Climate Change

The Paris Climate Negotiations Next Year Will Be a Fiasco

Why there will not be a global climate change treaty in 2015

|

Lima COP-20
Reason

Next December, the nations of the world are supposed adopt a "protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force" in Paris to comprehensively address the problem of man-made climate change. That's not going to happen.

Consider what happened earlier this month at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Lima, Peru. The rich countries, including the United States, sought to get an agreement that focused chiefly on persuading all nations to make firm commitments about how they planned to handle their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades. The developed world wanted every country to submit their "intended nationally determined contributions" (INDCs) by the end of March 2015. From the rich nations' point of view, the INDCs should aim at achieving the 1992 UNFCCC's goal of stabilizing "greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." This means that INDCs should be primarily about reducing emissions—in climate-negotiators' parlance, at mitigation.

The developed world also wanted to set up a formal process in which all INDCs would report roughly comparable information: baseline dates, the current sources and amounts of emissions, the projected trajectories of future emissions, and so on. They further proposed that every country's INDC be rigorously assessed by next June to see whether, when combined, they would be adequate to keep the global average temperature from increasing more than the 2 degree Celsius temperature limit set at the Cancun climate change conference in 2010.

When a draft version of the Lima Call for Climate Action reflecting this agenda was issued toward the end of the negotiating session, the poor countries rebelled. They were particularly vociferous in arguing that the draft agreement violated the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" enshrined in the UNFCCC. Without going into legalistic detail, the developing countries—including China—interpret that principle as requiring only the countries that were rich and developed in 1992 to cut their emissions. Nations that were then poor, they argue, are not obliged to do so. In addition, the poorer states want to be paid for the damage the wealthier countries did to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels as they got rich.

In the face of a threatened walkout by the poor countries, the Lima Call for Climate Action was substantially modified. The draft document had contained no promises with regard to financing or technology transfers from rich to poor countries. The new version, instead of focusing on emissions cuts, now states that the Paris agreement "shall address in a balanced manner, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building, and transparency of action and support." In addition, the mandate detailing the information that that all countries, rich and poor, were supposed to provide in their INDCs was scrapped and replaced with provisions that allow countries to present information "as appropriate." Basically, governments can decide for themselves if they even want to cut their emissions and what information they want to provide.

From the poor countries' point of view, the Paris agreement next December must include provisions requiring rich countries to provide them with climate financing to aid their adaptation to a warming world, plus funds to pay for the loss and damage that they suffer from climate change. Notionally, financing for adaptation is supposed to cushion poor countries against future climate change, whereas loss and damage payments compensate countries and communities for climate change damage to which they cannot adapt. The poor states are demanding $100 billion in climate aid by 2020. After that, climate aid payments might exceed $1 trillion annually.

Attached to the Lima Call for Climate Action is a preliminary draft document outlining various options for a Paris agreement. It is a Chinese menu of provisions that highlights just how much discord there is over global climate policy. For example, the draft offers several options with regard to setting a firm goal for greenhouse gas emissions cuts. Countries might agree to cut emissions to 40 to 70 percent below their 2010 levels by 2050; or cut them by 50 percent below their 1990s levels with a continued decline thereafter; or go for full decarbonization by 2050. Or rich countries could agree that their emissions will peak in 2015 and then aim for zero net emissions by 2050.

The section on the financial resources to be provided to poor countries suggests an annual floor of $100 billion; or, alternately, the agreement might not specify any amount of climate aid at all. Under the proposed provisions dealing with sources of finance, Option 1 states that climate aid should primarily come from the rich countries' government budgets. Under Option 2, private funds would play a greater role. Also undecided is whether countries will have the right to assess and challenge data issued by other countries with regard to their treaty commitments. They also need to figure out whether the parties will have to update their INDCs every five years or every 10 years.

According to the Lima Call for Climate Action, climate negotiation sessions this coming spring are supposed to reduce these options and produce a slimmer "negotiating text" before May.

The interests of the rich and poor countries just don't converge on this issue. The poor nations are not going to forego using cheap fossil fuels to energize their economic growth unless the rich states agree to fork over huge sums to them annually. And the rich countries aren't about to give hundreds of billions to corrupt governments in the developing world, particularly when many of the latter are declining to make any commitments until they see the money—and are refusing to let anyone monitor and assess whatever commitments they do make.

So there will be a big flop in Paris this time next year. And then the climate-crisis circus will roll urgently on to still more venues in the years after that.

Advertisement

NEXT: Did the Red Cross Let Its Fear of the Occupy Movement Interfere with Its Disaster Relief?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wish the US government could reach such an impasse. Hell, I’d donate to travel funds so they could chase hookers in some resort just so long as they accomplished the same thing these guys do.

    1. I’d donate to that cause. Can it get not-for-profit status according to IRS rules?

  2. Next December, the nations of the world are supposed adopt a “protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force” in Paris to comprehensively address the problem of man-made climate change ManBearPig.

    Let’s stop pretending that climate change has been in any way definitively linked to human activity. Stop assuming that which is under debate.

    1. Thanks, WTF.

      It can be tiresome, I know, but calling out the premises and assumptions of statist/totalitarian/authoritarians/proggies/etc. that are all too often uncriticially accepted by Reason writers (among many others) is doing God’s work in some of the internet’s toughest neighborhoods.

      1. “uncriticially accepted by Reason writers”

        I don’t think this is the case with Ron Bailey. Iirc I saw him on a panel or heard him on a podcast talk about how he started out skeptical about the AGW hypothesis (and remains so about some of it’s more alarmist claims) but became convinced over years of talking with various scientists and looking at various data.

        1. BCE: Thank you. You have accurately characterized my views with regard to climate change science. I have a whole chapter devoted analyzing climate change science and policy in my new book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 2lst Century – out next year by St. Martin’s Press.

          1. Ron

            You just thanked the most disrespected commenter at H&R.

            CREDIBILITY…SHOT!

          2. I hear you, Ron. I suspect its more subconscious or unconscious than anything else. Which is precisely the problem. If you accept the premises of totalitarians that a problem exists, you have pretty much lost the argument about What Should Be Done.

            The unqualified phrase “the problem of man made global warming” assumes all the conclusions. Tell me how this sentence:

            Next December, the nations of the world are supposed adopt a “protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force” in Paris to comprehensively address the problem of man-made climate change.

            doesn’t present global warming as a fact, that global warming is man made as a fact, and that man-made global warming is a problem as a fact.

            After having presented all that as fact, the only thing left to talk about is how much money and power we should give people to solve the problem.

            1. After having presented all that as fact, the only thing left to talk about is how much money and power we should give people to solve the problem.

              Someone here is accepting unproven premises as fact, and that person is not Ron Bailey, Dean.

              1. I’m just reading what’s on the screen, and what’s on the screen (regardless of what’s in Ron’s head) reads as uncritical acceptance.

                1. To be fair, my claim that these sorts of premises are “uncritically accepted by Reason writers” isn’t correct.

                  I don’t know what they accept or don’t accept, in the privacy of their skulls.

                  I’m really reacting to the way the memes, tropes, phraseology, slogans of too many enemies of freedom get mimicked/adopted/passed along in their writing. Probably without too much thought.

          3. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that CO2 has zero effect on the climate. But it is good for enhancing plant growth.

      2. R C Dean,
        Want to try that in coherent English?

    2. Is it that much under debate? I thought there was considerable debate about how dire and imminent any results would be, what, if anything could be done about it, etc., but that most scientists have concluded there’s very probably some effect on climate from human activity.

      1. I thought there was considerable debate about how dire and imminent any results would be, what, if anything could be done about it, etc., but that most scientists have concluded there’s very probably some effect on climate from human activity.

        Not really. The attempts to directly measure the impact of CO2 transients are coming up with a number of 1.5 degrees to 1.75 degrees C per doubling of CO2. However, the mass flows within the carbon cycle are poorly understood, and how much is due to humans and how much due to natural sources is up for debate.

        It also fails to account for nonlinearities and phase changes in the atmosphere’s behavior.

