Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Just like that, Donald Trump gutted the UN Green Climate Fund. Among all the blockbuster scandals this last week, hardly anyone even registered that it happened. Politico, the government funded fake news organization, mentioned it on Feb 5th, and its barely made a ripple. There’s been no parade of extinctionists dressed as red witches, and no one has glued themselves to a freeway. The mainstream media have barely mentioned it. It’s almost like they don’t want to say it, in case other countries think — “great idea“.
Just like that, Donald Trump gutted the UN Green Climate Fund. Among all the blockbuster scandals this last week, hardly anyone even registered that it happened. Politico, the government funded fake news organization, mentioned it on Feb 5th, and its barely made a ripple. There’s been no parade of extinctionists dressed as red witches, and no one has glued themselves to a freeway. The mainstream media have barely mentioned it. It’s almost like they don’t want to say it, in case other countries think — “great idea “.
Instead of outrage — “think of the children” — The State Department said “no comment” and so did the UN.
The Green Climate Fund is the world’s largest unguarded bucket of money labeled “climate change”. It was founded in 2010 and so far, has squandered $16 billion on renewables and adaption projects in developing countries without spending 10 cents checking the evidence and assumptions.
The U.S. had committed the most money to the global fund, which helps over 100 countries grapple with the changing world.
“The government of the United States rescinds any outstanding pledges to the Green Climate Fund,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in a note dated Jan. 27, parts of which were seen by POLITICO.
The climate fund confirmed the decision.
The U.S. withdrawal follows President Donald Trump’s order revoking and rescinding the country’s federal climate finance program, signed on his first day in office.
Four billion may not sound like much in the scheme of things — especially when USAID is tossing around ten times as much, but it goes a long way among scientists, student activists and the rent-a-crowd protestors. It buys a lot of press releases, and it adds a large layer of dedicated cheerleaders for a “climate crisis” all around the world. In terms of performance art, it’s a lot of money.
The wild thing at the moment though, is all that money supposedly just vanished and hardly anyone is saying a thing.
There don’t seem to be many abandoned beneficiaries screaming for help, wondering if storms will be worse next year. It’s almost like we are not supposed to notice. The UNFCCC Green Climate Fund page on the UN site is so low key it barely exists. The latest report is 178 pages of blah. Does anyone, anywhere read it?
This was a fund that was originally supposed to be $100 billion dollars, yet somehow the logo looks like it was done by a high schooler. It’s like this money is hidden behind a wall of boring.
Club of Rome have finally noticed the world’s premier climate conferences are being run by petroleum states.
Open Letter on COP reform to All States that are Parties to the Convention
Mr. Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Secretariat and UN Secretary-General António Guterres
November 15, 2024
Excellencies,
We, the undersigned, write today to reiterate and update the call for COP reform, which was first conveyed in our open letter to the UNFCCC Secretariat, dated February 23, 2023.
We recognise the important diplomatic milestones of the past 28 years of climate negotiations. A remarkable consensus has been achieved with over 195 countries having agreed to strive to hold global warming to 1.5°C. We also recognise the key role of the UNFCCC Secretariat in helping to bring all 195 countries along the steps necessary to establish the global policy framework, which is underpinned by the Paris Agreement and its subsequent COP decisions.
Beyond the Paris goals, countries have now agreed to phase out fossil fuels, end inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, stop deforestation by 2030, operationalise carbon trading globally, and most have joined the Global Methane Pledge. Governments have pledged $100 billion annually to the Green Climate Fund, and the Loss and Damage Fund is officially established.
Despite some of its flaws, and limited resources, the global policy framework is scientifically rigorous and economically sound and complete. But the framework alone is not enough to solve the problems.
Global emissions continue to increase, carbon sinks are being degraded and we can no longer exclude the possibility of surpassing 2.9°C of warming by 2100. Our first encounter with 1.5°C was accompanied by unprecedented human impacts coupled with enormous climate costs running into the hundreds of billions in 2023. Science tells us that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 7.5% annually to have any chance of staying within the 1.5°C threshold, a prerequisite for the stability of our planet and a livable future for much of humanity. In 2024, the task is unequivocal: global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 4 billion tonnes.
