Climate cult fantasy and duplicity precede UN COP30

The 30th Conference of the Parties on climate change (COP30) will promote its climate, energy, and economic fantasies and demands from November 10–21 in Belém, Brazil. Some 70,000 grifter scientists, activists, politicians, and journalists (plus observers) will attend.

A woman walks past a large colorful sign reading 'See you at COP30!' in front of a backdrop featuring stylized artwork, with the word 'Brasil' prominently displayed.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

A vibrant illustration of the COP30 conference setting in Belém, Brazil, featuring large gatherings of people in a lush outdoor environment, surrounded by greenery and colorful flowers, with the text 'COP30' prominently displayed.

The 30th Conference of the Parties on climate change (COP30) will promote its climate, energy, and economic fantasies and demands from November 10–21 in Belém, Brazil. Some 70,000 grifter scientists, activists, politicians, and journalists (plus observers) will attend.

Despite pre-summit hype and proclamations of hope, the summiteers are nervous.

Increasing evidence demonstrates that claims of a planetary crisis are rooted in meaningless computer models and fearmongering, not in actual science, data, or fact.

More voters worldwide are rejecting and rebelling against net-zero and anti-fossil-fuel policies that have raised energy costs, destroyed jobs and industries, and crushed hopes and living standards.

Even the poorest U.S. state (Mississippi) now boasts a higher GDP per capita than climate-obsessed Britain, where the average household price of electricity is $0.35 per kilowatt hour (likely to rise to $0.55 per kWh by 2027) – compared to a 17.5¢ U.S. average and 13.5¢ in Mississippi.

UK industries now pay the world’s highest electricity prices – 27% more than equally obsessed Germany – and conservative/alternative political parties in both countries are surging in popularity against the entrenched interests that imposed these destructive, job-killing, unsustainable policies.

The United States economy is outpacing Europe’s, largely because the Trump administration has re-embraced abundant, reliable, affordable fuels, petrochemicals, and electricity, while Britain, Germany, and most of Europe refuse to drill or frack for oil and gas or retreat from their unattainable climate pledges.

Trump agencies have slashed subsidies, favoritism, and environmental fast-tracks for wind and solar projects … and clawed back billions of dollars that the Biden administration had given to “green energy” and “climate justice” groups during its last weeks in office.

President Trump again withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, may not let US representatives participate in COP30, and is unlikely to allow U.S. taxpayer money to flow into UN slush funds for climate “reparations,” “resilience,” or “losses and damages.”

Mr. Trump also excoriated net-zero policies before the UN General Assembly, calling them a “green scam” concocted by “stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success.” UN member states chastened by the Russia-Ukraine war, growing dependence on Russian gas and Chinese minerals, and wind turbines — and their own economic demise were hard-pressed to disagree. Developing countries also paid attention.

Meanwhile, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance — beloved by eco-imperialists for opposing and preventing financing for fossil fuel projects in Africa and around the world — has ceased all operations following a mass exodus by its U.S., Canadian, British, and Swiss bank members.

“The 2.1 billion humans who suffer in abject energy poverty” and families of “the 16.5 million loved ones” who died from “indoor air pollution during the 5-1/2 years the Alliance was working” can now breathe sighs of relief, said energy realist and human rights campaigner Ryan Zorn.

The EU Parliament agreed to roll back multiple environmentalist mandates and regulations on businesses, in what Politico calls an “emerging rightward rupture that is reshaping European policymaking.”

Criticism of junk climate and energy science in UN, U.S., and other government and academic institutions has become frequent and furious since President Trump was reelected in November 2024, and the shackles of government, media, social media, and search-engine censorship have been loosened.

The world is rapidly learning about wind and solar power shortcomings; their decimation of raptors and other wildlife; the massive mining and pollution involved in manufacturing these “clean, green” energy systems; the millions of acres of farm, habitat, and scenic lands impacted by them; the trillion-dollar costs of battery and gas backup systems for windless and sunless periods; and the economic devastation that climate-centric policies are inflicting worldwide.

Developed and developing nations alike are beginning to realize they have been asked to destroy the world with wind-solar-battery systems that can never meet growing electricity demands … to save it from climate crises that exist only in computer models and fevered imaginations.

