Doug Proctor: What #COP21 agreement means

Posted: December 12, 2015 by tallbloke in Accountability, Big Green, government, greenblob, IPCC, solar system dynamics
Tags: , ,

Doug Proctor has gone over the decision at COP21 for us.

1. Everybody gets to do what he wants to do, without repercussions other than official notes in the media of progress vis-a-vis what he said.

2. Nothing has to be done that “threatens” food production. Not “reduces”, but threatens. This should allow cutting down forests and the slash-and-burn style of agriculture, and exempt agricultural practices, including beef production, from carbon-taxes, fuel surcharges or the need to make them less CO2 heavy.

3. Financing is neither fixed, nor firm, but voluntary and without a timeframe. Financing is still at the stage of ‘determining’ what others may need. There is no “SHALL” involved with collection or redistribution of funds.

4. Developed countries have to produce data on what they are doing as to emissions reduction. Developing countries don’t have to do so, only if they want to.

5. No tracking of emissions claims is permissible if the host country finds the questioning intrusive or offensive.

6. The Convention is going to appoint two “Champions” for 2-year terms (overlapping 1 year) to run around the world and talk to others about doing their bit. My bet: Obama and Merckel, once they are out of office.

7. The next global “stocktake” will take place in 2023. I couldn’t find a date for the next COP meeting of equivalence to this December 2015 Paris meeting.

8. The Agreement will come into ‘force’ after 16 April 2016 OR when 55 Parties accounting for at least 55% of global emissions sign the agreement. China is at 28%, India at 6% and the Rest of the World small Parties at 30%. The ROC have no reason not to sign. All they need is China.

9. Cheating has been big. Anti-“double accounting” rules, whereby British firms pay the Brazillians to plant trees of carbon-offset credits will no longer allow Brazil to claim those same trees in their emissions reduction claims, have had to be imposed because there was cheating everywhere and you couldn’t believe the numbers.

10. Surprise! Surprise! After signing any Party can bow out in 3 years, effective 1 year later. Shorter than the Kyoto Agreement! By mid-2020 anyone can be out prior to the next big conflab.


Do as you plan on doing or end up doing. No sweat. No money committed or flowing for the time being. We’re gonna get a couple of celebrities to talk it up and have grand photo-ops. Don’t worry about measuring performance success officially until 2023. If you or your electorates or other power groups get really annoyed, you can opt-out in three years, long before you are held to account for what you said today.

Except for the half-billion dollars these jokers just spent (of our tax money), and the social licence they gave each other to raise taxes and redistribute economic activity within their countries, there is nothing in this to provide comfort for the alarmists. No sense of urgency, no sense that the world is about to die/fry. The “last chance to save the planet” is now 2023.


  1. rishrac says:

    Much ado about nothing… too bad I didn’t predict just the opposite of what CAGW said 20 years ago, I’d be the the most listened to person on the planet…. if I had said it was based on something other than science.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Delete ‘Life’, insert ‘COP21’…

    ‘Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.’ – from Shakespeare’s Macbeth

  3. E.M.Smith says:


    The TPP includes a governing “commission” with enforcement powers and it IS a treaty and it specifically calls out that “environmental agreements” can be pulled in under it for enforcement:

    December 5, 2015
    Obama will use TPP to Enforce his Climate Agreement
    By Howard Richman, Jesse Richman and Raymond Richman
    Little appreciated in the current debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the dramatic way the TPP will abrogate legislative authority permanently from the U.S. Congress to the president. TPP creates a commission with full power to amend the agreement, and an arbitration mechanism with the strength to enforce such amendments. The House and Senate gave up their rights to amend TPP, but they can still vote it down when it comes up for up-or-down votes in both chambers next year.
    Obama’s Strategy

    In retrospect, Obama’s strategy was obvious. It first appeared in a January 2014 press release from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office which stated:

    The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement. [emphasis added]

    Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries…

    It became obvious when the text of TPP was revealed at the beginning of November. Article 20.4 specifies that TPP will implement relevant multilateral environment agreements:

    1. The Parties recognise that multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party play an important role, globally and domestically, in protecting the environment and that their respective implementation of these agreements is critical to achieving the environmental objectives of these agreements. Accordingly, each Party affirms its commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements to which it is a party.

    So they have 1/2 a pea under two different shells… Sneaky, eh?

    It is absolutely essential that the TPP be turned down by Congress or this back door will be used to essentially over rule ALL US Laws and the Congress on anything that can be remotely called “environmental”, which is pretty much everything…

    So I’d not celebrate quite so much just yet…

  4. Bob Weber says:

    7. The next global “stocktake” will take place in 2023.

    By then everyone will know it’s the sun. We’ll be deep into the next solar minimum, and temps will go lower than the 2008 minimum by then, as seen in UAH & SST:

    El Nino has peaked, as SSTs and OHC have declined over the past few months:

    HadSST3 global Sep 0.725; OHC 1.04
    HadSST3 global Oct 0.699; OHC 1.03
    HadSST3 global Nov 0.694; OHC 0.93,

    10. Surprise! Surprise! After signing any Party can bow out in 3 years, effective 1 year later.

    The warmists’ ‘agreement’ will be rendered a moot point by lower solar activity within 3 years.

