The West v The Rest
By Paul Homewood
Robin Guenier has a very informative essay on Harmless Sky, about the history of international climate negotiations:
How developing countries took control of climate negotiations and what that means for emission reduction.
The main reason why, despite countless scientific warnings about dangerous consequences, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to increase is rarely mentioned. Yet it’s been obvious for several years – at least to anyone willing to see it. It’s this: most countries outside Western Europe, North America and Australasia are either unconcerned about the impact of GHGs on the climate or don’t regard the issue as a priority, focusing instead for example on economic growth. Yet these countries, comprising 84 percent of humanity, are today the source of 75 percent of emissions.[1] Therefore, unless they change their policies radically – and there’s little evidence of their so doing – there’s no realistic prospect of the implementation of the urgent and substantial cuts in GHG emissions called for by many Western scientists.
To understand how this has happened, I believe it’s useful to review the history of environmental negotiation by referring in particular to five UN-sponsored conferences: Stockholm in 1972, Rio in 1992, Kyoto in 1997, Copenhagen in 2009 and Paris in 2015.
The full article can be read here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s obviously true, very important and unknown to 90% of the western population and 99% of MPs.
I’ve made the point before, where the climate alarmism argument falls apart:-
If AGW and GH gas emissions are a serious threat to the planet/mankind, then the last thing you would do is use some ‘leveling up’ social justice argument to allow the supposed less developed countries to completely defeat action against the danger. Something is either a climate emergency/crisis demanding a total global response, or it isn’t.
Exactly and to do that we do not even need to go against geology, geological history and physics which have to be trashed to make their fantasies work. The silence when China then Japan announce new coal fired power generation shows exactly what this sham is all about.
A great summary of the nonsensical situation where politicians and media daily preach lies to us all. Sadly it will only be read by the thinking minority. Fascinating to think that it is 25 years since COP-1 and CO2 emissions have actually increased by 70 %: this is enough to tell anyone that we were not “On the eve of destruction”, as we were told back then, and repeatedly ever since.
Also, poor countries CO2 good, wealthy countries CO2 bad stands out.
Jack, we will be a poor country very soon, so CO2 good!
It is very useful to have a clear description and time line of how this whole climate scare has been engineered and why. For those whp get beyond the simple climate facts that there is no unnatural change, outside natural variability we have recorded over thousands of years, and then ask WHY the measures that can’t work are being imposed. B
And as I pointed out before the INCREASE in emissions from the developing world in 2019 was over 400 million tonnes CO2. That means that even if UK closed down totally on 1st January 2021 and emitted no CO2 whatsoever, by 27th October 2021 world emissions of CO2 would have risen again to more than replace the UK’s sacrifice..
My virus protector tells me that ‘Harmless Sky’ is a highly dangerous site, massive red warning – it is ‘safe’ I take it -??
Yes, it’s perfectly safe
Thanks, I was assuming that it’s only dangerous to people who want us to be ignorant of ordinary facts, but the scare-mongering techniques get to me sometimes.
I have just had the same experience with Norton, there is a possibility the site has a problem to owner is unaware of, perhaps Paul could let him know about this.
Thank you
It certainly is safe, and I suspect that the problem may lie in the security software I have had to install after a long break from blogging. In the old days that just wasn’t needed. It could also have to do with the way that the domain name is resolved by domain name servers. Or it could be Norton.
Incidentally, I get a similar warning whenever I come on to this site, and I wonder if Paul uses either Securi or Wordfence security here.
Its a ‘no shit sherlock’ paper, well written but well known by anyone with half a brain, which these days seems to exclude a good proportion of the west’s population.
Its always been about using a fear’ story to manipulate society and create a fertile environment for ‘post-capitalism’. Its going far too slowly, hence covid-19 and the fear of disease, its a far better route for the same destination.
Somehow a reduced population, cowed and controlled has to be engineered for the benefit of our new feudal masters. And is not a ‘conspiracy theory’, its real and its happening utilising AI as much as possible.
It’s also worth remembering that it was James Hansen’s testimony before the US Congress in 1988 that got the ‘global warming’ ball rolling. And the Copenhagen conference emphasized Hansen’s 350 ppm insanity. The bandwagon effect is now a religion. Skeptics have become heretics in denial.
A very useful reference and another one to add to my personal armoury. Kudos, Robin!
“there’s no realistic prospect of the implementation of the urgent and substantial cuts in GHG emissions called for by many Western scientists.”
