The Belgian online Le Peuple here interviewed István Marko, Professor of Chemistry at the UCL, and a so-called climate non-alarmist, on what he thought of the results of the highly ballyhooed Paris COP21 climate summit and agreement.
Photo: www.uclouvain.be
Unrealistic and laughable
His assessment is devastating. He calls the COP21 agreement a “grand illusion“, a “resounding failure” and one of “wishful thinking” on the part of the rich countries. He calls the 2.0°C warming target “unrealistic” – never mind the 1.5°C warming target, which in the interview he called “laughable“.
No enforcement mechanisms
Markó calls the COP21 agreement an “obvious failure” because there is no mechanism forcing the signatory countries to do what they just ‘promise’. “Nothing is binding.”
Markó says the rich countries have engaged in “wishful thinking“.
When it comes to the $100 billion in annual payments to developing countries, “nothing in the 10 pages of the 31-page final report assures this is going to happen”.
Will it be loans or donations? Will there be an interest rate that will be applied? And if so, which? What happens in the event of of non-payment! There’s no organ of control”.
Markó says, “Nobody knows how the European countries are going to finance these amounts to be paid to poor countries”.
No CO2 emissions decrease
Markó also tells Le Peuple more on why the COP21 agreement is nothing short of a folly:
China can continue to emit CO2 without restriction up to 2030. These emissions would correspond to an increase of 140% over its 2005 emissions, and India 150% of its 2005 emissions. Other developing countries can emit CO2 as they see fit. No decrease in emissions!”
Text filled with “should” instead of “shall”
For Professor Markó it is indeed a mystery how any serious environmental organization holding the belief that man-made CO2 emissions are damaging global climate would be satisfied with such a powerless agreement, which we are now seeing as being nothing more than an illusion of a binding treaty. Come Christmastime when environmentalists unwrap the package, they will quickly realize they’ve been sold a fake.
Markó also finds it amazing that countries who endorse the agreement will be able to still withdraw after 3 years:
Yet once again, nothing is binding.” Remember that U.S. Secretary, John Kerry had announced before, that if there were the slightest binding commitment, the US Senate would refuse the agreement.
He adds that throughout the text conditionals were added everywhere: “should” instead of “shall“.
Schellnhuber’s delirium
On the 2°C target, Markó says it has “strictly no physical or scientific basis” and that it is “nothing serious“. It is a randomly picked number by Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which Markó calls “the green lobby in Germany” and “a voice of the Church of climate alarmism“.
Markó reminds that not even Schellnhuber believes the alarmism he so gravely preaches, citing a Spiegel interview where “he had confessed that even if warming exceeds 2°C, humanity would not suffer”.
For him it is a symbolic figure, for political purpose. The message has been dramatized and 2°C has become the difference between the death of the planet and our very survival! Delirium.”
COP21 ends, realities return
At the end of the interview Markó summarizes that COP21 has no useful or serious results other than slowing growth in developed countries and rendering no benefit to developing countries. The only good Markó sees from COP21 is: “it is over and we finally can return to the realities.”
Well said that man. The truth will prevail eventually.
The truth has already prevailed… Or do you think chemists are suddenly going to discover that CO2 doesn’t absorb IR after all?
CO2 molecules absorb IR, emit IR, transfer energy to surrounding molecules via thermalization, and at high altitude, surrounding molecules transfer energy to CO2 molecules by reverse-thermalization. End result, CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no effect on climate.
The only ghg that has an effect on climate is water vapor.
David, you know very well that all hinges on feedbacks in the system i.e. on the ability of climate models to forecast the future. And you know as well as we that their predictions have completely failed.
You are delivering one misdirection after the other. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? Is that what we must expect from all science journalists? Is that why you ever got hired in the first place? In other words, is ALL of science journalism one Big Lie?
The fund for wealth redistribution is included, but appears to be voluntary. I wish Canada had asked what percentage the UN would withdraw for “administrative” purposes before any money is passed on to “poorer” countries. The West also appears to be in favour of assisting in building wind and solar power farms in under-developed nations, rather than truly “sustainable” power plants. Poor nations need reliable power, not intermittent power. China appears to be willing to develop coal-based systems. My view is that some monies will go toward clean-up after natural disasters that will be blamed on “western” climate disruption. Any natural weather event could qualify. Backtracking can now begin!
The wealth distribution is currently going upward: from the poor to the rich.
No thanks to FIT acts.
Hey David, it’s the warmunist side that constantly applauds subsidy king Musk with his electric toy cars for the rich.
Google trends:
Schellnhuber, Al Gore, ISIS, Global Warming, Climate Change
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=schellnhuber%2C%20al%20gore%2C%20isis%2C%20global%20warming%2C%20climate%20change&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
It is a comfort that there are still some wise people at our universities.