The net-zero, extreme weather, climate science consensus is breaking apart as COP 30 nears.

Expectations that the “climate crisis” will continue providing bureaucratic and activist sinecures, “renewable” energy subsidies, and globalist controls over our energy, livelihoods, and living standards are slamming headfirst into these realities. No wonder climate-power wannabes are worried.

A German climate activist analysis epitomizes the worries, fantasies, duplicities, and exigencies:

* The United States still has “the greatest historical responsibility for global greenhouse gas emissions,” the analysis complains. Its authors ignore the fact that China’s greenhouse gas emissions exceed those of all other developed countries combined, and the U.S. has reduced its emissions far more than any other country, while its inventions have helped improve health, agriculture, and living standards globally.

* The U.S. and other “Global North” nations share liability for the climate crisis and must begin paying poor nations for mitigation, adaptation, and reparations, the activists continue. COP29’s agreed “collective quantified goal” of $300 billion annually is far too low, too vague, and too ambiguous. A “concrete action plan” must be implemented to ensure a “mobilization target” of $1.3 trillion annually – from nations and corporations.

Where that money will come from is anyone’s guess, especially since the payers are supposed to deindustrialize, end their fossil fuel use, de-grow their economies, and slash their living standards. How much of any actual funding will end up in developing country bureaucratic fiefdoms and Swiss bank accounts – instead of projects that actually improve energy, health, and living standards – is also vague.

* “Climate adaptation” is another COP30 priority, the analysis attests. Adaptation to what? One wonders. Temperatures that have risen modestly since the Little Ice Age ended and Industrial Era began? Sea levels that have risen slowly and slightly since their 400-foot upsurge after the Pleistocene glaciers began melting? Hurricanes and tornadoes that are not increasing in frequency or intensity? Carbon dioxide levels that are helping forests, grasslands, and crops grow faster, better, and with less water?

* Never mind all that, the Germans suggest. More money is needed for adaptation, and still more for a “just” energy transition and “civil society” demands for “social dialogue, human rights, the inclusion of [now unpaid family member] care and informal work,” and much more.

* “Climate injustice” also requires that “the biggest historical emitters must be the first to get their domestic emissions down to zero” – and must not do so by buying Net-Zero Banking Alliance overseas (for often imaginary or promissory CO2 reductions). Thus, more deindustrialization and de-growth. And on and on.

* Attention must also be paid to “intersectionality, gender-diverse terminology, and gender equality.”

Of course, leftist-climatist-Islamist intersectionality requires denunciations of Israel. “Protests against Israel’s war in Gaza” must be assured greater “freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in and around the COP” and worldwide, the Germans assert.

What on Earth does COP30 have to do with the recent Gaza war – especially when charges of genocide, human rights violations, and denial of assembly rights to Hamas terrorist supporters are totally absurd?

COP30 promises to be just as entertaining, pointless, and fruitless as previous iterations.

Flying Falsehoods and the Value of Numbers

‘Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceived, it is too late.’ That was Jonathan Swift in 1710. You do wonder whether he might be referring to the more lurid descriptions of the Great Storm of 1703, which is still the by far the worst weather ever to have hit this country since written records were made. However, back to the twenty-first century.

From Watts Up With That?

Ivor Williams

Part One: Flying Falsehoods

‘Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceived, it is too late.’ That was Jonathan Swift in 1710. You do wonder whether he might be referring to the more lurid descriptions of the Great Storm of 1703, which is still the by far the worst weather ever to have hit this country since written records were made. However, back to the twenty-first century.

Take, for instance, the claim quoted by Reuters: ‘This year is “virtually certain” to be the warmest in 125,000 years, European scientists said on Wednesday’ (8 November). We have recorded temperatures only for the last 150 years, but this irresponsible and totally fallacious comment then set off around the world, picked up by CNN the following day, featured on dozens of sites over the next week or two, and even turning up on the South China Morning Post in January..

Another version was ‘The world hasn’t been this warm for 100,000 years.’ Here is an announcement that had been decided back in July with the year still only six months old. The ‘expert’ in this instance did admit that ‘records are based on data that only goes back to the mid-20th century … [but] they are “almost certainly” the warmest the planet has seen … for at least 100,000 years,’ according to Jennifer Francis, a senior scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center.