And that’s simply because cuts in CO2 emissions are NOT cuts in atmospheric CO2. Only negative emissions can do that. Dr. Hansen understands that and he keeps criticizing those who don’t. What he refuses to admit (or understand) is the amounts required are massive and the technology is inadequate to ever remove those 65 ppm of CO2 he demands. To go back to the 1987 value of 350 ppm…and the climate of 1987?
“How developing countries took control of climate negotiations and what that means for emission reduction. “
Have they? …
The problem for the developing nations is that they need investment and trade to keep the countries financially viable. They end up in the clutches of the World Bank and the IMF, where through their mandates ensure that profits in the country is readily internationalized with hard currency -US$, Euros, etc., (easing the flight of wealth out of the country) but insisting debts remains local.
The most obvious example of this is what happened in Greece during it’s financial crisis, the EU eventually paying off the ‘Greek international debt’ but wrecked Greece financially. All this done while Greek multimillionaires kept their funds (in dollars, gold, etc.) safe in Swiss and other banks.
Developing countries are also caught by the international trading. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is itself another elite grouping of economic power-brokers. The WTO covers a wide range of sectors with implications for most aspects of life. These include intellectual property rights (including bio-technology), agriculture (food), water industries, the services industry (transport) and telecommunications. And again world trade is conducted in hard currencies not local currencies, so again poor countries lose out in that they have to buy US$ to trade at any appreciable level internationally. Again this facilitates the movement of profits from the country while keeping debt firmly anchored to the developing counties citizenry.
Through all this is the malevolent UN working through the poorer countries with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) that sponsors Global Sustainable Development Facility (GSDF). The UNDP/GSDF is in turn sponsored by international transnational corporations.
These corps. benefit from the advice and support of the UNDP through a special relationship which affords corporations unprecedented access to the UNDP’s network of offices, high level governmental contracts and reputation. Some of the transnationals which have contributed to the UNDP/GSDF include:
Dow Chemical (USA)
Rio Tinto PLC (Britain)
Novartis (Switzerland)
Ericsson (Sweden)
Owens Corning (USA)
Oracle Corporation (USA)
Asea (Sweden/Switrzerland)
Citibank (USA)
ABB Group (Sweden/Switzerland)
AT&T (USA)
Cultor Coproration (Finland)
ESKOM (South Africa)
Hennes and Mauritz (Sweden)
IKEA International (Sweden)
RWE (Germany)
Statoil (Norway)
Swedbank (Sweden)
Telia AB (Sweden)
and others…
Others that include those who are members of Davos, The Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and numerous others (Note – The Club of Rome, The Bilderberg group, and Trilateral Commission is partly funded and heavily influenced by the Rockefeller empire, which is composed of international financiers, industrialists, media magnates, union bosses, academics and political figures.) All of these entities groups propagandize the murderous Malthusian message.
~~~~~~~~
The bottom line is that the poorer developing nation are little more than puppets for globalist elites and their transnational companies, banks, and myriad advisors.
That may perhaps be true of some poorer developing countries. But it’s certainly not true, for example, of Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. It’s they (and other small but wealthy ‘developing’ countries) that have taken charge of climate negotiations. And all other developing countries – even those ‘ in the clutches of the World Bank‘ etc. have meekly/eagerly followed suit – thereby ensuring that the West failed to get its way. In any case, China, Japan, South Korea for example have provided vast funds to help poorer developing countries with infrastructure projects – China’s Belt and Road project being the prime example.
BTW Greece is not classified as a developing country.
I don’t think the developing countries have really “have taken charge of climate negotiations”. After all, what leverage do Brazil and Indonesia really have over the west?
The issue is that the people nominally representing western countries are actually in favor of deindustrializing the west, irrespective of what China, Brazil, Indonesia, etc do. So they go to these conferences and “give in” to developing world demands that CO2 abatement be limited to the west. But it’s all fake. If “our” negotiators wanted to, they could just ignore developing world demands. What could the developing world possibly do in retaliation?
Jerry: if you really think that, since 1992, the leaders of the US, Germany etc. were in favour of deindustrialising the West, you’re living in dreamland. Just look at the battles fought and lost by Western (essentially US and EU) negotiators at Copenhagen in 2009 – the was no question there of just giving in. No, Western negotiators’ objective for over twenty years has been to reduce global GHG emissions. And they’ve failed utterly.
You’ve got it completely the wrong way round: it’s the rest of the world (the source of 75% of emissions) that’s ignoring our demands. And there’s nothing we can do in retaliation.
Robin – I think it’s clear that *the US representatives to these conferences* are quite happy, for ideological reasons, to agree to climate change abatement measures that disadvantage US industry. The idea that the US is being bullied into acquiescence by Brazil and Indonesia is really ridiculous. If the US wants to do something, like support Israel at the US, they’re going to do it and not worry about hurting Indonesia’s feelings.
