Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
CO2 emissions from UK housing 'go up'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-473...
Greenhouse gas emissions from your heating boiler are fuelling climate change, a report by MPs has said.
UK government advisers warn that emissions from housing have actually gone up last year.
This is despite attempts to drive down emissions from the housing sector.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report says that all homes in future will have to virtually eliminate emissions from home heating to meet climate targets.
The government said it's committed to investing £6bn to improve the energy efficiency of lower income and vulnerable households in a decade.....continues
The CC wheels starting to fall off! I'm going to dump my gas boiler, and start burning trees. There, that should fix it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-473...
Greenhouse gas emissions from your heating boiler are fuelling climate change, a report by MPs has said.
UK government advisers warn that emissions from housing have actually gone up last year.
This is despite attempts to drive down emissions from the housing sector.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report says that all homes in future will have to virtually eliminate emissions from home heating to meet climate targets.
The government said it's committed to investing £6bn to improve the energy efficiency of lower income and vulnerable households in a decade.....continues
The CC wheels starting to fall off! I'm going to dump my gas boiler, and start burning trees. There, that should fix it.
Recent research x2 publicised in NZ by farmers (not their research) finds cow farts are irrelevant beyond the cows.
https://farmcarbon.co.nz/scientist-slams-parliamen...
Very recent viewpoint from a physicist.
https://farmcarbon.co.nz/scientist-slams-parliamen...
Very recent viewpoint from a physicist.
Physicist Dr Tom Sheahen said:
Worrying about methane emissions is the greatest waste of time in the entire lexicon of global warming fanaticism.
Dr Sheahen also said:
The IPCC itself acknowledges that H2O is responsible for 70 to 90 percent of the greenhouse effect. Despite that, the IPCC lists the GHGs as CO2, CH4, N2O, O3 …, and leaves H2O out of their count or ‘inventory’ of GHGs. They have done so for 4 decades, due to the computational difficulties of handling H2O, which varies widely all over the world. They treat H2O as a feedback factor upon the amount of CO2. That;s completely crazy! The importance of H2O is far greater than the importance of CO2; and CH4 is so tiny as to be completely irrelevant.
Ah, the fake expert, they're never far from being quoted on here.
Is this the Dr Sheahan that has no Climate Science qualifications and has never written anything on the subject that's been peer reviewed?
Is it also the Dr Sheahan who is a staunch Catholic and accepts the bible as being the truth.
In light of this you won't be surprised to hear that the Heartland Institute list him as one of their own
On a side note, I've just discovered that prior to the Heartland Institute becoming widely known for their services to big oil they were one of the leading players in the pro-smoking camp taking donations from the tobacco companies to do to the anti smoking campaign what they are currently doing to the climate change movement.
They really are a despicable organisation.
Is this the Dr Sheahan that has no Climate Science qualifications and has never written anything on the subject that's been peer reviewed?
Is it also the Dr Sheahan who is a staunch Catholic and accepts the bible as being the truth.
In light of this you won't be surprised to hear that the Heartland Institute list him as one of their own
On a side note, I've just discovered that prior to the Heartland Institute becoming widely known for their services to big oil they were one of the leading players in the pro-smoking camp taking donations from the tobacco companies to do to the anti smoking campaign what they are currently doing to the climate change movement.
They really are a despicable organisation.
gadgetmac said:
Oooo...your leaders favourite sound bite...you'll be handsomely rewarded for reciting that 
They keep saying “the wheels are coming off” and talking about countries “abandoning the Paris agreement” (when they aren’t). You think they’d be happy and close down the cult. Job done. They’ve changed the scientific consensus and proved NASA and the rest of the scientific community wrong.But alas, like any nutty conspiracy theorists, they need to think they’re in a minority and the only ones in the know and fighting against “them” and so they still bang on for ages about increasing green taxes and children being indoctrinated and quoting rubbish websites and ranting against the BBC.
f
k me, Heartland still deny that smoking is bad for you 
https://www.heartland.org/topics/alcohol-tobacco/i...
They say the link between smoking and cancer is also junk science.
