Week in review – Paris edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Oliver Geden:  #COP21 marks a paradigm shift in #climate policy, with mixed results. [link]

Ridley & Peiser: Your Complete Guide To The Paris Climate Summit [link]

NYTimes: At Paris, big gap between scientific realities and diplomatic possibilities – Climate Talks Avoid …‘Carbon Budget’ [link]

Don’t expect miracles – what we can realistically hope for, from COP21 in Paris. In today’s Independent [link]

WSJ:  “That climate change is the biggest problem [is] unfounded:We can readily think of bigger problems” says @RichardTol [link] …

Useful infographic from @CarbonBrief clarifying negotiating blocks at #COP21 [link] …

Republicans vow to deny Obama climate funds to derail Paris talks [link] …

Has the 2 °C target become a fantasy?  @naturenews article by @jefftollef [link]

Inconvenient truths for the environmental movement [link] …

No debate in Paris on the science: [link]

Is the truth somewhere between these extremes? “Climate change clashes in US politics” [link] …

Would/could India derail Paris climate talks? [link]

Senate Republicans Just Promised To Undermine The Paris Climate Negotiations [link]

India Warns Kerry’s Bullying Threatens Paris Consensus [link]

US Senate Sends The World A Message: Don’t Expect Any Money For Obama’s Climate Promises [link]

From new book, Michael Hart on how UN using climate framework to push old government control agenda [link] …

120 responses to “Week in review – Paris edition

  1. Pingback: Week in review – Paris edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. The Google search page is now sometimes showing a link to a video and a petition to “world leaders” on protecting the “things we love” from “climate change” (Actually CAGW). I cannot tell if this is a paid advocacy ad or Google doing global politics.

    Equating “climate change” with CAGW is semantic theft.

    • Here is the pre-Paris Google URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgOV1dYdYVk

      • Looks like this campaign is from YouTube, which Google owns:

        “YouTube users will notice a new icon at the top of the video platform this week as part of a new campaign to highlight how climate change “affects the things we love.” In the lead-up to the high-stakes U.N. Paris Climate Summit that will start on Nov. 30, YouTube has launched the #OursToLose campaign, showcasing videos about climate change and the environment, and encouraging its mostly youthful users to get involved in the issue.”

      • Curious George

        Google is hedging its bet on Ivanpah solar plant: Google-Owned Solar Company Requests $540 Million Bailout To Help Pay $1.6 Billion Loan.

      • Curious George,

        I couldn’t invent better stuff than this –

        “NRG Energy said fewer sunny days than predicted are responsible for the deficit.

        To help keep the project afloat, NRG Energy, which holds the largest stake in Ivanpah, has applied for federal grants through the Treasury Department.”

        Fewer sunny days than predicted? Didn’t they bother to ask a climatologist?

        I suppose that was unfair of me. Climatologists use stupid models which may or may not bear some resemblance to reality, depending on luck. Good thing there are plenty of US taxpayers. I like the plan where you borrow billions, and when the model lets you down, you get a grant to repay the money you borrowed. Everybody gets rich. Well, maybe not the taxpayer, but who cares about the little people?


      • Curious George

        Mike, thank you, this deep reason is news to me. Apparently the dreaded global warming results in less sun energy reaching the surface. With a little more data, that will be a great support for Eschenbach’s thermostat hypothesis.

    • “world leaders” on protecting the “things we love”

      Most of the things I love are politically incorrect.

      If Goggle and world leaders are going to attack the things I love, it is game on!

      Glad I switched to DuckDuckGo from Google. I seldom use Goggle so I don’t see this nonsense.

      • Thanks for the advise. I realize that I must have been naive. I knew Google was biased on climate science, but I find it outrageous that Google is into global politics. I have followed your advice and changed my default search engine.

    • “…and a petition to “world leaders” on protecting the “things we love” from “climate change””

      The piety makes me gag.

  3. Folies bergere in gai Paris. And with all these
    new immigrants in Europe, lotsa’ infra-structure
    required, lotsa’ steel ‘n cement, more energy fer
    day ter day livin’, won’t be easy bein’ green,
    keepin’ the globul temperature down.

  4. C’mon, France. Resist the slavish Paris mob. Remember the Vendee!

    • The theoretical estimate of keeping below 2 degrees seems optimistic, according to official sources

      “Analysis of the INDCS, endorsed by the UN, has suggested that these pledges are enough to hold the world to about 2.7C or 3C of warming. That is not quite enough to meet the scientific advice. However, that is not the end of the story. One of the key components of any Paris agreement would be to institute a system of review of the emissions targets every five years, with a view to ratcheting them upwards.”

      “….This is a hugely contentious issue. At Copenhagen, where the finance part of the deal was only sorted out at the very last minute, rich countries agreed to supply $30bn ($20bn) of “fast-start” financial assistance to the poor nations, and they said that by 2020, financial flows of at least $100bn a year would be provided.”


      What will actually be achieved at Paris?