28 COPs have delivered us with the policy framework to achieve this. However, its current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity. This is what compels our call for a fundamental overhaul of the COP. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation, enabling the COP to deliver on agreed commitments and ensure the urgent energy transition and phase-out of fossil energy.
We outline below our suggested measures for reform:
1. Improve the selection process for COP presidencies We need strict eligibility criteria to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy. Host countries must demonstrate their high level of ambition to uphold the goals of the Paris Agreement.
2. Streamline for speed and scale With the global policy map fully developed, COP must shift away from negotiations to the delivery of concrete action. COP meetings must be transformed into smaller, more frequent, solution-driven meetings where countries report on progress, are held accountable in line with the latest science, and discuss important solutions for finance, technology and equity. This work must be supplemented by the benchmarking of national progress using the UN Gap Reports. This approach will accelerate action and allow for timely adjustments based on emerging scientific findings and changing global circumstances.
3. Improve implementation and accountability The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable for their climate targets and commitments. Whilst the Paris framework was intended to operate in “delivery mode”, it is not working because governments are not held to account to ensure that national action plans align with the latest scientific evidence. The Global Stocktake process is an important start but it must be strengthened with enhanced reporting and benchmarking, rigorous peer-review processes, independent scientific oversight and transparent tracking of pledges and action.
4. Ensure robust tracking of climate financing A growing proportion of climate financing pledges are now being disbursed as interest-bearing loans, thereby exacerbating the debt burden for climate vulnerable nations. We need standardised definitions and criteria for what qualifies as climate finance, along with common reporting frameworks and tracking mechanisms to verify climate financing flows. All of these measures are critical for rebuilding trust and accountability and for mobilising the necessary resources.
5. Amplify the voice of authoritative science Whilst the climate COP does rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other related bodies, such as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), it does not have its own permanent scientific advisory body that is formally part of the COP structure. We share growing concerns that climate COPs do not sufficiently integrate or action up the latest scientific evidence. The CBD COP has its own permanent scientific advisory body, which has provided a technical and scientific underpinning for the CBD. And the same could be replicated within the climate COP.
6. Recognise the interdependencies between poverty, inequality and planetary instability New research from the Earth Commission and from Earth4All affirms the important linkages between ecological and social change processes. If the climate COP is to be more impactful, it must acknowledge that the current rate of nature loss (e.g. freshwater scarcity, land and soil degradation, pollination decline, ocean pollution) is affecting the stability of the planet. Moreover, planetary stability, now at grave risk, is impossible without decisive action on equality, justice and poverty alleviation. This is why we call for a Climate-Poverty Policy Envoy to ensure that these critical links are anchored in the negotiations and implementation actions, especially through dedicated spaces for vulnerable communities to advocate for these linkages.
7. Enhance equitable representation Despite the climate COP’s new disclosure rules, a record number of 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access at COP28, nearly four times more than COP27. The fact that there were far more fossil fuel lobbyists than official representatives from scientific institutions, Indigenous communities and vulnerable nations reflects a systemic imbalance in COP representation. Improving the management of corporate interests within COPs proceedings will require stronger transparency and disclosure rules and clear guidelines that require companies to demonstrate alignment between their climate commitments, business model and lobbying activities.
In closing, let us reiterate the important role the UNFCCC has played and will continue to play in ensuring ambition on climate change. There is no doubt that climate change is a global challenge and must be solved through multilateral negotiations alongside ambition at the National level through Nationally Determined Contributions. The Paris agreement and subsequent COP decisions have laid a robust foundation for the global policy framework on climate action. Now, we must work together with urgency and purpose, transforming the climate COP so that it can take strategic, action-oriented and accountable decisions to deliver the scale of ambition commensurate with the defining challenge of our time.