That’s how the damage was done. Perhaps even worse was the comment from that august and well-respected scientific journal Nature. ‘Earth boiled in 2023,’ they proclaimed, 2023 was ‘officially the hottest on record.’ Note the use of that word ‘hottest’ rather than ‘warmest’ whenever an editor wants to ramp up the panic, and you might wonder about that ‘boiled’ when you read the next paragraph.

Part Two: The Value of Numbers

‘When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.’ That was Lord Kelvin in 1883 so let us take his advice and look at some numbers. Our own Met Office said: ‘The global average temperature for 2023 was 0.17 deg C warmer than the value for 2016, the previous warmest year on record.’ Less than one fifth of a degree warmer in eight years? Maybe dial down the panic somewhat.

There’s more: it was also 1.46 deg C above the pre-industrial period 1850-1900. Global annual temperatures are now always anomalies: higher than, lower than etc, never real values. The quoted global annual average by the World Meteorological Organisation for the period 1961-1990 is actually 14.0°C, but this does not sound anything like alarming enough so they use anomalies. It is possible (though not easy) to discover that the agreed ‘pre-industrial’ 1850-1900 average temperature is 0.31°C below that 1961-90 figure, which makes it 13.7°C.

The Met Office is not the only organisation to feature two places of decimals; this implied precision to hundredths of a degree takes us far into fairyland. How can they possibly measure the average temperature over the entire world over both land and sea for a whole year, and come up with those ludicrous second decimal points?  Satellites perhaps? No – NASA explains that they do not give sufficiently reliable data.

There surely cannot possibly be any kind of meaningful global average annual temperatures for that 1850-1900 period. Even in 2024 we still have a thin coverage of reporting stations away from Europe and North America, and a very random coverage of the oceans. There were certainly very much larger gaps in the nineteenth century.

However, let us believe the data and see what it tells us. One message is contained in the sequence 2019-2023. All are anomalies, i.e. global averages compared with the 1850-1900 figure, and all are from the Hadley Centre for Climate Science and Services by way of the official Met Office websites.

2019           MO19          1.05 ± 0.01°C above. (Later changed – see text below)

2020           MO20         1.28 ± 0.08°C.

2021           MO21         1.11 ± 0.13°C.

2022           MO22         1.16 ± 0.08°C.

2023           MO23         1.46 ± 0.01°C.

This is global warming? Using the official data: in five years the earth has warmed by two-fifths of a degree Celsius above that notional pre-industrial age.Do the maths: 1.46 – 1.05 = 0.41.

There’s more. The Hadley Centre switched from HadCRUT4 to 5 in 2020, and the value for 2019 was mysteriously changed from 1.05 to 1.25 (MO20). Using that figure as the starting point for the five-year run the maths looks even more strange:

Year 2023 @ 1.46 minus year 2019 @ 1.25 = 0.21°C. Now down to one fifth of a degree.

You might be suspicious of the unbelievably precise tolerances attached to what are doubtful values in the first place. But there is already a bold forecast for 2024 (MO24). The global annual average temperature will be ‘between 1.34 °C and 1.58 °C (with a central estimate of 1.46 °C) above the average for the pre-industrial period (1850-1900).’ Now there’s a message which has not gone limping after any falsehoods, because no-one has thought it exciting enough to bother. The result does not fit in with headlines using words like panic, boiling, runaway, doom and so on, because this year is forecast to be the same as last year. No story there, say the editors and bloggers. That bit of news has not gone beyond the Met Office’s own website. 

Global warming? If 2024’s global annual average temperature anomaly from 1850-1900 levels is to be the same as 2023, then the total rise over six years (2019-2024) is forecast to be one fifth of one degree Celsius.Do the maths again – it’s not complicated: 1.46 – 1.25 = 0.21°C. That’s a global warming rate of 0.03°C/year. Far too small surely?

The January 2020 announcement from the Met Office (MO20) gave the revised HadCRUT5 annual temperature anomalies (compared to that 1850-1900 figure) from 2010 to 2020. In those ten years the somewhat less than frightening rise was from 1.00 in 2010 to 1.28 in 2020. A quarter of a degree in 11 years? Still too small?