        The notion that a fingerprint is ’emerging’ is merely the religious superstitions being peddled by the alarmists as fact.

        1. What do you make of all the scientists and scientific organizations that seem convinced? Granted some of that is exaggerated (for example, a mild endorsement of the theory is taken as a definitive one, or a subcommittee of a scientific organization endorses something without the full membership weighing in), but it’s hard to imagine all of it is.

          1. It’s a modern day form of Lysenkoism.

            1. I don’t buy that. There was a pretty strong coercive pressure involve in Lysenkoism, whereas the acceptance of AGW in some form is pretty widely dispersed.

              1. If we don’t all clap then Tinkerbell won’t make it! There has been blatant coercion from the alarmists. They have actively lobbied to remove editors who allowed dissenting papers to be published and have tried to torpedo the careers of skeptics. For all the whining of Mann about his persecutions and Hansen about his supposed gaggings–which did not happen even when he was in direct violation of federal law–it’s the warmists that have done their best to stifle dissent.

                But ends, means, it’s all good, right?

          2. Grant money. Grant money. And, of course, grant money. Scientists are not stupid.

            1. I don’t buy that one either, it’s acceptance is just too dispersed. I’m not saying it might not be a factor for some of the agreement, but it’s hard to buy it for all.

              1. You mean you want to believe in it and so dismiss the very real conflicts of interest and sources of confirmation bias. Well reasoned there.

              2. As (so you say) a law student, you are entirely unfamiliar with the science grant process. As a scientist who’s pulled in many millions with them and has sat on approval committees, I am intimately familiar with it.

                You have no clue what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t seem to stop you.

              3. Bo, consensus is NOT == Truth.
                If you don’t factor in “follow the Money AND Follow the Power,” you are potentially blinding your own self to the biases of the sources you’re citing.

                I’ve seen some cute video cartoons that talk about one-meter sea-level rise, but the scale in the cartoons show what would be a 2-3m rise. A subtle manipulation, but a manipulation of the viewer, just the same.

                I think we’d do much better to look at what can or might be done in the future IF and WHEN sea levels may rise…

                Like quit subsidizing flood insurance on ‘endangered coasts’ for example? If the level is going to rise, should there be ANY limits to the subsidies or market-manipulating incentives for folks to buy and build in risky places?

                From my personal observations and conversations, a Real Liberal will never put ANY limit on how high those subsidies or payments should be or ever go. And I think that, in itself is a profound stupidity.

              4. I’d simply point out to you that the goodness of public education is likewise widely dispersed.

            2. Completely agree. Advertising for the Kool Aid guarantees a six figure salary and semi-status. Reminds me of doctors advocating for smoking.

          3. Ether, Bo, it’s all in the Ether.

          4. Grant money. Prestige and publicity. Capture of journals and academic departments by true believers.

            All that comes together into a giant machine for confirmation bias.

            1. The problem is you can say that about a lot of scientific theories, and the acceptance is just too wide and dispersed among different nations and organizations for it, in my opinion, to be just a mass confirmation bias incented by some grant structures.

              1. mass confirmation bias incented by some grant structures.

                Bo, you may have missed some of the other things driving this confirmation bias.

                Like prestige/publicity and the capture of departments and peer review journals by true believers.

                Regardless, I don’t see how any critical examination of this phenomenon in the “scientific” community can possibly conclude that there aren’t major problems. You have people deleting original data, refusing to disclose how they filtered/adjusted the data, conspiring via email to block journal submissions, etc. etc.

                So, what’s your explanation for how the scientific community got so fucked up on global warming? I don’t think there can be much doubt, after all, that all the “scientific” activity around global warming has seen way too much bad and non-science.

                1. Yes, and full departments of Climate Science have been created just due to belief in AGW. It’s also a multi-dicpline field that has to encompass geology, biology, physics (multiple fields), astronomy, etc so each of those specialties has an interest in doing work in the field and they don’t seem to want to criticize the others, so affirming results build on each other (the few politicized scientists like Mann, Jones and Hanson shout down others).