      “Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates, under similar assumptions, for Copenhagen–Cancun. Other adjustments in our economic projections resulted in another 0.2°C reduction in warming.”


      0.2C reduction doesn’t seem a lot for the huge costs and disruption involved even assuming the warming effects of co2 turn out to be correct. If it isn’t correct the effort and cost is insane


      • Global foreign aid for developing countries only hit $135 billion in 2013. Now we need another $100b by 2020?

        Despite the fact that this big round number is a purely political, rather than economic, calculation, I would like to offer my bank account as a pass thru mechanism. I think I can undercut the typical NGO “overhead” expenses deducted from the annual amounts. Where do I sign up?

      • So…at stupendous cost we are to create a massive class of Technocrats Without Borders and Political Elites Without Borders, and they will offer to the weather gods many splendid white elephants on our behalf.

        Meanwhile Military Without Borders will save us from something called “the murderous Assad regime” (whatever that is, it sounds really bad!) and Sunnis Without Borders will come and brighten our neighbourhoods.

        Great plan, and all without borders. Why we didn’t think of it sooner?

  5. I think the main accomplishment for Obama has been thwarting Coal. That’s the big one really. The problem is if you take a ‘go after the bad guy’ approach it doesn’t solve anything just less energy. For now gas has stepped up. Until they get off of their renewables high horses and get serious about nuclear there just won’t be any really big substantial change the kind needed to make any difference long term. This seems to be a great problem to keep people in perpetual grief, just the thing socialists love, to exert their power and control fantasies.

  6. Regarding the difficulty of the 2 C limit, if there is one place I diverge from the consensus, it is on the issue of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean, and maybe land helps, is able to remove excess CO2 above some natural long-term level (e.g. 280 ppm) on a timescale I would estimate at 50 years, which accounts for why half the emissions don’t end up in the atmosphere with our emission growth rate as it has been. This means we only need to reduce emission rates 50% and hold them steady at that level to put us into a balance with what I would call natural sequestration. The final balanced CO2 level depends on the steady emission rate. The trillion tonne limit ignores that CO2 is naturally removed at any significant rate. According to my numbers we only need to get to 25 GtCO2 per year and hold there to maintain the 2 C limit. That is not to say it isn’t a challenge, but it is far more possible than the trillion tonne limit. I am still waiting for someone in the mainstream to say this, but have not yet seen it, so maybe there is something wrong with the idea. There was a recent post at Ari Halperin at WUWT that puts the residence time at 40 years, but the reasoning looks rather more complex than mine.

    • Curious George

      Jim, you mention “your numbers”. I would like to know more.

      • The basis is that both the emissions and natural sequestration have been exponential with emissions being a growth from preindustrial levels and sequestration trying to bring it back to that level (an assumption). The emission time scale has been maintained at about 25 years throughout the industrial era. That is, we emit 4% of the manmade CO2 already in the atmosphere each year, an exponentially increasing rate. E.g. 36 GtCO2 per year currently is 4% of 900 GtCO2 manmade CO2 already added. That 4% gives a 25-year time scale. Natural sequestration with a 50-year time scale can remove half of this, and seems to. Using this simple exponential behavior, we can fit the source and sink fairly well through the industrial era. The consequence is that if we hold emission rate (ER) steady there will be a balanced CO2 level. My numbers that follow from this are that the balanced level, CO2b = 280+20/3*ER
        E.g. for our current rate ER=40, then CO2b=547 ppm.

    • Jim D, I do not pretend to understand your numbers, but you say “…which accounts for why half the emissions don’t end up in the atmosphere..”

      Our emissions do not end up in the atmosphere. Thanks to the enormous natural flux pretty much all the CO2 molecules emitted, including ours, are gone in about 5 years, most much sooner. Under AGW the claim is that our emissions are causing the atmospheric concentration increase, not that they compose that increase. I do not know if this affects your model but you might want to state the case correctly.

      Halperin makes this distinction rather clearly, which is between the residence time of the molecules and the residence time of the increase. Moreover, he is talking about the half life of the increase, I think assuming our emissions cease (which is impossible). You seem to be talking about something quite different. There is a lot of confusion here.

      • Yes, there is a fast exchange rate, so it is not the same molecules as were emitted, but half the amount emitted is still in the atmosphere even with the exchange of CO2 going on with the surface. The 5-year time scale is the exchange rate, which is distinguished from the 50-year natural sequestration rate. The latter is slower because the upper ocean is gaining CO2 too and it takes a while to remove it to deeper layers, so it is likely related to how quickly the ocean can upwell relatively non-acidic water to uptake the emissions.

      • Jim D, at the end you say “…to uptake the emissions…” but the emissions are already uptaken, in less than 5 years. You are still confusing two very different processes, as many do.

      • Jim D, you say “…half the amount emitted is still in the atmosphere…” This is incorrect. As a matter of arithmetic, the amount of the annual increase is about half of our emissions, but there is no “still in the atmosphere” to this fact. The molecules that make up the increase at any given time are not ours, so there is no “still in the atmosphere”. This is important.