Keep in mind that none of these treaties have been ratified by the Senate and the Kyoto treaty lost 97-0. The Obama administration didn’t bother asking the Senate to ratify the Paris agreement because it would have failed as well. They just decided that they didn’t need Senate ratification to implement the terms administratively.
‘The idea that the US is being bullied into acquiescence by Brazil and Indonesia is really ridiculous‘
Of course it is – because there’s no need for bullying. All China, India, Iran, Brazil, Indonesia etc.etc. have to do is tell the US to get lost. And there’s nothing the US can do about it.
You’re making the mistake of thinking that US negotiators really care about getting developing countries to cut back on CO2 emissions. They don’t.
What they care about is using international agreements to push US domestic policy in the direction they want.
I’m sorry Jerry but that’s nonsense – for the reasons I’ve stated.
Robin Guenier,
I will concede that it is the BRIC countries with many of the Arab, China and Far East countries are pushing the international climate negotiations, and all for their own profit and influence.
Brazil (like Indonesia) has huge potential in many industrial areas from very high tech computer ICs and systems manufacture, aeroplane manufacture, to being a major food and agriculture exporter. And for them any additional leverage they can gain by international climate negotiations would appear worthwhile for them. However I do note that both of these nations carry large debt and loan guarantees to the IMF/World Bank and others — more stick and carrot available to the UN and Banking elites to have them toe the line on climate issues.
My point is that the international banking and trade community (controlled by the UN and Banking elites) makes it virtually impossible for any genuinely poor but trying to develop nation to gain a foothold without signing up to this climate nonsense. Places like Haiti, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Niger, Eritrea, Myanmar, Mozambique, Madagascar, Bhutan, Senegal, Belize, Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Timor-Leste, Central African Republic, Cambodia, Malawi, Laos, Burundi and so many more.
So why do all these countries line up with the bigger developing countries when it comes down to the final stages of climate negotiations? The reality is that they don’t see the climate issue as particularly important – whatever the IMF etc. maybe telling them. And, in any case, China in particular has substantial investments throughout the world. For example in Africa it’s investing in Nigeria, Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia, South Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Congo, Cameroon, Mozambique and elsewhere. Lining up with China makes a lot of sense.
tomomason:
It’s interesting that, from 2010 to 2018, global CO2 emissions increased by 12% whereas the 21 countries you list above increased their emissions by 110% – derived from fossil fuels. In other words, the IMF etc. seem to have been remarkably unsuccessful in persuading them to ‘toe the line on climate issues‘.
Data here: https://knoema.com/atlas.
Robin Guenier,
Your question “So why do all these countries line up with the bigger developing countries when it comes down to the final stages of climate negotiations” IMO it boils down to political horse-trading and expediency. I would also say that developing nations have very little real power when it comes to going against the big players.
“In other words, the IMF etc. seem to have been remarkably unsuccessful in persuading them to ‘toe the line on climate issues‘.”
And yes China is taking up the slack in helping develop African nations’ coal reserves but in all probability only to help China and not necessarily those African nations.
Have the majority of countries that I list managed to get any significant amounts of loans, loan guarantees, or assistance from the IMF, International banks, etc.?
Well the answer is a qualified ‘yes’ for the past, now it’s a no. In most cases it appears to be just a tactic to get poorer nations more controlled while on the foreign assistance rollacoaster. Then comes the push to ‘persuade’ them not to go very far down the fossil fuel route. However such IMF instances of ‘advising’ countries to stop subsiding or developing fossil fuels is usually met with social strife in the affected country. Here are a few examples of the bait and switch that the IMF often does —
From https://news.trust.org/item/20131209103709-igbqm/
and —
“Countries from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) were more likely to offer larger [fossil fuel]subsidies proportionate to the size of their own economy …
… Jordan cut fossil subsidies last year as a condition of an IMF loan, sparking protests.”
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/04/02/imf-scrap-1-9-trillion-oil-and-gas-subsidies/
and
More than 600 million people in Africa live without electricity from the national grid. Countries like South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe also get the majority of their electricity from fossil fuel sources.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) will be supporting coal powered projects despite International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) ban on fossil fuels and specifically banning funding to some coal plants.
From https://www.iea-coal.org/afdb-support-coal-projects-in-africa-despite-world-bank-imf-ban/
However this has not stopped the IMF, the World Bank, and many other development banks from giving assistance to these countries. There is a problem looming from the increased political pressure on these banks and institutions (from the likes of the UN, NGOs, Greenpeace, etc.,) to end all assistance to countries that wish to develop their fossil fuel natural resources.
