Thursday, June 1, 2017

The One Graph Every Discussion About the Paris Climate Treaty Needs to Include

From our friends at Watts Up With That:
What this shows is the projected impact of the Paris Climate agreement out to the year 2100. If the Paris accords are followed until 2030, then the global temperature will be reduced 0.05C (.09F).  If they're followed until 2100, then it goes all the way to 0.17C, (0.3 F).

And that's what all the gloom and doom pronouncements are over.  This writer, from Vox, makes it sound like if we don't agree to the treaty we're summarily executing our children.  And don't forget executing the poor.

Another Vox author tweeted, "it's about whether my kids will inherit a livable world!"  0.3F is the difference in habitable vs. uninhabitable?!?  (There's not enough exclamation points).

The graph is from: Bjorn Lomborg -Impact of Current Climate Proposals DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295  This is Bjorn Lomborg using the warmists' own models to show the ineffectiveness of what they want to do.  Something I've tried to do. 

First off, the current NOAA procedure rounds the high and low temperature to the nearest whole degree Fahrenheit (0.55°C, a value over ten times greater than the .05°C savings Paris offers).  That means a change of that size is undetectable without statistical legerdemain, and even then I'm not sure.

Second, and more to the point, from what I can tell the measurement precision doesn't support knowing if that has really happened or not.  Perhaps by 2100 they'll know whatever their definition of global temperature is to that precision, but they sure won't know ours.

As I've said before, if you do any simple arithmetic with their models, using their numbers, you'll find the US pays Trillions of dollars for something that doesn't matter.  CO2 control isn't about CO2, it's about control.  For the purpose of raping the west and redistributing the wealth.  

EDIT 6/2/2017 @ 10AM EDT 90 Miles links to a 5-1/2 minute video by Bjorn Lomborg explaining this with better detail. 


  1. True. And all of that is IF you believe in AGW. If you believe that there are natural cycles that cause cooling and warming over time then this entire agenda is pure unadulterated baloney. It was warmer in the 30's and 40's. There was a natural cooling cycle in the 50's and 60's. There was a natural warming cycle in the 70's, 80's and 90's. It actually appears to be the beginning of another natural cooling cycle (too soon to know for sure). These cycles are natural and as part of that natural cyclical occurrence they can be cooler or warmer than previous cycles. This is what the scam is all about. They are taking advantage of a natural occurrence and hoped to transfer huge amounts of money from the middle class to the elite before the cycle ended.

    1. That's why I think it's important to tell them, "your own numbers say this is bullshit!". If you can show people that believe with all their heart in AGW and you show them their own models say it's meaningless, you'd think they'd drop their opposition. Nope. Facts don't matter.

      I just heard two talking heads on TV and the leftist head absolutely didn't care about this data. "Deny deny deny!" The guy on the right kept telling him how meaningless it was, and the leftist kept denying. Who cares about facts?

  2. This group of scientists - including climate scientists - have documented a fact that the media - and the IPCC - don't want you to know:

    Even the scientists involved in the IPCC have stated that there is no proof that AGW exists, or that temperatures will rise, or that CO2 has any kind of a negative effect upon Earth's ecosystem. NONETHELESS, in their report to the world, they stress that it should be the policy of all the governments of the world - and especially the signers of the Paris agreement - to act as if those things are true, on the off-chance that they may happen in spite of proof that it is currently impossible to link the very complex systems of climate to any inputs by man or industry. which provides a book, along with a rather long list of scientists, with proof that the "97%" supposed consensus does not exist.

    1. I don't recall the number of the IPCC report that said it, but they included a statement something about predicting the climate being inherently impossible. They put it in the text, knowing full well that nobody reads it; they only read the policy page or abstracts.

      That 97% agreement was to an extremely limited statement, essentially "the greenhouse effect can exist". There's nowhere near 97% agreement on any of the things they demand.

      Not that it matters. Real Science does not work by consensus.

  3. For the purpose of raping the west and redistributing the wealth.

    I don't think that's the goal, exactly. Consider Ray Kurzweil's plot of technological growth in his singularity book of a while ago. During things like wars and famines, growth goes flat for a time, but then pops up to the trend line, quickly making up the lost progress.

    Military strength comes mostly from economic strength, which is the industrial ability to produce anything you need, including war machines. I notice you have a lathe and a CNC mill. Lots of people have them now. Youtube is full of educational videos, ebay is full of cheap surplus equipment. Twenty years ago the educational resources weren't available. Thirty years ago, home shop machining was reserved for semi-magical modelmakers who wrote for magazines.