        In fact the increase in concentration is due to all of the changes in all of the sources and sinks, most of which are unknown. Arithmetic is not causation. We do not know why CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Arithmetic alone cannot answer this question.

      • DW, the ocean can only uptake enough to reach a new equilibrium between its surface CO2 and the atmosphere. If it was only shallow water, the ocean would not take up much at all before being in equilibrium with the atmosphere. It is only because the ocean has a deep circulation that it can get CO2 levels at its surface down, and stay out of equilibrium with the atmospheric concentration, but that circulation is slow, which is how it appears to have a 50-year time scale.
        You say you don’t know why CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? Really? Emissions.

      • Jim D, you seem to be ignoring the fact that tremendous amounts of CO2 are being produced by the ocean biosphere. These amounts are probably variable, in space and time.

      • Yes, I ignore that because the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere over time looks very much like the accumulated emissions over time. Both are almost exponential growth curves starting at the same time, and growing faster through the industrial era.

      • And so you personify AGW, Jim D, by ignoring natural variability because of how the changes “look” to you. Nor have you responded to my explicit points, rather carefully made. You seem to assume that the ocean’s only job is to get into equillibrium with the atmosphere. The reality is quite the opposite.

      • Natural variability is warming the tar out of the surface right now, and it’s likely going to get worse over the next 10 to 15 years. AMO will be going up along with the PDO. Regime shift, 2013. Get ready for some shocking 10-year warming rates. Expect strident calls for studying natural variability to get variable: often called a drought.

      • Wow, JCH
        where did this “natural variability” bit come from? Thought you were all for CO2 being the culprit. Or is it whatever makes the PDO move the way you wish? So, how much (%) of the future global “warming” will you be attributing to this “Natural variability … warming the tar out of the surface right now, and it’s likely going to get worse” vs CO2 being the scapegoat?

      • ACO2 is the control knob. NV is its, well, its…

      • How about doing us all a favor and give us some dec C “contribution” estimates, as you see “natural” and “CO2, for 2015 (this should be easy as you know what the CO2 level is now, so it the % of each should be pretty clear in your mind), 2030, 2050, and 2100? For your “guesses” you can choose the level of CO2 that you think is the most likely without regard to why – just tell us what you think it will be for each time period.

      • In the last 50 years, around 100% of the warming was caused by man. Since 1900 there have been only 2 old-fashioned global cooling events 1900 to `1910, and ~1942 to ~1952.

      • David Wojick | November 28, 2015 at 1:46 pm | Reply
        Jim D, I do not pretend to understand your numbers, but you say “…which accounts for why half the emissions don’t end up in the atmosphere..”

        DW that’s ok. I pretend to understand his numbers and they are simply wrong.



        1. Much of the CO2 rise preceded much of the emissions. 30-50 PPM is due to ocean warming.
        3. The current ratio of atmospheric increase to emissions is about 40% not 60%.
        2. Since the sinks have “locked up” the CO2 only current emissions drive the CO2 increase. The 38000 GT of carbon in the ocean guarantees that the effect of past emissions is trivial (besides the absorption occurs in the Arctic and we won’t see those emissions again for a millenia or more. The picture for the return of land emissions isn’t a lot brighter.
        4. .The CO2 trend roughly follows emissions from 1951 to 1993.
        5. Total emissions = 404 GT, CO2 increase = 264.12 [(400-276)*2.13], percent efficiency in driving CO2 level 65%,
        6. From 1959 to today (Mauna Loa period) only 54.6%. of emissions have stayed in the atmosphere and the percentage has declined from 60% in 1959 to 40% today.
        7. The CO2 level is going asymptotic toward some value below 500 PPM. The percent of CO2 staying in the atmosphere from emissions has declined sharply in the last 20 years. Perhaps China has developed “Smart Coal™”.

  7. Curious George

    I would like to know how much this soap opera will cost, and who will pay for it. Taxpayers, of course, but I wonder how much will German taxpayers contribute, how much French, etc.

  8. I have two simple questions that will never be addressed by COP21. (1) What is the cost of activities intended to mitigate climate change. (2) What has been the benefit?

    As far as the cost, I’ve seen estimates of almost $400 billion per year. Just US research on CAGW is twice what is spent on cancer research. There are probably other ways of looking at it, but it’s clear that the cost has been massive.

    And what benefit has that massive effort produced? That question is easily answered by the CO2 data at Mauna Loa…there has been no detectable benefit. It’s like bullets bouncing off of Superman.


    The profound stupidity of all this is astonishing.

    • superchillskeptic,

      I’ve never even been able to find out what’s supposed to happen if they manage to stop the climate from changing! I just can’t seem to stop myself producing poisonous CO2 with every breath, not to mention other evil GHGs from other orifices.

      I suppose Climate Change is all my fault. I’m sorry.


    • When annualized, the cost of damage (worked out from the social cost of carbon) is ten times more than the cost of mitigation to stop that damage, which is 0.06% of GDP per year according to AR5 WG3.

