Major nations snub calls for climate action as U.N. summit wraps up

The climate has changed and will change forever, regardless of the carbon taxes we pay

Good thing nobody is disputing this.

the Sun at the Summer Solstice is actually moving south approximately 15 meters per year. This is of course affecting the climate

Two questions. Is it not the earth's tilt that is changing, causing the tropics to move by about 15 meters per year (over a long cycle)? How would this affect the climate?

the military deployment does not care about environment.

what they want to tell you is: environment tax is coming!

This is not unexpected. For some time, the US was appropriately expected to be the leader in addressing climate change, but it is now leaderless. Trump and his supporters are worthless ***** that would destroy their children’s future for a buck.

@Crazy Joe

Trump and his supporters are worthless ***** 

That's a bit of an insult to some of the readers here don't you think?

A handful of major states resisted pressure 

in order to ensure the corporations owned and managed by their respective ruling classes were permitted to pollute at will.

Are the globe's various forms of capitalism ( I'm including China) so fragile, so weak that any tweaks, for example reducing - NOT eliminating - dependencies on burning so much fossil fuel, would cause severe problems?

Are the capitalist systems so weak they can't make adjustments, for example allow new technologies including alternative forms of generating electricity to compete with the big energy companies?

And by the way, why are the powers that rule so afraid of competition? Why do the ruling powers subsidize industries (especially industries they own and manage).

@Crazy Joe

Trump and his supporters.............would destroy their children’s future for a buck.

Has it occurred to you that most 'climate change skeptics' base their skepticism/opposition out of a deep concern for their children's future? They don't want to see their countries pour valuable time and resources into a false alarm and see their economies suffer the inevitable negative effects.

I thought this was all just Trump and only Trump’s fault? guess not.

Brazil, China, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United States had led resistance to bolder action, delegates said.

Smaller nations had also hoped to win guarantees of financial aid to cope with climate change. The Pacific island of Tuvalu accused the United States, which

Tuvalu has found to be GROWING in area. But Tuvalu still "hoped to win guarantees of financial aid" when the government must know there is no problem!

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/02/09/sinking-pacific-island-touted-prime-climate-change-victim-actually-rising-study/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318

Then there is the extremist rhetoric by their representative to try and support this.

"There are millions of people all around the world who are already suffering from the impacts of climate change," ... "Denying this fact could be interpreted by some to be a crime against humanity."

I guess the hype will help with the payout! Presumably it will be the taxpayers from the wealthy nations who will pay for this unnecessary aid based on lies and fraud.

To help refute this "the islands are sinking scenario" a leading authority on sea level has said that sea level is "absolutely stable" and that "climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.

https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/04/world-leading-authority-sea-level-absolutely-stable-poor-quality-data-from-office-perps-ipcc-false/

Has it occurred to you that most 'climate change skeptics' base their skepticism/opposition out of a deep concern for their children's future? They don't want to see their countries pour valuable time and resources into a false alarm and see their economies suffer the inevitable negative effects.

Well, Trump supporters, who generally read from the same climate change hymn sheet, used to tear into the previous president for piling on debt and leaving the next generation on the hook.

Their concern for their children’s futures evaporated quickly when Trump continued to pile on the debt.

It seems the paying customers are coming out from under the ether...

The UN should find new digs.

If people cared about their children, why would they allow destruction of natural habitats, overfishing, species collapse, coral dieoffs, snowless winters etc.

There are many environmental issues aside from climate change and many of them are caused by unsustainable forms of economic growth.

Climate change, weather and pollution combined with a massive disinfo and misinfo campaign have all been thrown into a blender with the resulting mixture hardened into a huge lump which the politicians and gullible activists misuse to hammer people with. Pollution is a different issue and has no connection to CO2 or the ever changing climate. The skeptics get that these summits have virtually nothing to do with the environment and that there is a different agenda afoot.

If the sun was causing rising temperatures we would see rises in both the troposphere and the stratosphere.

Nope ...only the troposphere heating, stratosphere cooling.

In actual fact, the last 35 years have seen a cooling trend from the sun.

There are no new scientific discoveries to disprove global warming.

Stuff dropped into your face book page doesn't rate.

There are no new scientific discoveries to disprove global warming.

That’s it - no more science as we have decided. No scientists will be allowed to dissent. The climate models will continue to over estimate future warming which only proves that the scientists don’t truly understand the complexity of the Earths climate. They have decided that a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 from .03% to .041% means that the world will come to an end in 11 years. I am only exaggerating a little bit from what the leading lights of the Warmism cult are preaching to their flock.