~~~~~~~~~
Robin I do think that see are seeing different aspects of how the CO2 nonsense is being mischievously handled. Mine is the way that loans and debt are allowed to be piled into poorer developing nations, while big international banks and institutions seek to restrict their proper development of natural resources because of this ridiculous ‘CO2 causing climate change’ propaganda.
Your piece I would say is more about the way many very developed nations (though still called ‘developing nations’ by international institutions) are game playing the climate negotiations much to their advantage.
Two sides of the same coin?
tomomason: I think we’re on completely different wavelengths. Have you actually read my article? You seem not to understand that the UN continues to formally classify big newly industrialised economies such as China, India, South Korea, Indonesia and Brazil as well as major OPEC countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia as ‘developing’. So the Paris Agreement for example has to be interpreted on that basis – and it exempts all ‘developing’ countries big, small and tiny, from any obligation (legal, moral or political) to reduce their emissions. Western negotiators have been trying for years to change that – but have utterly failed. In other words, your statement that ‘ developing nations have very little real power when it comes to going against the big players’ is incorrect. It’s the US and EU that have been shown to have little real power. It’s a hugely significant geopolitical development.
I don’t think there’s anything mischievous about what’s happening. Unlike the West, the rest of the world (that includes Russia and Japan as well as the developing countries) isn’t especially concerned about climate change and, in any case, mostly they have other priorities. They’re acting accordingly and, in the case of the developing countries, within the clear provisions of international law. They’re quite open about this – no ‘game playing’. It may be that Western-oriented banks and institutions are trying to stop some very poor developing countries from developing their natural resources – but, as I demonstrated with regard to the twenty-one such countries you listed (emissions up by 110% since 2010), they’ve not been very successful.
Non-Annex countries have no emission reduction obligation under the Kyoto Protocol/UNFCCC. Also words like law and legal have no place in anything the UN does. It has no legal authority.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/18/the-eco-crisis-ambition-of-the-un/
The ‘philosophical’ roots (if that’s the right term) go back to Marx, the Nazis and Gramsci. Rupert Darwall’s ‘Green Tyranny’ is one book to read.
All out of the same stable as every other variant of Political Correctness. This is well-worth listening to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oONbN7ps9Go
In terms of the transfer of wealth, watch this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYD0doql-5k
And here is Ian Plimer on the subject: “The matter of climate change has nothing to do with science. It is an attempt by unelected people to reshape the economy of developed nations. Carbon dioxide is a proxy for industrialisation in this political campaign and the political aim is to kill off industrialisation in the developed world.”
In a nutshell, Ian Plimer: “The matter of climate change has nothing to do with science. It is an attempt by unelected people to reshape the economy of developed nations. Carbon dioxide is a proxy for industrialisation in this political campaign and the political aim is to kill off industrialisation in the developed world.”
An analysis broadly similar to Robin Guenier’s can be found in the book “The Carbon Crunch” by Dieter Helm (Yale Uni. Press, revised & updated 2015). Helm, who is deeply concerned about green issues, makes the case for a Plan ‘B’ to replace the failed Plan ‘A’ of the Kyoto-to-Paris-and-beyond series of climate conferences given the latter’s associated lobbying, pork barrel and rent-seeking policies suited to vested interests.
Helm is damning in his assessment. At page 11 he writes, “Economic illiteracy is at the heart of the failure so far to tackle the climate change problem, and although it can be solved, it won’t be if we go on wasting so much money to so little effect.”
We might add that the Plan ‘A’ policies adopted by the West in an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions are largely futile but have proven their capability to damage and to continue damaging our economies. Only by successfully challenging both the vested interests and the anthropogenic global warming narrative will we in the West be able to change energy policies and thereby escape from this downward spiral. Thus, I conclude that the route forward is probably through politics rather than by learned debate.
Regards,
John.
“Economic illiteracy is at the heart of the failure so far to tackle the climate change problem, and although it can be solved, it won’t be if we go on wasting so much money to so little effect.”
(1) There is no climate change problem. It’s all model forecasts, dire predictions. Moving the proverbial pea around under the shell.
(2) It cannot be solved by CO2 mitigation, reducing CO2 emissions and going further to negative emissions is not possible in the huge amounts needed.
That’s where the scientific illiteracy meets the economic illiteracy.