They accept that smoking "isn't healthy" but do not go any further or mention the links to heart disease or lung cancer risk. They do not state that it is definitely unhealthy.
Like I say, they are a despicable organisation.
k me, Heartland still deny that smoking is bad for you https://www.heartland.org/topics/alcohol-tobacco/i...
They say the link between smoking and cancer is also junk science.
They accept that smoking "isn't healthy" but do not go any further or mention the links to heart disease or lung cancer risk. They do not state that it is definitely unhealthy.
Like I say, they are a despicable organisation.
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
The CC wheels starting to fall off!
Oooo...your leaders favourite sound bite...you'll be handsomely rewarded for reciting that It doesn’t even make sense and it isn’t even true. It just looks like you’re mimicking Tb.
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
The CC wheels starting to fall off!
Oooo...your leaders favourite sound bite...you'll be handsomely rewarded for reciting that Quick, I hear the BBC have put up another article about CC over on their website, we'll all be needing your tremendously insightful commentary on it. Best get on it before they post another article and your head goes into a spin over which one to flame first.
The wheels falling of the Paris Agreement:-
Climate Change: Why Does Matt McGrath Still Not Get It?
Those of us why actually bothered to read the Paris Agreement, analysed the various countries’ pledges, and worked out the numbers quickly realised that Paris was no more than a virtue signalling sham.
Whilst all of the world’s leaders beamed in front of the cameras and put their names to the meaningless and non binding goal of 2C, the Agreement changed little in practice, and simply kicked the can down the road. Business as usual in other words.
Even the Paris Agreement noted that, even if all of the pledges made were carried out, emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.
Just as importantly most ordinary people around the world have little interest in climate scares and have much more serious problems to worry about in their lives.
In this latest video he witters on about the “effects of climate change that we are already seeing” – floods, wildfires, heatwaves (all either fake or irrelevant). Then says there are three things needed to speed up action:
More money for poorer countries
Greater transparency, so richer countries can check what the rest are doing.
Greater ambition – quicker, deeper cuts in emissions now from the richer countries.
This however shows that McGrath still fundamentally fails to understand what has been going on.
There is zero chance that developed countries will cough up $100bn a year, which was set only as a “goal” in the Copenhagen Accord, itself only a non-binding “political agreement”.
The Paris Agreement did not alter anything agreed at Copenhagen in this respect for a very good reason. Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around, and certainly would not get voters’ agreement to hand it over to the UN.
Greater transparency is largely irrelevant. But it is the last item which really shows up McGrath’s lack of understanding. OECD emissions of CO2 only account for 37% of global ones, and this share will continue to fall as the developing world continue to grow theirs. If global emissions are to fall drastically and quickly all countries need to act.
The idea that China, India or a host of smaller countries will abandon plans to develop their economies as soon as they see the West commit economic hari kari is perfectly ludicrous.
If Matt McGrath really wants to see a rapid reduction in emissions, he needs to turn his attention to China, India and the wealthy oil states of the Middle East – all of whom are nonsensically still regarded as “developing countries”.
There is another problem which McGrath seems unaware of. Fossil fuels still account for 85% of the world’s energy, and with nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much the world has no alternative to carry on relying intensively on oil, gas and coal. Put simply, no other alternatives can replace them with the current state of technology.
McGrath’s partner in crime, Roger Harrabin, often writes about how renewable energy sources are now competitive with fossil fuels, and how this would lead to nirvana anyway, regardless of Trump or the Paris Agreement.
However, McGrath’s desperation, evident in his latest video, gives the lie to this. As does his insistence that richer countries hand over huge amounts of ransom money every year. Renewable energy remains little more than a niche market, expensive, unreliable and utterly incapable of running modern, industrialised economies.
One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.
Climate Change: Why Does Matt McGrath Still Not Get It?
Those of us why actually bothered to read the Paris Agreement, analysed the various countries’ pledges, and worked out the numbers quickly realised that Paris was no more than a virtue signalling sham.
Whilst all of the world’s leaders beamed in front of the cameras and put their names to the meaningless and non binding goal of 2C, the Agreement changed little in practice, and simply kicked the can down the road. Business as usual in other words.
