The Paris Climate Agreement Is Pointless and No One Cares

About two years ago, Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Plenty of fear-mongers told us the world would fall apart and really bad things would happen.

But here’s the simple truth about the Paris Climate Agreement:

The only way to get all of the governments of the world to sign on to Paris, was for them each to realize that they weren’t actually on the hook for anything.

The result was pledges such as Pakistan’s hilariously ambitious commitment,  which was “to reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” Yeah, after something peaks it typically goes down. Every country makes the same “pledge” automatically by virtue of definition of “peak”.

The Paris agreement was and is completely meaningless — nothing more than pompous, self-congratulatory theater so that the world’s elites can feel good about themselves when they go hang out to their fancy conferences.

Paris will have the same fate as Kyoto I and II.

Continue reading at the Institute for Energy Research

Advertisements

Wind Power Is a Joke

Every now and then you should check out the Alberta Electric System Operator’s “Current Supply Demand Report” page.

This handy little page shows us the total net generation of power from different sources. It is constantly being updated.

Wind power sucks. It’s hellishly cold in Alberta right now and wind power contributes nothing to make our lives better. LITERALLY NOTHING. 

wind power sucks.JPG

You see that? Despite 1445 MW max capacity with wind power, and total net generation is zero. On one of the coldest days of the year.

Just look at all those wind farms and all the magical wind power generated!

lol-wind

Oh wait. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero.

You get the idea.

You can build all you want for capacity, but it doesn’t mean you get much actual electricity out of it.

Natural gas is reliable, cheap, clean, and plentiful. Wind power is unreliable, expensive, and requires back up from something you can count on (i.e. fossil fuel based energy that just works).

Wind power is a joke.

Anyone who thinks the government should tax perfectly good and reliable fossil fuel energy production & use to subsidize pathetically inefficient wind power is a fool or a knave.

Should We Subsidize CO2?

Alberta’s NDP government passed its carbon tax law today.

Many agree that it is one of the stupidest taxes ever created, however even many arguments against the tax accept the basic premise that CO2 is a negative externality and “something must be done.”

But what if the premise underlying the tax — not to mention any other “climate change” policy — is wrong?

What if the social cost of carbon is negative — i.e. the net effects of carbon are positive?

A new paper by Dayaratna, McKitrick, and Kreutzer finds reason to believe this is justified by the empirical data:

Substituting an empirical ECS distribution from LC15 yields a mean 2020 SCC of $19.52, a drop of 48%. The same exercise for the FUND model yields a mean SCC estimate of $19.33 based on RB07 and $3.33 based on the LC15 parameters—an 83% decline. Furthermore the probability of a negative SCC (implying CO2 emissions are a positive externality) jumps dramatically using an empirical ECS distribution. Using the FUND model, under the RB07 parameterization at a 3% discount rate there is only about a ten percent chance of a negative SCC through 2050, but using the LC15 distribution, the probability of a negative SCC jumps to about 40%. Remarkably, replacing simulated climate sensitivity values with an empirical distribution calls into question whether CO2 is even a negative externality. The lower SCC values also cluster more closely together across difference discount rates, diminishing the importance of this parameter.

This all makes perfect sense, because there are non-climate effects of CO2 and they are extremely beneficial to the planet (plant growth, crop yield, human well-being). Furthermore, the climate effects of CO2 observed in the real world are far less damaging than what’s been predicted by the models of climate change propagandists — and these too are largely beneficial. On this, see Goklany’s Carbon Dioxide: The Good Newsfrom GWPF.

So using the logic of carbon tax advocates, since carbon provides us with overall benefits, we should subsidize carbon rather than tax it extra.

CONCLUSION

From the standpoint of economics and ethics, we should neither subsidize carbon nor tax it.

If you have a carbon tax, get rid of it. If you don’t have one but think you need one, forget it.

Carbon taxes are an abomination — they do nothing to improve the environment and exist only to plunder citizens so that politicians, central planners and cronies can enrich themselves.

They Aren’t Saving the World, They’re Having an Expensive Party

This latest climate change conference in Paris is shrouded in a “cloak of crapola,” writes Les MacPherson:

The latest manifestation is the 40,000 people in Paris, most of them flown in from around the world on carbon-spewing jets, mostly at taxpayers’ expense, for yet another last-chance-to-save-the-planet climate conference.