Is there any possibility that all this might change and the so-called developing countries no longer rule the roost? Well perhaps. See this: https://zeihan.com/a-failure-of-leadership-part-iii-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-china/ If Peter Zeihan is right (and he certainly argues his position well), we might be about to see the demise of the Chinese Communist Party and with it the powerful China that we’ve been getting used to. And, if China fails, so will other export-led SE Asian ‘tigers’ – even those whose financial infrastructure is relatively sound. All that would mean a massive – and probably lasting – collapse in global CO2 emissions. And of much of the global economy. The Greens would have got what they wanted. But the impacts on the world – and especially on its poorest people – would be incalculable.
Yes, Robin. Incalculable. The basic problem seems to remain. The Covid-19 lockdown is a “dress rehearsal” that does not seem to have made a dent in the Green’s urgent desire to continue to demand a lowering of CO2 emissions to zero and beyond… even AFTER the health crisis is over. As has been reported here by Paul the Chinese are busy adding to their new, cleaner and more efficient coal-fired plants. They seem to get it. The Greens do not.
Broadlands, as a retired research engineer I agree with you regarding the unfortunate meeting of scientific and economic illiteracy. However, we in the West are currently saddled with our political classes pandering to the Net-Zero and similar green demands. The question is: how do we get off this road to nowhere but penury? It seems that we first need to get our politicians back to economic and scientific reality, which will be no mean feat. How is that to be achieved if not through politics?
Regards,
John.
John – you ask:
‘how do we get off this road to nowhere but penury?’
As you say ‘no mean feat’. But we simply have to try to find an answer – otherwise the UK’s heading for disaster. And I think there may just possibly be one.
I have no scientific training so, like most politicians, I’m incompetent to judge whether or not the dire scientific warnings we keep hearing are justified. But one thing’s obvious: there’s no realistic prospect of turning things round by persuading our political leaders that the scientific warnings are suspect – their views on that are hopelessly entrenched and anyone trying to change them is simply cast aside as a ‘denier’. Nonetheless it might be possible to persuade them that heading for net zero is not only extraordinarily damaging but, even if continuing greenhouse gas emissions are potentially catastrophic, it’s completely pointless. And that’s because most of the world, the source of 75% of emissions, either isn’t concerned about climate change or has other priorities. That, we should argue, is the international political reality – we should come to terms with it by prioritising a strong economy, underpinned by reliable affordable energy, and by focusing on long-term adaptation to whatever climate change may occur.
This may sound self-serving but I believe my article – or something like it – could be the catalyst for getting that message across. It has the huge advantage of not being an exercise in ‘climate denial’.
John…The discussion has moved on to a separate venue, but your question is very relevant. Facing decades of model-driven doom-and-gloom forecasts with repeated scary photos of polar bears and coral reefs, melting glaciers, hurricanes, floods and droughts is a tough job. These are the images that overrule the fact that after over 200 years of adding oxidized carbon to the atmosphere for our energy the global mean temperature (±0.5°C) has risen less than one degree C. Sea level less than a foot. That is quite obviously not a ‘climate emergency’. This so-called existential crisis lies within the model predictions and they are continually adjusted to promote the narrative. The gravity of these dire forecasts outweighs the history of past climates. Empirical evidence. Scientific skepticism has become a term of derision when the topic is global warming, climate change. Politicians and policy makers are not easily convinced when the scientific establishment is entrenched, especially with respect to their solution to their “settled science”. Lower carbon emissions to Net-zero ASAP. It will soon become evident that this is not working as the Mauna Loa value will keep increasing unavoidably and CCS technology plus bioenergy has done nothing to lower it. Declare victory and move on to the next crisis?
‘It will soon become evident that this is not working as the Mauna Loa value will keep increasing unavoidably and CCS technology plus bioenergy has done nothing to lower it. Declare victory …‘?
That’s already being brushed aside: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/rise-carbon-dioxide-unabated. Two extracts:
I suggest we need another solution – see my recent reply to John.
“…we should come to terms with it by prioritising a strong economy, underpinned by reliable affordable energy, and by focusing on long-term adaptation to whatever climate change may occur.”
Yes Robin…That is precisely what should take place. Local and regional adaptation coupled closely with a slow and deliberate phasing out of carbon fuels (even biofuels) with an integrated phasing in of renewables, including nuclear. The problem, of course, is convincing leadership that those models forecasting a dire future are wrong or should be ignored. The inertia is huge. But, coupled adaptation is the only realistic solution. Assertions about our uninhabitable future are just more scare tactics…unhelpful.
‘the problem, of course, is convincing leadership that those models forecasting a dire future are wrong or should be ignored.‘
I suggest there’s no need to persuade our political leaders that they’re wrong but – for the reasons I put to John – that they’re pointless (and therefore should be ignored).