SIGNATORIES Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Executive Chair, Earth4All and Global Ambassador for the Club of Rome Prof. Dr. Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Action Research Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United Nations Mary Robinson, Former President of Ireland Christiana Figueres, Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Connie Hedegaard, Chair of the Board for the KR Foundation and former EU Former EU Commissioner for Climate Action Dr. Carlos Nobre, Member of the Joint Steering Committee of the World Climate Research Programme & the Rockefeller Foundation Economic Council on Planetary Health Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director-General, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Dr. Bertrand Piccard, President, Solar Impulse Foundation Esmeralda of Belgium, President of the Leopold III Fund for Nature Exploration and Conservation Maria João Rodrigues, President, Foundation for European Progressive Studies Youba Sokona, Chair, African Institute for Sustainable Energy and System Analysis and former Vice-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst Dr. Arunabha Ghosh, CEO, Council on Energy, Environment and Water Sharan Burrow, former General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation Phyllis Cuttino, President and CEO, The Climate Reality Project Ilona Szabó de Carvalho, Co-founder and President, Igarapé Institute Eva Zabey, Executive-Director, Business for Nature Sheela Patel, Director, Society for Promotion of Area Resource Centres and Global Ambassador for the Race to Zero and Race to Resilience Dr. Gunhild A. Stordalen, Co-founder and Executive Chair, EAT Marie-Claire Graf, Co-Founder, Youth Negotiators Academy & YOUNGO Focal Point COP26 Paul Shrivastava, Co-President, The Club of Rome Source: https://www.clubofrome.org/cop-reform-2024/
Club of Rome are famous for their 1972 publication The Limits to Growth, an absurdly simplistic attempt to suggest we will all run out of stuff before the end of this century.
One of my favourite responses to the Limits to Growth was published by The New York Times shortly after the publication of Limits.
… “The Limits to Growth,” in our view, is an empty and misleading work. Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon conceals a kind of intellectual Rube Goldberg device—one which takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science. “Limits” pretends to a degree of certainty so exaggerated as to obscure the few modest (and unoriginal) insights that it genuinely con tains. Less than pseudoscience and little more than polemical fiction, “The Limits to Growth” is best summarized not as a rediscovery of the laws of nature but as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
…
As a first approximation of the future, the authors assume that the world is utterly incapable of adjusting to problems of scarcity. Technology stagnates and pollution is ignored, even as it chokes millions to death. A shortage of raw materials prevents industry and agriculture from keeping up with population growth. World reserves of vital materials (silver, tungsten, mercury, etc.) are exhausted within 40 years. Around 2020 the pinch becomes tight enough to cause a fall in per capita income. A few decades later, malnutrition and lagging health services abruptly reverse the climbing population trend. By the year 2100 the resource base has shrunk so badly that the world economy is unable to sustain even 19th‐century living standards.
…
It is no coincidence that all the simulations based on the Meadows world model invariably end in collapse. As in any simulation, the results depend on the information initially fed to the computer. And the “Limits” team fixes the wheel; no matter how ‘many times you play there is only one possible outcome. Critical to their model is the notion that growth produces stresses (pollution, resource demands, food requiremeats) which multiply geometrically. Like compound interest on a savings account, these stresses accumulate at a pace that constantly accelerates: Every child born is not only another mouth to feed but another potential parent. Every new factory not only drains away exhaustible resources but increases our capacity to build more factories. Geometric (or as mathematicians prefer to call it, exponential) growth must eventually produce spectacular results. If the Indians who sold Manhattan 300 years ago for $24 could have left their money untouched in a bank paying 7 per cent (a number chosen no more arbitrarily than many in “Limits”) they would have more than $25‐billion today.
You would think after an intellectual blunder like “The Limits to Growth” that they would have changed their name or something, but every so often The Club of Rome still pops their head above the parapet to deliver a doom laden pronouncement, or scold the world for not being run the way they would like it to be run.
Most people probably believe that the IPCC and UNFCCC are honest UN agencies with great integrity. In effect, the IPCC as a lobbying co-ordinator and publiciser, and the UNFCCC as taking the IPCC’s lobbying and trying to pressure governments into political decisions, with both agencies using the might of the UN’s media machine to further their aims.
Most people probably believe that the IPCC and UNFCCC are honest UN agencies with great integrity. In effect, the IPCC as a lobbying co-ordinator and publiciser, and the UNFCCC as taking the IPCC’s lobbying and trying to pressure governments into political decisions, with both agencies using the might of the UN’s media machine to further their aims.
The IPCC describes its role as … “to assess … information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
The outcome of this is that we have a lobbyist organisation with a single focus, in this case man-made climate change rather than the larger picture of why the climate might be changing.