      • Well, that’s it then. Our very own little yimmy says that the cost of damage is ten times more than the cost of mitigation to stop that damage.

        Surely the progressive muckety-mucks who will be whining, dining and saving the world in Paree, know this too. Surely they will make a binding agreement to adopt the necessary and incredibly profitable mitigation schemes. Invest a buck, save ten bucks! It’s literally a no-brainer.

        The greatest, meanest existential threat faced by mankind evah is toast. Rejoice! We are saved! Give Obama a raise and another Nobel prize, or two.

      • I knew you would come around when you saw the numbers. Economics is a big deal for the skeptics. At this point our choice is between bad and less bad. Do we stop in this so-called beneficial range or keep charging on to the not-so-good range? Them’s the choices.

      • I’m sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. Despite decades of effort and trillions of dollars, there is no evidence in the real world that this scale of mitigation has been effective at all. It has been a complete failure.

        If you think that it’s possible to increase the effort by an order of magnitude (to $3-4T per year), it would be an interesting experiment but politically untenable. And, to use a cliche, you might very well be throwing good money after bad.

      • The cost you have put there is about 100 times the actual annualized mitigation cost specified in WG3, and besides a lot of the cost goes into new industries, infrastructure, and therefore stimulates employment.

      • Are those shovel ready jobs, yimmy? I just wonder why you keep arguing with these recalcitrants if you are sure about that ten to one thing. That is in the category of a sure-thang huffpo no-brainer. Ain’t it, yimmy? What could go wrong?

        You don’t have to convince anybody here, yimmy. You must have more productive things to do with your considerable talent for argumentation for the sake of argument. Obama and gruber know this stuff, already. Wait till Gruber explains it to the fancy folks in Paree. Most of them won’t be very sober, but they will get it. They MUST GET IT! For the children. And the polar bears.

      • Yes, Don, I am sure there is a job for you if you want to do something useful for the future.

      • Will you teach me how to hang around a blog that I hate and harangue the hostess and her denizens with dilapidated dogma, lies and thinly disguised insults, yimmy?

      • But the people here are so entertaining. I wouldn’t miss it.

      • drone

    • “And what benefit has that massive effort produced?”

      Are you kidding me? Probably trillions of dollars have been acquired by progressive governments, NGOs, and crony capitalists as a result of the globalclimatewarmingchange scam. Not to mention the political power (which is the real goal of the movement) throughout the west.

      Second to the education scam, climate control is the most successful progressive campaign in the last hundred years. If you think it is a resounding failure because CO2 has not been reduced, then it is your own fault for believing that that was the real goal.

      CAGW is the gravy train that turns the hard earned dollars of tax payers into the larded governments and the incomes of progressives who feed at the government trough.

  9. Maurice Strong has discovered the director of the play of life on planet Earth.

  10. The article by Ridley and Peiser sums it up very well.

    CO2 sensitivity is likely less than 3 or 2 deg. C and it is at 3.5 deg. C that the social costs start to be significantly different from zero.

    There will be an agreement coming out of Paris that everyone can interpret as they wish. Obama’s legacy on climate will be established as his legacy on foreign policy (Syria, Russia, Iran …….) has been established. It’s all BS anyway. China, India, Poland, Vietnam, Germany will go ahead with their coal fired power plants and the US (thanks to fracking for natural gas) will continue to reduce emissions and have affordable electricity. Maybe the UK will get their head out of their butt and start fracking too, in which case they have a future.

    All in all, I guess it’s not so bad. Except they’ll blow $200 million plus on Paris and continue meeting and reporting and pontificating for many more years to come while spending many more millions in the process. What’s a few billion dollars here or there.

    I guess the endless boring discussions on global temperature anomaly on the order of tents of a degree and silly adjustments on the order of hundredths of a degree will continue as well.

    To paraphrase Richard Lindzen, in ten or twenty or thirty years people will look back and try to understand how this mole hill became a mountain.

    • Mark…”I guess the endless boring discussions on global temperature anomaly on the order of tents of a degree and silly adjustments on the order of hundredths of a degree will continue as well.

      To paraphrase Richard Lindzen, in ten or twenty or thirty years people will look back and try to understand how this mole hill became a mountain.”

      This is an echo of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Would it add a measure of calm to think this sort of social madness in humans occurs with some periodicity?

      This ‘madness’ is not a victimless crime that simply wastes billions. It’s a pathology of thinking that is entirely destructive the longer it is allowed to go on. It rots the very fabric of civilization which is never a given, but needs the husbandry of the best and brightest to protect it from these sorts of assaults.

      Free societies can withstand a great deal but not without some protection, some defense of the life blood that sustains them, which is their foundational ideas. The environmental movement, ideologically, is an affront to the ideas that give a foundation to free societies and CAGW is a weapon against those very ideas. We laugh them off at our peril.

