Day: November 13, 2024

Scientists Haven’t ‘Saved’ the Ozone Layer

“In 2015, scientists at NASA predicted that the Ozone Hole would be half closed by 2020. That hasn’t happened. Other scientists have forecasted that the hole will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.”

From Master Resource

By Steve Goreham

“In 2015, scientists at NASA predicted that the Ozone Hole would be half closed by 2020. That hasn’t happened. Other scientists have forecasted that the hole will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.”

Another year has passed, and that stubborn Ozone Hole over Antarctica refuses to go away. Data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) shows that the area of the Ozone Hole remains about the same as it has been over the last 30 years. But will scientists admit that they didn’t save the ozone layer?

Background

Ozone is a gas made up of three oxygen atoms (O3). Ninety percent of the ozone in the atmosphere is found in the stratosphere, a layer of atmosphere between about 10 and 50 kilometers in altitude. The amount of ozone in the atmosphere varies with time of year.

Dr. Mario Molina and Dr. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California published a paper in 1974 warning that industrial chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution was destroying the ozone layer in Earth’s stratosphere. CFCs were gases used in hair spray, refrigerators, and insulating foams.

The theory of Molina and Rowland postulated that CFCs from human industry move upward through the atmosphere to the stratosphere, where ultraviolet radiation breaks down CFC molecules, releasing chlorine atoms. Chlorine then acts as a catalyst to break down ozone molecules into oxygen, reducing the ozone concentration. According to the theory, the more CFCs consumed, the greater the destruction of the ozone layer.

In 1983, researchers from the British Antarctic Survey discovered a thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica which occurred during August, September, and October. This became known as the Ozone Hole. This appeared to confirm the theory of Molina and Rowland, who were awarded a Noble Prize in chemistry in 1995 for their work.

Montreal Protocol (1987)

The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet rays, shielding the surface of the Earth from high-energy radiation. According to scientists, degradation of the layer would increase rates of skin cancer and cataracts and cause immune system problems in humans. In Earth in the Balance (1992), Al Gore claimed that hunters reported finding blind rabbits in Patagonia and that fishermen were catching blind fish due to human destruction of the ozone layer, but this was not confirmed.

In 1987, 29 nations and the European Community signed executed the “Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”. Over the next decade, signers of the treaty rose to over 180 nations, all agreeing to ban the use of CFCs.

Because of the Montreal Protocol ban, world consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS), or chlorofluorocarbons, began falling in 1990. By 2005, ODS consumption was down 90 percent and is now down more than 99 percent, according to the European Environment Agency.

Result?

The Montreal Protocol was hailed as an example of international success of how nations could unite to resolve a major environmental issue. The Protocol has been praised as an example to follow for elimination of greenhouse gas emissions in the fight to halt global warming. But despite the elimination of CFCs, the Ozone Hole remains as large as ever.

NASA reported this fall that the mean ozone hole area for September 7 to October 13 again reached 23 million square kilometers, roughly the same level as in the last three decades stretching back to 1994–1995. The hole remains large, despite that fact that world ODS consumption has almost been eliminated.

In 2015, scientists at NASA predicted that the Ozone Hole would be half closed by 2020. That hasn’t happened. Other scientists have forecasted that the hole will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.

___________________

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, If Green Energy Is the Future, Bring a Fire Extinguisher, brought national attention to the lithium battery problem.

UK Govt Sending 470 Ministers & Officials to Baku

Over 66000 participants are due at COP29 this month

A city bus near the Flame Towers during the COP29 climate change conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Sunday, Nov. 10, 2024. The United Nations climate change conference runs through Nov. 22. Photographer: Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Joe Public

Over 66000 participants are due at COP29 this month:

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/PLOP_COP29_%28onsite-virtual%29.pdf

But the most interesting number is the one for virtual-only participation – just 3975. Nearly all of these are NGOs.

Why is there are any need at all for anybody to attend in person, never mind 66000? Did Starmer really have to fly out, no doubt with am army of officials? Could he not have done a video presentation instead.

After all, I doubt anybody paid the slightest attention to any of the nonsense he had to say.

Altogether the UK Government is sending 470 ministers and officials to Baku.

It raises the question why we even need to be employing all of these in the first place. I though Rachel Reeves had a black hole!

The full list is here.

Climate Litigation: The Dutch Case and a Pattern of Vexatious Lawsuits

A recent Dutch court decision has highlighted yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of climate litigation. These lawsuits, often celebrated by environmental groups as heroic stands against alleged corporate or governmental indifference, more frequently reveal themselves to be little more than vexatious attempts to impose ideological agendas through the legal system. The Dutch case fits squarely into this pattern, raising questions about the validity of such litigation and its broader consequences.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

A recent Dutch court decision has highlighted yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of climate litigation. These lawsuits, often celebrated by environmental groups as heroic stands against alleged corporate or governmental indifference, more frequently reveal themselves to be little more than vexatious attempts to impose ideological agendas through the legal system. The Dutch case fits squarely into this pattern, raising questions about the validity of such litigation and its broader consequences.

The Dutch Case: An Overview

In this latest instance, a court in the Netherlands dismissed a climate-related lawsuit brought by activists targeting Shell. The suit alleged that the company had not done enough to reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment. Despite the plaintiffs’ claims of moral urgency, the court found the case insufficiently grounded in legal merit.

This is far from the first instance of activists leveraging the courts to advance their goals, but the Dutch case is emblematic of a deeper trend: the increasing use of climate lawsuits as tools for coercion rather than justice.

The Rise of Vexatious Climate Litigation

The Dutch case is part of a growing global trend of lawsuits aimed at holding corporations or governments “accountable” for climate change. However, many of these cases bear the hallmarks of being frivolous, ideological, or outright manipulative.

