Paris Plop

Heading into the final hours of COP21 – even with the traditional 24 hour extension – it is pretty apparent that:

  • there will be no legally binding agreement – John Kerry himself has finally acknowledged that he couldn’t get it through Congress
  • that the West is not actually willing to give the less developed nations of the world trillions of dollars to deal with “climate change” and the damage already suffered due to so called “historic emissions”
  • that whatever agreement is finally signed – and there is always an agreement even if it is only to meet again – the wind has gone out of the climate alarmist sails
  • that this entire exercise is not about science and it is barely about climate, rather it is about using a scare to force the West to transfer massive amounts of money to the developing world

The amusing part of the entire charade is that, when you look at the world relative to its state in 1992 when the whole climate madness began in Rio, the less developed world has radically developed.

India had a purchasing power parity GDP of 1124 billion in 1992, it was 7375 billion in 2014.

China had a purchasing power parity GDP of 1438.13 billion in 1992, it was 17617 billion in 2014.

Unsurprisingly, India is none too eager to stop buring fossil fuels and China’s great concession has been to accept unlimited growth in emissions until 2030 when, it really does promise to start reducing emissions.

Whack-a-doodle warmists and greenies will, as per usual, be sad when the Paris Conference ends with a non-enforcable damp squib of a not-a-treaty agreement. The more intelligent of them will be very depressed indeed because the wheels continue to fall of the science as the Pause lengthens, the models depart further from the observations and, oops, Arctic ice extent is the highest its been in a decade.


The “science” behind the climate hysteria is crumbling and the green dream of a reversion to horse and buggy days is collapsing faster than the price of oil. The fake consensus is under attack, the models are failing and, despite the great and the good all claiming that we’ll all be baked, the general public has turned away from global warming alarm.

Tagged , , ,

5 thoughts on “Paris Plop

  1. Terry Rudden says:

    Jay, I realize that printing unsourced charts with lots of squiggles makes your assertion sound really impressively science-y. However, you seem to be at odds with the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, which states: “Arctic sea ice extent for November 2015 averaged 10.06 million square kilometers (3.88 million square miles), the sixth lowest November in the satellite record. This is 910,000 square kilometers (351,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 230,000 square kilometers (89,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for November that occurred in 2006. At the end of the month, extent was well below average in both the Barents Sea and the Bering Strait regions. Extent was above average in eastern Hudson Bay, but below average in the western part of the bay.”

    Can you provide a link to the source of your chart, please?

  2. Jay Currie says:

    Actually Terry, there are good reasons to prefer the earlier version of this graph, ie. the one shown here. It masks the coastal areas where the distinction between ice pixels and land pixels is notoriously difficult to resolve. But not to worry, either way the ice has been doing well the last couple of years and, I suspect, barring odd weather events like mid summer cyclones, will continue to accumulate. Greenland’s ice sheet is gaining mass, so is the Antarctic, sea level rise remains constant and relatively low. No actual warming in the satellite record for 18 years 9 months and we’re looking at the end of the temporary warming caused by El Nino.

    • Terry Rudden says:

      ” It masks the coastal areas where the distinction between ice pixels and land pixels is notoriously difficult to resolve.”

      Yes, Jay, I did, in fact, read the text explaining why the graph you chose was inaccurate, and why it was replaced by a more accurate version. As a distinguished climatologist of your erudition knows, the formation of ice on shorelines, including the annual expansion of land fast ice sheets, is a rather significant factor in the overall calculation of ice cover.

      I see you moved from “here’s one inaccurate sciencey factoid that I shall loftily generalize into a rebuttal of climate change” to “here’s a string of cherry picked and carefully phrased broad assertions that don’t actually address the wide range of metrics measured by IPCC”. That is usually your precursor to “ok, warming may be occurring and humans may be contributing to it, but…THE ECONOMY!!”,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: