Why That UN Climate Deal Is Already A Dead Duck

wcs2015What Mark Carney, the Pope and all the others are shutting their eyes to is that the binding climate treaty they all want simply isn’t going to happen. This is not just because all the horrors the BBC and the Met Office keep warning us about are failing to appear. The crucial reason why there will be no treaty (other than a meaningless fudge) is that those developing countries, led by India and China, are not going to have it. Even the EU, which has long boasted that it is leading the drive to secure that new treaty, has lately dramatically changed its stance. As pointed out by Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the EU is now prepared to pledge a 40 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, but only on condition that any Paris agreement is legally binding on all countries. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 4 October 2015

Mark Carney’s warning that investors face “potentially huge” losses from their “stranded” coal, oil and gas assets has riled many in the investment community who believe the Bank of England governor has spoken out of turn. The chief investment officer of a large UK pension fund, who requested anonymity, agreed: “Mr Carney should stick to his mandate. Carbon policy is a matter for politics and government legislation, not the Bank of England.” Other investors also expressed scepticism about the stranded-assets theory, as well as the extent and the immediacy of the risks underlined by Mr Carney. Madison Marriage and Richard Stovin-Bradford, Financial Times, 5 October 2015

Mark Carney believes that fossil fuels will soon become stranded assets, as the world will fall for the global warming scam and stop using them. Apparently, nobody told the Chinese! According to the IEA, they have been busy buying up all the global oil and gas assets they can get their hands on, and, as of last November, control 7% of worldwide crude oil output. –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 4 October 2015

Mark Carney, with wind turbine nailed to his forehead, has decided he doesn’t like hydrocarbons. Coal, gas and oil. He thinks we should probably leave one third of the world’s reserves of hydrocarbons right there where they are, in the ground. Leave it where it is and invest in what are euphemistically called renewables, which contribute 1% of the world’s energy needs. Right-ho, Mark — that’s the entire basis of the western economic system well and truly buggered, then. Hell, who’d have thought it: a banker doing his best to wreck the economy as a consequence of a latterly acquired arrogance. Nah. That’s never happened before, has it. –Rod Liddle, The Sunday Times, 4 October 2015

Geologically, the United States does not stand out in terms of shale resources. A very incomplete global mapping suggests a US shale oil share of no more than 17% of a huge geological wealth, widely geographically spread. Given the mainly non-proprietary shale technology and the many advantages accruing to the producing nations, it is inevitable that the revolution will spread beyond the United States. The global spread of these revolutions and the ensuing price weakness that we envisage for the coming two decades will, on balance, provide a great advantage both to the oil industry and to the world economy at large. The efforts to develop renewables for the purpose of climate stabilisation will become more costly, requiring greater subsidies, in consequence of lower oil prices. –Roberto F. Aguilera and Marian Radetzki, The Conversation, 5 October 2015

The 20 climate scientists and academics who sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to prosecute global warming skeptics may be in big trouble. A congressional committee is now looking into the government-backed nonprofit that circulated the letter, demanding they turn over “all e-mail, electronic documents, and data created since January 1, 2009.” The group has one week to respond in writing to the committee’s request. It seems like IGES’s effort to get Obama to prosecute global warming skeptics has completely backfired in the two weeks since their letter to the administration was published online. IGES has since taken down the letter and put up a message claiming the letter was “inadvertently posted” online. –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller News Foundation, 2 October 2015

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn


    The events that have been propping up temperatures (short term up trends in ENSO & AMO should end before then with long term down trends in these and SSN to fuel the doubt in GW.

    Evidence CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).

  • Avatar

    Knut Rellsmo


    The only place the temperature is increasing is in the mathematical climate models.
    In Norway 7500-2500 years ago the average tempersture was 2-3 centigrades higher than to-day and plants demanding mild climate cannot grow info-days COLDER climate. And the people in those days did not have e rescue team of politicians and journalists to rescue them etter (-:

  • Avatar



    It is a given that neither China or India will curtail emissions and be accountable for imposing reductions that would devastate their economies .

    The people promoting the agreement know that and don’t really care because that is not the point of the exercise . It is wealth transfer ,carbon taxes ,and the introduction of erosion to sovereign nation powers .

    The bankers are starting to sing it’s praises (CARNEY ) and when that happens how long before Carney’s former employer Goldman Sachs jumps on board and the other “market” forces the British government now defers to .

    It does not matter what weasel words
    the” have not nations” use to preserve the status quo ,2030 emission targets for example they will continue to devour western jobs and burn coal at ever increasing rates .

    The West is determined to purse the path to economic suicide aided by
    governments hungry for new taxes
    and fluffy rhetoric .

    The West will be fools to buy this scam .

  • Avatar



    I agree with the idea of trying to keep as much of the hydrocarbon resources in the ground. On geologic scales inter-glacials are short and glacial periods are long. Can technological society survive a glacial period? I believe we should leave access to energy resources to reboot the next industrial revolution. My opinion is that CAGW is a theory that does hold up to observations. Net cost of carbon is likely to be positive in most of our life times. Resources should be used efficiently to raise standard living of developing nations in hopes of stabilizing world population sooner.

    • Avatar



      [quote] I agree with the idea of trying to keep as much of the hydrocarbon resources in the ground.

      Resources should be used efficiently to raise standard living of developing nations in hopes of stabilizing world population sooner.[/quote] Can’t do both sorry. The best and fastest way to raise the standard of living and lower the birth rates is with hydrocarbons.

      Most if not all of the industrialised nations have negative population “growth”.

Comments are closed