Compelling evidence CO2 has no effect on climate requires only (1) Understanding that temperature changes with the integral of the net forcing (not directly with the instantaneous value of the forcing itself). and (2) All life depends ultimately on photosynthesis which requires CO2. The 542 million years of evolution on land required substantial atmospheric CO2. The integral of CO2 (or a function thereof) for 542 million years could not consistently result in today’s temperature. Documented in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, vol. 26, no. 5, 841-845 and also at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com which also identifies the two factors that explain climate change (97% match since before 1900).
Junk science.
Also, no one respects E&E anymore.
The reported average global temperature (AGT) is being temporarily propped up by the short-term uptrend in ENSO and some of the agencies committing the unforgivable sin in science of changing the data to corroborate an agenda. I wonder how low the AGT will need to get for some to realize they have been misled. I expect the downtrend in reported AGT to steepen and be more evident after the current el Nino peaks out.
Mother Nature can’t be hoodwinked.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/12/18/stinging-criticism-belgian-prof-calls-cop21-a-resounding-failure-… […]
[…] For the Belgian Professor of Chemistry István Marko “it is a mystery how any serious environmental organization holding the belief that man-made CO2 emissions are damaging global climate would be satisfied with such a powerless agreement, which we are now seeing as being nothing more than an illusion of a binding treaty.” Notrickszone […]
When you look into the the records of well-sited stations, the lack of warming is obvious, as is the effect of adjustments. An initial study was published here at No Tricks Zone. My recent study of USHCN stations meeting the CRN#1 standard is here, with supporting Excel workbooks:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/
Excellent work!
Lack of warming? They why is all this snow and ice melting and why are is the ocean rising?
[…] […]
What truth? It’s just an opinion by someone unfamiliar with the subject. István Marko is neither a climate scientist, nor is he an economist.
https://scientificupdate.co.uk/index.php/training/course/item/istvan-marko.html
Most climate scientists are not “climate” scientists. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see all the flaws in “climate science”.
Fasces. A bundle of rods around an axe carried in front of a magistrate by a lictor. Symbol of the Roman Republic. The symbol shows that the magistrate will punish law breakers. The punishments were rigorous and so fascism is used as an adjective to describe a regime which enforces it’s will on people but lawfully by properly chosen leaders S P Q R Senatus Populus Que Romanum. The Roman Republic was much admired in the 18th Century.
Mussolini il Duce (Dux) wanted to return to the Roman Empire where the General (Imperator) became an Emperor but he retained the Fasces as his symbol of force.
He wanted to regulate all the economy having started as a socialist.
Hitler was of a different type of tyrant and wanted the people of the right Blood to take back the Soil. Initially he was all for peasant farms but later necessity dictated Heavy Industry in order to rearm. He planted German colonies in the regions disputed with Poland and the Ukrainian lands to give German farmers more ‘Lebensraum.’ He was all about greening the economy to begin with.
At least this is what we learned in European History lessons at school in Britain back when History was a national examination subject necessary for university entrance, unless you were following the Science curriculum
“Markó calls the COP21 agreement an “obvious failure” because there is no mechanism forcing the signatory countries to do what they just ‘promise’. “Nothing is binding.””
It is rather strange to see all these false tears among “sceptics”. It is total hypocrisy to complain about non-binding contracts, if you fought against a binding contract.
Most “contracts” in politics are non-binding. Political parties write programs and get elected, without a binding contract to do what they promised. Instead it is hard work for the public, to enforce them to keep even half of their promises. That is, how it works.
And by the way, anybody who is following the news has already seen the effects of the Paris talks. The UK is moving out of coal. China is acting agressively against pollution. The US is extending tax credits for solar. Australia is changing course.
In Germany, we won a minor victory recently: The catastrophic coal plant in Hamm (D) is going to be abandoned.
http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/kohlekraftwerk-hamm-rwe-zieht-bei-pannenkraftwerk-den-stecker/12741680.html
RWE is using the timing, to get out of this project. In the past, it would have tried to get it back running again. Now the prospect is changing, as 10 more years of repairing the failed construction might end in it getting online, when it has to be closed anyway.
We will see many fights in the future, over fossil fuels and the Paris results. We will see promises being broken. But we will also see, the effect of the Paris talk. Anybody looking out for the effect, can already see it.
“In Germany, we won a minor victory recently: The catastrophic coal plant in Hamm (D) is going to be abandoned. ”
What would have been catastrophic about that coal power plant? I’m currently enjoying the district heating from the local coal power plant. I would find it pretty catastrophic if it were not there.
You are a wheelchair bound quadriplegic in the Black Forest if I remember correctly. So in what way would it have been catastrophic for you if people 400 km to the North of you would have built themselves a power plant?
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1
http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts
Our daughter studying at Liege. I am proud of having people like Prof. Marko educating at Belgian universities.
[…] Lees verder hier. […]
[…] – never mind the 1.5°C warming target, which in the interview he called “laughable“.” click here for full […]