    2016 will NOT be a record year as there will be no long duration outstanding TSI peak as in 2015. Solar activity is scheduled to decline for many years to come per

    The only reason 2015 has been a warm year is because of increasingly higher TSI the past four years. In order, from high to low, annual average TSI from

    2015, 1361.4512
    2014, 1361.3966
    2013, 1361.3587
    2012, 1361.2413
    2011, 1361.0752
    2003, 1361.0262
    2004, 1360.9192
    2010, 1360.8027
    2005, 1360.7518
    2006, 1360.6735
    2007, 1360.5710
    2009, 1360.5565
    2008, 1360.5382

    TSI was also higher for most of October and November, compared to September, driving Nov/Dec temps upward:

    Sep, 1361.1063
    Oct, 1361.3139
    Nov, 1361.3688

    The sun caused global warming.

    Sunspot activity was 65% higher for the 70 years of the modern solar maximum from 1935.5-2004.5, when the annual average SSN was 108.5, than it was during the previous 70 years from 1865.5-1934.5, when it averaged 65.8, using

    TSI, which statistically tracks w/sunspot number over solar cycle lengths, was higher during the modern maximum period (from Dr. Kopp at LASP, where the SORCE TSI data is maintained):

    This ‘agreement’ will make no difference whatsoever to the climate, because CO2 emissions don’t drive temperatures, solar variation does. It is that simple.

  5. catweazle666 says:

    James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’

    The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’

    Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.

    “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

    As does John Kerry:

    Speaking in Paris, Kerry said:

    The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

    If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.

  6. tchannon says:

    I was going to suggest comment on EM Smith’s article. He beat me to it.

    Some years ago a retired US prosecutor, expert, explained to me in private about some subtleties of US law which are rarely comprehended outside of the US. I now understand many of the apparent oddities,f why Presidents etc. fail to do certain things. Is about the written constitution.

    This is why the US Democrats are hell bent on breaking the constitution. (I have no idea of the above individual’s political stance, never discuss it)

    Upset some, gun law goes with this. Centralism always tries to expand, not allowed.

    Presidents are powerless, why so many are within an ace of impeachment, trying it on. Why Obama dare not involve US forces etc.

    Why Kyoto etc. were not ratified.

    This is about a very subtle point most people do not get about people, psychology stuff. In the US uniquely the people can force law to be honoured. Everywhere else government cherry picks, selective usage of law, hypocrisy everywhere. Compartmental-ism as so many people do. (hence greens flying so much, do not connect two issues)

    The US will not hobble itself in the face of double-face. EMS is talking about circumvention.

  7. E.M.Smith says:


    I’ve put a bit more rant here:

    Congress has been hobbling itself with “treaties”. For example, US law requiring country of origin labeling of meat was just thrown out by the WTO “treaty” via a ruling. I can no longer know if my beef is from Mexico or Canada, despite very different quality and health risks.

    We are being pushed down a slide into toothlessnes. It isn’t hopeless yet, but we are headed that way. Our Congress no longer cares or sometime even knows, that it is being made irrelevant via “treaty” and executive orders.

    But yeah, in theory the Constitution does act as you described. Just missing one key phrase. Where it says “this Constitution and treaties” are the supreme law of the land; it needs to have added “and no treaty can overrule this Constitution or laws passed by Congress”. They depended on Congess to not give away their own power and left open to interpretion that a treaty could be used to override Congress and the Constitution. That was a mistake that is being exploited today by Obama and the global Socialists.

  8. oldbrew says:

    The GWPF statement on COP21 ends with:

    ‘We would like to apologise to readers as this is exactly the same statement we issued a year ago, with the sole change of Paris for Lima; but since there has been no substantive change in the COP21 deal there is no change in our assessment.’

  9. Anoneumouse says:

    United Nations Convention on the Law of Treaties, Signed at Vienna 23 May 1969, Entry into Force: 27 January 1980

    Section 2. – Invalidity of Treaties

    Article 46 – Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties
    Article 47 – Specific restrictions on authority to express the consent of a State
    Article 48 – Error
    Article 49 – Fraud
    Article 50 – Corruption of a representative of a State
    Article 51 – Coercion of a representative of a State
    Article 52 – Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
    Article 53 – Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)

  10. aequitas45 says:

    If the next big meeting is in 2023 they are one year early to time it with an El Nino. They should be reading up on the lunar line of apse.

  11. J Martin says:

    2023 should be a couple years into the solar minimum by then. Might have signs of cooling in datasets, not to mention increased snow cover.