Lobbying organisations often make distorted or deceptive claims, and fail to mention other important information. The IPCC is no exception; its reports have the characteristics of dishonest lobbying:
Claiming the issue is very important
The latest IPCC report says that the 2011-2020 average global temperature was just 1.1 °C above the 1850-1900 average global temperature, which if we take the middle of each period is over 140 years. That’s less than 0.8 °C/century, which is no threat whatsoever (and is arguable exaggerated). The evidence that there is a threat is weak to non-existent.
Falsely claiming to have thoroughly assessed the relevant literature
There’s no evidence that IPCC reports assess the relevant literature in any way other than whether it supports the IPCC’s basic premise of human-induced climate change. We see this in, to give just two examples, the “hockey stick” temperature graph, cited eight times in the IPCC’s 2001 report but proven false by MacIntyre and McKittrick a few years later, and in its second report (1995) citing an unpublished paper, written mainly by authors of the IPCC’s report, that was widely criticised when it was finally published.
Ignoring material that undermines the lobbyists’ claims …
The IPCC ignores papers that find that natural forces play a major part in climate change and, by implication, that the human influence is small. These are important findings regards the risks associated with human-induced climate because they indicate that the risk is negligible.[1]
… and cherry-picking material that supports them
For example, the IPCC’s sixth report (AR6, 2021) cited a single paper that implied that there had been an increasing trend in US hurricanes and ignored eight other papers that found there was no increase.[2]
Failing to verify data fundamental to the lobbying
The IPCC admitted this in a response to my comments when I reviewed the IPCC’s 2013 report. My 3017 PhD thesis and my 2018 audit of the HadCRUT4 temperature dataset revealed more than 70 problems. This implies that earlier, highly influential, IPCC reports were based on false temperature data.
Ignoring the potential benefits of what the lobbyists are against
The IPCC reports contain very little discussion of the multiple benefits of warming. These include reducing the number of fatalities from extreme cold, increasing the area of land suitable for agriculture and boosting the growth of vegetation.
Using unproven methods to support one’s claims
The IPCC cites many studies that used climate models to do one or more of the following
Estimate past temperatures
Estimate the human influence on temperatures
Predict future temperatures (ceased in the fifth IPCC report after repeated failures)
No climate models have been formally validated (i.e., proven correct in a range of situations) and the record of models is poor. Worse, most climate models used in the IPCC’s 2013 report exaggerated the warming during 1998-2012[3], and the latest generation of climate models, the CMIP6 set, produce a wider range of output than the earlier CMIP5 models.[4]
Presenting false or distorted science
IPCC reports habitually present false or distorted science. The concept of Global Warming Potential (GWP) is false both because it considers each gas in isolation rather than mixed with others as they are in the atmosphere. Sometimes in combination those gases already absorb 100% of the infrared radiation at a given wavelength, so adding more of those gases can’t absorb more.
The IPCC reports also false claim that greenhouse gases trap energy but all they do is slow the the energy’s escape into space and the energy budget diagrams in each IPCC report misleadingly over-simplify what happens in the atmosphere and have little value.
Making false claims about the accuracy and applicability of certain data
IPCC reports imply that the global average pre-industrial temperature in known to fractions of a degree but only four weather stations, all in Europe, recorded the temperature before the start of the Industrial Revolution. In a similar fashion, the reports have implied that rings from just a few trees are accurate guides to the northern hemisphere average temperature.
Making false claims about the strength of one’s “evidence”
Many IPCC reports claim to have multiple lines of evidence for man-made warming but those lines of evidence are a mixture of the facile (e.g., that warming has occurred), claims based on the output of climate models, instances of correlations that by themselves don’t prove cause or are just speculation.
Implying that the material it cites is the truth
The IPCC reports cite findings made in reports, books and published papers (sometimes single papers) as if they were proven truths. A remarkable number of scientific papers make findings that cannot be replicated and some, probably only a small proportion, are withdrawn/retracted.[5]
After the main text of the reports have been drafted and refined via the review process, the IPCC presents government representatives with a draft Summary for Policymakers (SPM), written by selected authors of chapters of the main text. These representatives, some of which might know little about the subject, negotiate the wording of the SPM within the framework presented to it, and eventually formally approval the document[6]. Governments would find it difficult to reject IPCC claims after their representatives have been coerced into approving the document.