                  Meanwhile, natural causes are shunted aside and the sky is falling brigade with models try to claim Hurricanes, MSL and tornados will/are increasing — an outright lie they get away with.

              2. Your opinion is worthless. You have zero knowledge of the process.

                Where is fuck you bo when we need him?

          5. What do you make of all the scientists and scientific organizations that seem convinced?

            Lack of accountability, scientific or otherwise. No different than Nostradamus, The Farmer’s Almanac, or any number of Mega Churches.

            C’mon Bo, you act like 51% of these scientists couldn’t possibly have been caught up in the cult of Obama and that their membership couldn’t have influenced their work (and I don’t mean strictly their data collection).

            Look at Gruber. He doesn’t/didn’t believe one iota of what he said was false, and plenty of it wasn’t but thanks to the culture and the power structure we ended up where we are.

            You act like scientists are either completely unaware of cargo-cult science, groupthink, etc. or are completely and omnisciently free of it and exude and an anti-groupthink field that permeates politicians and other people around them.

            Most of the skeptics aren’t 100% certain in any sort of claim that 100% of them are wrong, they’re just dubious of the majority of claims that are made with overwhelmign certainty by people who are just as error-prone as the rest of us.

            1. EDIT: You act like scientists are either completely unaware incapable of performing cargo-cult science, groupthink, etc.

              1. Bo knows better (I think), in that he likely intuitively knows groupthink could be responsible as it has been for tons of other stupid beliefs historically.

                What he won’t say is:

                I’m emotionally invested in climate change being real, as such, concerns such as groupthink can be dismissed because they are potential counterpoints to that which I know to my very core to be true. Unfettered freedom is bad and will have large unintentional consequences.

                /bo

                1. Spot on, as my http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#3rd points out, and as several other of my “Laws” do, too…

          6. There is a LOT of money in being convinced.

        2. There’s also the issue of how the heat trapping effect of CO2 isn’t linear, and actually gets saturated at a certain concentration.

          This is why the really hysterical we’re-all-gonna-die scenarios rely on asserted/speculative positive feedback loops that have little or nothing to do with CO2 concentrations and the greenhouse gas effect.

          1. The Earth is a precious jewel that must be protected from white patriarchal rape. Oh, and Pangloss is quietly weeping in the corner.

            1. A precious jewel which only one animal to have ever existed can screw up.

              Beavers block water. Reduce fish populations downstream, causing fish eaters to die off, causing predators of fish eaters….

              That’s natural.

              Conversely, anything any human does which isn’t explicitly approved as a good act by the collective is deemed “unnatural” and harmful.

              People say it around here a fair amount, but it needs to be repeated much more often.

              The most vocal proponents of governmental solutions to potential (which is being charitable) environmental problems in the future could care less about the earth or the environment.

              They hate humans engaging in anything they cannot control to ensure such actions are “pure”.

              They hate capitalism freedom.

              Things like stating indirectly that almost all human activity is unnatural is just one of the areas this evidence can be found.

    3. WTF,
      You are either a paid plant or a total fool.

      You are proposing too damn you children to a life in a living hell.

      1. Well reasoned. I particularly admire your respectful tone, and how you completely dismantled WTF’s point by marshaling irrefutable logic and evidence.

        You are truly a god among men.

  3. Ronald Bailey Predicts Paris Climate Negotiations Next Year Will Be a Fiasco

    I thought FoE was the one responsible for predictions around here?

    Because if it is going to be a Ron Bailey vs. FoE throwdown, I am going to want to get some popcorn. Lots of popcorn.

    1. In recent years, the Arctic has been taking in more than its usual share of heat energy, which could be bad news for our steadily warming planet.

      [citation required]

          1. Cherry picker!!!

            /warmy

            1. Mmmm.

              That’s the thing with modeling. The models need to match reality in order to be credible.

              1. No, we torture data until it agrees with our models. Science! Oh, and we vote on reality too. That makes for great science.