  • Strategic Exploitation of Legal Loopholes: Plaintiffs often target corporations in jurisdictions with loose standing rules or sympathetic judges. These cases frequently stretch or redefine legal principles, demanding courts take on the role of policymakers.
  • Litigation for Show, Not Substance: Such cases often generate massive media coverage, regardless of their legal merits. For activists, winning in the court of public opinion can be more valuable than winning in an actual courtroom.
  • Undermining Judicial Integrity: By attempting to insert speculative climate models and projections as evidence, these lawsuits place the judiciary in the precarious position of ruling on matters far outside its expertise.

In the Dutch case, as in others, the goal appears less about achieving meaningful outcomes and more about harassing companies into compliance with activist demands.

A History of Questionable Cases

To understand the Dutch ruling in context, it’s worth examining similar lawsuits that have failed to deliver meaningful results:

  1. Juliana v. United States: Touted as a landmark case, a group of young activists sued the U.S. government, alleging constitutional violations for failing to address climate change. While the case garnered massive media attention, it was ultimately dismissed because the judiciary recognized it lacked authority to mandate sweeping policy changes.
  2. ExxonMobil and the Rockefeller Funding Nexus: ExxonMobil has faced numerous lawsuits alleging it misled investors about the risks of climate change. However, investigations revealed these lawsuits were often coordinated by ideologically motivated groups, such as the Rockefeller Family Fund, raising questions about their legitimacy.
  3. Australian Lawfare: In Australia, environmental groups have used legal challenges to delay mining and infrastructure projects. While framed as environmental justice, these lawsuits have cost billions in economic losses, without significantly advancing environmental goals.

Each of these cases reveals a troubling pattern: lawsuits designed to weaponize the legal system, not to solve problems, but to impose a particular worldview.

The Broader Consequences of Vexatious Lawsuits

These cases are not harmless. They impose significant costs—financial, social, and institutional:

  • Economic Costs: Businesses targeted by these lawsuits face steep legal fees and reputational damage, even when cases are ultimately dismissed. These costs are inevitably passed on to consumers, raising prices and stifling innovation.
  • Judicial Backlog: Vexatious lawsuits clog court systems, diverting resources from legitimate cases. Courts are not designed to function as substitute legislatures or scientific bodies, yet these cases demand precisely that.
  • Chilling Effects on Business: The constant threat of litigation discourages investment and innovation, particularly in industries already grappling with tight margins and regulatory uncertainty.
  • Erosion of Trust in the Legal System: When the courts are used as a political tool, public confidence in judicial impartiality declines.

The Dutch case adds yet another log to this growing fire, illustrating how legal systems can be exploited for ideological gain rather than justice.

Climate Activism as Legal Harassment

The rise of these lawsuits reflects a broader trend in modern climate activism: the use of coercive tactics to impose compliance. Whether through public shaming, regulatory lobbying, or vexatious litigation, the goal is the same—to bypass democratic processes and enforce top-down mandates.

The courts, however, are ill-suited to play this role. Climate models, policy trade-offs, and societal priorities are matters for public debate and legislative decision-making, not judicial fiat.

Conclusion: Time to Push Back

The Dutch court’s decision to dismiss this latest climate case should be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It serves as a reminder that the courts cannot and should not be hijacked to serve ideological agendas. However, it is not enough to celebrate isolated victories. Broader reforms are needed to prevent the legal system from being used as a weapon against economic freedom, innovation, and rational governance.

Climate lawsuits like the Dutch case reveal the folly of allowing ideologues to dictate policy through legal harassment. If left unchecked, this trend will do far more harm than good—eroding institutions, stifling progress, and undermining trust in the very systems that activists claim to protect.

H/T charlie

Misinformation: The Fictional Foe of Free Thought

The term “misinformation” is not what it pretends to be. It’s not a scientific term, nor is it an objective measure of truth versus falsehood. Instead, it is a linguistic cudgel, wielded to discredit opposition and enforce adherence to a narrative. Recent efforts to “inoculate” people against misinformation—most recently championed in a study covered by Science and a preprint on PsyArXiv—are just the latest in a long line of attempts to control thought under the guise of protecting it.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The term “misinformation” is not what it pretends to be. It’s not a scientific term, nor is it an objective measure of truth versus falsehood. Instead, it is a linguistic cudgel, wielded to discredit opposition and enforce adherence to a narrative. Recent efforts to “inoculate” people against misinformation—most recently championed in a study covered by Science and a preprint on PsyArXiv—are just the latest in a long line of attempts to control thought under the guise of protecting it.

Concern about the impact of misinformation on the epistemic integrity of democracy is
widespread 1. In addition, misinformation demonstrably affects attitudes and intentions towards
health behaviors in experiments2 and in real-world situations3,4. In response, researchers have
tested a variety of interventions to combat misinformation on social media5 (e.g., accuracy
nudges6, digital literacy tips7, inoculation8, debunking9). These interventions work via different
psychological mechanisms, but all share the goals of increasing recipients’ ability to distinguish
between true and false information and/or increasing the veracity of news shared on social
media. This toolkit of approaches is useful, but it is currently difficult to compare the
interventions because they have been tested in different environments, with different sets of
stimuli (e.g., headlines vs. tweets), using different participants and different methods. These
differences make it difficult to know how the interventions would perform in an equal testing
environment.

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/uyjha

This study, with Stephan Lewandowsky included as a lead author, epitomizes how “misinformation” is deployed not as a genuine concern for truth, but as a rhetorical weapon aimed squarely at dissent. By labeling contrarian perspectives as dangerous misinformation, the authors effectively close the door on debate and entrench themselves as arbiters of what can—and cannot—be discussed.

