JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The one most important factor for Paris — The US congress

Will Obama and the UN succeed in forcing “climate taxes” on the US?

h/t to GWPF for finding the stories that matter

When the press releases come out saying that Paris has succeeded (which will happen, no matter the outcome) the key factor is not just whether the agreement has any meaningful teeth, but whether it can be forced on the US without approval of Congress. The US didn’t approve Kyoto, and now, more than then, there is no reason to think anything significant would get through. The GOP Republican candidates are not paying lip service to the global warming meme anymore, things have changed so much they’re almost all competing to be skeptics. Just 6 weeks ago a poll in the US showed the amazing, astonishing result that 31% of respondents agreed with GOP candidates statement that Climate change is a total hoax.

The EU and UN players know they can’t convince the US people, and nor can they get past their elected reps so they are talking of doing things in ways that don’t require congressional approval. Naturally, if they had overwhelming evidence, and half a case, they wouldn’t have to do that.

No matter what country you live in, remind all your politicians, journalists, and delegates to Paris that no matter what Obama says or signs, the US Congress is vowing not to pour money into the climate deals.

U.S. Senate Republicans on Wednesday said Congress would not approve the Obama administration’s $500 million request for its first payment into a United Nations climate fund, a move they said would undermine the upcoming climate change summit in Paris.

“This president is going to go (to Paris) with no money,” said Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who chaired a hearing in the Senate environment panel on the international climate negotiations, which begin on Nov. 30.

Capito and other Republican members of the committee said they will ensure any deal the U.S. strikes in Paris will face congressional scrutiny, and warned they will block President Barack Obama’s 2016 budget request for the first tranche of the $3 billion pledged last year to the U.N. Green Climate Fund. — Reuters

The American Interest

Fifty two senators voted to block the US EPA rule that would cut coal power station emissions. While Obama could veto that, the message is that the Senate is not going to approve his climate ambitions:

Here, once again, the U.S. Senate is key. That body says it will not contribute government money to a global climate fund that’s meant to spend $100 billion annually on helping poorer countries mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. Reuters reports:

“This president is going to go (to Paris) with no money,” said Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who chaired a hearing in the Senate environment panel on the international climate negotiations, which begin on Nov. 30.

Capito and other Republican members of the committee said they will ensure any deal the U.S. strikes in Paris will face congressional scrutiny, and warned they will block President Barack Obama’s 2016 budget request for the first tranche of the $3 billion pledged last year to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.“Without Senate approval (of a climate agreement), there will be no money,” added Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, acknowledging that guarantees of climate aid to developing countries is “the linchpin” of the Paris climate conference.

This sends yet another powerful message to climate delegates. Even if negotiators stay away from a binding treaty for fear of America’s lack of participation, they won’t be able to entice the developing world to stick to national emissions reductions plans if the carrot in all of this—the climate fund—isn’t being backed by the developed world.

The game of binding or not binding treaties?

On the one hand, the Paris team want to tell everyone they have real power, on the other (for the people who have to pay) they want to pretend this is voluntary. Oh the dilemma:

Secretary of State John Kerry tried to side-step this problem last week when he insisted negotiators wouldn’t be working on a treaty in France, a comment that immediately inspired backlash and spurred the French foreign minister to suggest that Mr. Kerry was probably “confused.” But let’s clear any confusion up now: The United States won’t sign on to a binding, enforceable GCT. So what else is there for UN delegates to work towards, if such a treaty is off the table?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (110 votes cast)
The one most important factor for Paris -- The US congress, 9.3 out of 10 based on 110 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nzsrdyb

132 comments to The one most important factor for Paris — The US congress

  • #
    TdeF

    There is an increasing trend for politicians to go it alone, to ignore the people they are supposed to represent when personal views interests can overwhelm electoral and even moral obligations. We had this so many times in Australia with minority governments like Gillard’s with handsomely rewarded turncoats like Oakshott, Windsor and Slipper.

    Obama too as a lame duck is trying to bypass Congress to look after his friends and a reason he so ungraciously criticized Abbott for destroying the Great Barrier Reef when UNESCO later declared formally there was not a problem. This spectacle of leaders acting blatantly in their own personal interests and not that of the country they lead is an increasing phenomenon which undermines the very principles of democracy.

    Much the same with [phrase snipped] Turnbull, who has promised the Nationals there will not be a carbon tax in a government he leads after a backroom deal which denied the results of a landslide election for Tony Abbott. The attempted introduction of an ETS by fiat will be a spectacle after Paris. The media will ignore it and it seems the very left media in this new age are more important than the electorate. The endless praise for Turnbull is really absurd when they heaped scorn on a PM who actually did what he was elected to do.
    [I have edited or removed phrases that could have triggered the moderation filter. The editing does not impact the central point of this comment] Fly

    550

    • #
      TdeF

      Actually the snip is much more provocative. Thanks.

      301

    • #
      cedarhill

      A form of oligarchy. Some in the West call it plutarchy. A modern term might be social-garchy.

      60

    • #
      Dennis

      I think it was last weekend that The Australian newspaper reported that the government had announced that there will be no new money pledged to the UN at the Paris Conference. I took that to mean no more on top of the $200 million over four years Minister for Foreign Affairs pledged for Australia while in South America?

      The second part of the government’s media release was that the delegates will inform the Paris Conference that Australia has met all of the Kyoto Conference emissions targets to date and right now in 2015 has achieved the 2020 target already.

      And as you rightly pointed out there is an agreement with the Nationals that there will be no new carbon tax or emissions trading scheme (joined to the EU ETS) or any other change of policies already agreed to before Malcolm Turnbull became PM.

      However, as we are observing now, as I observed when he was Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party earlier and as former PM Keating apparently told Kevin Rudd, Turnbull lacks judgement.

      200

      • #
        clive

        Dennis,I and most sane Aussies hope that you are correct on your first 3 points,but your final point I would dispute.Turdbull does lack judgement,but his idea of a”Thought Bubble”probably smells.Him and Krudd are like “Peas in a Pod”.

        140

  • #
    TdeF

    Apart from the odd mispelling, I cannot see how my comment went into moderation. It was, for a change, quite moderate.

    91

    • #
      doubting dave

      There seems to be a change in policy of moderation lately on this site , i’ve fallen foul of this myself recently, is it possible for a mod to comment on these changes so that i can adjust my comments accordingly, or am i mistaken, thanks

      70

    • #
      Brian H

      It’s the oddness of your spelling?

      00

  • #
    scaper...

    Paris will fail. I believe we are on the verge of the turning point.

    320

    • #
      King Geo

      I hope you are right.

      320

    • #
      ImranCan

      Well, as Jo says it won’t fail … But I agree we may be on the verge of a turning point. The lack of political support, the public skepticism, the fact that clearly the world has other things to prioritise right now, the extremely uncooperative hard data, the US congressional committee technical challenge and just an overall increasing sense of boredom with the whole topic means there is a very real scenario where energy around this topic starts to dissapate and during 2016 we may see the start of a rush for the exits.

      290

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      The world is burning not because of global warming but because of Islamic teachings and the latter are blatantly obvious particularly in Paris. How these so called world leaders can be half serious when discussing a non-existent problem while a real problem is merely a cemetery away confirms that they do not deserve our trust nor our votes.

      10

  • #
    King Geo

    The Republicans control the numbers in the USA Senate. So bye bye any large sums of US$’s pouring into any Climate Deals emanating from COP21. Australia on the other hand maybe another matter. The Coalition don’t have control of our Senate. That is controlled by the Greens & some Minor Party Senators. If the ALP push for A$ billions to be poured into any COP21 Climate Deals, expect a backlash at the Australian Federal Election which is less than a year off. I think the majority off Aussies don’t want to see A$ billions of their hard earned tax dollars being sent to a UN Climate Fund – effectively like pouring it down a sink.