  4. I think it’s very ironic that Al Gore and the IPCC got a Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the millennial cult that the CAGW alarmist movement and getting them access to the levers of power, since the resulting arguments have expanded the scope of disagreements that can lead to international armed conflicts, have impoverished the poor and led the thousands of unnecessary deaths in the developed world due to fuel poverty.

    And by ironic, I mean I want to punch Pachauri and Gore in their fucking faces and auction their teeth for charity.

  5. I don’t know how useful it is to look at the interests of “countries” here. All you’re going to get there is PR.

    What’s relevant is the interests of the groups/people directly involved in both the negotations and their aftermath.

    If a deal can be struck that enriches these groups/people, then a deal will be struck. Period. “Interests” of “countries” be damned.

  6. Climate Negotiations Next Year Will Be a Fiasco

    That Mother Nature is a real bitch.

  7. Ronald Bailey Predicts Paris Climate Negotiations Next Year Will Be a Fiasco

    Wow. Incredible psychic powers there, Ron.

    In the same vein, I predict that a well-known Hollywood celebrity will ‘pass on’ next year.

    And that Donald Trump will say something stupid.

    1. Future historians will speak of Bailey and Nostradamus in the same breath.

      Tell us, Mr. Bailey, what does the future look like? Will I ever have a flying car?

  8. I thought they fixed climate change in Peru?

    1. Fixed? Like the 1919 world series? That kind of fixed??

      1. More like the US-China deal where we do what Obama says and China does whatever the fuck they please and it’s a success

  9. Serious question: Has a meaningful agreement, I mean one that is actually enforceable, ever come out of climate negotiations? Ever? Like everything the UN does, this is pointless posturing.

    1. “I mean one that is actually enforceable”

      I don’t see how one ever could. It’s like Kabuki theater at this point.

      1. why can’t it be Noh theater? why does everyone jump to this new fangled kabuki stuff.

    2. LP#: There is the Montreal Protocol which set up an international process for phasing out CFC refrigerants that were eroding the ozone layer. FWIW, in my 1993 book Eco-Scam I argued in favor of the phase out.

      1. Wasn’t that basically painless? Not driving a petroleum powered vehicle or not using electricity when it isn’t sunny and the wind is’t blowing 40 mph would require substantial sacrifices

        1. It was VERY profitable for DOW Chemical. So there is that.

          And oh yeah. The replacements are not as efficient. Increasing CO2 production. Good one Ron.

          And current thinking is that CFCs have little to no effect on the Ozone hole. But DOW Chemical did well. So there is that.

          1. I wasn’t suggesting there weren’t winners and that anyone who owned a period car needing new refrigerant didn’t get hit with a one-time “save the world” tax, just saying we didn’t have to give up transportation or continuous grid fed electricity. Thinking about it, maybe that was the global warming pilot program.

  10. OT: Bailey, did you get your glowing plant seeds yet? It’s been a year and I still haven’t got mine. Hoping it wasn’t a sham…

  11. This just in, Bailey predicts vast majority of humans will continue to be born with 2 hands.

  12. OT, breaking news: President Obama is on the radio talking about the Sony/NORK thing. Calling for “more information sharing between private and public entities.”

    Never let a good crisis go to waste!

    1. yes. he should create a private/public information sharing tsar…

      1. I thought that’s what the NSA was for: sharing private information with the public/state.

    2. The IRS could be instrumental in the development of email archiving policies for private companies.

  13. Taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

    1. Thread winner!

  14. “Climate Negotiations Next Year Will Be a Fiasco”

    You can’t argue with the climate.

    1. but can you NEGOTIATE with it?!

      1. You can create a carbon tax so why not.

  15. Why not cut out the middle men and just open Swiss bank accounts with several million $ in the names of the ruler’s of the ‘poor [corrupt] countries?

  16. Nick looks like he just smelled a fart.

    1. Fucking squirrels put this in the wrong thread. GODDAM SQUIRRELS.

      1. Do not anger the Squirrels (Peace Be Upon Them).

        But my comment above about the prez on the radio was also supposed to be on another thread.

  17. I tire of saying this, but it is worth saying again.

    1. Present your mark with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity or with a crisis.

    2. Create a sense of urgency so that the mark will feel compelled to act quickly before thinking things through carefully. They must ‘do something’ or they will severely regret it.
    A. Act now or the opportunity will be gone!
    B. The crisis looms! You must act now!

    3. ‘Doing something’ always amounts to giving money.

    The AGW crisis looks exactly like a scam because it is…*drumroll*…..A SCAM.

    If you want to know why the climate varies over time wait until noon, go outside, and look straight up over your head. The answer to the question is blindingly obvious.

    1. I try to separate the scientific research and debate that finds most in it saying there is likely some effect on the climate by human activity with the political alarmist rhetoric which activists (including some supposedly reputable members of the scientific community noted previously) take that research and distort it, draw false conclusions from it and otherwise use it to advance a political agenda not warranted by the research findings. Lots of things can be used by alarmists to try to advance a bad agenda, I don’t dismiss the underlying claims because of that. As a libertarian I don’t expect reality to always present itself in the easiest form for me to defend liberty, that’s something that liberals and to some degree conservatives like to do. So if most scientists studying the issue think it’s the case then OK, I’ll say it’s likely. But I note that my values need not be compromised by it. The example I like to give is earthquakes. Everyone agrees there are earthquakes and that they can be damaging. Alarmists have and will use their existence to argue for all kinds of statism (like federal insurance). I don’t have to deny earthquakes or theories about what makes them likely to deny these immoral and often foolish statist responses to such alarmism.

      1. WHY BO NO WANT TO APPEASE VOLCANO GOD!? THROW CAPITALISM IN VOLCANO, VOLCANO GOD SPARE OUR TRIBE? THINK BO IS ENEMY OF TRIBE, TAKE KOCH MONIES

      2. Climate change is a reality but isn’t it open to conjecture as to how much to try to retard or advance it? Are there scientists who think mankind would actually be better off if the planet was 2 degrees warmer? Or two degrees cooler? Why do most think today’s temperature needs to be defended to the ruin of many nations’ economies?

      3. that said,

        Explaining to people that you are perfectly comfortable with the actual *science*, but think that the policies that are currently advocated by so-called ‘Environmentalists’…

        [-namely, government intervention into everything and idiotic capital redistribution measures that would do enormous damage to everyone concerned and not even achieve the so called ‘carbon emissions reduction’ desired…]

        …aren’t practical, plausible, desirable, or productive *even assuming the worst case scenarios* of the doom-sayers….

        ..you’ll still be accused of “Denying the Science”

        The point is that you’re either on the side of the anti-capitalists, or you’re a Denier

        Trying to ‘elevate the discourse’ is futile because they have no desire to engage in an actual ‘conversation’ about policy.

        1. Oh, it isn’t just policy GILMORE. They really don’t want to discuss the science either. just as the scam artist doesn’t want you examining the details of his scam or talking to anyone involved other than him, you can’t be allowed to defeat the ‘hurry and act without thinking’ element.

          As you point out, you either agree with them and want to destroy capitalism and redistribute wealth, or you are a denier. There is no time for discussion and examination.

      4. Humans do have some effect on climate, but in the micro sense. We change the topography in ways that affect localized climate. So what?

        The AGW crisis is a scam cooked up by malthusians in the mid-seventies that took hold of people’s imaginations the same way the UVA rape story did. It confirms all of their biases and gives them a weapon against people they despise. It is grounded in reality the same way the UVA rape story is.

        Every single fucking prediction the AGW’s have made has failed to match reality. There is a reason for this. There is a reason that the crisis is always impending but never arrives (see #2 in my list above. See the silencing of the guy who declared that it is already too late*). There is a reason that no matter how many times they are wrong, no matter how many times they revise their theories, the solution (#3) is always the same.

        1. C’mon Bo. It looks like a scam because it is one.

          *If the antarctic ice sheet is collapsing and it is already too late wouldn’t we be hearing more about this? I mean, that is one hell of a disaster. Shouldn’t we be in panic mode? Spending billions to engineer our way around it? Nope….silence. The idiots who declared that the normal flow of ice over the southern continent is a ‘collapse’ is because they are true believers and saw what they wanted to see. ManBearPig’s minions went and told them to shut the fuck up. The crisis is only any good as long as it is impending, not if it actually arrives. If it arrives then why should the mark fork over any money?