“Inoculating” Against a Fiction

Let’s dispense with the pretense that misinformation is a real phenomenon. The term implies an objective standard for truth, but in practice, it is applied selectively and politically. What qualifies as misinformation is not determined by careful inquiry or evidence but by whether a statement aligns with the prevailing orthodoxy. If it fits the narrative, it’s protected speech; if it challenges the narrative, it’s misinformation.

This sleight of hand is on full display in the Science article. The authors frame misinformation as a disease that spreads like a virus, a framing that conveniently casts dissenters as a public health threat. The supposed solution is to “inoculate” the public by preemptively teaching them how to recognize and reject misinformation. But this raises an obvious question: Who gets to decide what is true and what is false?

The answer is clear from the study’s methods. Participants were tested using examples of so-called misinformation, including the debunked claim that “97% of scientists agree” on anthropogenic climate change. This figure, derived from John Cook’s heavily criticized study, is itself a prime example of narrative-driven data manipulation. As detailed by Watts Up With That?, the 97% statistic was manufactured through selective coding and arbitrary exclusions, producing a number that served political purposes rather than reflecting scientific reality.

Yet in this study, participants were “inoculated” to accept this figure as fact, while dissenting views were treated as misinformation. This isn’t education; it’s indoctrination. By teaching people to uncritically accept the dominant narrative, the authors are not protecting them from falsehood—they are training them to parrot the party line.

The Weaponization of Misinformation

The true purpose of the term “misinformation” is control. By labeling an idea as misinformation, its opponents can dismiss it without engaging in substantive debate. This tactic is particularly effective in fields like climate science, where the complexities and uncertainties of the subject are often reduced to simplistic slogans.

Consider how “misinformation” is applied unevenly. Alarmist claims about impending climate doom are rarely scrutinized under this framework, even when they lack scientific support. Predictions of catastrophic sea-level rise or claims that every hurricane is caused by climate change are accepted without question. Yet any skepticism about the efficacy of Net Zero policies or the accuracy of climate models is instantly branded as misinformation.

This double standard exposes the term for what it is: a rhetorical weapon used to enforce conformity. It allows the proponents of the dominant narrative to delegitimize opposing views without addressing their substance. Worse, it creates a chilling effect on free thought, as individuals and institutions self-censor to avoid being labeled as purveyors of misinformation.

Lewandowsky: The High Priest of Misinformation Policing

Stephan Lewandowsky’s involvement in this study is hardly surprising. His career has been defined by a relentless campaign to delegitimize dissent, particularly in climate science. His track record, as documented extensively by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, reveals a consistent pattern: framing opposition as irrational or conspiratorial rather than engaging with their arguments.

Lewandowsky’s infamous “Recursive Fury” paper, for example, was a ham-fisted attempt to paint his critics as conspiracy theorists. The paper was so riddled with ethical and methodological issues that it was retracted, yet Lewandowsky has continued to employ the same tactics. Whether it’s selectively sampling data, relying on non-representative surveys, or outright misrepresenting his opponents, his work consistently prioritizes narrative enforcement over intellectual rigor.

In this latest study, Lewandowsky doubles down on his preferred strategy: pathologizing dissent. By framing misinformation as a virus, he casts skeptics not as individuals with legitimate concerns, but as vectors of societal harm. This is not science; it is an exercise in narrative control.

For additional reading on Lewandowsky’s problematic history, McIntyre’s analyses provide thorough documentation: “Lewandowsky’s Fury”, “Lewandowsky’s Fake Correlation”, and “Recursive Fury and Hide the Decline”.

Misinformation as a Political Tool

The broader context of this study is a societal shift toward suppressing dissent under the guise of combating misinformation. We see this trend in the increasing use of fact-checkers, social media censorship, and calls for governments to regulate “misinformation.” These efforts are rarely about protecting the public from falsehoods; they are about consolidating power by silencing opposition.

In the climate debate, this is especially evident. Skeptics who question the efficacy of renewable energy, the reliability of climate models, or the unintended consequences of policies like Net Zero are routinely labeled as misinformation spreaders. This tactic sidesteps the need for debate by framing skeptics as morally or intellectually deficient.

The danger of this approach cannot be overstated. It erodes the foundations of scientific inquiry, which depends on the open exchange of ideas and the willingness to question orthodoxy. By framing dissent as a societal ill, the proponents of misinformation policing risk turning science into a dogma, where only approved views are allowed to exist.

Conclusion: Reject the Myth of Misinformation

Misinformation is not a real phenomenon; it is a rhetorical tool used to discredit opposition and enforce conformity. The recent study by Lewandowsky and his colleagues illustrates how this term is weaponized to suppress dissent and promote narrative control. By teaching people to uncritically accept the dominant narrative, the study does not combat misinformation—it perpetuates it.

True intellectual progress comes from questioning assumptions, debating ideas, and acknowledging uncertainty. The concept of misinformation subverts these principles, replacing them with a regime of censorship and thought policing. If we value freedom of thought and the integrity of science, we must reject the fiction of misinformation and resist efforts to use it as a tool of control.

COP 29: The U.S. can finally escape the Paris Climate Accords

During Donald Trump’s years after he pulled us out of the Paris Accords, the global temperature had its ups and downs but was essentially level. Look what happened.

The slogan “For The Planet” is projected on the Eiffel Tower as part of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

Consider the following

During Donald Trump’s years after he pulled us out of the Paris Accords, the global temperature had its ups and downs but was essentially level.  Look what happened.

From  a Close up of Dr Roy Spencer’s site https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Now suppose I thought like the mainstream media does about every weather event, but wanted to make my point for my side of the issue.

Here is the headline:

Joe Biden causes a massive temperature jump once America rejoins the Paris accords.

Nothing is further from the truth. Yet if you are a warped propagandist, you can take any event and blame it on someone, in this case, I can blame it on Biden putting us back in the all pain, no gain, Paris Accords

But it would be a lie.