    380

    • #
      Iren

      If the ALP push for A$ billions to be poured into any COP21 Climate Deals, expect a backlash at the Australian Federal Election which is less than a year off.

      The problem is that voters have nowhere to go if Turnbull supports such an ALP push, as is likely. Who then do we then vote for? Although, as far as I’m concerned, part of that decision has already been made. There’s no way on earth that I will ever vote for Turnbull. I’d vote for Beelzebub first!

      300

      • #
        William

        As I have mentioned in previous posts: The newly formed Australian Liberty Alliance looks promising.
        Barring that, informal.

        200

      • #
        Dennis

        I do not have the answer as to how we should vote in 2016 but what I do know is that I cannot trust Labor, extreme Greens or the Liberal Party at this time. During the Howard Coalition years I would never have posted this, or with the Abbott Coalition because I was well aware of the sneer and smear campaign against Tony Abbott that started not long after he became Liberal Party Parliamentary Leader with rebels within backgrounding media with constantly dripping leaks provided anonymously, the Gillard misogyny spin created by her imported UK spin doctor for her and the general media attacks.

        And well aware of the constant debt creation and budgets in deficit during the six Labor Government years and that they had the hide to produce a badly flawed 2013/14 Budget with an under estimated deficit estimate and unfunded commitments that forced the Abbott Government to borrow to make provision to pay. What Labor did to this nation is unforgivable.

        There are so many reasons to be concerned and not least being Malcolm Turnbull’s recent comment about the decision to take 12,000 extra “refugees” for resettlement here on top of the 13,750 budgeted for 2015/16. Asked about the sense in accepting people who add to the potential terrorism threat he commented that he was more concerned about home grown potential terrorists. So the Syrian intake could not produce future home grown potential terrorists?

        My point is that whatever the how to vote answer is I believe that we have no choice but to shock these self serving alternative government politicians with equal rejection.

        190

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Irene,

        Vote Nationals in both the Reps and the Senate if you can – and if they continue to keep malicious Malcolm honest.

        Or, if you’re like me, and live in an electorate where the Nationals don’t run a candidate for the Reps, vote for an independent who best matches the sceptics position.

        I live in the electorate of Curtin (I’ll not mention the name of the untrustworthy person who currently holds that seat) and I’ll not be voting for the Liberal candidate. She is totally two faced.

        40

    • #
      StefanL

      KG writes:
      “our Senate [ ] is controlled by the Greens & some Minor Party Senators.”
      This is the case only when the Labor party and the Coalition disagree.
      I’m being pedantic here because, as sceptics, we should always strive for meticulous accuracy.

      70

  • #
    Rob R

    Expect lots of very earnest anouncements full of hot air and not much else.

    160

    • #
      Ross

      Christiana Figueres has already indicated she doesn’t expect an agreement but what you have said is exactly what will happen.
      Booker’s analysis ( in the UK Telegraph) of each of the large country’s plans, that have been submitted prior to Paris, confirms the big boys will say all the nice words but will do what is best for their individual country when the talkfest is over.
      I’m hoping for Putin to stand up to Obama again and “squash” him again.

      370

    • #
      Gary Meyers

      Yeah, hot stinky air!

      30

      • #

        Fortunately this wonderful atmosphere, full of wonder, dissipates all hot stinky, plus entropy, to space, at the equator, via EMR. This stinky is continually replaced by fresh cool, at the surface poles! Some very stupid wish to FIX that!!!

        10

  • #
    DOC

    Whether anything happens in Australia will depend on how many Government members a willing to cross the floor on a Private Members Bill that could be put up as Turnbull’s way of ‘keeping his word’. That may have already been organised, judging from the big smile on Bishop’s face and the hushed words reported as having been whispered to Malcolm around the time of the coup.

    120

  • #
    Robert O

    History tells us that thirty pieces of silver were paid to Judas Iscariot by the Romans.

    How many pieces will be paid to our current PM and Minister Hunt, and by whom, for selling us out at Paris?

    230

    • #
      R2Dtoo

      PM Trudeau will go along with everything. He thinks he can “buy” his vision of Canada. International bullies will apply pressure and complicit Greens will return home and say we are an outstanding member of the international community again. We just paid for re-entry into the European socialist/UN club, will help save Gaia, and are fully apologetic for our white-privileged status. Canada’s “green energy” plans will run amok, and they are even more useless in our climate than elsewhere.The US and Russia are the key players at COP21.

      160

      • #
        Bill

        Unfortunately true, but I think it has more to do with his silly manifest destiny as liberal leader and heir to all things Canadian (in his own mind at least) than any vision. Being the product of a megalomaniac father and a bi-polar drug addict mother, we have to wonder which traits he has from each-doesn’t look promising for Canada.

        40

    • #
      Leigh

      Goldman Sachs?

      10

  • #
    King Geo

    Well I don’t think the current Oz PM needs any pieces of silver – he is by far the wealthiest Oz Politician. Environment Minister Hunt maybe another matter. Judas Iscariot, the 13th person at the Last Supper, was a traitor and the reason why the number 13 is such a cursed number. Environment Minister Greg Hunt was awarded his portfolio by former PM Abbott on 18 September 2013 (fortunately not Sept 11 but a week later). But Hunt took up his office during the 13th year of the new millennium so maybe he should reject pieces of silver as well. For the same reason Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who also took up her position on 18 September 2013, should also reject pieces of silver. These three Pollies will all be in Paris for the “COP21 Junket” starting in 9 days time. Let’s hope they stick to Abbott’s original plan and not send A$ billions of our hard earned tax dollars to the UN Climate Fund.

    160

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Bishop is a viper in our bosom, as is Hunt (though we knew about him all along).
    Turnbull is an empty vessel. Not worth words.
    I’m voting ALA.

    250

    • #
      King Geo

      I like ALA’s policies as well but there are only 3 Senate candidates currently listed on their website (NSW, QLD & WA). I think I will stay with the Libs unless they start to drift to the left which is a possibility with Turnbull in the top job. I think he will “go with the flow” until the next Federal Election.

      51

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Turnbull is the type that will always ‘go with the flow’.
        I wouldn’t want him in my trench.

        160

        • #
          King Geo

          By ‘go with the flow’ I mean don’t change policies that Abbott went to the 2013 Federal Election with. If Turnbull was smart he will keep all current policies in place until the 2016 Federal Election. At this stage it looks like a Coalition win – if it is a landslide win then I would start to worry about Turnbull implementing “leftie” policies. If it is narrow win they expect “same as same as” before.

          60

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          Should any binding deal ever be struck leaving we the populous to pick up the tab, Turnbull will be gone with the wind. Right back to the investment banks to collect his share of the windfall plus bonuses.

          110

          • #
            Ross

            Hasn’t Turnbull got himself in a corner ? If he doesn’t do what left and especially the MSM expect in Paris then the MSM will turn on him in the New Year.
            If he does do something then the voters on the right will turn on him at the election and voting for the ALA will split the right vote —is it possible under the Australian voting system that a new centre-right coalition ( Lib / ALA/ Nations) could form with the Libs the junior partner ?

            110

          • #
      • #
        MarloweJ

        Doesn’t sewerage flow?

        70

      • #
        gigdiary

        I like ALA’s policies as well but there are only 3 Senate candidates currently listed on their website

        It is imperative that the ALA candidates are elected, even if there are only three. There must be another voice in the Senate other than the Greens, Labor and our new Labor-Lite Libs.

        The Liberal Democrats offer some hope, but I’d put my money with the ALA.

        120

      • #
        craig

        Hi King,

        As a ALA member, the party is working to select candidates at a state and local government level, true, 3 at federal is not many but the party is mking a start, a strategic start.

        Someone has to hold our major party’s to account, the likes of Turnbull need real pressure put on him, as the likes of Turnbull are too many at the level of any current government.

        180

      • #
        Dennis

        And after the next election?