  18. So, if we take it as a given that the water/Co2 feedback cycle is bunk since it has not happened -at all- then we should now concentrate all our efforts at stemming all this water in our atmosphere since water is in fact a bigger driver of global warming and climate change than CO2 could ever hope to be.

    So yes, let us wage a war on water vapor. Oh, wait, you mean that’s impossible? Oh well. Carry on with your war on necessary trace gasses that naturally occur and are in actuality at historic -lows- geologically speaking.

    I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason why developing countries are demanding massive amount’s of money instead of an actual end to fossil fuels and ‘climate change’ isn’t one of them.

    If the solution that is prescribed is wealth transfers and not an actual end to what they claim will kill us all I think we know what’s going on.

  19. Hopefully,the world will take action against all nations that do not follow the protocol, including the US. We must take action on climate change NOW. If we do not, our children and grandchildren will inherit a world that is totally unlivable.

    It is not out of the question to see a 30% to 50% die off of the human race within a very short time if we do not take drastic action very quickly.

    1. Did your mother let you chew on lead paint chips when you were a baby?

    2. Do not fear, Reasonoids Dear? The Human Carbon Sink (AKA, Yers Truly) is here!!!
      Did y’all know that Yers Truly is doing his / her VERY best, and serving as a “human carbon sink”? Whenever anyone brings free food to work, or there is a pot-luck of ANY sort, I make DARN sure to follow “fair is fair”? Half for me, half for everyone else! And so I have put MANY-MANY carbon atoms WAY into the deep freeze, OUT of them that thar atmosphere, and stored into Mine Own Beloved Body, AKA, the Human Carbon Sink? I do it ALL fer U, and The Earth Goddess Gaia, and The Children! And, Yer Welcome!!!

    3. “…the world will take action against all nations …”
      Yeah, assign the USA’s supply of nukes to the World Police Powers, and NUKE the violators!!! THAT is fer-sure gonna meet the needs of “…drastic action…”!!!!

  20. “The poor nations are not going to forego . . . .”

    forgo. It’s a homonym.

  21. Bo Cara Esq.|12.19.14 @ 2:07PM|#

    What do you make of all the scientists and scientific organizations that seem convinced?

    I suspect the world’s scientific societies didn’t look into this matter in any depth and in a balanced way. They, like the AGU and APS, likely asked for volunteers to serve on a committee to evaluate the matter, and mostly warmists stepped forward. The whole membership wasn’t polled.

    Skeptics weren’t organized and didn’t have access 15-plus years ago, when these initial position statements were mostly issued, to the skeptical material now available. And they were mostly part-timers, and so less armed for a debate. Only warmist professors and govt. scientists have boned-up on the topic full-time and have a command of the literature, because that’s what they’re paid to do.

    The warmist volunteers surely include a number of fierce true-believer types, which made combatting them a daunting prospect for the ordinary person.

    Then the IPCC’s claims weren’t cross-examined in depth by anyone–they were just rubber-stamped. Recently, however, the American Physical Society is re-examining its position and seems to be backing away from it, and the Geological Society of Australia (GSA) was unable to renew its alarmist position statement, due to strong resistance by the membership on the issue:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/…..statement/

  22. “And then the climate-crisis circus will roll urgently on to still more venues in the years after that.”

    Well, ? isn’t that just the whole point of global warming? It’s just a traveling circus, providing a never ending soapbox for the warmthers to exhibit their concern for the climate while getting paid to travel all over God’s “green” Earth.

  23. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did————- http://www.Paygazette.com

  24. This christmas with Santa Claus special offer happy life free registration , free gift and much more bundles just as Samuel explained I cant believe that a mother can make $7276 in a few weeks on the internet . read the full info here to keep it join.
    big christmas big offer -=-=-=-=-=- http://www.jobs700.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.