What is true is the Paris Accords are UNABLE TO MEANINGFULLY ALTER THE GLOBAL CLIMATE.  It’s a waste of money and  a useless feel-good exercise.

In fact, the recent jump in temperature should be a nail in the coffin of the man-made climate change pushers for it proves it has to be water vapor linked. The simple intuitive explanation: Increase the water vapor and you increase the amount of energy in the atmosphere, and heat is a measure of energy.

Let us look at water vapors in relation to the whole shooting match

Source:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Koutsoyiannis-DogTail-Nov-2024.pdf

Co2 is next to nothing That means the increase in co2 has to have much less effect and is overwhelmed by clouds and water vapor. That man is only responsible for a small amount of that, and the US only about 10% of that, which makes it absurd to be dumping money and support into what is a fool’s errand.

If you simply look at Saturation mixing ratio tables ( I have shown this many times, so I am not going to go over it again), it explains not only why it would warm, but where it is warming most, in the driest coldest places. Much of the warming is in those areas during their cold seasons. Clouds have been decreasing in general across the tropics and increasing in the arctic areas, a sign of a distorted warming pattern brought about by the relationship of water vapor to temperature.

The combination of the strong El Nino and Tonga blasting the most measurable amounts of water vapor in the air led to the rise The question is why are the oceans warming and I like the hypothesis of geothermal input brought about by changes in the exosphere ( the core of the earth) reacting to the change in gravitational pull by the alignments of the planets and the sun, changing the center or the gravitational forcing. I will have an expert on my show, the Wise Guys of Weather on Am 970 the Answer, NYC 5 pm on Sundays, on this matter on Nov 24. It is mind-boggling but worth considering.

But the left in all its glory wants to scream at President-elect Trump for taking us out of the accords, which we should not be in anyway. Co’2, for whatever it may do, is dwarfed by large natural-scale forcing. And that should be clear as day given what we have just witnessed from the volcano and strong El Nino and the cumulative reaction. I have a hypothesis, that the left hates and a lot of people on my side don’t like on the geothermal spreading and the work of Dr. Arthuer Viterito jives with what this 50-year forecaster snow has observed. For whatever reason the oceans ARE WARMING but not because of what CO2 is doing. In fact, the warming oceans are likely a major contributor to the rise in CO2. If we reduced man’s CO2 input to zero on the chart above, the other drivers would simply take up whatever little effect it has.

Here is my forecast. Once President Trump stops this waste of money and pulls us out of the accords, the temperature will level off unless there is another Tongo or major El Nino. So if you try to link the warmth to man-made sources because the source of the spike has nothing to do with it, you have to be blind or brainwashed.

Or a liar.

Take your pick

In the meantime the sooner we are out of this worthless accord, the better.

Shell wins appeal in landmark emissions case

The ruling was handed down as the COP29 climate summit is staged in Azerbaijan though the judgment is unlikely to be the end of the matter.

The ruling was handed down as the COP29 climate summit is staged in Azerbaijan though the judgment is unlikely to be the end of the matter.

Shell has won its appeal against a climate court ruling that it must sharply reduce its carbon emissions.

The oil and gas producer went to the Court of Appeal in the Netherlands following a decision in support of environmental campaign groups in the country, including Friends Of The Earth. Sky News has the story.

That ruling, in 2021, ordered Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels in order to protect Dutch citizens.

The emissions curbs included those caused by the use of Shell’s products.

The judge in the appeal dismissed all the claims against Shell.

The company, which exited its dual headquarters structure in The Hague in 2022 to reside only in the UK, had argued that the original district court decision was flawed on many grounds.

They included that only nation states can set such sweeping demands and that such a cut to its business would only shift output towards its competitors without any benefit to the planet.

The ruling was handed down as the COP29 climate summit is staged in Azerbaijan and just months after Shell weakened a 2030 carbon reduction target and scrapped a 2035 objective, citing expectations for strong gas demand and uncertainty in the energy transition.

Advertisement

Tuesday’s judgment may not be the end of the matter.

Read the full story here.

President Trump: The Final Nail in the Coffin of the Global Environmental Agenda?

Another year, and another ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will convene. The 29th COP is meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan. It started yesterday and will last for 11 days.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Tilak Doshi

Another year, and another ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will convene. The 29th COP is meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan. It started yesterday and will last for 11 days.

My view of the previous year’s UN climate jamboree, attended by a record-breaking 86,000 delegates, was realistically downbeat (some would say cynical):

It is likely that apart from grand-sounding communiques, more breast-beating by the climate NGOs and alarmist headlines by the legacy media, nothing much of practical significance will come out of the 28th Conference of the Parties in Dubai.

But the seismic change brought on by the election of  Donald “drill baby drill” Trump on Tuesday as U.S. president-elect – an avowed ‘climate denier’ and whose campaign has already promised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement a second time – must leave the West’s faithful devotees of the Church of Climate aghast. A second Trump presidency together with a Republican senate majority will bring about what finance and energy consultant Doomberg calls a “whirlwind that is about to befall the progressive environmental Left [that] will reverberate for decades”.

Pragmatists vs. Alarmists at COP28

As important as Mr. Trump’s triumphant election win is to the outlook for the globalist climate change agenda, let’s step back a bit for context.

It will come as no surprise that over the past year since COP28, large developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam carried on with their ambitious schedules for growing coal mining capacity and building new fossil-fueled power plants needed by their growing economies.

Just as unsurprisingly, the Biden administration and the left-of-centre European and U.K. governments zealously continued their quest for ‘Net Zero (emissions) by 2050’, the mantra that has entranced Western governments since the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Many governments in the Global South struggle to have access to affordable fossil fuels. Meanwhile, with the relentless climate alarmist propaganda going on for three decades, Western policymakers continue to demonise fossil fuels and nurture (with taxpayers’ money) their favoured green technologies, such as electric vehicles, solar and wind power, “green” hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, many of which have yet to be proven commercially viable.