What is this, the third last-chance to save the planet, or the fourth? I forget. These conferences should be numbered, like Superbowls, to help us keep track of our last chances.

— Read the rest of the article

Trudeau Will Give $2.65B in Climate Change Welfare to Corrupt Foreign Governments

It was bad enough when Harper was doing this, but Trudeau will double it. Terrible.

Are we to be spared nothing when it comes to the lies of climate change?

Sentence-by-Sentence Refutation of Boilerplate Climate Change Propaganda

World leaders are currently enjoying their fancy party in Paris and pontificating about how global warming is going to kill us all and we must let bureaucrats and politicians lead us into a glorious new era of the centrally planned renewable energy economy.

At this time it’s useful to review an article that shamelessly repeats the typical mantra of climate change lies and fallacies. The subject of the following piece relies on all the usual propaganda you hear spouted by would-be central planners and cronies, and is rebutted sentence-by-sentence. Overall, this presents a useful summary of common climate change lies and their refutation.

AP’s Seth Borenstein gets something right (but only the date)

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I often get emails asking me to comment in detail on an article on global warming that pretends the “problem” is worse than it is. Here is my reply to one such request.

Earth is a wilder [no], warmer [no] place since last climate deal made in 1997

By SETH BORENSTEIN, November 29, 2015 [At least he got the date right]

PARIS (AP) — This time, it’s a hotter [Satellites show no global warming for the 223 months (i.e., 18 years 7 months) since April 1997], waterier [Water vapour is difficult to measure, but some records show no change in water vapour except in the vital mid-troposphere, where it has actually declined], wilder Earth [The IPCC, both in its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Weather and in its 2013 Fourth Assessment Report,says there has been no particular overall trend in storminess, floods or droughts] that world leaders are trying to save [They are not trying to save the world: Bjorn Lomborg has reliably calculated that the effect of honouring all nations’ Paris pledges will be to reduce global temperature by 0.05-0.17 C° by 2100 compared with having no pledges, and the cost of getting that reduction will be $1 trillion].

The writer is actually giving the propagandist, Mr. Borenstein, too much credit about getting the date right. That was probably automatically generated with the website software — even a monkey trying to publish an attempt at Hamlet on his blog would have gotten the date right.

But hey, he… um… spelled his own name correctly?

— Read the rest of the article. —

Would You Spend Trillions of Dollars to Reduce Earth’s Temperature by 0.05°C?

Someone actually bothered to look at the IPCC’s own models to evaluate the impact of all the different programs proposed as CO2 mitigation plans on Earth’s climate. The results are extremely impressive if your goal is spending gargantuan sums of money and impoverishing humanity to achieve almost nothing.

From the abstract of the paper (emphasis and formatting added):

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

  • The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100.
  • The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C.
  • The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.
  • All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

To illustrate the utter impotence of these asinine proposals, let’s take the first case: the US Clean Power Plan, which would strive to reduce carbon emissions by reducing coal based energy production. If these reductions are implemented and adhered to until 2100 (when most of the people reading this will be dead), the reduction in temperature rise would be 0.013°C.

Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t seem like very much. Maybe some perspective will be helpful:

Everyone knows that as you go up a mountain, the air gets cooler. The rate at which non-condensing air cools with increasing altitude is called the “dry adiabatic lapse rate”. The rule of thumb states that for every hundred metres higher that you climb, the temperature drops by 1°C.

Now, a human being is typically around 1.7 metres tall, plus or minus. This means that other things being equal, the air at your head is about 0.017°C cooler than the air at your feet. And recall from above that the “impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100” …

Which means that after spending billions of dollars and destroying valuable power plants and reducing our energy options and making us more dependent on Middle East oil, all we will do is make the air around our feet as cool as the air around our heads … I am overcome with gratitude for such a stupendous accomplishment.

Okay then.

But that’s just one proposal for one country. What if the entire world successfully implements all its proposals by 2030 and maintains them until 2100? Far-fetched maybe, but let’s go with it.

Realistically, this would result in a 0.05°C temperature reduction by 2100.

Since it’s perfectly normal to experience a difference of 20°C in a single day, this is pretty much completely meaningless.

And again, this is all based on the IPCC’s own climate models, which have enough problems on their own but nonetheless are the basis for all the anti-carbon hysteria and fear-mongering.

— Read more at WUWT

%d bloggers like this: