Wherefore art thou, Reason?

This report from a New Zealand youth delegation at COP-21 gives significant insight into the real drivers of this dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) nonsense, especially as seen by the young.

Many of our youth unschooled in reason by watchful family or teachers are being systematically indoctrinated both to expect a cataclysmic future and to distrust science. Cataclysmic expectations are created by endless descriptions of it; distrust of science is efficiently created by refusing to teach it. It is a campaign of exceptional lunacy shot through with avarice.

The alarmists have claimed for decades that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind and they’re right: if we’re not careful their evil campaign will destroy us.

Three quotations convey the essence.

1. Today’s update from COP21 comes from Ben Abraham, who is part of the youth delegation’s policy team. Ben loves Dunedin, where he finished his undergraduate degree, but he is now living in the UK, doing a PhD in public policy, with a focus on climate change governance, at Oxford University.

Western education systems are now herding our best and brightest into career avenues that aim to destroy western capitalism, and breed future David Suzukis and Tim Flannerys.

2. Another sticking point in the finance discussions is how to make sure that money goes towards both mitigation (the reduction of emissions) and adaptation (efforts to live with impacts of climate change that have now become unavoidable). There’s a very large bias among donor countries to want to give towards mitigation because that’s where the business opportunities are, for example for energy companies, whereas there’s a lot less potential for returns from adaptation measures.

Out of the mouths of babes… whoever would have guessed that commerce rather than saving the planet was the prime motivation for the powerful among the DAGW set?

3. Following the news that New Zealand’s government has adopted the 1.5 degree temperature limit, the youth delegation is calling for an immediate ban on further exploration for oil, gas and coal reserves in New Zealand.

Words almost fail me. We all use oil, gas and coal to improve our health and productivity. Since growth in energy demand is not allowed to be serviced by hydro or nuclear, presumably future demand is to be met by linking hands in a candle-lit circle at the bottom of the garden and chanting kumbaya.

Following Green activist “logic”, of the available sources of energy these poor young people imagine that only solar and wind generated power are acceptable — despite each being both uneconomic and environmentally damaging.

It is very hard to imagine how our processes of democratic government could have led to such malignantly diseased attitudes among younger (and many older) people. It is no satisfaction at all that as they make their bed, so in future they are going to have to lie in it.

Leave a Reply

45 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Notify of

I was having a discussion on Desmog by a group who insisted that CO2 is not plant food, and that water (vapour) is not a greenhouse gas.

They outed me as a “denier” because I let slip the phrase “CO2 is plant food” which is verboten under the Scriptures of SkS.

The Red Guard were then able to set the Stasi upon me and re-educate my “denier’ brain.

CO2 is not plant food, in the real world. In the unreal world of the tomato greenhouse, CO2 actually is plant food, however.

We are DOOMED, Capn Mainwaring, DOOMED…..


If the aspirational target is a maximum increase of 1.5 degree C, then there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere already. There would be no point in further exploration because no one would ever be able to use it.
You should consider the very real possibility that this Oxford PhD student knows what he is talking about and that you are actually the one who has been systematically indoctrinated into distrusting science.


If we have already used to much CO2 then the Oxford student should have stayed in Dunedin and not gone to COP21 with his church group to lecture us about not using air travel.

Maybe air travel is only for the ubermenschen?


Yes of course we have been “indoctrinated”. If only I could accept the Scriptures of SkS that Co2 is not plant food. Maybe I could also accept that Islam is the Religion of Peace?


If we can’t explore for oil anymore, who would make the plastic for the kayaks for the anti-oil protestors?

How would we make the windmills that are needed for the “100% renewable low carbon economy”? How would we power the diesel generators required to back up the windmills when the wind isn’t blowing?

How would we smelt the steel and fabricate the silicon for the PV panels?

Warning, “denier” words. You may be “triggered”.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Maybe air travel is only for the ubermenschen?”

Exactly, the words “aviation” and “shipping” were conspicuously absent from COP21. So was the word “teleconference”. How did Ben Abraham get to the UK? Hitchhike? I know a guy who did the overland by motorcycle but given some of his near-death experiences on the way I don’t think that’s a realistic alternative.

Shipping is actually a real polluter (except for CO2) although there are pollution control measures being introduced to new designs just as there are for new coal-fired power stations that pass emission control regs.

However, for national economies and many people, including climate activists, it’s “next cruise/container ship into dock please” or “next flight to Paris/UK please”.