With their control over leading financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Western governments veto the development and use of fossil fuels in developing countries in the name of the “climate crisis”. Carbon colonialism hypocritically denies developing countries the means to scale the energy ladder that the now-developed West has exploited to obtain their industrial prosperity and high standards of living.

Last year’s COP28 served as a crossroad when the contradictions between the ‘energy pragmatist’ and the ‘climate alarmist’ camps – roughly matching the ‘Global South’ and the ‘collective West’ – broke out into the open. Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the COP28 climate summit and CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, said in an interview: “You’re asking for a phase-out of fossil fuels… Please, help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”

Al Jaber’s remarks were amplified by Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman who told Bloomberg that the world’s biggest oil exporter would not agree with Western demands to phase out fossil fuels. “Absolutely not,” he said in an interview in Riyadh. “And I assure you not a single person – I’m talking about governments – believes in that… If they believe that this is the highest moral ground issue, fantastic. Let them do that themselves. And we will see how much they can deliver.”

Enter President-elect Trump

Ah, what a difference a year – and an American presidential election – makes! Expectedly, the hyperventilating headlines of the mainstream media were out in full force within 48 hours of the election results being announced:

Bloomberg: “Trump Stranglehold Adds to Growing Doubts at Climate Talks”

Euronews: “Trump victory casts shadow over upcoming COP global climate talks”

Politico: “No leaders remain to check Trump’s climate wreckage”

MSN News: “Trump’s climate denial and green rollbacks poised to fuel warming”

BBC News: “Trump victory is a major setback for climate action, experts say”

Activist-journalists fulminating in the legacy media over what the Trump win means for the globalist climate agenda are among the less interesting aspects of this year’s UN climate fest in Baku.

The COP29 summit, in the shadow of Mr. Trump’s return as the 47th U.S. President, will be noteworthy for other, more durable reasons. When the U.S. first pulled out of the Paris Agreement with a formal notice in 2017 during President Trump’s first term, it was only three years later – as it happened, the day after the 2020 election – that the decision took effect under UN rules. Upon taking office, President Joe Biden promptly re-instituted U.S. participation in the UN agreement. This time around, it will take a year for a withdrawal to take effect under the terms of the pact once the Trump administration files its exit notice to the U.N. upon assuming office on January 20th 2025.

But more importantly than the formal details of UN bureaucratic rules, the expected second pullout by the incoming Trump administration next year from the (non-binding) Paris Agreement will happen at a time when other Western countries leading the global environmental agenda are themselves exhausted economically and politically.

Hours after the announcement of the results of the U.S. elections, the German three-party ruling coalition government collapsed after Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced the sacking of Finance Minister Christian Lindner over deadlocks on spending and economic reforms. The fiscal constraints brought on by years of irrational energy policies that de-industrialised and immiserated EU economies have come home to roost.

The imposition of sanctions on supplies of cheap Russian energy imports in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which boomeranged on Europe, effectively put paid to Europe’s climate leadership. Its farmers have revolted. Its working and middle classes, owing no allegiance to the luxury beliefs of Brussel bureaucrats and political elites in Berlin, Paris and London, have begun to support the populist right as a force in the European political order.

It’s all about the money

The U.N. climate summit in Baku has been dubbed the “climate finance COP” for its central goal: to agree on how much money should go each year to helping developing countries cope with “climate-related costs”. From the current climate finance commitment of $100 billion annually by wealthy nations (not achieved in most years), some negotiators hope to transfer $1 trillion a year for “climate mitigation and adaptation goals” to the developing countries.

But in the U.S., the UN’s biggest climate finance contributor, ‘Bidenomics’ and the duplicitously termed Inflation Reduction Act which promise massive subsidies for ‘green’ energy were comprehensively rejected at the ballot box last week.

Mr. Trump’s climate scepticism will once again encourage U.S. oil and gas dominance in global markets, continuing a strong theme of his first term in office. One would think that even the climate-obsessed European elites will be under no illusion about what a Trump administration would make of the U.N.’s push for transfers of vast financial resources to poor countries for what is essentially bad weather. As they might say in Main Street U.S.A., “that ain’t going to happen” on Mr. Trump’s watch.

Indeed, among Mr. Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters will likely be the host of COP29, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev, who described his country’s oil and gas resources as “a gift from God”. Trump’s election victory could not have been more nicely timed to put a nail in the coffin of the globalist environmental agenda.

Dr. Tilak K. Doshi is an economist, a former contributor to Forbes, and a member of the CO2 Coalition. Follow him at Substack and X.

Stop Press: Heather Mac Donald has written a wonderfully vituperative piece about COP29 for City Journal: “Any doubt regarding the wisdom of the next Trump administration’s likely pullout from such meetings should be dispelled by the conference photos alone.”

 New Study: Human Contribution To Enhancement Of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect A Negligible 0.2 Percent

“[T]he contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is 4% – 5%. Human CO2 emissions represent 4% of the total, which means that the total human contribution to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% to 0.20% – a negligible effect.” – Dr. Demetris Koutsoyiannis (2024)

From NoTrickZone

By Kenneth Richard 

“[T]he contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is 4% – 5%. Human CO2 emissions represent 4% of the total, which means that the total human contribution to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% to 0.20% – a negligible effect.” – Dr. Demetris Koutsoyiannis (2024)

New research exposes the vacuousness of the “imaginary world” models proclaiming CO2 the dominant regulator of the Earth’s climate.

