil-fuel-era
Other signals are that the end is some way off:
‘Russia plans $40 a barrel oil for next seven years as Saudi showdown intensifies’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12046185/russia-opec-saudi-arabia-bluff-40-oil-price.html
There is a lot more to all of this that the climate-eye doesn’t see, “the sunk cost problem” for starters (see below). The fossil-fuel era certainly is under thread but not from the Paris climate agreement, it’s the end of a rather different era that will determine that.
The following is a strong dose of the current reality:
>”the global economy became dangerously unbalanced”
It was not the earth’s energy balance that became dangerously unbalanced.
Just today reported on the news that Finance Minister Bill English will pump the NZ economy. How? The govt will “borrow another billion”.
Andy,
I estimate the standard deviation (using HadCRUT4) as 0.29C.
So, the probability of a given year being 0.1C greater than the previously warmest year ever recorded is roughly 0.8%, assuming a baseline of 1961-1990.
Extremely improbable if you are assuming that we are in a ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’.
I thought we were in an El Nino year. Anyway, it is not me assuming we are in a “pause”. I thought all those scientists writing papers about the pause were assuming a pause.
Let us know when the warming is CO2-forced Simon. It’s no where near that yet, even in a strong El Nino year.
And what when the El Nino has passed by?
By Foster and Rahmstorf’s method of eliminating “noise” in the data, the 2015 record El Nino effect would have to be removed from the HadCRUT4 series.
When that’s done, you get a negative inflexion which includes the end of the F&R series in 2010. In other words, the ENSO-neutral data is approaching a peak, even in GISTEMP.
SkepticalScince (SkS) were big on F&R but seem to have forgotten them lately, since the new and improved GISTEMP incorporated Karl et al. data. Except the latest SkS post on this just supports the F&R approach and confirms my point above:
‘Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money’
http://www.skepticalscience.com/betting-against-gw-sure-way-to-lose-money.html
Their GISTEMP figure roughly approximates the F&R2011 residual but with a more realistic curve:
Figure: Observed global surface temperature data from NASA GISS (gray) and 10-year averages (blue)
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/12/5/1449334027332/7b0441ae-dc7a-4ca8-9003-ce265fbb3a14-620×480.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=4483a163339bebabf9919e50712f4629
1) The GISTEMP 10-year averages(blue line) has a negative inflexion contrary to CO2 which is rising with a positive curve.
2) When GISTEMP 2015/16 El Nino years are eventually smoothed by 10 yr averaging (a 2020 graph say), the blue line will be very close to peak warming (that will probably occur very soon after 2020 on that trajectory).
3) The GISTEMP 10-year averages(blue line) inflexion is even more pronounced than the HadCRUT4 residual found by Macias et al (2014):
Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record
Diego Macias , Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz Published: September 10, 2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222
Figure 1. SSA reconstructed signals from HadCRUT4 global surface temperature anomalies.
The annual surface temperature (gray line), multidecadal variability (MDV, blue line), secular trend (ST, red line) and reconstructed signal (MDV+ST, black line) are indicated. ST represents 78.8% of the total energy of the series; MDV accounts for 8.8% of the energy and the reconstructed signal for 88%. The dashed thin red lines indicate the range of variability of the ST obtained by applying SSA to the temperature time series obtained for each individual month.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107222.g001
4) When the GISTEMP 10-year averages(blue line) is compared to GISS ModelE CO2-forced simulation (or Model Mean say), it is obvious that the GISTEMP data is not CO2-forced.
Game over.
>”4) When the GISTEMP 10-year averages(blue line) is compared to GISS ModelE CO2-forced simulation (or Model Mean say), it is obvious that the GISTEMP data is not CO2-forced.”
Average of 90 CMIP5 Climate Models vs HadCRUT4 (running 5 year means):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png
Game over.
Simon used to berate us for looking at the “noise” in the data.
So OK, we look at data from which “noise” has been removed.
But suddenly, Simon seems to think the “noise” in the data is a REALLY REALLY big deal (probability “roughly 0.8%”) since NASAGISS 2015 meteorological year (Dec-Nov) “crushes” previous record by more than 0.1C (wow).
I’m beginning to wonder which has more “noise”, Simon or the data?
The new “deniers”: James Hansen, Tom Wigley, etc
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/16/the-new-climate-deniers/
Sweden is decommissioning some of its useless offshore birdchoppers after only 13 years rusting away in the sea
http://quixoteslaststand.com/2014/09/20/sweden-offshore-wind-turbines-to-be-decommissioned-after-only-13-years-cheapest-option/
In comments under ‘New Climate Deniers’:
Stephen Segrest | December 16, 2015 at 4:47 pm |
Obama Administration on Nuclear Power: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-nuclear-paradigm-shift-1449014295
Remember, President Obama tried not once but twice with Congress, to build ~13 new nuclear power plants
Michael Mann has expressed support for Shale Gas. Presumably that makes him a “denier” too.