Richard C (NZ)

>”If the aspirational target is a maximum increase of 1.5 degree C, then there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere already.”

Huh? This is woollier than usual Simon.


I think they should call for a ban on all further air travel, with a priority given to climate activists. Ben and his chums can stay in Oxford amongst the dreaming spires and perspiring dreams and lecture us via Skype

They can also use hemp canoes when making anti-oil flotillas

Bloody hippies…

Richard C (NZ)

From the feature article linked in the post: Spokesperson Ben Abraham says the text is “heavy with the illusion of ambition without the reality of action”. [Renée Annan (Day Eleven)] – “The Paris agreement is an ambition in words but not in action,….” Well yes (duh). That’s the only reason there was an agreement. It’s an aspiration statement for show. Carrying out the aspirations is another matter entirely. There was nothing really new, INDC’s and $100 billion per year are from past years and of no real consequence: Ben says the biggest issue yet to be resolved is finance. The Paris agreement will come into effect in 2020 and, back in 2009 at the Copenhagen COP meeting, rich countries have already pledged to deliver $100 billion per year in financial support for poor countries to develop technology and build infrastructure to cut emissions. “That money is yet to materialise, so there is the issue of making that happen and ramping up the short-term ambition to what has already been agreed.” It’s not going to happen and to think it might is extraordinarily naive. And what has already been pledged has little to do… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

What China didn’t do….. ‘Advanced Emissions Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Power Plants’ Introduction Coal is one of the most abundant energy sources in the world. Advanced emission control technologies are needed to cleanly use coal for electricity generation. Environmental regulations of coal-fired power plants in Asia cover a broad range of requirements. Depending on the area within Asia and the type of coal to be burned, different combinations of technologies are needed to meet local regulations. There are a multitude of advanced emissions control technologies available to address the most common targeted pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM), as well as other pollutants which are increasingly becoming targeted worldwide, such as mercury, sulfur trioxide (SO3), condensable PM, and other trace metals. This paper examines state-of-the-art emissions control systems that are available to meet the multi-pollutant requirements for coal-fired power plants. These technologies include selective catalytic reduction (SCR), electrostatic precipitators (ESP), fabric filters, flue gas desulfurization (FGD), wet ESP, dry sorbent injection, and mercury control methods. http://www.babcock.com/library/Documents/BR-1886.pdf # # # This is what the activists don’t want to know about and don’t want known by anyone else.… Read more »


They get to have a nice career in “public policy”, inventing new acronyms, flying to pointless conferences where they hold hands, sing songs, and cuddle fake polar bears.

I just wish they would leave us alone. I don’t even mind paying a little for it. At least it keeps them off the streets and I think most jobs at Burger King are taken already.

Richard C (NZ)

>”I haven’t heard much about [pollution control] retrofit from [China]. Ask the US about the economics of that.”

Or India:

‘Retrofitting Pollution Control Equipment In Indian Power Plants and Other Industries To Meet The Present More Stringent Norms’

The US Administration is hell-bent on shutting down coal stations but there are retrofit projects going on, for example:

‘Power plants install emissions controls’ — San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant
October 13, 2015

Four Corners Power Plant

The plant, owned and operated by Arizona Public Service Company, or APS, shut down its three older generating units in December 2013. Those units are expected to be demolished and removed from the plant by 2017.

The remaining two units, Units No. 4 and No. 5, which are two separate flues housed together in one common stack, will be retrofitted with pollution controls starting this week.

The work, which began several years ago, involves the installation of pollution controls, called SCRs, or selective catalytic reduction technology. The technology and installation will cost approximately $635 million and is expected to be operational by July 2018.


Richard C (NZ)

>”They get to have a nice career in “public policy”, inventing new acronyms”

But is there a career progression after CBDRILONCWRC ?

Story here:

Hard to top I would have thought. Aren’t they working themselves out of a job?


SJW’s will need to balance their CBDRILONCWRC when reaching out to the LBGTIQWERTY community.


I wonder if our new PhD in public policy will use tools like RCPs that are not designed for public policy, just as our PCE (who also has a PhD in public policy) does?

When something says “do not use for X”, why do they use for X?