        40

      • #
        Fat Tony

        King Geo “I think I will stay with the Libs unless they start to drift to the left which is a possibility with Turnbull in the top job. I think he will “go with the flow” until the next Federal Election.”

        KG – I gave you the red thumb – the Libs are full steam ahead to the left already with Turnbull – my local member (Lib) supported Turnbull and I have already made sure he knows I won’t be voting for him again.
        Turnbull was useless as an Opposition Leader and now he’s useless and dangerous as a Prime Minister.

        70

      • #
        Martin

        If you like the ABC, then “stay with the Libs”.
        That’s who installed the current mob.
        And that’s who’s interests they represent.

        61

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    The Paris CON21 = Unelected Nutters Cartel of International Thieves .

    It’s not about any rational science ….It’s about how much they can steal off the grossly misinformed general public.

    We are being treated as idiots by Totalitarian and Malthusian maniacs !

    I don’t remember voting to hand billions away at Paris to these Racketeers .

    200

  • #
    Ceetee

    I don’t think Paris will give a hoot about the professional scroungers about to descend upon that beautiful city. Some rearguard action types may try to drum it up but the rank and file know this battle is over and despite what Barry Obama preaches, we have a bigger battle on our hands. I for one will NOT be cowed into forgoing my humanity and respect for debate. I will not buy into the religious war that they want. In particular. I despise those on the left who would suggest that we brought this upon ourselves. How deceitful the likes of Corbyn and Sanders must be. How deep is their disconnect with the real world. I reckon the Paris conference will be remarkable in it’s irrelevance and hubristic arrogance in the face of real and glaring problems that don’t require lies and spin. (and Scientific dishonesty)

    210

  • #
    sillyfilly

    The Republicans in the US Congress are impotent rather than important on COP21 and the Climate Fund. They are stymied by the White House and have neither say nor power (thankfully).

    144

    • #

      Yes of course SillyF, the congress should neither have power or a “say” in it, because that would be democracy, and what could be worse?

      PS What if George Bush were president and the Democratic controlled Senate was “stymied”?

      350

      • #
        doubting dave

        Jo , to be fair , i don’t think “nodding donkey” ( sillyfilly) really understands the implications or ramifications of his or her comment, Obama and the Democratic party have avoided the democratic process by avoiding talk of global warming during election time, because they know its unpopular with the American people, then after the election they impose their agenda via regulation and legislation , via control of American government run institutions such as NOAH and the EPA , but this only works while your in government and one day there will be a Republican in the Whitehouse, we know that the global warming has largely been driven by the power of the American dollar and the influence of American scientific institutions since Obama came to power, but when a Republican gets into the whitehouse he or she will be able to use the full force of the American Constitution to destroy this nonsense and all those involved with it, and all those thousands of Minions like nodding donkey will have to find another fake religion to worship

        220

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Ah, to have a Republican in the White House. What would I give to see that? … … …

          I could say a lot about this election cycle but I’ll limit it to this — I’m not sure we can elect a Republican. Republican voters need to choose wisely in the primaries because simply voting for the candidate who pushed all your buttons correctly may not get us a candidate who will beat Hillary Clinton. So there is a certain truth to what Silly Filly is saying here. They are more at war with themselves than with the opposing party and that could end up being very costly.

          It has nothing to do with whether the senate will ratify any agreement signed by Obama during cop21.

          30

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            And it doesn’t matter how much scandal is swirling around Hillary’s head or even if she ends up indicted for various of her obvious violations of law. She can still run for office and if elected, must be sworn in as president. I know of no measure in the constitution that even addresses this problem in the smallest way.

            30

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Gotta laugh: a time when the US presidential system benefits the country, a time to celebrate the collective dismay of the that conservative rabble.

        07

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      SillyF:
      The Republicans vote the money to spend. Obama will go down in disaster if he tries to spend money on what they don’t want. Think shutdown of the Government, a blowtorch applied to NOAA, NASA and the EPA, impeachment possibly. And don’t think that all Democrats will toe the green line. When it is a question of being reelected, party discipline gets junked.

      220

    • #
      Yonniestone

      A silly comment SF, to which I can only say yet another whinny the poo….

      80

    • #
      Richard Barnett

      Thankfully they hold the purse strings or our President Barack Obama would pay the climate change fund everything pledged and then some and just order the federal reserve to print more currency. As crazy as it seems that’s how it’s been working. If we continue we are headed for one huge train wreck and the Congress knows and understands the consequences to doing business that way. Call our Congress what you will but they are our only hope at this point. With the POTUS clean power plan being our greatest risk in grid surcurity and our biggest treat to kilowatt cost we simply can’t afford spending a dime to the climate change fund.

      110

    • #
      Winston

      Sillyfilly,

      Just can’t wait for that Brownshirt and jackboot to be fitted can you?

      Both the Democrats and the Republicans in the US are a sham. Neither represents who they say they do, and all both are entirely beholden to vested interests. The President is bought and paid for, and enacts policy not according to the needs, the interests or the desires of the people, but to manipulate the media narrative to placate the natives with the assistance of a complicit media.

      That you still have some naive belief in the Democrats as some kind of humanitarian, social justice party, when all the evidence is they are pro-elitist and their pandering to minorities is not to actually improve their lot, but to entrench the perception that they care.

      FYI, if I lived in the states, I wouldn’t vote for either on principle, in spite of your preconceived idea that all who comment here would be Republicans.

      182

    • #
      Bill

      You must really love gullible fools like justin trudeau

      10

  • #
    Gerard

    Does our government have a mandate to sign any agreement in Paris?

    70

    • #
      ianl8888


      … a mandate to sign any agreement …

      Sorry, Gerard, but the notion of “mandate” is quaint

      The minority party Senators (separately and severally) claim a “mandate” with <1% of the vote (Aus parliament). Their argument is that their miniscule number of voters deserve their mandate to be honoured

      Mandate as a concept has no value, except in the Swiss system

      120

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Gerard, my MP ( a conservative and an Abbott supporter) told me that Bishop has circulated a memo saying that the killer team of Turnbull, Bishop and Hunt, will not be signing anything in Paris. I don’t think she believed Bishop either! The $200,000,000 we have promised for Bob Brown’s Bank (for our OS bloggers, Bob Brown was the leader of the Greens in OZ who was all for a global government) is coming from our foreign aid budget – not sure if I believe that either.

      170

      • #
        scaper...

        It has been written in The Australian, your MP has said it to you and yet you still have doubts???

        Take a reality pill as it appears you have caught denialitis.

        40

      • #
        Dennis

        One of the self-serving reasons why Bishop turned against Abbott was that he and Treasurer Hockey had cut back the foreign affairs budget that PM Gillard had agreed to increase significantly after she replaced PM Rudd and he became Minister for Foreign Affairs.

        To add to that, PM Abbott sent a ministerial escort with her to the South America Conference where she pledged the A$200 million over four years, that amount coming out of the foreign aid budget under instructions from PM Abbott.

        I read recently that the UN Fund target was $100 billion and so far they have received only $700 million.

        80

      • #

        the first tranche of the $3 billion pledged last year to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.

        Shouldn’t that be ‘the UN Green Slush Fund’?
        Everything about the UN is [snip], especially if you have ever followed investigative journalist Claudia Rosett’s investigations.

        [Please avoid the word I snipped. Thanks] AZ

        70

  • #
    rah

    Don’t get too optimistic you folks down under. Both houses of our Congress have an increasingly obvious record of making such strong statements in opposition to this presidents policies and actions and then when the time comes for the actual vote(s), folding like a cheap card table.

    I’m not saying I expect that to happen this time. I’m just saying that this US voter would not be shocked if it did.

    Fact is that “Climate Change” lies at or near the bottom of the list in most issue polls and the approval ratings for this sad excuse of a president are declining some finally. He is a lame duck. But despite these facts I suspect that to hold a good majority in both houses to hold to this pledge will take a concerted effort from concerned citizens because this president has no compunction about circumventing both the intent and the letter of the law.