      Lindzen seems to think that the damage the CAGW movement is doing will be self-correcting such that in twenty to thirty years all will be well and we can have a good laugh. Really? Show me what tyranny, once it got a foothold, was self-correcting. It’s not just money that is at stake. This movement has the potential to shed a lot of blood and spread a lot of misery. It’s underlying assumptions are authoritarian and collectivist to the core. You might say CO2 is the tip of a spear on a Trojan Horse that has the potential to plunge the world into a New Dark Ages. We ignore this potential at grave peril to the survival of civilization itself.

      • Daniel,

        “Free societies can withstand a great deal but not without some protection, some defense of the life blood that sustains them, which is their foundational ideas. The environmental movement, ideologically, is an affront to the ideas that give a foundation to free societies and CAGW is a weapon against those very ideas. We laugh them off at our peril.”

        I get it, and I am not laughing. The tactics of the progressive green mob are insidious. If one disagrees with them, one is anti environment, doesn’t,t care about their grandchildren and is just plain ignorant. If a scientist or economist of any stature questions the technical conclusions, they are to be destroyed or marginalized. The fact that Obama and his minions buy into the conclusions, the objectives and the tactics is scary. Obama will not be our next President but Hillary May and she is giving every indication that she is his clone. A change in the White House is an imperative.

        The most frustrating part of all this is seeing how little most people know or care about it and how susceptible they are to the Green mob’s propaganda.

        I signed up for Mosomoso’s militia a while back to through out the climatariat and am getting in shape to do my part.

    • Mark…”I signed up for Mosomoso’s militia a while back to through out the climatariat and am getting in shape to do my part.”

      Where do I sign up? :)

  11. If it is at present, impossible to know what percentage of the global temperature change is natural and what isn’t, how will anyone know that any of these mitigation schemes worked and to what extent? To compound this problem, we also have no idea how much our increased CO2 production actually affects the global CO2 concentration, since this has also varied naturally over time in a manner not at all understood. It is astonishing how much effort can be made for such a fools’ errand.

    • Elliot M Althouse,

      You wrote –

      “It is astonishing how much effort can be made for such a fools’ errand.”

      Obviously, the powers-that-be have put a lot of thought into choosing the right fools for the errand in question. They’ve even rewarded them with a free holiday in Paris!


    • You are reading the wrong blogs. A lot more is known than Judith lets on.

      • Well, yeah. That is why global warmer climate scientists fight FOIA tooth and nail. They know too much and have to hide it.

        A lot more is known but it undermines global warming theory.

      • Is Judith hiding something, yimmy? Is this the wrong blog? Why do you hang out here?

      • JIMD

        Do you believe that Judith is our only source of information?


      • I think some people, like the commenter I responded to are basing opinions on select nuggets of information that show they don’t cast the net wide enough. Just some advice to go outside that cocoon a bit. Get more informed on what the scientists say and why, and not just through the lens of the right-wing media.

      • Jimd

        I think most people here are pretty wide read. In turn don’t you think it’s time to look outside the very narrow focus of huffpo And the Guardian?


      • I, for one, am not in the habit of reading right-wing media, and certainly don’t regard any news media as being a source of scientific info.

      • I look at the science itself. You can also check condensed versions of it such as AR5 WG1 that shows the topic is much broader and deeper than what is covered on this blog. Another place to see the “other side” from your regular views would be the upcoming documentary, “Time to Choose”, which will be streamed free at some sites from tomorrow. It is said to be visually stunning, and with a message of hope rather than fear. It is by Charles Ferguson who has also done well known documentaries about the Iraq War and Wall Street collapse. One review here.

      • jimd

        I would imagine that most of the regular commenters here have read ar5 in full or the summary and also read other science papers they come across from sources other than this blog.

        And when we suggest that you could ALSO do with broadening your reading circle, there you are quoting huffpo yet again.

        So who are the ones with the narrow perspectives here?


      • Jim D: I look at the science itself.

        One review here.

        IPCC AR(5) is addressed here frequently, along with peer-reviewed primary literature and lots of other stuff. All the scientific research that you cite and quote exactly is welcome. But you put up a lot of biased tertiary sources like HuffPo, and you seldom quote anything exactly.

        A lot more is known than Judith lets on.

        So, …, tell us. I follow almost all links that are put up here. When permitted by the site, I download the pdfs.

      • I come here for one side of the issue, and it is the minority side, and I go to HuffPost or RealClimate, etc., for the other which is a majority view. This is how I get a balanced view. I link the other side of issues here via some good articles and op-eds there, as you would only see WSJ op-eds otherwise, which is far from balanced. Judith does put up mainstream pieces as part of Week in Review, such as the recent not-so-rosy Antarctica picture, some promising new energy technology advances, and also we saw the AMS criticism of Smith here, so it is not all one-sided for sure, but also not giving a perspective of the importance of those items that you would see elsewhere.

      • Jimd

        I for one welcome your input here but many of us are much better read than you seem to believe.


      • Jim D | November 29, 2015 at 1:44 pm |
        “I look at the science itself.”