Even the Paris Agreement noted that, even if all of the pledges made were carried out, emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.
Just as importantly most ordinary people around the world have little interest in climate scares and have much more serious problems to worry about in their lives.
In this latest video he witters on about the “effects of climate change that we are already seeing” – floods, wildfires, heatwaves (all either fake or irrelevant). Then says there are three things needed to speed up action:
More money for poorer countries
Greater transparency, so richer countries can check what the rest are doing.
Greater ambition – quicker, deeper cuts in emissions now from the richer countries.
This however shows that McGrath still fundamentally fails to understand what has been going on.
There is zero chance that developed countries will cough up $100bn a year, which was set only as a “goal” in the Copenhagen Accord, itself only a non-binding “political agreement”.
The Paris Agreement did not alter anything agreed at Copenhagen in this respect for a very good reason. Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around, and certainly would not get voters’ agreement to hand it over to the UN.
Greater transparency is largely irrelevant. But it is the last item which really shows up McGrath’s lack of understanding. OECD emissions of CO2 only account for 37% of global ones, and this share will continue to fall as the developing world continue to grow theirs. If global emissions are to fall drastically and quickly all countries need to act.
The idea that China, India or a host of smaller countries will abandon plans to develop their economies as soon as they see the West commit economic hari kari is perfectly ludicrous.
If Matt McGrath really wants to see a rapid reduction in emissions, he needs to turn his attention to China, India and the wealthy oil states of the Middle East – all of whom are nonsensically still regarded as “developing countries”.
There is another problem which McGrath seems unaware of. Fossil fuels still account for 85% of the world’s energy, and with nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much the world has no alternative to carry on relying intensively on oil, gas and coal. Put simply, no other alternatives can replace them with the current state of technology.
McGrath’s partner in crime, Roger Harrabin, often writes about how renewable energy sources are now competitive with fossil fuels, and how this would lead to nirvana anyway, regardless of Trump or the Paris Agreement.
However, McGrath’s desperation, evident in his latest video, gives the lie to this. As does his insistence that richer countries hand over huge amounts of ransom money every year. Renewable energy remains little more than a niche market, expensive, unreliable and utterly incapable of running modern, industrialised economies.
One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.
robinessex said:
CO2 emissions from UK housing 'go up'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-473...
Greenhouse gas emissions from your heating boiler are fuelling climate change, a report by MPs has said.
UK government advisers warn that emissions from housing have actually gone up last year.
This is despite attempts to drive down emissions from the housing sector.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report says that all homes in future will have to virtually eliminate emissions from home heating to meet climate targets.
The government said it's committed to investing £6bn to improve the energy efficiency of lower income and vulnerable households in a decade.....continues
The CC wheels starting to fall off! I'm going to dump my gas boiler, and start burning trees. There, that should fix it.
Like I said yesterday to Gadgetmac, yes you will have to stop using gas ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-473...
Greenhouse gas emissions from your heating boiler are fuelling climate change, a report by MPs has said.
UK government advisers warn that emissions from housing have actually gone up last year.
This is despite attempts to drive down emissions from the housing sector.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report says that all homes in future will have to virtually eliminate emissions from home heating to meet climate targets.
The government said it's committed to investing £6bn to improve the energy efficiency of lower income and vulnerable households in a decade.....continues
The CC wheels starting to fall off! I'm going to dump my gas boiler, and start burning trees. There, that should fix it.
gadgetmac said:
fk me, Heartland still deny that smoking is bad for you
https://www.heartland.org/topics/alcohol-tobacco/i...
They say the link between smoking and cancer is also junk science.
They accept that smoking "isn't healthy" but do not go any further or mention the links to heart disease or lung cancer risk. They do not state that it is definitely unhealthy.
Like I say, they are a despicable organisation.
It’s like the cultists on here. Most have now grudgingly accepted that AGW is real, they’re just arguing now about how bad it actually is. k me, Heartland still deny that smoking is bad for you https://www.heartland.org/topics/alcohol-tobacco/i...