Agree with Broadlands and John Cummen
The way out is through recognising that this is not a scientific debate but a political/religious one agenda.
This has nothing to do with “science” as has been shown over and over again. The data is manipulated, basic physics ignored and basic biology ignored and basic historical ignored. The models are nothing more than a multiplier: stick in carbon dioxide assumptions (which is going up due to natural processes) and multiply up to produce a spurious prediction of temperature rises.
Above all – science requires debate, and there is no debate allowed. Please refer to what happened to David Bellamy who got chucked off the BBC for refusing to go along with it. No debate = no science.
It’s no mean feat to (a) undo the brainwashing in the general public and (b) put a stop to the political juggernaut – but the carbon zero policies are such a disaster that’s why so many of us keep working on it.
Yes, net carbon policies are a recipe for total disaster. And in my reply to John Cullen earlier this afternoon I proposed a possible solution. Do you reject that?
I’m not sure Robin. I’ve just read the whole of the China article (thanks very much for that which was very convincing) and I’ve now got very tired, so right now I can’t debate, but definitely want to continue the conversation. I can’t give more than a gist of a reply right now. I’m agreeing with you that we need to escape the ‘scientific’ debate – I think there might be more than one way of doing so – I’d like to have a try at convincing you that there is more than one way – then we can consider if one way is better than the other or if both/more could be attempted in combination and how.
The thing I think we agree strongly on is the need to debate strategy – would I be right in this?
Thanks Rosie. Yes, I certainly agree about the need to debate strategy – the objective being to determine a course of action that’s likely to be both quick and effective. Time is of the essence: the disastrous net zero plan is already beginning to be implemented.
One additional point. This issue has been troubling me for some time. A year ago I proposed a possible way forward. You might be interested to read this: https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/a-proposed-way-forward.pdf. I’m not sure now that that’s a particularly practical plan. But it, or something like it, might be worth considering.
Thanks, Robin. I’m still too tired/troubled to enter proper debate just now and have things on for several days that actually relate to this topic and I need to be fresh, so another rather muddled reply. When you said this, “I have no scientific training so, like most politicians, I’m incompetent to judge whether or not the dire scientific warnings we keep hearing are justified.” I think you and everyone like you need to have more confidence and say, “I’m an intelligent rational person, I am competent to judge, and I can see that global warming isn’t reasonable” it only needs common knowledge, not specific scientific training, to see that the so-called science is fake. I’ll post up a link later as an example.
I’m sorry Rosie bur I totally disagree. I’m a lawyer with extensive experience of international negotiation – including in India and China. I’m particularly interested in the interpretation of international agreements and in international law and its impact on the geopolitics of climate change. These are complex and specialist issues. The science of climate change is another complex and specialist issue. I’m incompetent to have a useful view about it – and it would be arrogant for me to pretend otherwise.
Hi Robin
Thank you for the PDF which I have printed out and will study tomorrow.
We certainly agree that there is an urgent and pressing need to come up with a strategy, and I’ve also been thinking about it for a long time. I also could not possibly disagree that international law and geopolitics are complex! – but I’m sad to hear that we disagree as regards the science, but now that I’m alert I can explain my position on this properly.
The situation with the science is both straightforward and complex because:
The IPCC does not do ‘science’ and theirs is not a scientific opinion – this can be demonstrated many times over. The claim that ‘the science is settled’ in itself shows that they are not engaged upon a scientific activity. The statement is fundamentally anti-scientific.
On the other hand, if one wants to understand how the climate/temperature actually does work, this needs advanced mathematics and many branches of scientific enquiry. This definitely is complex because there are so many processes and interactions involved. If the IPCC genuinely wanted to understand the planet then they would be employing the many people who are/have been doing this work and who have been sidelined or worse.
Somewhat apart from these two positions (within the realm of practical common sense) I also believe that it can be shown to ordinary standards of proof that carbon dioxide does not heat the planet and that cloud cover is a critically important factor as regards temperature…..within which comment is a point regarding strategy I’m very uneasy about.
Now that I’ve been able to persuade my brain to cooperate, do you agree with my point about the IPCC not ‘doing science’?
As I understand it, the IPCC’s role is not to ‘do’ science but to assess and report on science ‘done’ by others.
Answer (a) I’ll ask, but assessing and reporting is part of the activity of science, surely, by any definition of the word? If they are not listening to opposing views, not having debate, and not trying to disprove their own theories, then they are not ‘doing’ science (ref Popper)
Answer (b) take a look at this from Nils-Axel Morner who is basically making the same point:that the IPCC aren’t engaged in science https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340917990_Expert_review_by_Nils-Axel_Morner_of_Chapter_9_Preamble
Answer (c) does the IPCC specifically support the ‘hockey stick’ graph? I believe it still does.