A CO2-less or CO2-only atmosphere…an imaginary-world thought experiment

An oft-heard claim is that, due to the prominence of CO2 as the Earth’s climate “control knob” (see Lacis et al., 2010), the greenhouse effect could not exist – indeed, it would collapse – if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

Image Source: Lacis et al., 2010 and Schmidt et al., 2006

However, it should go without saying that this CO2-less atmospheric condition itself is an imaginary-world conceptualization. Thus, fantasizing about what would happen if the atmosphere was comprised 0 ppm CO2, 1,000,000 ppm CO2, 0 ppm water vapor…are all just untestable, never-observable thought experiments. They cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Thus, they are unfalsifiable.

CO2’s climate effects are undetectable

Of course, this very unfalsifiable thought experiment is what believers in the CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob narrative rest their case on. But even if we do use this imaginary-world premise, the existing models (MODTRAN, HITRAN) that allegedly support the CO2-controls-climate orthodoxy actually undermine it.

For example, as Dr. Koutsoyiannis points out in his extensively-referenced paper, the MODTRAN data show that the Earth’s temperature remains at the default greenhouse-effect value if the water vapor scale is adjusted upwards slightly, by just 30%. The greenhouse effect does not “collapse” as claimed by Lacis et al. disciples – the control-knob believers.

The HITRAN database also indicates the imaginary-world condition of doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would only alter the radiation flux at the top of the atmosphere by -1.1%, a hypothetical realization that could not even be detected in future macroscopic measurements (if the atmosphere ever were to reach a CO2 concentration of 800 ppm).

MODTRAN models further affirm that (1) there is only a 1% temperature difference between either doubling (800 ppm) or halving (200 ppm) the atmospheric CO2 concentration, and (2) the change in the downwelling radiation resulting from an increase from 300 ppm (1900) to 420 ppm (2023) is only 0.5%. These tiny changes “could not be discerned by observations.”

Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024

CO2 has not been detectably reducing the outgoing longwave radiation

As a “control knob” for the climate, CO2 is believed to be the principal reason why the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) should be reducing (Dewitte and Clerbaux, 2018).

“…the increase of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) primarily CO2 reduces the OLR”

However, despite the increase in CO2 concentration in recent decades, OLR has been increasing. Any reduction in OLR from the CO2 effect is not detectable.

Image Source: Dewitte and Clerbaux, 2018

Likewise, the MODTRAN clear-sky results (i.e., an atmosphere where no clouds exist and CO2 and water vapor are the main greenhouse effect agents) show OLR has increased by +0.38 to +0.60 W/m² from 2001 to 2022, consistent with the increase in temperature.

According to the data reviewed by Dr. Koutsoyiannis, any record of decrease in OLR “can hardly be attributed to increased CO2, but it can be related to water vapor and cloud profiles,” as the “effect of CO2 is trumped by the effect of clouds, which is consistent with the major role of water on climate and the minor one of CO2.”

95% of the greenhouse effect (downwelling radiation) is from water vapor, clouds

Per the MODTRAN calculations, CO2’s contribution to the planetary greenhouse effect is only 4% to 5%, and the contribution from water vapor and clouds is 87% (outgoing radiation) to 95% (downwelling radiation). The CO2 contribution to greenhouse effect changes over the last century, as CO2 increased from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, is only about 0.5%. This quantified percentage is “below any threshold to make it observable.”

Worse, when we consider that human CO2 emissions are only 4% of Earth’s total CO2 emissions, and that the CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is just 4% to 5%, “the total human contribution to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% to 0.20%.”

Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024

Supporting evidence for CO2’s negligible role

Another set of sources supporting the contention that CO2’s greenhouse effect contribution is only 4% to 5% comes from the notorious Trenberth radiation budget charts. First, notice the 333 W/m² value identified for downwelling radiation from greenhouse gases (lower right).

Image Source: Trenberth and Fasullo, 2011

Now consider the estimated greenhouse effect (downwelling radiation) contribution from CO2 alone as shown in  Schmithüsen et al., 2015.

Notice it ranges from about 0 W/m² (or less) near the poles, about 10-15 W/m² at mid-high latitudes, and about 25 W/m² around the tropics. Averaged over the globe, it would appear the total mean CO2 greenhouse effect contribution is about 13 to 15 W/m². If CO2 indeed accounts for ~14 W/m² of the 333 W/m² downwelling radiation from greenhouse gases, its contribution is 4.2%. The other ~95%, or ~320 W/m², is necessarily from water vapor and cloud.

Image Source: Schmithüsen et al., 2015

As shown in the Koutsoyiannis review of results from HITRAN database, a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm only produces a ~1.1% perturbation to the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere (3 W/m²), which is not discernible. This is consistent with Chen et al. (2024), who assess that a doubling of CO2 produces a negative top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing (-1 W/m²), and a positive TOA forcing of just +2-3 W/m² in the mid-high latitudes and tropics.

These papers further establish the negligible role of CO2 in the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Image Source: Chen et al., 2024

‘Trump Wins, Planet Loses’ – Morano heads to UN’s COP29 in Azerbaijan – Gore depressed – Bernie Sanders: ‘Struggle against climate change is over’

This year’s summit is being dubbed the “finance COP” because climate and green energy lobbyists are descending on the event to try to funnel even more U.S. taxpayer money into their pockets.

Climate Depot

By Marc Morano

Climate Depot note: I will be on the ground again this year attending the UN climate summit COP29 in Azerbaijan. Morano will be there for the week of November 10th through 15 in Baku, following the UN’s every effort to squelch your freedom and continue the dark path of net-zero rationing of energy, food, freedom of movement, and free speech. This will be my 20th out of the past 22  international UN summits to attend in person. 

Flashback 2016: UN Armed Security Shuts Down Morano After he SHREDS UN Paris Pact at Climate Summit Next To Trump Cut-out

This year’s summit is being dubbed the “finance COP” because climate and green energy lobbyists are descending on the event to try to funnel even more U.S. taxpayer money into their pockets.

