UPDATE: No surprise, but sadly, all countries signed the dumb treaty, which we know will be meaningless in curbing global CO2 emissions. The treaty is useless, vaguely binding and will not have any impact whatsoever. In a few days we will start hearing a chorus of dissatisfaction from reductions proponents about the treaty’s ineffectiveness.
Here’s the new “Historical Draft“, which soon will up for signing into international law.
Skimming it, at first glance, the draft appears watered down. On the temperature target:
It’s going to take some time to digest/read through the content. By then it’ll likely either be ratified, or discarded.
Reading it I couldn’t help but think this is a document of madness. Global temperature cannot be regulated. It’s delusional to think so.
Unless you’re going to make money from it, why would anyone want to sign it and ensure a place in history’s Laughing Stock Hall of Fame? The passage that sparked this thought clearly shows the levels human delusion can reach, Article 2, Paragraph 1, part (a):
Signatories to this treaty will go down as historical fools who let themselves get caught up in hysteria.
48 responses to “New “Historical Draft” Is Delusional …Will Go Down In History As Certificate Of Madness And Hysteria”
3 major points:
“1 As expected, the agreement commits the world to limiting warming to well below 2C but to try to keep it below 1.5C.
2 Countries will be requested to revisit their existing pledges for emission cuts by 2020, and every five years thereafter.
3 On the thorny issue of money, the legally-binding part of the agreement requires that developed countries (as defined in 1992) shall continue to provide finance to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change and cut their emissions. The most contentious part – how much money – is in the non-legally binding ‘decision text’. Currently, developed countries are obliged to ‘mobilise’ $100bn a year of public and private finance to help developing countries by 2020. The decision says they “intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025” and then by 2025 set a new goal “from a floor of $100 billion”.”
Sounds rather promising to me.
Except there is nothing mandatory about it. A complete waste of time for everyone except for those attending who know doubt had a fine time at the poor taxpayers expense
“Sounds rather promising to me.”
To me as well: Nothing will happen. Warmunism as a scare is dying anyway.
I mean what did ya expect. That anyone believes lies fabricated by western government paid pseudoscientists?
After the implimentation of Agenda 21, the UN will be writing the History and will show themselves and the world leaders as Heroes.
A C Osborn said: “After the implimentation of Agenda 21, the UN will be writing the History and will show themselves and the world leaders as Heroes.”
Of course, they will call themselves heroes. They signed a treaty AND it happens that global temperatures are already on a descending slope (according to satellite data). Expect them to boast that their (absence of) action saved the planet.
I do hope that there is an “out clause” so that when it is plain that CO2 is innocent, reparations can cease. All in all a most fool hardy pursuit. It would be preferable that no one signs and makes gooses of themselves but it’s too late for that for most of them.
Western power elites are a bunch of lunatics. They know that their pretend concern about a pseudo problem will work with their victims – the population they have brought up in their brainwashing schools.
These are all methods of successful cult leaders. In the end though, cults perish in the most horrific ways. This one will as well.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/12/12/new-historical-draft-is-delusional-will-go-down-in-history-as-cer… (Linkki) P. Gosselin lyttää uuden sopimuksen. […]
This was a huge win for humanity. There are no enforceable commitments to reaching quixotic climate goals; not even intrusive independent “auditors” to certify climate goals are reached. Financing is also voluntary… so taxes likely not used in most countries for such purposes.
James Hansen is right… the whole exercise is a charade. But hey… we knew that going in.
It’s on to business as usual (for most of the world)
The new york times is calling it a “landmark paper”, but hey, what do those journalists now?
You equate journalists with intelligence and perspicacity? Dear me, how deluded can one get
What, this New York Times?
sod 12. December 2015 at 5:59 PM | Permalink | Reply
“The new york times is calling it a “landmark paper”, but hey, what do those journalists now?”
They know how to lie. The NYT knows it for 80+ years.
Even “top scientists” like it:
A top climate scientist who was critical of draft negotiation texts on Friday has praised the final draft as being consistent with science.
John Schellnhuber, director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, says that “if agreed and implemented, this means bringing down greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero within a few decades.”
He says the accord presented Saturday “is in line with the scientific evidence we presented of what would have to be done to limit climate risks such as weather extremes and sea-level rise. To stabilize our climate, CO2 emissions have to peak well before 2030 and should be eliminated as soon as possible after 2050.”
He added that “governments can indeed write history today, so future generations will remember the Paris summit for centuries to come.”
It’s already starting to cool down, day-by-day, here in the northern hemisphere.
World leaders have now solved what President Obama recently called the greatest existential threat to the United States and indeed the entire planet.
Here in the northern hemisphere, we are already seeing the effects of this historic agreement, as the temperatures are gradually falling day after day.
Thanks, politicians, activists and directed scientific researchers!
Now, can we get on to solving far less pressing problems such as defeating islamic terrorism: ISIS, Al Quada, and all their islamo-fascist variants?
Compared to solving climate change (done!), this should be a breeze!
It will not be a “treaty” – or at least not in the USA.
I think it is being called an accord.