The world is rapidly getting to the point where most people are “deniers”.
Last person standing is Naomi Oreskes.
Another comment under ‘New Climate Deniers’:
Andy May | December 16, 2015 at 4:21 pm | Reply
It seems we are seeing a huge reaction to the far left agenda in the US and much of the rest of the western world. Oddly, the most obvious sign of this is the somewhat comical Trump. Why is Trump popular? The large group of forgotten working poor and middle class with no college education and no future. They have been completely ignored for many years and they are justifiably angry about it. Both the Democrats and the Republicans better learn that they ignore them at their peril. Forget inequality, racism, planned parenthood, immigration, climate change, renewables, prairie chickens, “hands up don’t shoot.”
No one cares, they want good jobs!
Pretty easy to see their point, yet the media and the politicians never even mention their concerns. I think they will now. Trump may have done a good thing, even though I doubt he will win the nomination. How small the issue of climate change must look to this group of underemployed?
———————————————————————————————-
Also see:
‘Marine Le Pen Will Reap What The EU Has Sown’
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/12/marine-le-pen-will-reap-what-the-eu-has-sown/
And,
‘The New American Dream Is To Have A Job’
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/12/debt-rattle-december-14-2015/
# # #
The UN megalomaniacs want to “transform” the global economy, with a multi-Strillion price tag. They are idiots. Successive Washington-Brussels-Westminster-Beijing policies have already done that – at a multi-$trillion cost.
Except it is now pay-back time for the latter, but how when the economies are tanking?
Obama blew billions on renewables, he doesn’t have that option now and neither does the EU or China i.e. the UN’s “transformational” dream has run into an already transformed reality. Oreskes, Ki-moon, Figureres et al will understand this eventually (maybe).
>”Obama blew billions on renewables,……”
And on “too big to fail”. He ain’t seen nuthin yet.
‘Paris talks: agreeing to dodge democracy’
Climate advocacy has become a refuge for political no-hopers.
Ben Pile
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/paris-talks-agreeing-to-dodge-democracy/17736
‘The IPCC doesn’t believe its own models. The 1.5C ambitious target = 400ppm. We’re already there!’
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/the-ipcc-doesnt-believe-its-own-models-the-1-5c-ambitious-target-400ppm-were-already-there/
According to “climate science”modeling.
>”According to “climate science”modeling”
It’s not just climate science. They have company in the US:
# # #
The ultimate in cluelessness? Debateable. Remains to be seen how both climate change theory and the resulting mitigation and adaption stupidity plays out compared to what happens to the US economy now.
I think the bigger crash will be the US economy. And that’s where the UN would source most of its Green Climate Funds (assuming they were actually forthcoming).
J’ohn Kerry Proves He Doesn’t Understand Climate Science’
David Kreutzer / @dwkreutzer / December 23, 2015 /
In an interview at the close of the recent Paris climate conference, Secretary of State John Kerry scolded Republican senators for saying out loud that the next president may not be a big supporter of President Barack Obama’s climate policies. Kerry asserted voters won’t allow a change, “I don’t think they’re going to accept as a genuine leader someone who doesn’t understand the science of climate change and isn’t willing to do something about it.”
But Kerry disproves his own theory. In a widely covered speech in Jakarta, Indonesia Kerry gave an absolutely cringe-worthy explanation of CO2 and global warming.
Of course the press totally ignored his bizarre CO2 science lesson:
He probably should have stopped with “physics can be tough.” His “a quarter-inch way up there” absolutely does not describe CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems what Kerry had in mind is a very abstract representation of the ozone layer. This may have been relevant a long time ago in a debate far, far away, but it is not a description of CO2 in the atmosphere.
His notion that the Earth has had a steady temperature for “literally millions of years” is also way off base. This National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration webpage shows temperatures have bounced around by 10-25 degrees Fahrenheit ten or so times in the last 800,000 years.
Kerry dismissively lecturing climate skeptics brings Emily Litella to mind. Emily was Gilda Radner’s “Saturday Night Live” character whose bad hearing led to impassioned, but hilariously misguided, editorial responses.
Who knows what Kerry’s aides were thinking as he recited his mixed-up ozone lecture in the carbon dioxide forum? You can almost imagine them trying to catch Kerry’s attention, “Psst! We are talking about CO2, not O3.”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/23/john-kerry-proves-he-doesnt-understand-climate-science/
# # #
One wonders about all the other politicians “understanding” of climate science, Tim Groser for example.
Just for the record, the banner of COP21 Paris was:
Apparently climate was a minor concern – not worth mentioning.