Cut Emissions? Who, Me?

Posted: October 23, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, Emissions
Tags: ,

How many more years must this empty charade limp on for, before the plug is finally pulled?


By Paul Homewood


The IPCC says we have got to start cutting emissions radically immediately, but the rest of the world is not listening!

Australia has rejected a call by scientists to phase out coal use by 2050 to prevent the world overshooting targets in the Paris Climate Change agreement with potentially disastrous consequences.
The world’s biggest coal exporter on Tuesday said it would be “irresponsible” to comply with the recommendation by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to stop using coal to generate electricity.
Canberra also reiterated its priority is to cut domestic electricity prices rather than curb greenhouse gas emissions, which have risen for four consecutive years.
“To say that it [coal] has to be phased out by 2050 is drawing a very long bow,” said Melissa Price, Australia’s environment minister, who previously worked in the mining industry.
“I just don’t know how you could say…

View original post 662 more words

  1. USA,China, Japan, Australia…. let the alarmists know, the end is nigh

  2. oldbrew says:

    We should at least wait until the IPCC finishes reverse-engineering its latest report, so that it more closely matches the summary thereof. Only 16 pages of amendments, shouldn’t take long… :/

    Click to access sr15_spm_approved_trickle_backs.pdf

    – – –
    Maybe they should go the whole hog – write the summary first and the report afterwards 😉

  3. oldbrew says:

    One of the IPCC changes says:

    Add definition for ice-free Arctic in section and ES (as footnote). AR5 “nearly ice-free when
    the sea ice extent is less than 106 km2 for at least five consecutive years.”

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen…

    Arctic sea ice extent for September 2018 averaged 4.71 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles)
    . . .
    …the seasonal minimum extent [was] reached on September 19 and again on September 23 at 4.59 million square kilometers (1.77 million square miles) [Oct.8, 2018 report]
    – – –
    The ‘add definition’ line at the top of this comment should perhaps include the words ‘seasonal minimum’ before ‘sea ice extent’?

  4. oldbrew says:

    One significant text deletion:

    Delete the text “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would approximately halve the fraction of
    world population expected to suffer water scarcity as compared to 2°C, although there is
    considerable variability between regions (medium confidence). Socioeconomic drivers,
    however, are expected to have a greater influence on these risks than the changes in
    climate (medium confidence)”

    – – –
    The waffle generator must have overheated there.

    Donna L concludes:
    Many of these changes appear to be trivial. But if nothing of significance is going on why are these meetings secret?

    More to the point: On what planet is it OK for politically-determined definitions to supersede those written by actual scientists?

    As the author of two books about the IPCC, I’ve spent years trying to explain that this preposterous organization was designed to function in this manner and has done so for 30 years. It should never be mistaken for a scientific body.

  5. tom0mason says:

    As the IPCC is all about politics then all this is normal and natural for a political movement. In politics it is all about convincing people that your ‘vision’ is correct, for in politics it is quite normal to define what is, and by what route you must travel (via images of an exciting successful future, or a doom-laden via a reactionary one) before getting the evidence for doing it, or even to understanding what likely outcomes will actually happen.
    This is all normal for (utopian) politics — predictions of doom and disaster without us, milk and money with us. But also the UN-IPCC continually attempts to use much rewritten or computer modeled ‘science’ as a camouflage within their summaries. Camouflage that give their reports the air of scientific authority without being rigorously scientific. Camouflage over their real political motivations.
    The main problem as I see it, in utopian styled politics it is usual to formulate the objective before amassing evidence, in real science it works the other way about. In politics it is normal to try and convince people to take action before likely outcomes are known, in real science verified objective results do the convincing, not hypothesis driven computer models. Hence the UN-IPCC behaves as it does — it’s all politics and not about real verified science.

  6. oldbrew says:

    PREPRINT: A Fatal Flaw in Global Warming Science
    AGW Hypothesis / By Dr. Ed

    I presented a summary of this preprint at the “Basic Science of a Changing Climate” conference in Porto, Portugal, on September 7, 2018. – Ed

    Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics

    This paper supports Harde (2017a) and its key conclusions:

    “Under present conditions, the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012).”

  7. dscott says:

    Does the IPCC ever acknowledge those countries that actually do lower their CO2 levels YOY?

    The US (a Capitalist country) does so without really trying, so what’s Socialist Europe’s problem? They enacted all kinds of laws, control schemes and subsidies and yet their CO2 continues to go up?

    Either, It’s all a scam or the bureaucrats are thee most incompetent bunch of idiots ever. How does one spend billions of Euros a year and solve nothing much less create an observable result?

    Let’s say you believe in AGW, doesn’t the European experience point out that Socialism is an utter failure at saving the planet? You can’t have it both ways, either Capitalism produces the results you want or Socialism does. Socialism clearly doesn’t.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Germany has opted to shut down its nuclear reactors. That has undermined its CO2 targets right away, as coal is largely used to fill the gap.