    150

  • #
    TdeF

    As it is unthreaded, in all this man made Global Warming argument, everyone has their piece to add often from their area of expertise. David with his detailed model and equations. Jo with her passion for the essential but utterly missing hot spot. All quite apart from the total lack of warming as measured by satellites. As for the uselessness of solar and wind and the vast waste of money and the uselessness of carbon indulgences, we are missing something.

    This has been the tacit assumption, underpinning every argument that because CO2 is going up that burning fossil fuel has increased CO2. This seems so obvious to most scientists and non scientists alike that no one questions it. Even the people who say they do not believe AGW concede this point implicitly. So one last time, I would like to say that you can measure precisely how much fossil fuel CO2 is in the air and it is less than a few %, but why let facts get in the way of an interesting argument? Now as you were.

    191

    • #

      TdeF,

      what makes me so decidedly curious in all this is that those true believers know exactly what the cause of this warming is, the emissions of Carbon Dioxide. Knowing this do they bite the bullet and just seek to cease all those emissions outright, after telling us for so long that it will lead to what even they call a catastrophe.

      No, the only thing they seek to do is to make money out of it, by placing a Tax on those emissions.

      Taxation won’t stop their catastrophe, and for the life of me I just can’t see why their acolytes have not caught on yet.

      Tony.

      332

      • #
        TdeF

        When did taxation fix anything? Most taxation is about one thing only, enriching some at the expense of others. There is an urgent meeting in Malaysia this weekend to address I*lamic terror in Asia. Obama will have to race back to Paris for the really big world crisis, saving the planet from CO2, the trace gas captured by photosynthesis and from which all life is made. He needs to stamp out CO2 pollution? Irony is lost on politicians.

        190

      • #
        ianl8888


        … why their acolytes have not caught on yet …

        Ah, Tony, two reasons:

        1) no one really wants to give up the benefits of civilised energy

        2) if the purported problem is “fixed”, these people will have to search for a new raison d’etre (sorry about the lack of grave accents), a big one. Don’t underestimate this factor; a lot of acolytes have pinned the meaning of their lives on the issue

        90

      • #
        Philip Mulholland

        (sorry about the lack of grave accents)

        ianl8888,
        You can always cut and paste from another document:- Raison d’être
        or use these advanced keystrokes:- Special ALT Characters§

        60

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        Of course you are correct …They don’t want to stop it ,they just want to tax it , to punish evil industry , ultimately punish the West , to punish the better off in particular …the capitalist pigs !

        Their Non Logic : Industry produces co2 – Co2 produces warming – Somehow this warming is catastrophic – Wealthy industry therefore causes catastrophe – it must be made to pay (not stopped ,because then there would be no socialist money)!

        It will become (has become) a money tap – ramped up whenever the socialists need more money , which is never ending until their ideology ultimately collapses into mass poverty .

        The Paris CON21 is no more than yet another Global money and power grab , masquerading as ‘save the planet’ virtue .

        It has somehow moved from fringe extremism to now mainstream extremism ….a global mob mentality on a medieval pithforker’s crusade .

        The hunt for more Climate Omens will continue to a place where skeptics are imprisoned in ‘DrumHead Juctice’ , proper Science is cast out and the CAGW fanaticism becomes even more frenzied !

        Even Ponzi and Herr Goebbels would awe struck at this mass lunacy .

        Is Science Progressing? (featuring Richard Lindzen)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xe5VeMYD7Y

        80

        • #

          The whole subject of raising money from CO2 is predicated upon the design of how that is done, based around the introduction of a Cap And Trade system.

          That of itself is not designed to reduce emissions, but as a specific mechanism to raise even more money.

          Admittedly, the cap is (supposed to be) lowered each year, but that amount of lowering is by a relatively tiny amount. The overall lowering of emissions even for a relatively large Country is of such a small percentage that it is virtually negated in its totality by the ongoing construction of new power plants, both coal fired and Natural Gas fired plants in other areas of the World where, also by UN design, they either have no control to prevent their construction, or those Countries just flat out ignore what has been decided for those already Developed Countries. That lowering is not only negated, but far and away exceeded by a huge amount with those new plant constructions.

          Even that lowering of the cap within those Countries where it is UN mandated can be broken by just days of running if there is a call for them, like days without wind. If the cap is exceeded, then the emitting entity has to purchase new credits to cover that over emission, those credits at the highest price paid during the auction period. Then on top of that, they pay a fine of 1.5 times the over emissions, and have those over emissions deducted from the following year’s total. So, you can see, it’s not designed to lower the emissions, (thus prospectively cutting off the money tap) but just to raise more money.

          I haven’t made this up, because it’s taken directly from the proposed legislation for both the U.S. (now failed) and the Australian legislation, now also rescinded, and which was basically a carbon copy of that U.S. legislation, both constructed from the UN model.

          Explain this to believers, and they just scoff at you, believing ONLY that its design is to lower emissions, and the money has nothing to do with it. Those believers also implicitly believe it is the (supposed) polluter only who pays, when EVERY cost is passed directly down to consumers, also enshrined in the legislation.

          Tony.

          80

          • #
            Leigh

            Tony, I’m going to “steal” this and use it as my “own”.
            So if you see it pop up in a lefty publication slapping the alarmists, don’t feel ripped off.
            They don’t like cut and paste responces from a “denialist” and usually reject them.
            So if I get it up in one in the future,think of it as a victory for yourself and clear thinking.

            00

          • #
            Leigh

            Tony, the comments here give alarmists a little something to mull over,once I posted the back slapping and group hugs appeared to have stalled.
            I expect once they gather their senses they’ll “attack” with a vengeance.
            http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/11/27/turnbull-optimistic-paris-climate-summit/1

            00

      • #
        TdeF

        Tony, a later thought on your statement..

        “true believers know exactly what the cause of this warming is, the emissions of Carbon Dioxide”.

        and they tacitly believe that mankind has increased CO2 levels, because to them it is obvious.

        However do they have any evidence for this? Does anyone? No one seems to ask this question because it seems obvious, like water in a bucket. To a physical scientist, this is most unlikely when you hear that 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the water under pressure.

        In chemistry everything is in constant equilibrium determined by huge physical forces on a planetary scale. Humans are tiny bags of water and really of no consequence in volume. Even the amount of CO2 in the air is tiny compared to the amount dissolved in the world oceans, like a bottle of Coke with the lid off. We cannot change CO2 levels or only a little bit for a short time. From Physical chemistry we know that the equilibrium level of CO2 in the air is determined basically by water temperature, nothing more.

        People have been getting away with the assertion that the increase of CO2 by 50% is due to fossil fuels simply because no one questions it. Without this false statement, there is no man made anything.

        120

    • #
      William

      OK, refresh my memory please?
      How do you quantify “fossil fuel” CO2, as component of total CO2?

      60

      • #
        ROM

        William;
        You use a model, one that hasn’t been validated or verified but is supposedly accurate as it is based on the theoretical emmissions from a specific [ ie tonne [s] ] of what ever fossil fuel they have decided is the culprit.

        And thats all they have to calculate the claimed fossil fuel CO2 emissions and they stuff up [ deliberately ?] to a degree that matches the corruption of the global temperature data.
        Nothing is ever actually “measured” in the CO2 emmissions estimations / guesses from a whole variety of sources both natural and man made.

        Its all a gigantic conn with the “calculated estimations” [ Mann's Hockey stick was an amateur effort compared to the global CO2 emmissions calculations ] for CO2 emmissions never being challenged when it is the sole, only and total basis underlying the calculations / estimates / guesses for mankind’s contribution to the so called increasing and dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels.
        And so after 27 years of climate alarmist science and “estimations only” of mankind’s CO2 emissions, we are still in a state of scientific limbo with the still unseen, unproven, unmeasured hard data free claims on CO2′s effects on global temperatures let alone having undoubted and proven sources of CO2 backed by hard observed and measured data as to the main sources and the very large sinks for the ever churning and constant turning over of the global CO2 molecules.
        —————-

        From the BBC;

        And read those comments carefully about “estimations” and” Globally averaged formulas” . Not much science involved there.