Remember that these anomalies all refer back to the same constant: the global average temperature over the years 1850-1900 which has been agreed at 13.7°C. Now look at the years 2010-2024, but converted to real-world temperatures.

Year           anomaly °C          actual °C (13.7 added)

2010           1.0                               14.7

2011           0.89                             14.6

2012           0.93                             14.6

2013           0.98                             14.7

2014           1.03                             14.7

2015           1.18                             14.9

2016           1.29                             15.0

2017           1.20                             14.9

2018           1.12                             14.8

2019           1.25                              15.0

2020           1.28                              15.0

2021           1.11                             14.8

2022           1.16                              14.9

2023           1.46                              15.2

2024           1.46                              15.2

Over fifteen years the officially declared annual average global temperature rise is therefore 0.5°C.

Over fifteen years the rate of increase is therefore 0.03°C/year.

Here’s Nature again with the conclusion to their ‘boiling’ comment: ‘Climate researchers look ahead with trepidation.’ If my research and maths are right then they must be getting worried about their forecasts.

How To Push a Climate Hoax 10: Turning Boring Statistics into a Hollywood Horror Show

Similarly, Biden fearmongers climate change is an existential threat, and Al Gore fabricates the “oceans are boiling”.

From Jim Steele

The formula for Hollywood horror films is simple. Take a normal sized creature and magnify it into a gigantic threat suggesting we’re all going to die. Just consider King Kong, Godzilla, Alien, Jaws, Alligators, Frankenfish. To give credibility to those monsters, scary movies include a few scientists claiming those giants are “existential threats” due to pollution or radiation created by humans. Similarly, Biden fearmongers climate change is an existential threat, and Al Gore fabricates the “oceans are boiling”.

Here, Dr Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist extraordinaire and emeritus professor from Harvard and MIT, describes how alarmist scientists have scared the bejesus out of people by turning a very small temperature change into a monster.

First understand, averaging winter and summer temperatures produces a useless number that would totally obscure local weather dynamics. Barrow, Alaska averages a summertime high of 47°F (8.3°C) while the winter high averages -18°F (-27.8°C). Miami, Florida averages a summertime high of 86.3°F (30.1°C) and a winter high of 74°F (23.3°C). Averaging Miami and Barrow’s annual temperatures would be equally worthless. So, scientists don’t calculate a globally averaged temperature, but instead show the average anomalies.

Dr. Lindzen graphed the average seasonal anomalies for each weather station in the BEST temperature data base from 1900 to the present. A station’s anomaly is defined as any deviation from its 30-year mean. The results are not very scary. On any given day about half the weather stations experience warm anomalies while half experience cooling anomalies.

Most anomalies cluster between +/- 4°C (+/- 7.2°F) causing each data point to merge into the thick black band of the graph. Still, larger anomalies are not uncommon, so the y-axis of the upper graph scales between +/- 12°C (+/- 21.6°F). The yellow dots represent the average for those anomalies on any given day. We see a small trend that is relatively tiny compared to the variation in actual temperatures. Not very scary either.

So, the showtime graphs isolate the average anomalies from reality, as done in the bottom graph. Now the scale on the y-axis only spans from -0.8°C (-1.4°F) to 1.2°C (2.2°F), turning a small 1°C (1.8°F) rise over 120 years into the illusion of a monster increase. That allows click-bait media, alarmists scientists and politicians to claim that climate change could lead to mass extinctions.

But any critically thinking person who is not so easily frightened realizes all living creatures adapt to far greater temperature changes over much smaller time spans.

Typically, they experience an 8°C (14.4°F) to 20°C (36°F) change between morning and noon, and a 10°C (18°F) to 30°C (54°F) change between summer and winter. Humans escaping the cold New England climate migrate to Florida for better health and experience an increase in average temperature of 11°C (20°F).

Hopefully all critically thinking people will ask “why are these politicians and internet influencers trying to manipulate us with such a fearful Hollywood representation of climate?”

Indeed, there has been a slight warming. But there are many hypotheses explaining why. Watch: Why the Sun, Not CO2, Heats the Oceans at

Or read transcript at

https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.co…