Especially when they have a PhD in X

Richard C (NZ)

>”The global recession underway will do more to mitigate fossil fuel emissions than INDC’s ever will” That’s kicking in already. From previous thread (don’t be fooled by global economic growth – see below): ‘Global Growth In CO2 Emissions Stagnates’ A new report claims that the rate of growth in global CO2 emissions has fallen and indeed, stalled. The report does not explain how this links to the continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations From the European Commission Joint Research Centre 30.11.2015 After a decade of rapid growth in global CO2 emissions, which increased at an average annual rate of 4%, much smaller increases were registered in 2012 (0.8%), 2013 (1.5%) and 2014 (0.5%). In 2014, when the emissions growth was almost at a standstill, the world’s economy continued to grow by 3%. The trend over the last three years thus sends an encouraging signal on the decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth. However, it is still too early to confirm a positive global trend. For instance India, with its emerging economy and large population, increased its emissions by 7.8% and became the fourth largest emitter globally. http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-growth-in-co2-emissions-stagnates.html Citation Trends in Global… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”I wonder if our new PhD in public policy will use tools like RCPs that are not designed for public policy”

Speaking of which:

‘A closer look at scenario RCP8.5’ Posted on December 13, 2015 | by Larry Kummer

Unfortunately scientists often inaccurately describe RCP8.5 as the baseline scenario — a future without policy action: “a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity” from “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011, This is a material misrepresentation of RCP8.5. Scientists then use RCP8.5 to construct horrific visions of the future. They seldom mention its unlikely assumptions.



“The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars”


Hooray! The Eco-Fascists have won the climate wars! Hip hip hooray!

Time to go out and hug a local eco fascist.

be a good sport!


Yes I posted the JC RCP article to the CCRU facebook page. The message is getting though that the one metre sea level projections are in fantasy land


One of Herr Thomas of Hot Topic’s Year 9 students has come up with a really great idea called “climate saver”

The idea is you put money into an account, and then withdraw it later so you can buy “low carbon” products like electric cars and solar panels.

You could, of course, just buy them in the first place. This seems to be a point that remains unanswered at this stage.

Maybe one of the “Youth Delegation” can pick this idea up. In between hugging each other.

Richard C (NZ)

From the Kummer post above:

(1) An introduction to scenarios about our future

In AR5 four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) describe scenarios for future emissions, concentrations, and land-use, ending with radiative forcing levels of 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 W/m2 by 2100. Strong mitigation policies result in a low forcing level (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes: (RCP4.5, RCP6.0).

Theoretical CO2 forcing as at 2015 is 1.9 W.m-2 and increasing.

Actual TOA energy imbalance 2000 – 2012 is 0.62 W.m-2 and trendless.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/earths-energy-imbalance/ [Ed Hawkins]

Why does anyone bother with this RCP rubbish?

Richard C (NZ)

AR5 Summary for Policymakers:

“RCP2.6 is representative of a scenario that aims to keep global warming likely below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures.”


Below 2°C is the COP21 agreement so RCP2.6 it is – strong mitigation policies required.

Except we are at theoretical CP1.9 and actual 1°C at 2015 but the theoretical CP is 3 times greater than the actual TOA energy imbalance of 0.6 which according to the IPCC “controls” temperature i.e. CP is unrelated to energy or temperature whether recommended for the future or estimated right now.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Except we are at theoretical CP1.9″

Theory: dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co). Where: Co = 280ppm, C = 400ppm, dF = 1.9 W.m-2

Actual forcing observed: = 0.6 W.m-2

Richard C (NZ)

>”the words “aviation” and “shipping” were conspicuously absent from COP21.” Not quite, they were exempted: ‘In Paris, Climate Change Alarmists Con Everyone, Including Themselves’ Written by Robert Tracinski, Federalist on 14 December 2015. The same Guardian report that proclaims “the end of the fossil fuel era” also admits that “The overall agreement is legally binding, but some elements — including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements [a multi-billion-dollar giveaway to poor countries] — are not.” So everything is legally binding, except the actual heart of the agreement. Moreover, several big industries are exempted [hotlink – see below], including air travel, shipping, and the biggest one, agriculture. Together these industries account for about a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/in-paris-climate-change-alarmists-con-everyone-including-themselves.html ‘3 big polluters (sic) the Paris climate deal won’t touch’ by Jim Boulden @CNNMoney December 12, 2015: You would be forgiven for thinking the COP21 climate talks in Paris would take on some of the biggest polluters (sic, again). If governments have any hope of reaching the goal of capping global temperatures, environmentalists say there must be binding targets to cut emissions on food, aviation… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”What a sham.” ‘The Non-Binding Paris Deal And Its Implications’ Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on 14 December 2015. It’s is a fraud really, a fake. 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. –James Hansen, The Guardian, 12 December 2015 At the Paris climate conference, China has won praise for pledging to stop the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, largely by reducing its use of coal. But these reductions are being undercut as Chinese state-owned companies, backed by state loans, build coal-fired power plants across the developing world despite concerns about global warming and air pollution. Once complete, the 92 projects will have a combined capacity of 107 gigawatts, more than enough to completely offset the planned closing of coal-fired plants in the United States through 2020. Coal-fueled power plants account for 68 percent of the electrical generation capacity built… Read more »