        China CO2 emissions: ‘Coal error’ caused wrong calculations

        Confusion over the types of coal being burned in Chinese power stations has caused a significant overestimation of the country’s carbon emissions.
        Researchers, published in the journal Nature, say existing CO2 calculations had used a globally averaged formula.
        But when scientists tested the types of coal actually being burned in China, they found they produced 40% less carbon than had been assumed.
        The study says the error amounted to 10% of global emissions in 2013.
        &
        Confusion over the types of coal being burned in Chinese power stations has caused a significant overestimation of the country’s carbon emissions.
        Researchers, published in the journal Nature, say existing CO2 calculations had used a globally averaged formula.
        But when scientists tested the types of coal actually being burned in China, they found they produced 40% less carbon than had been assumed.
        The study says the error amounted to 10% of global emissions in 2013.
        The scientists say that China is effectively using more poor quality brown coal than previously assumed. This skews the emissions figures because it contains less carbon than higher grade bituminous coal.
        The researchers say the discrepancy is significant. Over the period 2000-2013, they found that China emitted almost three gigatonnes of carbon less than previous estimates, which is around 10% of the global total in any one year.
        “The findings do have very significant global implications as China accounts for one-third of global total emissions. If we reduce China’s emissions by 15%, we get a 5% less global total,” said Dr Zhu.
        “The IPCC emissions factor number needs a revision and that should be at the global level. “

        cont;

        Just your average climate scientists at work again using the standard SNAFU operating procedures as per usual in the climate alarmist science scene.

        [ SNAFU = WW2 terminology = Situation Normal All Fouled Up ]

        And on the basis of this science they are prepared to destroy the civilized world’s economies and the lives of its peoples.

        In the end For What ?

        181

        • #
          mikerestin

          I believe Christina from the UN told us why.

          80

        • #

          ..found that China emitted almost three gigatonnes of carbon less than previous estimates,

          When Gillard harped on about ‘carbon’, it had the same effect on me as fingernails on a blackboard.

          Are they talking about a gas, or are they talking about soot? They must be talking about a gas, CO², as 3 gigatonnes of soot would be slightly difficult to dispose of in a landfill.

          Why can’t these numpties bring themselves to say ‘carbon dioxide’?

          161

          • #
            Matty

            Useless Numpties, to give them them their full honorific..

            70

          • #
            Dave N

            “Why can’t these numpties bring themselves to say ‘carbon dioxide’?”

            1. Because they’re concerned with scaring people, not being accurate
            2. Because they want it to imply soot
            3. Because they don’t understand what they’re talking about
            4. Because they’re lazy

            or combinations of the above (and probably more). The sad part is that they mostly succeed in making people swallow 1 & 2 as being OK

            130

            • #
              Annie

              ‘And probably more’. No doubt also hoping that people confuse CO with CO2. How many of the numpties know that diamonds are carbon?

              60

        • #
          Dean

          Sound pretty dodgy.

          All you are interested in is the amount of CO2 per unit of electricity generated. Burning lower quality coal simply means you need to burnt more of it to generate a given amount of electricity.

          Brown coals contain high levels of moisture which must be boiled off in the combustion process, reducing the net energy available to heat water in the boiler tubes.

          If brown coal really was the way to go then power stations like Hazelwood would be the way to go. And I cannot remember any claims that our Victorian plants were low emission plants.

          30

      • #
        TdeF

        Radio carbon date the CO2. Fossil fuels are millions of years old, so they have no C14 with its half life of 5400 years and CO2 in the biosphere has constant C14. C14 is only made in the upper atmosphere and does not exist in nature. So dating is like a radioactive trace except the fossil fuel is not tagged. If the 50% CO2 increase was man made, the concentration of C14 should be 66%. It isn’t. Sure the atom bombs disturbed this in the 1960s but also showed conclusively that CO2 vanishes with a half life of 14 years, so no man made CO2 hangs around. It also asymptotes to 100% of what it was in the 19th century, so little effect at all from the entire 20th century. CO2 is in rapid equilibrium with the planet and we cannot change it even for a relatively short time.

        201

        • #
          gigdiary

          Allowing for my limited knowledge in this field, this comment seems to be the definitive proof that the AGW scare is a total scam. Not that I needed convincing.

          Can the global increase in CO2 to 400ppm be shown by this method to be non-attributable to man?

          How does this equate with this statement from a NASA scientist:

          “the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years”

          101

          • #
            el gordo

            “the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years”

            Its a lie.

            111

          • #
            TdeF

            1. Can the global increase in CO2 to 400ppm be shown by this method to be non-attributable to man?

            Yes. Absolutely. Around 10ppm attributable to man at his most profligate. Schoolboy physics.

            2. NASA scientist:

            “the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years”

            A ridiculous statement with no basis whatsoever but stated plainly with conviction. Even the IPCC utterly disagrees with a quoted half life of 80 years. That is conveniently wrong too.

            I have also read in IPCC papers that some CO2 goes quickly and some hangs around for millenia and I thought free will was a human trait? Also you have to love ‘NASA scientist’.

            A NASA engineer generally knows nothing of physical chemistry and gaseous equilibrium and then why NASA are supposed to be experts in CO2 is beyond me. Nothing to do I guess, except wait for stuff.

            98% of all CO2 gas is in the vast oceans which cover the planet and in total and constant equilibrium with the 1/400th of air above by weight. It is extremely soluble and compressible. To say the air does not exchange and rapidly is to say fish cannot breathe. Oxygen is a waste product produced by plants and phytoplankton in capturing CO2. Similarly our CO2 waste product from breathing and burning dead plants goes into the water. The exchange is rapid. Otherwise the oceans would be stagnant and devoid of life. Wind, rain, droplets, waves, ripples. Huge surface area.

            As man cannot change CO2 levels, there is no need to talk about whether CO2 heats the planet or temperatures are changing. We can do nothing.

            Why and where CO2 disappears is obvious enough. What is interesting is that proponents of AGW looking for slight overall heating have found it not in the air, but in the oceans. Now why would aerial CO2 increase? The obvious correlation is so hard to see apparently. Henry’s law.

            120

          • #
            TdeF

            Thanks, I read the quote. “the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years” Read it again. This is not the statement of a scientist. Can you see why?

            70

            • #
              ROM

              The bloody Telstra controlled internet around here is still moving at horse and cart speeds!?? so my research has taken about 3 times the amount of time it should have.
              Over half of the supposed and claimed annual anthropogenic emissions of CO2, claimed emmissions which amount to roughly about 5% of the total global turnover of CO2 each year, a half of those human created emmissions [ ?? ] if we are too believe the “estimated/ guessed at anthropogenic emmissions just plain disappear into still unknown and unmapped CO2 sinks somewhere on the planet.

              To back up a couple of comments by Tdef above;

              1 / Life time of the CO2 molecule; From then Hockey Schtick

              Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years

              These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century.
              This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods.
              Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years.
              On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.

              Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Proffessor of Meteorology and a skeptic believes that the CO2 molecule’s residence time in the atmosphere is only a maximum of around 17 years.
              —————-
              2 / The time for a particle to cross the equator,[ something I dealt with a number of times on another climate forum now getting on for a decade back ] from the northern hemisphere into the southern hemisphere is about 6 months from this 1967 paper on the atomic bomb tests and the dispersion of nuclear particles.

              A comparison of tritium and strontium-90 fallout in the Southern Hemisphere

              Abstract selection quoted;

              For Sr-90 in mid-latitude rainwaters, the seasonal variation pattern is not so closely reproduced from year to year, but shows a broad summer maximum and winter minimum.
              It appears that the bulk of the bomb particulate products mixes southward within the lower stratosphere and enters the troposphere at mid-latitudes, the seasonal fallout variation being similar to that found for the Northern Hemisphere, but 6 months out of phase.