        You could have fooled me.

        It’s a shame you very clearly don’t understand the first thing about it, isn’t it?

  12. Security at the COP21 will be very tight and activity will be limited:


    George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

  13. … that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism.

    … is possibly true if we consider climate change may be the first example of homegrown high tech domestic terrorism in America –e.g., involving acts using government resources that are dangerous to human life and intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population, influence government policy and legitimate research by intimidation or coercion and affect the conduct of a government by destruction of the energy industry and the economy.

      • If an unproven theory about what happened to some rocks a hundred thousand+ years ago is true, that makes a Paris agreement even more urgent now…Only in the WaPo!

        Never mind the Eemian, what about recent centuries? Maybe Hansen and his “wiry, hammer-slinging geologist” (only in the WaPo!) might want to check out the ancient port of Ephesus, or maybe ancient Ostia, Rome’s port. Of course, they won’t be swinging hammers anywhere near any sea. Dry work, it’ll be. You’d think that, silt or no silt, all this terrifying sea level rise would make it possible to paddle a canoe where the Ephesians and Romans could park ships. But no!

      • Hansen and Hearty – that wiry,
        hammer – slinging – geologist –
        somewhat like a viking god,
        have a theory about two giant
        rocks, it’s so provocative and
        frankly terrifying, doomsayer
        explanatory, it’s – it’s – super
        – storm – divine – retribution
        fer mere mortals bein’
        so – goddam – human.

      • Now if Death Trains and Hammer Slinger can just tell me where to stand to avoid giant boulders falling on my head, I might be even slightly impressed.

        If not, their theory, even if true, is of value to neither man nor beast. I suppose it might suggest that if waves are flinging monstrous rocks above my head, it might be advantageous to remove myself to a safer location.

        Actually, I think I could probably work that out for myself. Sorry Death Trains, you’re just not as scary as you used to be. Maybe you could consider retirement.


      • Hansen and his wiry hammer-slinger aside, isn’t the Washington Post just the most exquisitely silly rag? Is there a special Faculty of Silly at some ivy league university where they learn it? I mean…how is it done?

      • In an ivy-league university
        it may take a little time to
        get into the swing of things,
        such as left-wing-leaning,
        politically-correct speaking,

    • Wagathon….”homegrown high tech domestic terrorism in America.”

      Obama is right! The environmental movement, under the flag of CAGW, is a grave threat to Civilization. It’s the soft terrorism version of the Fascist, theocratic, hard terrorism of Islam.

      Both are global assaults on the foundational principles of free societies. Both have the potential to produce a New Dark Ages.

      Both value misty eyed, misanthropic nightmares over life on this earth. Both would see billions dying of pestilence, starvation and the sword to satisfy their megalomaniacal visions.

      Both are driven by religious fervor.

      People who value freedom and free and prosperous societies better wake up and realize that freedom is not a given, it is an idea that stands as a bulwark against the worst of human kind, but only in so far as the idea is taken on board, is valued, is cherished and is willingly defended. It cannot defend itself.

  14. All of these stories bring me back to one thing I think people need to understand about “science” and how it interacts with politics. The problem reminds me of those older sci-fi movies…the kind where the scientist dies saying that the thing that is just about to kill him is impossible. And honestly, we’re at that point with essentially all the environmental sciences.

    The sad fact of reality is…YOU CAN’T DEFER TO ACADEMICS ON ANYTHING YOU CARE ABOUT! Academics are great at providing answers that are “technically correct”. But through history, academics have said countless things that never added up. Oil was predicted to run out by about 1900…and pretty much every year after. Think of all the things that nutrition “science” has said that proved wrong.

    I’m sorry…academics most certainly have their place, but I can’t stress it enough…you simply cannot defer to them. It’s just too darned easy to fall for the delusion of a “technically correct” answer that is completely wrong in reality. You end up with laughably deranged ideas like solar road surfaces…and climate policies based almost exclusively on model predictions that didn’t even get the sign on a lot of things right.

  15. CAGW pseudo-science Godfather Maurice Strong passes away

    UN: Maurice Strong, climate and development pioneer, dies
    “The sustainability roadmap which started in Stockholm, continued in Rio, Johannesburg and Rio+20, must now become a reality in Paris,” Steiner said. “This would indeed be the most fitting tribute to the legacy of Maurice Strong; leader, mentor and friend.”

    Live & Learn: Maurice Strong
    I never aspired to be in business. I went into business because I only have a high-school education, and I couldn’t get jobs that required higher qualifications. I went into business quite reluctantly, because it was the only place I could get a job.

    Maurice F. Strong Is First Non-U.S. Citizen To Receive
    Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Highest Honor
    WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences has selected Maurice F. Strong to receive its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal. Established in 1914, the medal is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good. The Academy chose Strong, a Canadian and the first non-U.S. citizen to receive the award, in recognition of his leadership of global conferences that became the basis for international environmental negotiations and for his tireless efforts to link science, technology, and society for common benefit.