They say the link between smoking and cancer is also junk science.
They accept that smoking "isn't healthy" but do not go any further or mention the links to heart disease or lung cancer risk. They do not state that it is definitely unhealthy.
Like I say, they are a despicable organisation.
The deception behind smoking financed by organisations like heartland is very similar to the deceptions around climate science. As you show, it’s actually the same people funding it.
Still if a gullible minority of people lap it up and believe trump and wattsupwiththat that and the gpwf instead of the scientific community then it’s no wonder.
Still though TB and Robinessex say “the tide is turning” so heartland cash must be doing some good.
robinessex said:
The wheels falling of the Paris Agreement:-
Climate Change: Why Does Matt McGrath Still Not Get It?
Those of us why actually bothered to read the Paris Agreement, analysed the various countries’ pledges, and worked out the numbers quickly realised that Paris was no more than a virtue signalling sham.
Whilst all of the world’s leaders beamed in front of the cameras and put their names to the meaningless and non binding goal of 2C, the Agreement changed little in practice, and simply kicked the can down the road. Business as usual in other words.
Even the Paris Agreement noted that, even if all of the pledges made were carried out, emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.
Just as importantly most ordinary people around the world have little interest in climate scares and have much more serious problems to worry about in their lives.
In this latest video he witters on about the “effects of climate change that we are already seeing” – floods, wildfires, heatwaves (all either fake or irrelevant). Then says there are three things needed to speed up action:
More money for poorer countries
Greater transparency, so richer countries can check what the rest are doing.
Greater ambition – quicker, deeper cuts in emissions now from the richer countries.
This however shows that McGrath still fundamentally fails to understand what has been going on.
There is zero chance that developed countries will cough up $100bn a year, which was set only as a “goal” in the Copenhagen Accord, itself only a non-binding “political agreement”.
The Paris Agreement did not alter anything agreed at Copenhagen in this respect for a very good reason. Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around, and certainly would not get voters’ agreement to hand it over to the UN.
Greater transparency is largely irrelevant. But it is the last item which really shows up McGrath’s lack of understanding. OECD emissions of CO2 only account for 37% of global ones, and this share will continue to fall as the developing world continue to grow theirs. If global emissions are to fall drastically and quickly all countries need to act.
The idea that China, India or a host of smaller countries will abandon plans to develop their economies as soon as they see the West commit economic hari kari is perfectly ludicrous.
If Matt McGrath really wants to see a rapid reduction in emissions, he needs to turn his attention to China, India and the wealthy oil states of the Middle East – all of whom are nonsensically still regarded as “developing countries”.
There is another problem which McGrath seems unaware of. Fossil fuels still account for 85% of the world’s energy, and with nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much the world has no alternative to carry on relying intensively on oil, gas and coal. Put simply, no other alternatives can replace them with the current state of technology.
McGrath’s partner in crime, Roger Harrabin, often writes about how renewable energy sources are now competitive with fossil fuels, and how this would lead to nirvana anyway, regardless of Trump or the Paris Agreement.
However, McGrath’s desperation, evident in his latest video, gives the lie to this. As does his insistence that richer countries hand over huge amounts of ransom money every year. Renewable energy remains little more than a niche market, expensive, unreliable and utterly incapable of running modern, industrialised economies.
One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.
Pah! You're just phoning it in now. That's a direct copy and paste from a deniers blog.Climate Change: Why Does Matt McGrath Still Not Get It?
Those of us why actually bothered to read the Paris Agreement, analysed the various countries’ pledges, and worked out the numbers quickly realised that Paris was no more than a virtue signalling sham.
Whilst all of the world’s leaders beamed in front of the cameras and put their names to the meaningless and non binding goal of 2C, the Agreement changed little in practice, and simply kicked the can down the road. Business as usual in other words.
Even the Paris Agreement noted that, even if all of the pledges made were carried out, emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.
Just as importantly most ordinary people around the world have little interest in climate scares and have much more serious problems to worry about in their lives.