@NASAGISS 2015 meteorological year (Dec-Nov) crushes previous record by more than 0.1C

“Crushes” by 0.1C

oh please

Richard C (NZ)

>Wherefore art thou, Reason? Sadly lacking. Hansen’s not fooled by the Paris Agreement though: James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’ “As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud#img-1 Not hard to conclude one thinks. But in the same paper (Guardian), this: Paris climate agreement ‘may signal end of fossil fuel era’ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-agreement-signal-end-of-fossil-fuel-era Other signals are that the end is some way off: ‘Russia plans $40 a barrel oil for next seven years as Saudi showdown intensifies’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12046185/russia-opec-saudi-arabia-bluff-40-oil-price.html There is a lot more to all of this that the climate-eye doesn’t see, “the sunk cost problem” for starters (see below). The fossil-fuel era certainly is under thread but not from the Paris climate agreement, it’s the end of a rather different era that will determine that. The following is a strong dose of the current reality: ‘The End Of The Bubble Finance Era’ ……it is crucial to sketch the global macroeconomic context. In a word, we are now entering an epic deflation. Its leading edge is manifested in the renewed carnage in the commodity pits.… Read more »


I estimate the standard deviation (using HadCRUT4) as 0.29C.
So, the probability of a given year being 0.1C greater than the previously warmest year ever recorded is roughly 0.8%, assuming a baseline of 1961-1990.
Extremely improbable if you are assuming that we are in a ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’.


I thought we were in an El Nino year. Anyway, it is not me assuming we are in a “pause”. I thought all those scientists writing papers about the pause were assuming a pause.

Richard C (NZ)

Let us know when the warming is CO2-forced Simon. It’s no where near that yet, even in a strong El Nino year.

And what when the El Nino has passed by?

Richard C (NZ)

By Foster and Rahmstorf’s method of eliminating “noise” in the data, the 2015 record El Nino effect would have to be removed from the HadCRUT4 series. When that’s done, you get a negative inflexion which includes the end of the F&R series in 2010. In other words, the ENSO-neutral data is approaching a peak, even in GISTEMP. SkepticalScince (SkS) were big on F&R but seem to have forgotten them lately, since the new and improved GISTEMP incorporated Karl et al. data. Except the latest SkS post on this just supports the F&R approach and confirms my point above: ‘Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money’ http://www.skepticalscience.com/betting-against-gw-sure-way-to-lose-money.html Their GISTEMP figure roughly approximates the F&R2011 residual but with a more realistic curve: Figure: Observed global surface temperature data from NASA GISS (gray) and 10-year averages (blue) ?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=4483a163339bebabf9919e50712f4629 1) The GISTEMP 10-year averages(blue line) has a negative inflexion contrary to CO2 which is rising with a positive curve. 2) When GISTEMP 2015/16 El Nino years are eventually smoothed by 10 yr averaging (a 2020 graph say), the blue line will be very close to peak warming (that will probably occur very soon… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”4) When the GISTEMP 10-year averages(blue line) is compared to GISS ModelE CO2-forced simulation (or Model Mean say), it is obvious that the GISTEMP data is not CO2-forced.”

Average of 90 CMIP5 Climate Models vs HadCRUT4 (running 5 year means):


Game over.

Richard C (NZ)

Simon used to berate us for looking at the “noise” in the data.

So OK, we look at data from which “noise” has been removed.

But suddenly, Simon seems to think the “noise” in the data is a REALLY REALLY big deal (probability “roughly 0.8%”) since NASAGISS 2015 meteorological year (Dec-Nov) “crushes” previous record by more than 0.1C (wow).

I’m beginning to wonder which has more “noise”, Simon or the data?