I’m sorry Rosie but I’m not interested in pursuing this. My objective is to determine a way of persuading the UK government to rethink its ‘net-zero’ policy. Worrying about the role of the IPCC doesn’t help.
Then you can find a way to tell the government that this is not “science” – they claim to base their policies on “science” and on “consensus”.
It’s easy to disprove their ‘science’ – the thing at the beginning of this conversation where you claimed you are not qualified to comment – and I am trying to show you that you are indeed qualified. I would have thought this would be an argument that could have legal clout. They say it’s scientifically proven – no it’s not.
It’s a similar argument to the lockdown one, where the gov claim to be ‘following the science’ but stronger. The SAGE committee is 20 people recently brought together, while the IPCC have a long history of closing down debate.
British scientific advisors rely upon the IPCC’s reports.
Show that the IPCC don’t engage in science – then where is the basis for ZeroCarbon? Not science.
Just as the lockdown challenges were brought to court quickly because of the urgency of the implications for the economy, could the same route be taken with this?? At the very least it would be difficult for the MSM to avoid reporting it. The fringe media would certainly be able to report.
In my view Rosie attempting to persuade the Government that they’re wrong about the science would be a total waste of time. I’m not interested in pursuing that. Anyone who’s serious about changing their mind about net-zero has find another route.
Dear Rosie and Robin,
An interesting interchange.
There is much documentation about how the IPCC and NOAA change the data to suit the politics though as a lawyer Robin would need far more than just that, to make an argument; and, if interested I can start to assemble examples.
However, to start from a non-scientific position it might be best to simply point out to ministers the number of ‘climate catastrophes’ that, have been predicted since the 1980s by not only the IPCC but also organizations such as The Pentagon,that have actually come to pass.
Answer – 0%
I don’t think one needs to be a scientist to encourage a government to question this before chucking .$quillions at what is possibly an unattainable target.
Regards
David McCobb
I fear you’ve missed my point David. You may not have seen my reply to John Cullen yesterday. Here’s a paraphrase:
There’s no realistic prospect of changing political leaders’ minds by questioning the scientists’ warnings – their views on the science are hopelessly entrenched and anyone trying to change them will either be dismissed as a ‘denier’ or get bogged down in unending and unwinnable debate. It might however be possible to avoid discussing the science altogether by showing that a net zero policy is not only extraordinarily damaging but – even if the scientists’ warnings are valid – completely pointless. And that’s because most of the world, the source of 75% of emissions, either isn’t concerned about climate change or has other priorities. That, we would argue, is today’s international political reality and aiming for net zero isn’t going to change it. Therefore our focus should be on prioritising a strong economy, underpinned by reliable, affordable energy and on being ready to adapt to whatever climate change may occur.
This may sound self-serving but I believe my article – or something like it – could be the catalyst for getting that message across. It has the huge advantage that it cannot be labelled as ‘climate denial’.
Dear Robin,
As you suspected I didn’t actually miss the point I’d just missed reading the earlier parts.
Rosie asked me to look at the exchange so I did, but I was in a hurry and shouldn’t have commented until I’d understood the point of your position.
So yes, I missed what it was really ll about.
And you’re right. Nigel Lawson in his book ‘An Appeal to Reason’ (2008-ish) made the same point; it is no use the UK and/or the West spending vast sums of money to reach a questionably unattainable target, when the likes of India and China will continue to pump out carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations and industrial complexes. And why shouldn’t they, isn’t it their turn?
Hopefully, for their sake, the next to come online will be African countries who are desperately in need of cheap electricity and if it wasn’t for the ‘green’ credentials of The World Bank, far fewer would die. They need electricity to filter water, electricity to pump it and electricity to build the necessary infrastructures around it
Your point about not been labeled a ‘denier’ is essential because if you were, in the current ‘cancel culture’ no one would be allowed to listen.
Maybe there is still time, on other occasions, to convince enough key politicians that our children are being lied to at school, that there is little if any historical correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, that none of the disasters ever happen and that out of the two, mankind was better off when it was warm then when it was cold.
In my opinion, the real problem is that the core of the ‘alarmists’ know that they are wrong – they just don’t care because they have a different end-game in sight and they don’t need to be right to reach it.
David
David – you say:
‘Maybe there is still time, on other occasions, to convince enough key politicians that our children are being lied to at school, that there is little if any historical correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide …‘
That, I believe, would get you nowhere. As I’ve said, try such an approach and you’ll either be dismissed as a ‘denier’ or get bogged down in unending and unwinnable debate. Far better, again as I’ve said, to avoid such discussion altogether and focus on showing that a net zero policy is not only extraordinarily damaging but – even if the scientists’ warnings are valid – completely pointless.