              ——————-

              CO2; as in Models, models, estimates, estimates and just plain bloody guesses under the guise of Assumptions implying they know something which they don’t, are rife in climate science and it is all the alarmist climate scientists have for guessing at the origins and sources and the major sinks for global CO2;

              This article from the Yale Climate Connections on CO2 is full of the terms such as “estimates” and the covering the arse for plain straight out “guesses” hiding terminology “assumptions”

              Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
              ———————
              And now to cap it all off it turns out that the data from the recently launched CO2 distribution assessing OCO2 satellite is showing that the guessed at / estimates / assumed distribution of global CO2 is quite a lot different to what NASA and a host of other pushers of the CO2 alarmist outfits have claimed and even created a whole series of CO2 distrubution maps which were all based on their guesses / estimates / assumptions which they fed into the models.
              The models of course, as in all modelling then merely reflected the wild eyed biases and spurious assumptions of the modellers which the outcomes from. they passed off to the politicals and public as proven fact.
              .
              WUWT on Oct 4th 2015 has an excellent article with numerous visuals on what was the claimed and then mapped as the global distribution of CO2 concentrations and the comparison with what the real time satellite derived CO2 distributions actually look like in reality.

              And those previously claimed CO2 concentration distributions were based on nothing more than unverified, unvalidated [ obviously as they were hopelessly wrong ] models of the global distribution of CO2

              WUWT; Finally: visualized OCO2 satellite data showing global carbon dioxide concentrations

              70

  • #
    Peredur

    Jo, there is, maybe, a back-door mechanism whereby the UN’s Paris expectations can be achieved. The following quotation from an American perspective nonetheless indicates the broader implications for signatories to the Trans Pacific Partnership’s managed trade arrangements.

    “A Vehicle to Pass Obama’s Climate Change Treaty:

    In early December, world leaders, led by Obama, will meet to negotiate the final terms of a climate treaty, designed to reduce carbon emissions. We already know from a White House press release that the terms will be completely unfair to the United States. Obama will commit the United States to a huge reduction in carbon emissions of 26% -28% from 2005 levels, but will let China, already a much larger carbon emitter, continue to expand its carbon emissions until 2030.

    We also know, that the climate treaty will set up its own governing body, its own court system, and its own tax collecting system. The treaty will also include annual reparations to be paid by the developed countries to the undeveloped countries of the world. The amount of the reparations will be negotiated in Paris.

    Chapter 20, the environmental chapter of the TPP, already requires compliance with previous multilateral environmental agreements that have been negotiated. So, the terms of the climate treaty will likely be incorporated into the TPP when the Commission first meets after the TPP passes. This is more or less specified in Article 20.4 which states:

    1. The Parties recognise that multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party play an important role, globally and domestically, in protecting the environment and that their respective implementation of these agreements is critical to achieving the environmental objectives of these agreements. Accordingly, each Party affirms its commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements to which it is a party.

    2. The Parties emphasise the need to enhance the mutual supportiveness between trade and environmental law and policies, through dialogue between the Parties on trade and environmental issues of mutual interest, particularly with respect to the negotiation and implementation of relevant multilateral environmental agreements and trade agreements.

    When President Obama finished negotiating the Iran Nuclear Deal, he went first to the UN Security Council, not to Congress, to get the deal approved. More or less the same thing could happen with the multilateral environmental agreement that Obama negotiates in Paris. It will be incorporated into the TPP, whether Congress agrees with its terms or not.

    This wouldn’t matter, except that the “Arbitration Tribunals” in the TPP can impose multi-billion dollar fines upon the U.S. government if the U.S. violates anything that is in the pact. In other words, the tribunals can force whatever Obama negotiates in Paris upon the American people, and Congress will have very little say.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/whats_actually_in_the_trans_pacific_partnership.html

    If this is credible it might help explain both the timing of the TPP settlement, Obama’s confidence that the Paris ‘negotiations’ will indicate the true strength of his ‘leadership’ and the low-key profile Paris is actually generating in public comment. Why draw attention to the cat in the bag when it is not necessary to do so? To say nothing of the mute preparations of our unelected prime minister and his cohorts.

    Given recent distractions you would be hard pressed to guess that there was a serious risk to national sovereignty brewing in just a few days time.

    200

    • #
      ianl8888

      Yes, quite scary but with a realpolitik point to it

      I too think there is a back-door mechanism for this which may well be the TPP

      70

  • #
    Mervyn

    I too placed so much confidence in the US Congress to bring some sanity to the out-of-control Obama climate policies and EPA regulations. Sadly, the republicans who were given control of both Houses have been an absolute joke… so much so that Donald Trump has spoken out about the incompetence and impotence of the US Congress who fail to get anything done because Congressman are controlled and manipulated by the numerous lobbyists and media interests.

    I urge people to read Donald Trump’s recent book “CRIPPLED AMERICA – How To Make America Great Again”, and his previous book, “Time To Get Tough: Making America #1 Again” to understand just exactly what has happened to America and how Mr Trump intends to fix the mess created under Obama.

    120

  • #
    toorightmate

    The President is going to Paris with no money………….
    AND………… no brains.

    211

  • #
    Stephen Richards

    My hope , forlorn, is that the republicans win the next presidential election and completely defund the UN.

    230

    • #
      doubting dave

      Yes stephen well said , and i’m a uk labour voter , and yet i prey every night that TRUMP prevails , maybe its wishful thinking but one day hopefully not in the too distant future it will happen

      110

      • #
        el gordo

        Ted Cruz is well placed as they round the bend.

        ‘If you’re a rock ribbed conservative, the case for Cruz is straightforward: He combines the visceral evangelical appeal of Carson, the outsider message of Trump, the discipline of Rubio, a dash of Rand Paul’s libertarianism, and the fundraising and organizing game of Obama. It’s tough combination to ignore.’

        MSNBC

        70

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    This is an aside, but the Bishop Hill site has been seriously compromised with the “403 Forbidden” code (that only seems to apply to those whose opinions historically differ from the “consensus” – i.e, mine, which are the most important to me, but others have been complaining) that is might be worthwhile to make sure that your own site is not similarly infiltrated. Here is posting in the hope that the message will get through.

    92

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      And, why do you not have and edit facility? “… that is might be…” should read “…that it might be…”

      90

  • #
    Ari Okkonen

    The “Climate change is a total hoax” link in the article directs to joannenova.com.au/wp-admin area and cannot be followed.

    50

  • #
    Ruairi

    For Obama to pay the first tranche,
    Could result in a fund avalanche,
    To the U.N. in millions,
    Which fast become billions,
    If Congress gives him a carte blanche.

    230

  • #
    Robert O

    Having donated to the UN green fund to save the planet from global warming, where does the money actually go? To the Island nations to build sea walls, to pay for carbon bean counters, or Nigerian forestry projects, or into just plain thin air?

    80

  • #
    Drapetomania

    As I have mentioned in previous posts: The newly formed Australian Liberty Alliance looks promising.
    Barring that, informal.

    Maybe…trying to get them to answer really simple questions like

    “what is your official stance on co2 taxes or co2 trading”

    ..does not even elicit an autoresponder message….yes I am sure they are “flat out not answering questions from potential voters”…

    21

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    It’s a shell game.
    The danger isn’t in the Paris circus at all.
    It’s hidden in the TPP!

    80

  • #

    Yep, it is always about the money!

    The U.S. Congress controls the purse strings. After the 2016 elections I believe that the Republicans will not only control the white house but will also have a 60 seat majority in the senate. With the ability to invoke cloture, the Republicans will be able to get bills to the floor for a vote will not be able to

    If that happens, the party is over for the climate cabal!

    All climate scientists, Mann your lifeboats!