It’s no wonder scientists are afraid to dissent from the current dogma - they will be burned at the stake.

If we pay more tax we can fix climate change ?

These people spewing out the climate change rhetoric flying around the world in jet airliners with their huge delegations, entourages, limousines speaking at U.N. Summits and various other events and places do not ever think they are contributing more to the so called problem than the average person who goes quietly about their mere daily life recycling while listening to these entitled morons spewing more rhetoric at every chance they get,....... funded by who knows who.

Have they considered a group phone conference using technology to have their points and views aired amongst themselves?

If you fall into the group who believes what these grubs say and do then you should be sitting with greta on the train eating your lunch out of single use plastic containers using single use plastic forks n spoons n straws n plastic bags while telling us all " How Dare You "

Are yes thats right carbon tax fixes global warming , oh sorry climate change.

Responsible behaviour will do more for climate change than increasing tax on people who can barely afford to live as it is. But those who leech of society and its excesses dont care for that behaviour.

In actual fact, the last 35 years have seen a cooling trend from the sun.

If you look at the satellite data or talk to any honest scientist you will see that 1998 was the warmest year in recent times and temperatures have levelled off since that time, although 2016 was also very warm. But what you don't usually hear is that for both of these years, El Nino was "very strong".

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

Then there was the US annual mean temperature of 1934 which records show was as warm or even warmer than 1998. Wonder why we don't usually hear about that?!

To put things into perspective, when looking at temperatures on a much long time scale the above years pale in comparison. The url below has a graph showing temperatures for the last 10,000 years. (Greenland ice core data) Of course there was no industrialisation way back then.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbrook_fig5.png

Earth has been slowly coming out of a mini ice age, which ended in the early 1700s. Warmer temperatures along with cool periods is what you would expect. Even during periods of global cooling (ie; 1945 - 1977) CO2 output from industry and vehicles did not level off but continued to rise.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010-where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/

I know the above won't make a bone of difference to those whose ideology is more important than the facts but that's how it is.

Drastically slowing global population growth is the only solution. But none of the countries, none, want to do that. Thus, we are doomed until these conferences make progress on that issue.

There are no new scientific discoveries to disprove global warming.

That may be true, but there are increasing variations among the predictions of scientists. There is a great deal of uncertainty and contradictory evidence.

One scientist has this message for the Extinction Rebellion and other "doomsters":

"Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history. You are your own worst enemy — you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather. You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context."

https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/14/the-toxic-rhetoric-of-climate-change/#more-25488

This propaganda article is so wrong on so many levels, I dont even want to start getting into it. Anybody why believes this fluff is an uncritical mainstream media consumer.

@'zaphod"Anybody why believes this fluff is an uncritical mainstream media consumer.

A or Z world, just like Fizzbit says. Nothing in between - for extremists unable to reason beyond what their media says. Ironic that posters who rail against what they call the 'elite, the 'establishment' parrot what the 'elite establishment', for example the global oil corporations, their financial backers, the defense industries paid to develop weapons to protect the interests of big oil, say. One thing Trump's reign has shown is that he's the best thing that's ever happened to the global elite establishment.

A handful of major states resisted pressure on Sunday to ramp up efforts to combat global warming as a U.N. climate summit ground to a close, angering smaller countries and a growing protest movement that is pushing for emergency action.

The COP25 talks in Madrid were viewed as a test of governments' collective will to heed the advice of science to cut greenhouse gas emissions more rapidly, in order to prevent rising global temperatures from hitting irreversible tipping points.

184 nations are unable to reach a working compromise. It appears that the CO2-is-evil zealots are still unable to provide a convincing argument that they can stop global warming.

Dr Roy Spencer does not work within any scientific establishment.

He is a well know denier. He is a board member of right wing US "think tanks " like the"Marshall Institute "

When somebody posts something from NASA etc about the "hoax " I'll take notice.

People with Polly Anna world views don't seem to understand the role American right wing think tanks play in sowing disinformation.

Some random observations

1.World Meteorological Organisation "statement on the state of the climate Nov 2018

Past 4 years hottest on record. 20 of the warmest years occurred in the last 22 years.

NASA webpage titled "Nope. Earth isn't cooling "{ read it maybe.}

IMF to examine climate risks to financial institutions {google this head line }

Shell quits major USA oil lobby over climate change . {Shell accepts the science }

In Australia

1.Former High Court Judge says large corporations could be sued for not disclosing climate risks

2.Reserve Bank warns climate change posing increased risks to financial stability.