Robin
Robin,
I think we are, broadly on the same page. I think you are correct in your assertion of the necessity of avoiding the ‘science’ and of keeping your arguments to the economic reality of not spending £millions of taxpayers’ money in order to achieve absolutely nothing in respect of the levels of atmospheric CO2. I wish you the best of luck and if I can help with the few contacts I have in Parliament I will be happy to.
You may also be right in your assertion that for anyone else to tackle the issue from a scientific perspective they are likely to achieve very little.
Nevertheless I have started to write a simple proposal and if I am happy with it and on testing , it seems to get the message across then I intend to keep going, always bearing in mind there is a fine line between stubborn and stupid and that I have in the past, from time to time, drifted across it.
David
Good luck with that, David.
R
Hi Robin. I just found this document which proves your point, I would say ……
Click to access 254.pdf
That Select Committee report is about ‘Communicating Climate Science’. My objective is to determine a way of persuading the Government that ‘net-zero by 2050’ is a bad idea. Quite different.
Have you tried to tell them what Net-zero really means and how much CO2 would be required to be removed and safely stored? Even just one part-per-million? That’s 7,800 million tonnes! 260 million a year? Just ONE ppm! Try 65 ppm to reach the 350 ppm goal. 500,000 million. Totally absurd. Yes, a bad idea!
Broadlands:
See my reply just now to David McCobb. Perhaps your thinking could be a sub-set of my proposal.
“Perhaps your thinking could be a sub-set of my proposal.” It can’t hurt to add some stark numerical reality to the conversation. The numbers involved are not subject to political negotiation. Even the time involved is out of the question….simple arithmetic?
“Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using the 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Hi Robin
That report above – I posted it in order to demonstrate the point that you are making as regards the pointlessness of arguing ‘the science’. It’s all about the government basically forcing organisations to agree to say that the fake science is genuine.
However – I don’t think anyone should concede any of it, nor claim they aren’t qualified to comment on ‘the science’. The scientific errors are so numerous and elementary that any educated person as you clearly are should have the confidence to say that, and it’s nothing to do with arrogance. Perhaps you say it’s easy for me to speak, though not a professional scientist, but with just a (very) sound school education I was able to look at the stuff from cold and see error after error after error. But isn’t that what barristers do, pick holes in other people’s cases and logical reasoning?
Broadlands’ point – agree, and with a little thought I’m sure we could come up with several more such issues onto which numbers could be put to show in a different way what a farce this greenhouse theory/policy is. I think we could do with some much better imagery to make the various points more strongly in visual terms.
Next question: what are your thoughts on the nature of a campaign? Use Parliamentary procedures? or try to undo the brainwashing in the general public? or try to get the fringe media to realise how important the issue is and start talking about it? or what? Street presentations? I favour more people doing as Paul Homewood does and write letters to institutions, pointing out their ideals and asking them to demonstrate them by holding a proper discussion. Such as Radix which is holding a cosy little chat this evening between two hyper-heaters. I wrote and suggested they hold an evening with two realists, and perhaps if more people did that they might react to it. Radix say they challenge assumptions, so let’s see them do so. I’m not on Twitter but that would be better, I think.
I just want to restate a fundamental point on which we agree, Robin – some people think greenhouse stuff is going to fizzle out naturally, but I don’t, and agree that right now we have an essential window to get in there that we mustn’t miss.
‘what are your thoughts on the nature of a campaign?‘
I’m sure we have to find a way to get directly to the policymakers. I used to have a very sympathetic and helpful MP – but unfortunately he’s now in the Lords. But I’m in touch – by email and telephone – with his successor and that looks promising. He’s a highly-regarded back bencher and I’m hoping he’ll be able to insinuate my views into for example the Cabinet Office (to which I used to report at Ministerial level – see my profile).
This type of stuff has been tried for many years, so I suggest that you quietly contact your old MP and ask for his advice on what needs to happen to see this turned around. It depends upon who is calling the shots here. I used to think that the media are forcing the government’s hand, but the document above demonstrates that it’s the other way round, the government pressurizing the media and other institutions.
Boris already knows that the greenhouse stuff is fakery, so what has caused him to now support it so strongly? Brainwashing, weakness or what? Take a look at this article from 10 years ago and see Boris supporting Piers Corbyn
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8213058/The-man-who-repeatedly-beats-the-Met-Office-at-its-own-game.html
Carrie Symonds?