About this time the UNFCCC exaggerates the IPCC’s claims even further by talking about “the threat of climate change”, urgent action being required and there being a “climate emergency”. None of this is true but the UNFCCC pressure governments into acceding to demands for international agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement and Net Zero.
Lobbying is easy when the opposition is greatly handicapped. Both the IPCC and UNFCCC use the huge United Nations media machine to spread their claims around the world in a multitude of languages. Papers that present counter-arguments and counter-claims to the IPCC’s reports don’t have that level of reach and don’t have a similar ability to plant stories in the local media. These alternative views struggle for exposure and are probably rarely seen by governments or the public.
Governments have been pressured into funding climate research that supports IPCC beliefs and supporting, via subsidies to certain bodies, the UNFCCC’s baseless push towards renewable energy and Net Zero.
The IPCC probably learnt to lobby from one of its co-sponsor UN agencies, the UNEP. From 1975 to 1992, across a period that saw several contentious environmental issues, the UNEP was headed by microbiologist Mustafa Tolba. He is on record as saying that the success of one of the UNEP’s lobbying exercises could be attributed to
A core group of countries that wanted the ban
Strong personalities – scientists and others – endorsing the claims and ban
Mobilising public opinion, and that opinion pressuring governments into action
(The second and third points are particularly relevant to IPCC and UNFCCC lobbying.)
But what happened with the contentious issues that the UNEP lobbied hard for during Tolba’s reign?
Its claim in the 1970s that acid rain was killing trees was proven false everywhere except for a small and very heavily polluted region of eastern Europe.
Its lobbying to discourage the use of DDT, as a prelude to an outright ban, probably caused about 20 million people to die from malaria[7]. Only a last-minute effort by over 300 doctors, who pointed out that DDT was a cheap and effective countermeasure against malaria, prevented that ban being put in place.
Its claim, based on a single scientific paper, that CFCs were damaging the ozone layer seems highly unlikely. After almost 30 years and billions of dollars spent switching to alternatives, there’s no sign that the ozone hole is shrinking. Many scientists have pointed out that the occurrence and magnitude of the hole are inconsistent with the UNEP’s claims[8].
The UNEP’s lobbying of false claims has entrenched certain information so deeply in the minds of the public and governments that counter-claims are very rarely considered. Even now some branches of the media are still supporting the UNEP’s beliefs and in doing so, manipulating public opinion.
On each matter the UNEP jumped to conclusions long before scientists had properly investigated the subjects, then forced those assumptions onto the world. The establishment of the IPCC was also driven by assumptions and conclusions before scientists had the chance to consider all the issues and potential causes of warming. (The IPCC was created, in part, as a consequence of the warming in the 1980’s but the sudden increase in El Nino events after 1977 can explain that warming.)
UN Secretary-General Guterres could be described as a strong personality who endorses the lobbying claims of the IPCC and UNFCCC. His recent nonsense about the Earth boiling is just wild exaggeration that’s inconsistent with the IPCC’s statement of about 1.1 degrees C warming in about 140 years.
Unfortunately, Guterres been joined by various so-called scientists who are lobbying perhaps not so much for the IPCC as to protect their incomes and reputations.
Ultimately the scare about man-made warming is not based on science but on lobbying by the IPCC and UNFCCC, and flawed lobbying at that. The Paris Climate Agreement and the push for Net Zero, and the associated issues like forcing electric vehicles onto us all, are very weak on scientific justification but the result of lobbying that manipulates global media outlets and pressures governments.
*****
[1] Roger Pielke Jr. makes a similar point when he says “The IPCC is supposed to review the scientific literature. All of it – that means including more than just a subset of studies which its authors wish to use to construct a narrative. It also means that the IPCC can’t ignore the research of those who its authors may find inconvenient.” (see https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/misinformation-in-the-ipcc )
[7] I have seen estimates of 8 million and 40 million, plus a number between these two extremes, so I’ve taken an approximate middle value. In 2006, the WHO declared DDT to be safe if the basic guidelines were followed and the number of deaths plummeted (see article in the UNEP’s magazine for Africa, https://www.unep.org/resources/report/africa-environment-outlook-2-our-environment-our-wealth .
You must be logged in to post a comment.