I UK

1/ Boris Johnson wants UK carbon neutral by 2050

2/Will set up a new Government Department focused exclusively on climate change

3.UK's biggest investment fund, Aberdeen Standard Investment, says large corporations have a critical role to play in the transition to a low carbon economy.

World wide.

Investors representing US 33 Trillion seeking an end to coal and price on carbon

Dr Roy Spencer does not work within any scientific establishment.

Ah, so he's independent which means that he does not rely on a government paycheck or that needs to tinker with his research results in order to get new funding. In other words there is less chance of him being bought out, unlike, say, corrupt govt funded scientists involved in climate-gate or the IPCC who have been caught out time and again fudging the data to suit the official global warming narrative, or taking articles from a 'popular science magazine' and reports from the World Wildlife Fund to include in their own report as happened in 2007.

He is a well know denier.

Lol, what does that mean? That he denies the climate is changing? No one in their right mind denies the climate is changing, especially a scientist. The climate always has and always will change over time.

Your comment shows that you're not able to think critically. If he is a "denier" (loaded term) then it shows you are simply regurgitating the official line from ABCNNBCBS and sites propagating the govt or corporate line (NASA, IMF, Reserve Bank etc) without having any real understanding or impartiality.

Why don't you back up your claim with links to show that he is a "denier". Prove that he is doing science with some right wing agenda rather than just following the data without bias! Claiming that he is a board member of some "right wing US think tank" has no meaning without evidence of wrong doing. Personally I don't get trapped in the left wing - right wing box that you've put yourself in, but that's your choice.

Btw, did you look at the second link independent of what Roy Spencer said and which confirms what he said re El Nino? No? I didn't think so.

Spencer paid by right wing think tanks.

That destroys his independence and credibility.

He also hides these connection...more reason to distrust.

But hey...go for your fave conspiracy theorist

I'll stick with the worlds science institutions paid for by taxpayers in their nations.

But is his information correct? That is what you should be looking at rather than claiming his independence and credibility are destroyed based on some think tank he apparently belongs to. Again, show me the evidence that his research is fake or that he's tampered with it!

He also hides these connection...more reason to distrust.

How so? You seem to know so it can't be that hidden.

But hey...go for your fave conspiracy theorist

It's the first time I've mentioned him and his web site came up in a search. The reason I referred to his site is because he is an expert in satellite data and temperatures.

I'll stick with the worlds science institutions paid for by taxpayers in their nations.

And run by corrupt bureaucrats and scientists - not all but many. Obviously you have no idea about that because you're only interested in looking at one side of the story.

You seem to ignore every part of my "random observations post "

Is every bureaucrat corrupt....or is that part of the over arching conspiracy theory.

One question...which advanced nation does not have climate change policies ?

Funny how you ask me for EVIDENCE!!!!

But offer none in your claim of corruption.

Strange.

If you like to google try "Skeptical Science : Climate misinformation by source : Roy Spencer "

If you like to read how big coal acts like big tobacco did...read "Merchants of Doubt "

If you want to learn how powerful interests in America use tax breaks to fund fake "think tanks " that promote certain interests read "Dark Money "

Because neither you nor I are climate scientists , it would be above our pay grade to argue the science.

What we can do, is to learn about the various forces and players in the mix seeking to sow doubt about climate science.

This is the real issue for " deniers "...who backs denial and why

2 reasons ...money and fanatical hatred of ANY Government interference {like a carbon tax } in the market place.

Finally...next time you post a persons name , google the name , and add "source watch" to the search

Dr Roy Spencer does not work within any scientific establishment.

When somebody posts something from NASA etc about the "hoax " I'll take notice.

Ok, I just looked his name up to see who funds him. Wikipedia says:

(Spencer) is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

and

Spencer has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council (NRC) study panels.

He is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, and on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

*Spencer's research work is funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, and the DOT as well as by Peabody Energy.*

So he is funded by NASA amongst other govt organisations, which you seem to think is dependable. Pretty solid credentials. And he is a contrarian, not a so-called denier. With a background like that do you think that he would risk his reputation and career by deliberately skewing results and faking papers?

Because neither you nor I are climate scientists , it would be above our pay grade to argue the science.

What we can do, is to learn about the various forces and players in the mix seeking to sow doubt about climate science.

Or we could do a bit of reading and learning and try to argue the science. Otherwise are we not just following the current cult leaders?

Roy Spencer may be an unusual individual, but his scientific writing is fairly clear. He could hardly be described as a denier.