    141

    • #
      ianl8888

      Ok, but why then the “moderation” at 16.1 ? My comment agrees with a post which has real acumen on Congress’ role, or more likely not, in COP21

      [I'm uncertain why either comment was trapped. 've approved both.] AZ

      30

  • #
    Dennis

    Some might be interested to know that there is a push for a new Convention of Refugees to cater for climate change refugees, people escaping from “sinking Pacific Islands”, food shortages, the heat and droughts, etc. I heard this yesterday on ABC Radio while driving.

    The best part was that the UNHCR has so far failed to act, has failed to accept the urgency.

    70

  • #
    pat

    tragically, in many countries, all sides of politics have bought into the CAGW scam. if only the public understood the consequences:

    21 Nov: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: The UK’s energy ‘policy’ is an act of national suicide
    Britain is heading for the greatest self-inflicted political disaster in our history
    This brings starkly nearer that long-predicted moment when we finally confront the catastrophic consequences of how, for more than a decade, successive governments have deliberately set out to “decarbonise” our electricity supply, by eliminating the fossil fuels that still provide nearly two thirds of our power – to rely on “carbon-free” renewables and nuclear energy…
    Nothing better underlines the total insanity of all this than Ms Rudd’s claim that we are doing it to “to set an example to the rest of the world”.
    She seems wholly oblivious to the fact that, with the approach of that Paris climate conference, both China and India have announced that, over the next 15 years, they plan to double and triple their CO2 emissions by building hundreds more coal-fired power stations. They each plan to add more CO2 every year than the mere 1.2 per cent of global man-made CO2 emitted by Britain.
    Ms Rudd may wish us to take pride in committing national suicide, “to set an example to the rest of the world”. But the rest of the world is not taking a blind bit of notice.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12009962/The-UKs-energy-policy-is-an-act-of-national-suicide.html

    21 Nov: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Met Office is happy to tell it like it isn’t
    ‘Storm Barney’ was nothing of the sort. And nor was ‘Abi-Near-Gale’
    On returning from a trip abroad, I found out what fun had been going on over our climate-change obsessed Met Office’s latest gimmick to get us all excited about “extreme weather events” – by giving cute little names to “Storms”.
    This led gullible journalists into predicting that the first of these, “Storm Abigail”, would cause mayhem across the land. When nothing happened out of the ordinary for early November, the Met Office merely suggested that the real “Storm Abigail” would now arrive a few days later…
    But at least these ill winds blow good to someone. Coral and Ladbrokes have made a fortune this year from punters silly enough to believe what the Met Office tells them…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12009963/Met-Office-is-happy-to-tell-it-like-it-isnt.html

    61

  • #
    pat

    Booker has long criticised Hinkley, which was to be operational by 2017, now expected to be 2023, at the earliest:

    21 Nov: UK Independent: Matt Dathan: Boris Johnson attacks ‘disgraceful’ spending on Hinkley – just a month after David Cameron hailed the ‘flagship’ deal
    Mayor of London said the estimated £18bn cost of Britain’s first nuclear power station in two decades was an ‘extraordinary amount of money’
    Work on the Hinkley Point C in Somerset is set to begin within weeks after Mr Cameron announced that a deal had been struck between French firm EDF and state-owned China General Nuclear Power (CGN) in October…
    …the Government has agreed a “strike price” – a guaranteed price paid for electricity generated by Hinkley Point of £92.50 per megawatt hour for 35 years.
    However the huge cost of the plant will ultimately be paid for by consumers through their bills…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-attacks-disgraceful-spending-on-hinkley-just-a-month-after-david-cameron-hailed-the-a6742281.html

    19 Nov: Scotsman: Russell Jackson: Cracks found in Hunterston B nuclear power station
    Cracks have been found in bricks around the core of a nuclear reactor at Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire.
    Operator EDF said it has “no safety implications” and will not affect the operation of the reactor, but green campaigners expressed alarm…
    The nuclear power station began operating in 1976 and was originally scheduled to be shut down in 2011, but this was extended to 2016.
    EDF Energy later said a technical and economic evaluation of the plant confirmed it could operate until 2023…
    http://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/energy/cracks-found-in-hunterston-b-nuclear-power-station-1-3952943

    27 Oct: Scottish Daily Record: David Taylor: Scots nuclear power plant worker caught studying BOMB-MAKING websites at work
    THE staff member was marched off the premises at Hunterston B, West Kilbride, this morning after a shocked colleague raised the alarm…
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-nuclear-power-plant-worker-6716601

    51

  • #

    The attacks of the Jihadists on Paris came at exactly the right moment to remind people that there are real and urgent matters to deal with and that they do not need to waste time on thought bubbles like CAGW. Oligarchy, Plutarchy and Sociogarchy will be called on to tackle a pressing and actual problem.

    60

    • #
      ROM

      A few weeks back I did mention in a post here that the Paris COP21 might get a severe shake up if a “Black Swan” event occurred.

      A “Black Swan” event of course being the totally unexpected, unpredicted and not even imagined and impossible happening.

      Well the last week’s or so events in Paris don’t really qualify as a Black Swan event as such a despicable deadly ideologically and fundamentalistic rabid theologically driven event was always a strong possibility even though if not at all predictable.

      But in terms of its impact on the COP21, it has almost negated the entire man made climate disaster meme that was the sole and entire underpinning for the COP21.
      The Europeans now know that they have other much more important things to worry about than some still unseen, unmeasured, unmeasurable, non visible, non experienced changes to the global climate supposedly created in his sinfullness against the planet, by mankind himself.

      Mankind, the most vicious, nasty, sadistic and totally lacking in empathy and moral  values section of it has just ensured that probably permanent for the the present generations of mankind, those changes in European and world values.

      60

  • #
    pat

    19 Nov: ScienceDaily: Ancient fossil forest unearthed in Arctic Norway
    Source:Cardiff University
    Summary:Ancient fossil forests have beenunearthed in Arctic Norway, thought to be partly responsible for one of the most dramatic shifts in the Earth’s climate in the past 400 million years…
    The fossil forests, with tree stumps preserved in place, were found in Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago situated in the Arctic Ocean…
    The forests grew near the equator during the late Devonian period, and could provide an insight into the cause of a 15-fold reduction in levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere around that time…
    The new findings have been published today in the journal Geology.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151119103544.htm

    30

  • #
    pat

    hard to believe 10%-plus of Australian voters still support them:

    22 Nov: Guardian: Daniel Hurst: Greens unveil push for 90% target for renewable energy by 2030
    Policy proposes new authority to oversee $5bn of construction in clean energy generation and a 15-year pipeline of projects through direct investment
    The Greens will seek to build momentum for more ambitious action on climate change by calling for the creation of a new government authority to help Australia reach a 90% target for renewable energy by 2030.
    The leader of the Greens, Richard Di Natale, said the policy to be released on Sunday showed the type of “real leadership” the country should display as world leaders prepared for climate negotiations in Paris next month.
    The party has previously adopted a goal of ensuring Australia obtains 90% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, but the new policy document spells out how this could be achieved.
    It proposes the establishment of a new $500m authority, to be known as RenewAustralia…
    ***The Greens suggest the cost of the plan could be met by the reintroduction of a carbon price, the abolition of fossil fuel subsidies, and changes to superannuation tax concessions for high income earners…
    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/22/greens-unveil-push-for-90-target-for-renewable-energy-by-2030

    30

    • #
      Gordon Vandersee

      I wonder how Di Natale and Waters would get toParis using 90 per cent renewables? What pathetic idiots!

      20

  • #
    PeterS

    Obama a very dangerous man. Here he is trotting around the world preaching his false religion on global warming, often convincing other countries to follow suit and introduce stupid policies, yet back home the Senate will stop his silly policies ever being implemented locally leaving other countries to suffer from anti-global warming polices of their own, which in many cases lead to unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children. That makes him almost as bad as ISIS. Is the world that stupid? I’m afraid so!

