As I write the world’s media, having hyped global warming and the Paris COP21 for the last six months, is trying to figure out what is in the so called historical agreement.
The short answer is: not much. There are some pious promises to meet each country’s goals – promises which are to be monitored by the countries themselves. And there is a really sincere promise to “mobilize” that 100 billion to help the developing world which was promised at the last COP and, as I recall, the COP before that.
There is inadvertently honest paragraph 17 which acknowledges that the national promises will lead to 55 gigatons of CO2 emissions in 2025 and 2030 which is 12 percent rise from the 2014 level of 49Gt. Para 17 also notes that the promised reductions will lead to a rise in temperature over 2 degrees.
Naomi Klein is disappointed and James Hansen has declared COP21 a fraud in the Guardian.
For those of us who are sceptical about the CO2 theory of global warming, the entire Rio to Kyoto to Copenhagen to Paris exercise has always been more annoying than substantive. the great and the good were meeting to discuss a “problem” and a “solution” which rested on shakey, untested science.
But the good news out of Paris, the signing of an entirely toothless, legally non-binding, document hailed by media and politicos alike as “the end of the fossil fuel era” is the high water mark of the loony Green war on CO2.
Never again will the green world manage to get the media attention that COP21 has received. And without that attention an already indifferent public will turn to other issues.
Better still, the global warming/climate change scam needed increasing temperatures to keep it alive. It needed shrinking sea ice and rising sea levels. It needed “the evidence” to either support the “consensus view” (itself a statistical fraud) or at least not contradict that view. There is every indication that the “pause” may be a prelude to a decade or two of global cooling.
There is not a climate model used by the IPCC which predicts or even has a mechanism which might explain a statistically significant fall in temperature. When this year’s El Nino is finished -likely quite soon – the temporary goosing of the temperature record will be done as well. Normally, after an El Nino there will be a cooling La Nina. Depending on how cooling that turns out to be, it may very well be sufficient to turn the global temperature record negative in the face of continuously rising CO2 levels.
Given that the bogus Paris document is predicated on the IPCC models linking temperature to CO2, when those models collapse the scientific scam will be over. Without the “science” the overall “climate change to transfer wealth” scheme will lose the little momentum it has left.
With the Paris flim flam in hand the political classes will have “saved the world” and will, I expect, start trying to change the subject. Quickly.
But I’ll bet it’s going to cost us lowly tax payers a whack of cash.
For certain, Dave, this whole boondoggle has been all about justifying some form of carbon taxes and those amount to an unannounced 20 to 30 per cent tax hike which then provides cover for the marginal tax decreases that governments like the present one can announce.
The whole point of this is simply to make salaries and benefits in the public sector easier to finance and then there’s the side benefit of empowering an international wealth transfer that will keep the globalist bureaucracies happy and give them something to do.
If there had been no political movement and if nobody had commented on changes in the climate statistics, then we would simply be paying considerably lower gas prices and somewhat lower prices in general. The weather would be exactly the same. And the public sector would not be as bloated or self-indulgent.
People will catch on to this as we go forward, but only by word of mouth (internet blogs being the new form of hidden dissent), our mainstream media are clueless about such things and very willing to prostitute themselves at the bordello of delusion. Empty heads recognize each other and form defensive alliances. That we call them elites and not some less polite term is overly deferential.