The new “deniers”: James Hansen, Tom Wigley, etc


Sweden is decommissioning some of its useless offshore birdchoppers after only 13 years rusting away in the sea


Richard C (NZ)

In comments under ‘New Climate Deniers’:

Stephen Segrest | December 16, 2015 at 4:47 pm |

Obama Administration on Nuclear Power: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-nuclear-paradigm-shift-1449014295

Remember, President Obama tried not once but twice with Congress, to build ~13 new nuclear power plants


Michael Mann has expressed support for Shale Gas. Presumably that makes him a “denier” too.

The world is rapidly getting to the point where most people are “deniers”.

Last person standing is Naomi Oreskes.

Richard C (NZ)

Another comment under ‘New Climate Deniers’: Andy May | December 16, 2015 at 4:21 pm | Reply It seems we are seeing a huge reaction to the far left agenda in the US and much of the rest of the western world. Oddly, the most obvious sign of this is the somewhat comical Trump. Why is Trump popular? The large group of forgotten working poor and middle class with no college education and no future. They have been completely ignored for many years and they are justifiably angry about it. Both the Democrats and the Republicans better learn that they ignore them at their peril. Forget inequality, racism, planned parenthood, immigration, climate change, renewables, prairie chickens, “hands up don’t shoot.” No one cares, they want good jobs! Pretty easy to see their point, yet the media and the politicians never even mention their concerns. I think they will now. Trump may have done a good thing, even though I doubt he will win the nomination. How small the issue of climate change must look to this group of underemployed? ———————————————————————————————- Also see: ‘Marine Le Pen Will Reap What The EU Has Sown’ ……it’s… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Obama blew billions on renewables,……”

And on “too big to fail”. He ain’t seen nuthin yet.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Paris talks: agreeing to dodge democracy’

Climate advocacy has become a refuge for political no-hopers.

Ben Pile

This is the anatomy of every individual and institutional champion of climate change. Whether they come in the form of a man, a woman or an organisation, climate champions are characterised by their disconnection from ordinary people and everyday life. Yet they nonetheless occupy positions of power and influence. Unsure of the mandate from below, the concentration of gasses in the atmosphere above gives the climate champion authority and secures their privilege. The political consensus on climate change, then, is not an agreement on climate change, but a compact to close ranks against the putative climate champions’ own worthlessness: a mediocracy is formed. At a press conference in Paris, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon urged world leaders to ‘look beyond their national interest’ – that is, to ignore the wishes of their domestic populations. Climate change is presented as above such petty things as democracy.


Richard C (NZ)

‘The IPCC doesn’t believe its own models. The 1.5C ambitious target = 400ppm. We’re already there!’


According to “climate science”modeling.

Richard C (NZ)

>”According to “climate science”modeling” It’s not just climate science. They have company in the US: ‘Sell The Bonds, Sell The Stocks, Sell The House —–Dread The Fed!’ by David Stockman • December 18, 2015 There is going to be carnage in the casino, and the proof lies in the transcript of Janet Yellen’s press conference [Fed Res Chair]. She did not say one word about the real world; it was all about the hypothecated world embedded in the Fed’s tinker toy model of the US economy. Yes, tinker toys are what kids used to play with back in the 1950s and 1960s, and that’s when Janet acquired her school-girl model of the nation’s economy. But since that model is so frightfully primitive, mechanical, incomplete, stylized and obsolete, it tells almost nothing of relevance about where the markets and economy now stand; or what forces are driving them; or where they are headed in the period just ahead. In fact, Yellen’s tinker toy model is so deficient as to confirm that she and her posse are essentially flying blind. That alone should give investors pause – especially because Yellen confessed explicitly that “monetary policy… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

J’ohn Kerry Proves He Doesn’t Understand Climate Science’ David Kreutzer / @dwkreutzer / December 23, 2015 / In an interview at the close of the recent Paris climate conference, Secretary of State John Kerry scolded Republican senators for saying out loud that the next president may not be a big supporter of President Barack Obama’s climate policies. Kerry asserted voters won’t allow a change, “I don’t think they’re going to accept as a genuine leader someone who doesn’t understand the science of climate change and isn’t willing to do something about it.” But Kerry disproves his own theory. In a widely covered speech in Jakarta, Indonesia Kerry gave an absolutely cringe-worthy explanation of CO2 and global warming. Of course the press totally ignored his bizarre CO2 science lesson: “I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school and college, some aspects of science or physics can be tough – chemistry. But this is not tough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this. “Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Just for the record, the banner of COP21 Paris was:

“Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,”

Apparently climate was a minor concern – not worth mentioning.

Post Navigation