See Josh’s cartoon: UN Climate Talks: The Ritual
I’ve gone over the (painful) Draft decision of COP21.
1. Everybody gets to do what he wants to do, without repercussions other than official notes in the media of progress vis-a-vis what he said.
2. Nothing has to be done that “threatens” food production. Not “reduces”, but threatens. This should allow cutting down forests and the slash-and-burn style of agriculture, and exempt agricultural practices, including beef production, from carbon-taxes, fuel surcharges or the need to make them less CO2 heavy.
3. Financing is neither fixed, nor firm, but voluntary and without a timeframe. Financing is still at the stage of ‘determining’ what others may need. There is no “SHALL” involved with collection or redistribution of funds.
4. Developed countries have to produce data on what they are doing as to emissions reduction. Developing countries don’t have to do so, only if they want to.
5. No tracking of emissions claims is permissible if the host country finds the questioning intrusive or offensive.
6. The Convention is going to appoint two “Champions” for 2-year terms (overlapping 1 year) to run around the world and talk to others about doing their bit. My bet: Obama and Merckel, once they are out of office.
7. The next global “stocktake” will take place in 2023. I couldn’t find a date for the next COP meeting of equivalence to this December 2015 Paris meeting.
8. The Agreement will come into ‘force’ after 16 April 2016 OR when 55 Parties accounting for at least 55% of global emissions sign the agreement. China is at 28%, India at 6% and the Rest of the World small Parties at 30%. The ROC have no reason not to sign. All they need is China. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.html
9. Cheating has been big. Anti-“double accounting” rules, whereby British firms pay the Brazillians to plant trees of carbon-offset credits will no longer allow Brazil to claim those same trees in their emissions reduction claims, have had to be imposed because there was cheating everywhere and you couldn’t believe the numbers.
10. Surprise! Surprise! After signing any Party can bow out in 3 years, effective 1 year later. Shorter than the Kyoto Agreement! By mid-2020 anyone can be out prior to the next big conflab.
Do as you plan on doing or end up doing. No sweat. No money committed or flowing for the time being. We’re gonna get a couple of celebrities to talk it up and have grand photo-ops. Don’t worry about measuring performance success officially until 2023. If you or your electorates or other power groups get really annoyed, you can opt-out in three years, long before you are held to account for what you said today.
Except for the half-billion dollars these jokers just spent (of our tax money), and the social licence they gave each other to raise taxes and redistribute economic activity within their countries, there is nothing in this to provide comfort for the alarmists. No sense of urgency, no sense that the world is about to die/fry. The “last chance to save the planet” is now 2023.
Re, your point 10, the 3 + 1 years to opt out. I could imagine the newly empowered NGO’s “shaming” a Government that announced an intention to opt out and ensuring a party sympathetic to planet saving is elected. Very cunning.
Good point. I missed that tactic ….
I was thinking about the (farcical) 100 billion/per year (which many MSM writers seem to confuse with 100 billion as a one-time payment):
The “developing” countries don’t pay a dime. Which means China and India are off the hook also, and the mid-East. So the little GDP nations and the above 3 big ones aren’t in the game of giving. That leaves, what, 20 or 30? But some are small also – I doubt Luxembourg would be giving much. And some, like Russia, probably won’t, just on principle. So who gives how much, actually?
The US, the EU and Britain look like the only ones to give. And their GDP and historic production need to be taken into account according to the “differentiated” responsibilities.100 billion per year …. Is that now 65 billion per year JUST FOR THE US?
Obama “pledged” 3 billion recently. That would be for the first month.
So the money game is more serious for the American taxpayer than they realise. Of the 1.5+ trillion US by 2030, perhaps 1.0 trillion is to come from them. Call me skeptical, but I don’t think that is going to happen. Even if it is ‘fake’ money, like the ‘quantitative easing’ of printing 85 billion/month, the taxpayer doesn’t recognize the difference when they continue to pay taxes. THEY don’t have any one sending them envelopes with $650/taxpayer/year.
Looks like we have a treaty. Will i hear a positive word here?
You will. I am positive it is not a treaty
“Looks like we have a treaty. Will i hear a positive word here?”
Of course: Looks like meaningless waffling. As I said, the total collapse of warmunism. I’ll pop a champagne as soon as Merkel is in prison.
The climate story, of course, is just the cover for the real purpose of the UN’s climate agenda: The plundering of wealth from the most developed countries. 100 BILLION is a GIGANTIC sum. And that’s from EACH participant.
How much longer does this charade go on?
Surely, at some point, the whole thing will be laughed out of existence.
Cant David Cameron, Gorge Osborn, etc. have the guts to call this business?
How about the two Champions to be appointed?
We should have a bet going: my money is on Obama first, followed by Merkel, though Gore is available right now and Hollande would make the French very happy and balance the Anglo-Saxon optics. A Chinese politico would be the height of hypocrisy but not impossible in the charade.
Nope. I am stuck on Obama “the climate is my legacy” and Merkel “doing the moral things regardless of the social cost”.
Don’t underestimate the cause. Hundreds of successful political careers have been launched on utterly inane crises, ineffectual political response, and having claimed victory where there was none.
The idea behind political campaigns is always to scare the population, as scared people do not think, and can be controlled.
In that regard, Global Warming was a masterpiece but it has long lost its usefulness through overuse – and for total failure of the climate models.
A good belwether is Merkel. A few years back she had her apparatchiks and media slime call her the Climate Chancellor. Now she has switched to the Mother Of All Muslims. She got educated in propaganda in the DDR. She knows what she’s doing.
It is worth reading paragraph 17 above and paragraph 21.
P17 states that the INDCs are nowhere close to being on track for the 2C limit. That would require emissions in 2030 to be 40 gigatonnes or less, whereas the forecast (with policy) is for 55 gigatonnes.
In P21 the UNFCCC asks the UNIPCC for some more scary stories and some more modelled emissions forecasts. There is a lot of hot air, but no global plans at all to reach any 2C target.
What has happened in Paris can best be described as “lunatics in charge of the asylum”.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has summed it up perfectly as a non-binding toothless UN climate agreement:
“…the Paris deal is based on a voluntary basis which allows nations to set their own voluntary CO2 targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight.
“In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal removes all legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions. This voluntary agreement also removes the mad rush into unrealistic decarbonisation policies that are both economically and politically unsustainable.”
“What has happened in Paris can best be described as “lunatics in charge of the asylum”.”
Nearly 200 countries agreed on something. The all of them are lunatic?
There is a joke in german: The radio says “There is a ghost rider (car heading the wrong direction) on the autobahn A1″.
A guy sitting in his car on the A1 thinks:”one? there are 100s of them!”
“Nearly 200 countries agreed on something. The all of them are lunatic?”
Sods satisfaction about the historic agreement on “something” is not shared by the Warmunist cult leaders.
Photo of warmunist waterboys. (subtitle: Get a job. Take A Bath. Or at least that should be the subtitle)
Lots of caterwauling. example:
“Latif (Mojib, German warmunist pseudoscientist) bemoaned that decarbonisation of world economy played nearly no role.”
And so on and so on.
Message to sod: the warmunist cult is NEVER satisfied with anything. Just like the German Greens were not HAPPY when the Waldsterben turned out to be a hoax.
I am rather happy, that most people here have joined Greenpeace in their demand for a stronger treaty.
I must have missed that part in your comments, before a compromise was reached.
Was not Poland supposed to stop the treaty till rather recently?
sod 13. December 2015 at 9:33 AM | Permalink | Reply
“I am rather happy, that most people here have joined Greenpeace in their demand for a stronger treaty.”
Work on your reading comprehension.
Sod, why do you wilfully ignore the evidence of your own eyes?
“Much greater emissions reduction efforts will be required”
Good grief – humans only produce about 4% of the world’s CO2. There’s only so much we can do – not that any of it is necessary, mind you.
The talk of 1,5 degrees target is utterly delusional as Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard has pointed out, since we have already passed 1,4 degrees (if we were to believe the official temperature interpretations):
Duke Silver: I’m sure that’s most relevant. It reminds me of the book “Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” – published in 1841, but still reprinted occasionally which shows the need is still here – and reinforced by the COP21 charlatans.
Folk just don’t seem to learn, even after the previous historical lessons we learned about, wolves in sheep’s clothing, snake oil salesmen and Neville Chamberlains they still have to learn the hard way – go with the flow until it’s too late. Oh well!
There appears to be a high correlation between the secular
rise is global temps and the global increase in the size of central governments. Reducing the latter will reduce the former–guarantied!
All the money that has been spent on nothing could have set up clean air power plants over most of the smaller countries and they could be enjoying the fruits of their labors and also having much cleaner air. The USA cleaned up the air by 80% since 1980 and they did it through common sense methods no planting trees just scrubbers and such and it was doable with out shutting anyone down.These people have went off the deep end saying a carbon tax will do the job, taxes do nothing but make items more expensive. Regulations (to many) are the reason for high prices today .
Inventor of warmunist crackpot mechanics, Hansen, does it right: All disappointed about COP. No optimism there! World to end, women and minorities hardest hit!
Rich people from rich countries met in Paris with rich people from poor countries and decided to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries and screw poor people everywhere.
How absolutely true.
VOX, expert leftist idiots, do it right: Are grumpy because historic agreement about something at COP21 isn’t bigger news than the last thing that ISIS did (which is, accidentally, killing mongoloid babies).
It’s really striking that this UN climate agreement isn’t bigger news than, say, whatever the latest thing ISIS did is.”
Rule#1: As a warmunist, you are never allowed to be satisfied! You must always demand MOAR. Even if it’s as ridiculous as this.
Delingpole about COP21. Photo of warmunist protester carrying a potty plant on his head.
People do that a lot. Though these guys seem to be a bit more professional:
I think most are missing the point here.
With this treaty in hand all bureaucracies can start to issues new regulation, taxes etc… for this and for that.
“It’s going to take some time to digest/read through the content. By then it’ll likely either be ratified, or discarded.”
So has anyone find any huge problems in the treaty?
Even Bojanowski had to write a positive article, explaining the success.