In this latest video he witters on about the “effects of climate change that we are already seeing” – floods, wildfires, heatwaves (all either fake or irrelevant). Then says there are three things needed to speed up action:
More money for poorer countries
Greater transparency, so richer countries can check what the rest are doing.
Greater ambition – quicker, deeper cuts in emissions now from the richer countries.
This however shows that McGrath still fundamentally fails to understand what has been going on.
There is zero chance that developed countries will cough up $100bn a year, which was set only as a “goal” in the Copenhagen Accord, itself only a non-binding “political agreement”.
The Paris Agreement did not alter anything agreed at Copenhagen in this respect for a very good reason. Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around, and certainly would not get voters’ agreement to hand it over to the UN.
Greater transparency is largely irrelevant. But it is the last item which really shows up McGrath’s lack of understanding. OECD emissions of CO2 only account for 37% of global ones, and this share will continue to fall as the developing world continue to grow theirs. If global emissions are to fall drastically and quickly all countries need to act.
The idea that China, India or a host of smaller countries will abandon plans to develop their economies as soon as they see the West commit economic hari kari is perfectly ludicrous.
If Matt McGrath really wants to see a rapid reduction in emissions, he needs to turn his attention to China, India and the wealthy oil states of the Middle East – all of whom are nonsensically still regarded as “developing countries”.
There is another problem which McGrath seems unaware of. Fossil fuels still account for 85% of the world’s energy, and with nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much the world has no alternative to carry on relying intensively on oil, gas and coal. Put simply, no other alternatives can replace them with the current state of technology.
McGrath’s partner in crime, Roger Harrabin, often writes about how renewable energy sources are now competitive with fossil fuels, and how this would lead to nirvana anyway, regardless of Trump or the Paris Agreement.
However, McGrath’s desperation, evident in his latest video, gives the lie to this. As does his insistence that richer countries hand over huge amounts of ransom money every year. Renewable energy remains little more than a niche market, expensive, unreliable and utterly incapable of running modern, industrialised economies.
One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.
Poor effort.
1/10
Robinessex said:
One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.
Do you look every day for this “propaganda”? Then you post it on here?
A fascinating insight into your mind. This is really unhealthy behaviour. You’ve got an obsession about the bbc and you’re fuelling it by looking for it and posting about it on here and hoping to get affirmation from other obsessives.
You’re not well.
gadgetmac said:
Go on then, start listing these wealthy patrons and the amounts donated and then tell me what they each stand to gain from donating to climate activism.
It’s a long list apparently so I’ll wait.
thick as mince , is desmogblog the only reading you do ? here is a starter for ten,close to home seeing as your narrow mind probably wouldn't recognise any of the main players from overseas. nice and recent as well, not dragging up nonsense about anthony watts from six years ago that anyone following the debate ,including warmists,knows exactly what the score is.It’s a long list apparently so I’ll wait.
Tory peer in £600,000 conflict of interest: Climate Change chief John Gummer faces calls to quit over payments from 'green businesses' to his family firm where daughter he famously fed a beef burger during the height of the BSE crisis is a director
Conservative peer's family-run consultancy been paid huge sums by businesses
MPs say Mr Gummer should have declared the payments – but he never has
He last night denied conflict of interest and said complied with disclosure rules.
https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-666151...
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
fk me, Heartland still deny that smoking is bad for you
https://www.heartland.org/topics/alcohol-tobacco/i...
They say the link between smoking and cancer is also junk science.
They accept that smoking "isn't healthy" but do not go any further or mention the links to heart disease or lung cancer risk. They do not state that it is definitely unhealthy.
Like I say, they are a despicable organisation.
It’s like the cultists on here. Most have now grudgingly accepted that AGW is real, they’re just arguing now about how bad it actually is. k me, Heartland still deny that smoking is bad for you https://www.heartland.org/topics/alcohol-tobacco/i...
They say the link between smoking and cancer is also junk science.
They accept that smoking "isn't healthy" but do not go any further or mention the links to heart disease or lung cancer risk. They do not state that it is definitely unhealthy.
Like I say, they are a despicable organisation.
The deception behind smoking financed by organisations like heartland is very similar to the deceptions around climate science. As you show, it’s actually the same people funding it.