    Innovation in many areas has been squashed for a while now by regulation banning exploration and implementation of potential innovations. Kurzweil's plot says eventually the bad whatever stops and technological growth pops up to the trend line. At that point, economic strength and military strength suddenly increase. And then what happens to the innovation banners, at the hands of their newly empowered victims? I think preventing or delaying that is the goal.

    1. Sorry Anon, but that is exactly the point. When you have the Clintons (of the now Defunct Clinton Global Initiative), Al Gore, and other con-artists flagging this scam as the next "world saver", well, who can resist an effort to be a part of saving the world and humanity! Pony up the money! Show me the money! Never mind that no one contributing today will be around in 2100 to see if it matters one hoot.

      This was part of Obozo's efforts to redistribute the wealth of America to the rest of the world as penance for being no.1 and a racist abuser of people and cultures of colored and disadvantaged peoples. People, workers of the world unite! But give me your tithes and pledges of appreciate because I am so deserving, as are my friends, my fellow elites in high places in Europe and around the world, especially my Muslim Brotherhood friends and family.

      So just how is it Ray Kurzweil came into the dialogue? You lost me there son.

    2. Formerly the longest-lasting dictatorship was a hydraulic empire, also called a water monopoly empire. That's where government controls the crop irrigation, but today it's too easy to drill a well. The new monopoly is to control energy, and the approach is to control the exhaust from making energy, CO2.

      Suppressing energy generation suppresses technological progress. Kurzweil comes in because soon enough the missing technological progress will catch up. Military strength comes from economic strength, which comes from technological strength. The oppressed population will invent flying monkeys or an army of orangutans mutated into chewbaccas. Then all the oppressors will be dropped from helicopters or torn limb from limb. That's what the parasites are trying to prevent by attempting to create an end to history.

      In other news, some human 2,000 years ago had a communications channel to the creator of the universe. There is no evidence for this, it's just a religious faith. Paid publicists repeat these claims as a big lie, because if their employers are seen as being unusually more in tune with underlying reality then people will obey their edicts. If humans have a security flaw in their brains triggered by the concepts "messiah" or "global warming", Darwinism says someone will evolve to say it in order to exploit and parasitize the flawed humans. Hell. Overproduction. Population bomb. Peak oil. Global warming. If it makes people obey, someone evil will direct someone stupid to say it.

  4. SilGB, I thought that it stopped being about global warming a couple years ago when Barack (and friends) started trumpeting that it was about "climate change" (i.e. the weather). The global warming scare, which followed on the global cooling scare in the 1980's was only provable when they paid some obscure hack with a BA in "science" (or "engineering" in the case of Bill Nye, the science guy) to gin up a paper saying that it was a problem.

    There is an underlying genius about making it all about "the weather" and the deep conspiracy that only the enlightened could find in a change in weather. If it's warmer than you recall last year, it proves the theory. If it's cooler than you recall, it proves the theory too. Don't you dare look at tree rings or genuine data. I'm surprised that they didn't advocate chopping all trees older than three years - but then again, that would have wrought havoc among the tree-huggers that swallowed 'climate change' hook, line and sinker.

    1. I think it's not called climate change anymore. It's become something like climate chaos or disruption or... I honestly don't know because I'd have to care to know.

  5. Anyone who reads the "Paris Climate Accord" can see it is a completely bogus document that aims to achieve nothing meaningful except the creation of the Green Climate Fund, aka, the Clinton Global Foundation. Free money and money laundering under the pretense of helping those poor countries and peoples of the world who will be most affected by the dire effects of a rampaging climate unleashed by the evil villians of first world industry. What a load of bovine scatology!

  6. Of course, it would - if it functioned as they intended - only enrich the leaders (rapists of their own people and economies), not the "peoples of the world". Just as the warlords in Somalia grabbed all the aid sent/shipped there, releasing dribs and drabs to those who toed their line, and starving everyone else, selling the bulk to fill their own pockets - as it always goes.

    The Clintons have acted as America's warlords, thieving the billions sent to Haiti, thieving several billion "missing" from the State Department coffers, and stuffing a few hundred million more into their accounts by selling "indulgences", much like various popes did during their turns in the Vatican.

    Makes me wonder if the Vatican Bank is currently more heavily invested in carbon credits or islamic jihad.

    I'm a recovering Catholic - since I turned fourteen. And you really _don't_ want to know what I think of this laughing fool who spends much more time washing muslim feet than saving Christian lives in the Middle East, Philippines, Indonesia, etc., and who goes along with that other fool, Obama, in claiming that the biggest problem facing the world is climate change.