Morano: “With Donald Trump winning the US presidential election, the United Nations COP29 will turn into a giant wake, with the United Nations facing defeat of their anti-human climate agenda. The entire climate agenda is facing utter and complete collapse due to its unrealistic mandates and targets. Failure across the board is occurring, from emission targets to anemic electric vehicle sales to pushback by farmers fighting back against agricultural climate restrictions. The Trump victory will help push the United Nations and its net zero agenda into the dustbin of history. I will be on the ground with other team members to report daily on what’s happening post-election at one of the most consequential UN climate summits.”

#

Trump wins U.S. presidency! Net Zero, UN climate pacts, Green New Deal & Inflation Reduction Act face ruin

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Congratulations to President Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance. Finally, US leadership has returned to fight the international climate agenda. The U.S. will finally have a president back in the Oval Office who will be pro-science, pro-environment, and fight the demented net zero climate agenda, the Green New Deal, and the UN climate treaty process.

President Trump will also be able to face off against the ridiculous, unsustainable, and unscientific claims that emanate from our most esteemed institutions. America will once again be a beacon of scientific realism regarding climate change and energy policy. Bravo!”  

Grist mag: ‘Trump Wins, Planet Loses’ – ‘Poised to upend U.S. climate policy’

Ivy League University’s brightest climate bulb, Michael Mann, rips the U.S. for re-electing Trump: ‘America is a failed Democracy…Our people failed us…We now pose a major threat to the planet’

Watch: Sen. Bernie Sanders declares on CNN: ‘If Trump wins, the struggle—the global struggle—against climate change is over’

Despite Climate Concerns, Young Voter Turnout Slumped & Its Support Split Between the Parties

Excerpt from Inside Climate News: 

As early exit polling comes out, it appears that young voters—often expected to reliably support Democratic candidates—did not vote as a monolith. Although Kamala Harris still took the majority of the youth vote, her margin of support from young voters, 6 points, was much smaller than Biden’s 25 point lead in 2020, and young men—unlike in 2020—broke in favor of Trump…

Alice Siu, associate director of the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University, said that young voters’ opinions were more diverse than may have been expected…

Climate Didn’t Necessarily Move Young Voters to Harris: Young voters also consistently rank climate change as an important issue, and in the lead up to the election some experts suggested that young climate voters could tip the race in favor of Harris.

AP: Experts worry Trump’s second term will cripple efforts to stop climate change

POLITICO: What’s at stake for climate policy? ‘Who the hell cares,’ Trump says

Gore depressed by Trump’s victory: ‘All major reform efforts, from civil rights to the climate movement, suffer dark days. And this is surely one’

Al Gore, Founder and Chairman of The Climate Reality Project on Trump winning: “In a moment such as this, it is important to remember that all major reform efforts, from civil rights to the climate movement, suffer dark days. And this is surely one.” Via Gore’s email list on November 6, 2024  

‘A wrecking ball’: Experts warn Trump’s win sets back ‘global climate action’ – Poses ‘major threat to the planet’

Trump’s reelection has sweeping climate change consequences

‘It’s going to suck’: Climate world absorbs a reality they’d hoped to avoid: Trump is back!

‘A setback for global climate action’: Trump’s election victory sparks dismay — and defiance — among architects of the UN Paris climate accord

POLITICO: Trump victory a ‘gut punch’ to US climate action – ‘The stakes for the planet could hardly be higher’

Climate activists spray US embassy in London with orange paint after Trump reelection victory

#

Watch: Morano on Fox on Harris’s fracking flip flops: ‘She really thinks the people of Pennsylvania are stupid’ – Biden-Harris ‘riding the coattails of’ Trump’s energy policies

#

Grist Mag: ‘Authoritarianism is on the rise. Is climate change to blame?’ – ‘Global warming creates fertile ground for political strongmen to come to power’ – ‘Floods, droughts, & wildfires can help autocratic politicians consolidate power’

Implies Trump can win due to unchecked climate change: McCarthy believes this is true even though supporters of many strongmen — including a third of Americans who voted for Trump in 2020 — deny that climate change is real. “I think that people are reacting to manifestations of climate change or effects of climate change without always or often recognizing them as such,” he said.

Time Mag: ‘Climate change is causing sleep loss’ – ‘Led to 5% more hours of sleep lost worldwide over the past five years’ – Lancet study

CBS News: ‘Threat of foodborne pathogens is growing with climate change, experts warn’ – ‘McDonald’s (E. coli) outbreak is a reminder that climate change is real’

New Study implies UN climate pact can save unborn babies!? – Rising ‘miscarriages due to climate crisis’ – ‘Report aimed at decision-makers’ attending COP29 summit

If Green Energy Is the Future, Bring a Fire Extinguisher – Lithium battery fires are breaking out all over the place

‘Climate’ Policies in a Harris Admin: If Harris wins, ‘every county in America will be ground zero for climate policies’

Morano speaks at Western Kentucky University on climate change & the Great Reset

‘Game over’ for ‘climate action’! UK Guardian: ‘Five ways a Trump presidency would be disastrous for the climate’ – ‘Would restore climate denialism to an Oval Office’ – ‘A purge of science’

Dr. Matthew Wielicki: ‘Insanity at the Polls’: ‘The Myth of Voting to Save the Climate’ – ‘CO2 rises no matter who you vote for’

Morano accused of engaging in ‘Climate Denialism ‘ & ‘Crossing the Atlantic’ to ‘Spread Misinformation & Conspiracy Theories’ in Austrian speech

Climate change driving ‘record threats to health’ claims ‘major report’ by Lancet released ‘just weeks before the UN COP29 talks are held in Azerbaijan’ – Report ‘painted a dire picture of death & delay’

COP29 Preview: Hot Talk vs. Reality

“What to expect from COP 29 in Baku come November? In the words of the great American philosopher Lawrence “Yogi” Berra: ‘It’s like déjà vu all over again’.”