    Chairman Mo’s little red website
    Why are people not more aware of the greatest threat to human freedom and prosperity since the collapse of Communism?
    I refer not to the 2008 financial crisis, or man-made climate change, but to that eminent Canadian Maurice Strong. He is, after all, more than any other person responsible for sending the nations of the world down the path to Copenhagen.
    It seems that Mr. Strong too may be fed up with his lack of profile. He has set up a website, http://www.mauricestrong.net,where you will find the bald — but accurate — statement that “Maurice Strong is the world’s leading environmentalist.” From heading the first UN environment conference in Stockholm in 1972 to masterminding the 1992 Rio summit, “Maurice Strong,” says Maurice Strong’s website, “has played a unique and critical role in globalizing the environmental movement.” Mr. Strong is now 80 years old and thus out of the running for the title of CEO of “Earth Inc.,” but it is his environmental nightmares and dreams of global governance that will dominate Copenhagen. This is a man, we might remember, who welcomes the collapse of industrial civilization, and has described the prospect of billions of environmental deaths as a “glimmer of hope.” My editor didn’t believe me when I wrote this, so here’s what Mr. Strong actually said, in his autobiography, in a section described as a report to the shareholders, Earth Inc, dated 2031: “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.”

    • brentns1… “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.”

      This is a widely shared view among the CAGW believing folk. While most aren’t as explicit as a Paul Ehrlich or a Maurice Strong, many resonate with the core beliefs that lead to such maniacal statements.

      The idea being expressed here can be criticized in many ways. It can be labeled as unfounded with any science, as irrational, as mad, as ludicrous, balmy, half baked, idiotic and just plain wrong. And all of that misses the main point: that it resonates with so many people.

      Like some science fiction story it holds a vision of a global village of elites living a life of ease and splendor, provided by cutting edge technology and science. Living in the midst of a forest where man integrates into nature and nothing is disturbed or touched. It’s an update on the Garden of Eden and has just as much reality. The Garden of Eden requires a God to pull it off. A god to protect Eden from the forces of the universe. But, our story is, oh so modern. There is no Christian God. That would be regressive. The modern god of the Progressive, authoritarian, collectivist, is Science, Technology and Rule by Plato’s elite. No need for messy humans to fix the plumbing, mow the lawn, build the house. This will all be done magically with Science & Technology. The New Trinity is Science, Technology and Rule of the Elite. Again, this is as reality based as the Garden of Eden. But, people can be moved by dreams that resonate.

      Life is, as they say, a bitch. It requires that it be created and maintained every day: every moment of one’s life is filled with a thousand variables that all have the potential to end existence. What a lovely dream Eden is. It guarantees not just existence but also relieves everyone from the painful, hard work of creating and maintaining life in a universe that both creates life and is endlessly hostile to life. Who could blame someone for dreaming this fantasy?

      The people that seem to resonate most with these sorts of fantasies are those who are driven by fear, envy and a low tolerance for risk. Were I a Progressive, like Ehrlich or Strong or Gore and Obama and the minions in the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, I might advocate that we develop a psychological profile test, based on the latest findings in neuroscience, and identify all those so motivated and execute them in the name of saving humanity. But not resonating with the foundational ideas of authoritarianism and collectivism, I find killing humanity to save humanity odd beyond belief.

      But letting these people run rampant, like unruly children that we might chuckle over, is dangerous. We need, like Mark Steyn (and others), to confront their inanity, their insanity, their slavish devotion to fantasies, at every turn, using counter arguments to get them to rethink their premises and challenging their own fear, envy and low tolerance for risk or in the worst cases, using ridicule to shame into scurrying back under the rocks from which they came.

      Benign neglect is not a rational option.

    • “That we will not have his good council when we lose our way.”

      But ask any AGW scientist and it is always a new track record.

  16. US Confidential Note Sets Out Obama’s Strategy For Paris Climate Talks

  17. Well the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has struck. After thirty years, New Zealand have a decent cricket side. Next one due in 2045.

  18. The United Nations Paris Conference is the final scene in a seventy year effort to hid the Creator and Sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the solar system. This one-page post for the occasion shows, “How Scientists Hid the Creator”

    • Good article. The author, Oren Cass was a panelist at the recent Cato meeting on the Paris outlook.

      The CAGW extremists should be up in arms if they truly believed their propaganda. But since most of them just want to stay on the gravy train they’ll applaud and the bureaucracy will grow and prosper.

    • yep. Nothing but politics. Their goal is to declare victory and go home. They will probably succeed this time.

  19. The world has gone stark raving mad. Now I know what it would be like to time travel to the Middle Ages.

  20. The drums always were used to hide the sounds of what was really going on further up the hill. Nothing has changed much.

  21. “new book, Michael Hart on how UN using climate framework to push old government control agenda [link] …”

    He seems like a reasonable person…

  22. It sounds like each country will just be making a “pledge” regarding their own emissions, so why there has to be such an expensive conference I don’t know. At least with pledges, countries can drop out one by one in the future when physicists confirm that force fields like gravity form an autonomous temperature gradient, so there’s no “33 degrees of warming” to be done mostly by water vapor making rain forests 50 degrees hotter. The temperature gradient is already proven to exist with experiments with centrifugal force, so we’re getting there, because gravity acts in the same way on molecules between collisions.

  23. France bows to Obama and backs down on climate ‘treaty’

    France has offered a key concession to the US on the eve of historic climate talks in Paris, saying a new global climate accord will not be called a “treaty” and might not contain legally binding emissions reduction targets.

    • Thanks for the link………excellent.

      Contrast this with the article in today’s NYT by Coral Davenport.

    • Hmmm….

      There is a clear consensus that the earth is warming. No one argues with that.


      But it doesn’t look like the pace of temperature or sea level rise is accelerating, even though CO2 accumulation is accelerating.

      Cherry-picked; ignores uncertainty.

      All the “evidence” in favor of global warming is anecdotal: correlation, rather than causation.

      “All the evidence?” Evidence in quotation marks? = Rhetoric not science. Advocacy, not science.

      This, as Matt Ridley has rightly pointed out, has resulted in extreme corruption of science.

      “Extreme corruption of science.” And Matt Ridley, after assertions of “corruption,” goes on to say that if he’s being attacked, he must be right, and that polemics make discussions about climate change impossible.

      Rather than seek to understand, they seek to make themselves right and others wrong. In the spirit of a true religious war, a group of global-warming enthusiasts wrote a long rebuttal piece to my original essay. They mostly resorted to name calling and trying to discredit me, rather than addressing the science. Fortunately, two people who liked my essay came to my rescue and wrote their own rebuttals to the rebuttal.

      Interesting. Notice the clear lines of distinction: those who disagree with him are engaged in a religious war…those who agree are immune from motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc.


      • J old boy, I noticed that you didn’t choose to comment on the NYT article where one Coral Davenport raves on about how the seas are rising, storms are getting more intense, ice is melting and how it’s only gonna get worse unless we decarbonize. Front page, not even Opinion.

      • So coming to one conclusion ignores uncertainty, but coming to another conclusion doesn’t?

      • “Is there any reason for hope?
        If you share this with 50 friends, maybe.”

        Creepy much?

        Well, the Journal of Reference spent decades creepily boosting Stalin. Thanks to the NYT’s creepy correspondent Duranty those rumours of a Ukrainian famine were easily scotched.

        The self-loathers do appear to be winning again. Their New Class messages get cranked out around the clock by Australia’s hugely oversized public broadcaster, the ABC. The rest of our MSM is run by boozie old Trots or selfie-gen brats.

        But if enough people share what I just said with 50 friends…

      • Yes, us pinko commie dictator lovin’ liberal barbarians are winning!

      • Not all the pinko commie dictator lovin’ liberal barbarians think they are are winning. Here’s a raving alarmist who has a realistic view of the bad deal that will come out of the soiree in Paree:


      • When the Sun said “Melting Arctic ice will raise sea levels….” I wonder if the author understood the distinction between Arctic sea ice and Arctic ice as in Greenland ice sheet. The former won’t add to sea level rise at all and the latter will only if the worst kind of hysterical forecasts come true. It wouldn’t be the first time the MSM didn’t understand the non-roll Arctic sea ice played in rising sea levels.

  24. A sober assessment of what will come out of the whining and dining in Paree:


    • Oren Cass was at the Cato conference last month.

      Not a bad outcome unless you care about continuing to blow billions on this BS for the foreseeable future.

    • Excellent link, Don.

      Greenpeace should be demanding Obama’s head on a spike.

      If they were an ecological instead of a political organisation, that is.

      • Now Obama has admitted that America is responsible for climate change it is about time the Americans on this blog made substantial reparations

        With 97% accuracy I calculate that the US owes Britain $1.2 billion. Will JCH, Don or Jimd please take the necessary actions to send This sum to my private account where I will will arrange to forward it to worthy causes of my choosing.

        It will be jostling for space with the millions I am expecting from a Nigerian and also a private investigator for the FBI/united nations who will be putting another 20 million into my account. Mind you, what with the money from big oil as well, I will be embarrassingly rich.


      • You will have to get paid by the Obama drones, Tony. You know who they are. The rest of us don’t care about the quacking of that lame duck.

      • Don

        On a more serious note, by admitting culpability surely Obama is leaving America wide open to massive claims even less legitimate than mine?


  25. I find this street action particularly amusing (and very French):

    “The real action on Sunday took place outside the venue, with an estimated 10,000 people forming a human chain leading to 22,000 shoes, representing those who would have demonstrated in support of an ambitious climate agreement had the terrorist attacks on Paris not happened. The array of shoes was said to include shoes from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Pope Francis. One observer hoped that the world leaders arriving in Paris on Monday would be inspired to start walking in those shoes.”

    The negotiating action will probably not start until Dec 10 or so. There is a standard pattern to these COPs.