Still if a gullible minority of people lap it up and believe trump and wattsupwiththat that and the gpwf instead of the scientific community then it’s no wonder.
Still though TB and Robinessex say “the tide is turning” so heartland cash must be doing some good.
I can hear their next campaign now..."No link between cars hitting people and them then dying later that day in hospital"
gadgetmac said:
Ah, the fake expert, they're never far from being quoted on here.
Is this the Dr Sheahan that has no Climate Science qualifications and has never written anything on the subject that's been peer reviewed?
Is it also the Dr Sheahan who is a staunch Catholic and accepts the bible as being the truth.
In light of this you won't be surprised to hear that the Heartland Institute list him as one of their own
On a side note, I've just discovered that prior to the Heartland Institute becoming widely known for their services to big oil they were one of the leading players in the pro-smoking camp taking donations from the tobacco companies to do to the anti smoking campaign what they are currently doing to the climate change movement.
They really are a despicable organisation.
Fake sceptics too as evidenced by the claim that the increase in CO2 isn't man-made. You have to be pretty credulous to believe that.Is this the Dr Sheahan that has no Climate Science qualifications and has never written anything on the subject that's been peer reviewed?
Is it also the Dr Sheahan who is a staunch Catholic and accepts the bible as being the truth.
In light of this you won't be surprised to hear that the Heartland Institute list him as one of their own
On a side note, I've just discovered that prior to the Heartland Institute becoming widely known for their services to big oil they were one of the leading players in the pro-smoking camp taking donations from the tobacco companies to do to the anti smoking campaign what they are currently doing to the climate change movement.
They really are a despicable organisation.
It's so obviously not genuine 'research' and typical low quality phud churned out by fake experts for hire, it's embarassing.
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
Go on then, start listing these wealthy patrons and the amounts donated and then tell me what they each stand to gain from donating to climate activism.
It’s a long list apparently so I’ll wait.
thick as mince , is desmogblog the only reading you do ? here is a starter for ten,close to home seeing as your narrow mind probably wouldn't recognise any of the main players from overseas. nice and recent as well, not dragging up nonsense about anthony watts from six years ago that anyone following the debate ,including warmists,knows exactly what the score is.It’s a long list apparently so I’ll wait.
Tory peer in £600,000 conflict of interest: Climate Change chief John Gummer faces calls to quit over payments from 'green businesses' to his family firm where daughter he famously fed a beef burger during the height of the BSE crisis is a director
Conservative peer's family-run consultancy been paid huge sums by businesses
MPs say Mr Gummer should have declared the payments – but he never has
He last night denied conflict of interest and said complied with disclosure rules.
https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-666151...
Try WUWT, it's sure to have some references for the feeble minded.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
The wheels falling of the Paris Agreement:-
Climate Change: Why Does Matt McGrath Still Not Get It?
Those of us why actually bothered to read the Paris Agreement, analysed the various countries’ pledges, and worked out the numbers quickly realised that Paris was no more than a virtue signalling sham.
Whilst all of the world’s leaders beamed in front of the cameras and put their names to the meaningless and non binding goal of 2C, the Agreement changed little in practice, and simply kicked the can down the road. Business as usual in other words.
Even the Paris Agreement noted that, even if all of the pledges made were carried out, emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.
Just as importantly most ordinary people around the world have little interest in climate scares and have much more serious problems to worry about in their lives.
In this latest video he witters on about the “effects of climate change that we are already seeing” – floods, wildfires, heatwaves (all either fake or irrelevant). Then says there are three things needed to speed up action:
More money for poorer countries
Greater transparency, so richer countries can check what the rest are doing.
Greater ambition – quicker, deeper cuts in emissions now from the richer countries.
This however shows that McGrath still fundamentally fails to understand what has been going on.
There is zero chance that developed countries will cough up $100bn a year, which was set only as a “goal” in the Copenhagen Accord, itself only a non-binding “political agreement”.
The Paris Agreement did not alter anything agreed at Copenhagen in this respect for a very good reason. Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around, and certainly would not get voters’ agreement to hand it over to the UN.