    100

  • #
    Fuel Filter

    Black Jesus may be able, through the back door, to get Iran a nuke but there is no way he can do this. Here in the U.S. tax bills have to originate in the House of Reps.

    Never gonna happen. Republicans control both the Senate and the House and even the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) will never countenance anything as inane as this.

    That said, TPP is a whole different kettle of fish for another day.

    70

  • #
    Fuel Filter

    BTW, Trump, despite what you may have heard from the MSM, is dominating the polls.

    One reason why? He’s on record calling Glowbull Warming “bull$h!t”.

    140

  • #
    pat

    21 Nov: UK Telegraph: Jeremy Warner: Our obsession with global warming will cost us dear
    Amber Rudd has set out a plan to switch from coal to gas generation, but first she has to persuade the industry to finance the huge cost
    What Ms Rudd has yet adequately to explain, however, is how the Government is going to persuade the industry to invest in all those new gas fired generators. Estimates by Jefferies put the cost of plugging the gap left by coal at a whopping £70bn, including £22bn for Hinckley Point C.
    Simply requiring coal to be phased out and expecting the industry naturally to fill the void won’t hack it, a point Ms Rudd seemed to acknowledge in saying that coal would be given a stay of executive if gas had not by then stepped up to the plate…
    So far, this “market” has succeeded in securing just one new gas fired plant, and even in this case the sponsors have run out of money before completing the project, leaving highly polluting diesel generators to fill expected shortfalls this winter…
    However much Ms Rudd might wish it otherwise, the stupidities of UK energy policy are never going to be far from the headlines.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/12008403/Our-obsession-with-global-warming-will-cost-us-dear.html

    18 Nov: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Wind and solar farms must pay their true costs, energy secretary Amber Rudd vows
    Renewable generators will be held “responsible for the pressures they add to the system when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine”, she said, under new plans being drawn up by the Department of Energy and Climate Change…
    She also confirmed plans to close down unabated coal-fired power plants by 2025, but said the Government would only proceed with the policy if it was “confident” that replacement gas plants would be built in time…
    For example, the fact solar will generate no power at times of peak demand on dark winter evenings – and that the entire UK wind farm fleet may produce almost no power on a calm day – may increase the total amount of power plant capacity needed on the UK system to act as backup…
    However, as the proliferation of subsidised renewables means reliable gas-fired plants may only be needed for short periods of time as backup, they are uneconomic to build without either subsidy, or sky-high prices when they do generate…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12004458/Wind-and-solar-farms-must-pay-their-true-costs-energy-secretary-vows.html

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The one most important factor for Paris — The US congress senate

    The senate must ratify any agreement the president signs since the only international agreements the constitution recognizes is the treaty.

    The senate, unfortunately is about as predictable as the weather. :-(

    Of course Obama has never let that stop him, believing that an executive order can even trump the constitution. :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( Any resemblance to a certain presidential candidate is purely coincidental.

    80

  • #
    Fuel Filter

    More from the U. S . Congress besides a House committee headed by Lamar Smith (no fan of Hussein Zero, he) into Dear Leader’s “Clean Power Plan”: 

    From Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz who calls 0bama’s “Radical” climate plan “Tyranny”:
    *****
    Sen. Ted Cruz said in a video released earlier this week that “one of the worst examples of the left’s scare tactics is the lies they continue to spread concerning the issue of so-called global warming.”

    “The president’s radical attempt to destabilize the nation’s energy system is flatly illegal,” Sen. Ted Cruz said in a video released earlier this week.
    His taped remarks were delivered Thursday at the Texas Public Policy Foundation‘s second annual At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit. The two-day event in Austin, Texas included speakers such  Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation, Marc Morano of Climate Depot and James Taylor [no, not *that* James Taylor] of the Heartland Institute.

    “The president’s radical attempt to destabilize the nation’s energy system is flatly illegal,” Cruz said. “And unless it is invalidated by Congress, struck down by the courts or, hopefully, rescinded by the next administration, it will cause Americans’ electricity costs to skyrocket at a time when those who are struggling can least afford it. What the Obama administration is doing to harm the American economy is the sort of power grab that our founders would have recognized as tyranny.”

    His comments came just a day after he and 51 other senators approved two resolutions rejecting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon rules for power plants, the Clean Power Plan. President Obama has vowed to veto the measures.

    Republicans are also taking aim at Obama’s Green Climate Fund. The $3 billion fund was set aside by the Obama administration last year as something the president hopes to be able to bring to the negotiating table at the COP21 Paris climate talks.

    “We pledge that Congress will not allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to go to the Green Climate Fund until the forthcoming international climate agreement is submitted to the Senate for its constitutional advice and consent,” 37 Republican senators wrote in a letter to Obama Thursday.
    *****

    http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/21/ted-cruz-obama-climate-change/

    70

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    Obama has been trying to impose UN rule in the US ever since his first term. The UN has no legal jurisdiction in the US and Congress and American will not allow the UN to muscle it’s way into the US! The One Worlders and multiculturalists can whine all they want but America will keep it’s sovereignty and keep the UN out!

    90

  • #

    [...] The one most important factor for Paris — The US congress [...]

    10

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Here is what to watch for in the US. Congress critters are very sensitive to elements of life that influence their seats. Elections are not usually won or lost in the states by the informed judgements of the educated and concerned; but by the general feeling of a mass of relatively uninvolved voters, formed only in the few weeks before the election but informed by general cultural thought. The so-called “low information voters”, a rather nasty reference to a dependent class, are actually pretty solid. It is the not-politically-involved sloshing back and forth who vote the generational changes in the US. Without a parlimentary system, our changes are less sharp edged that some other countries’.

    For years, the advocates have succeeded in getting climate change references dropped into ordinary life. The fifth grader who got “green points” and loved polar bears 20 years ago is now supposed to be a reliable “pro-environment” voter. You will know the US is really turning back when the late night comics, the true thermometers of public opinion, start to make fun of attribution of events to global warming and green excesses.

    The thinkers have mostly moved to rational scepticism and cost-effectiveness to rationalize environmental policy.

    It will take pressure for a while to undo the damage in the psyche of the mostly thoughtless (not a perjorative, just the otherwise occupied) Signs are it is happening. I think the measure of congress is that a majority of the votes are now either sceptical of the environmental thought or appalled at the damage done to our economy (and their family budgets)

    We’ll get a reading in Nov 2016.

    60

  • #
    Barry

    Looks like the stupid leftists assembled in Paris are going to have the weather turn against them again, as happened in Cancun.

    Britain wakes up to snowy scenes after the coldest November night for five years – and tonight will be just as chilly.

    40

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    The KooKoo Greens’ new renewable energy target announced on the Alpgreens BC insiders show on Sunday by Supreme Leader DiNatale: 90% by 2030 ……Hand them Straight Jackets before they self harm the country at national level!

    No doubt a familiar site at Greens HQ >>>

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straitjacket#mediaviewer/File:Straitjacket-rear.jpg

    20

    • #

      Found it.

      This Greens Plan has now been released. Rather than just the public announcements, the blah blah blah, this is the text of the plan.

      It’s a 48 page pdf document.

      In case some of you want to have a look, here’s the link:

      Renew Australia – Powering The New Economy

      I’ll be working my way through it over the next week or so, so I’ll get back to you all on it at next week’s Unthreaded.

      Lat’s pretend for a minute that The Greens ARE the Government right now, and will be in power for the duration of this plan, and they actually started to implement this plan starting right now.

      What chance, in percentage figures is there of this plan in its totality being implemented?

      Any of you who quoted a percentage figure greater than zero would be incorrect.

      Tony.

      40

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        Yes 90% RET fully costed ……The Cost is National Bankruptcy ….Greece Version 2.0 ,here we go!

        p.s. what about their proposed 500 million Climate *AUTHORITY* ?

        What’s next ? Green Gestapo ?

        20

  • #