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize 

“What to expect from COP 29 in Baku come November? In the words of the great American philosopher Lawrence “Yogi” Berra: ‘It’s like déjà vu all over again’.”

Remember COP28? Forget about it. Most everybody else has. This is COP29, Nov. 11-24, 2024, the 29th annual international greenwashing gabfest about the world’s promised actions to deal with a climate being changed by man-made global warming. Most of those meetings have had little real impact, generating more heat, rancor, posturing, and light — and sometimes state-sponsored repression —  than measurable movement toward significant reductions in emissions of greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2).

The formal title of these highly-hyped, frequently ignored, sometimes entertaining gatherings is the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” with the inevitable acronym of UNFCC. The selection of Azerbaijan to host the meeting is significant. It is the third predominantly Muslim country and the third authoritarian regime to host the meeting: Egypt in 2022, the United Arab Emirates in 2023, and Azerbaijan in November.

Welcome to Baku, population 2 million, the capital of Azerbaijan, a country of 10 million. Azerbaijan is the second consecutive major oil producer to host a gathering that, at least rhetorically, is targeting fossil fuels as a key driver of increasing global temperatures.

Azerbaijan: Big Oil

The country is located with its east coast on the Caspian Sea: Russia and Georgia to the north, Armenia to the east (and containing territory claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan), and Iran to the south. The country is deeply tied to oil. According to International Energy Agency data, oil and gas accounts for 90% of the country’s export revenues and some 60% of the nation’s budget. The oil roots are deep. 

A birthplace of petroleum, oil production began around 1850 from dug wells and spread with the adoption of kerosene lamps and internal combustion engines. By the start of the 20th Century, Azerbaijan was the world’s leading oil state, producing over half of the world’s supply and known as the “Black Gold Capital.”

The Republic of Azerbaijan, a Soviet Union satellite from 1920 to 1991, is nominally a “semi-presidential republic,” meaning it has both an elected president and a parliamentary prime minister, but in practice is a hereditary monarchy since 1993, when Heydar Aliyev took power. His son Ilhan Aliyev now runs the country and hand-picked the host country team that will lead the conference.

The country has a bad record on human rights. According to a 2023 analysis by Human Rights Watch,

The government severely restricted freedoms of expression, assembly, and association. Despite some progress on a notorious torture case, torture and ill-treatment in police custody and places of detention persisted.

U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) earlier this month criticized the selection of Azerbaijan to host the conference. Cardin, who is retiring at the end of the current Congress, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said that “hosting a major international conference like COP29 should come with responsibilities and expectations that host countries allow frank discussion of information and issues, which requires recognizing freedoms of speech and assembly. Azerbaijan has not done so.”

Cardin called on the Heydar government to “release those unjustly imprisoned by his government, including Armenian detainees, and community activists who peacefully demonstrated against poor labor practices and harmful environmental impacts of the Chovdar gold mine operation.”

Agenda 29

When the world’s policy waffle-chefs arrive in Baku in November, the formal and informal agendas will be familiar: advancing their government favored technologies and energy sources, portraying their patrons as environmental saints, and avoiding the embarrassing question of how to aid those poor countries who may suffer from a changed climate but did little compared to the world’s wealthy countries, who created the problem.

For the majority of the formal delegates representing established and entrenched industries and countries, Job 1 will be damage control. As reported by the Financial Times (September 13):

Oil-rich nations are making a concerted effort to slow progress on a landmark agreement to end the use of fossil fuels, according to western nations taking part in global climate change talks.

At COP 28 (remember that?) the confab agreed to “transition” away from fossil fuels by 2050 (a date far enough into the future to have little immediate consequence) and triple renewable energy by 2030. A side agreement, not part of the official conference, led by nuclear nations, called for a worldwide tripling of nuclear power generating capacity by 2030, an unachievable goal.

The FT identified Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Bolivia as among the group of oil producers looking to prevent any momentum developing for the fossil phase-out. The world’s largest oil producer, the United States, will likely bob-and-weave and produce word salad press releases. Azerbaijan is likely to tap dance around the topic as it presides.

Compensation Gymnastics

Another long-running issue is what, how much, how, and when the rich will come up with compensation for the poor victims. Scotland’s The National reported, “Finance is expected to dominate COP29 in Azerbaijan from November 11 to 22, with countries still deadlocked on how to deliver more funds to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.”

Earlier COP conventions agreed to create a $100 billion-per-year compensation fund, without any specifics such as how it would be run, how much it would distribute, and other necessary details. COP28 agreed to “operationalization” of such a fund, whatever that specifically means and, no surprises here, nothing has been done. The U.S. committed to provide $100 million, but that commitment is meaningless without the administrative mechanisms and transfer of funds. 

Looking at the Dubai agreement on compensation, a critic commented that it “contains no specifics on scale, financial targets or how it will be funded. Instead, the decision merely ‘invites’ developed nations to ‘take the lead’ in providing finance and support and encourages commitments from other parties.

It also fails to detail which countries will be eligible to receive funding and vaguely states it would be for ‘economic and non-economic loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events.’ So far, pledges have been underwhelming.”

At a pre-conference technical meeting in Baku in mid-month, the FT reported, “African governments called for more than [$1.3 trillion] a year in climate finance.”

Conclusion

COP 29 continues down a path outlined by the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. James Hansen, the father of the modern climate activism, commented at the time that Paris

is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit… 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.

What to expect from COP 29 in Baku come November? In the words of the great American philosopher Lawrence “Yogi” Berra: “It’s like déjà vu all over again.”

—————–

Kennedy Maize blogs at The Quad Report, from which this post was adapted. Maize has been a Washington-based journalist covering energy and environmental topics for more than 40 years.