Greater transparency is largely irrelevant. But it is the last item which really shows up McGrath’s lack of understanding. OECD emissions of CO2 only account for 37% of global ones, and this share will continue to fall as the developing world continue to grow theirs. If global emissions are to fall drastically and quickly all countries need to act.
The idea that China, India or a host of smaller countries will abandon plans to develop their economies as soon as they see the West commit economic hari kari is perfectly ludicrous.
If Matt McGrath really wants to see a rapid reduction in emissions, he needs to turn his attention to China, India and the wealthy oil states of the Middle East – all of whom are nonsensically still regarded as “developing countries”.
There is another problem which McGrath seems unaware of. Fossil fuels still account for 85% of the world’s energy, and with nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much the world has no alternative to carry on relying intensively on oil, gas and coal. Put simply, no other alternatives can replace them with the current state of technology.
McGrath’s partner in crime, Roger Harrabin, often writes about how renewable energy sources are now competitive with fossil fuels, and how this would lead to nirvana anyway, regardless of Trump or the Paris Agreement.
However, McGrath’s desperation, evident in his latest video, gives the lie to this. As does his insistence that richer countries hand over huge amounts of ransom money every year. Renewable energy remains little more than a niche market, expensive, unreliable and utterly incapable of running modern, industrialised economies.
One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.
Pah! You're just phoning it in now. That's a direct copy and paste from a deniers blog.Climate Change: Why Does Matt McGrath Still Not Get It?
Those of us why actually bothered to read the Paris Agreement, analysed the various countries’ pledges, and worked out the numbers quickly realised that Paris was no more than a virtue signalling sham.
Whilst all of the world’s leaders beamed in front of the cameras and put their names to the meaningless and non binding goal of 2C, the Agreement changed little in practice, and simply kicked the can down the road. Business as usual in other words.
Even the Paris Agreement noted that, even if all of the pledges made were carried out, emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.
Just as importantly most ordinary people around the world have little interest in climate scares and have much more serious problems to worry about in their lives.
In this latest video he witters on about the “effects of climate change that we are already seeing” – floods, wildfires, heatwaves (all either fake or irrelevant). Then says there are three things needed to speed up action:
More money for poorer countries
Greater transparency, so richer countries can check what the rest are doing.
Greater ambition – quicker, deeper cuts in emissions now from the richer countries.
This however shows that McGrath still fundamentally fails to understand what has been going on.
There is zero chance that developed countries will cough up $100bn a year, which was set only as a “goal” in the Copenhagen Accord, itself only a non-binding “political agreement”.
The Paris Agreement did not alter anything agreed at Copenhagen in this respect for a very good reason. Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around, and certainly would not get voters’ agreement to hand it over to the UN.
Greater transparency is largely irrelevant. But it is the last item which really shows up McGrath’s lack of understanding. OECD emissions of CO2 only account for 37% of global ones, and this share will continue to fall as the developing world continue to grow theirs. If global emissions are to fall drastically and quickly all countries need to act.
The idea that China, India or a host of smaller countries will abandon plans to develop their economies as soon as they see the West commit economic hari kari is perfectly ludicrous.
If Matt McGrath really wants to see a rapid reduction in emissions, he needs to turn his attention to China, India and the wealthy oil states of the Middle East – all of whom are nonsensically still regarded as “developing countries”.
There is another problem which McGrath seems unaware of. Fossil fuels still account for 85% of the world’s energy, and with nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much the world has no alternative to carry on relying intensively on oil, gas and coal. Put simply, no other alternatives can replace them with the current state of technology.
McGrath’s partner in crime, Roger Harrabin, often writes about how renewable energy sources are now competitive with fossil fuels, and how this would lead to nirvana anyway, regardless of Trump or the Paris Agreement.
However, McGrath’s desperation, evident in his latest video, gives the lie to this. As does his insistence that richer countries hand over huge amounts of ransom money every year. Renewable energy remains little more than a niche market, expensive, unreliable and utterly incapable of running modern, industrialised economies.
One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.
Poor effort.
1/10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff