Next month it’ll be 1 year
BBC: "Do you remember the good old days when we had "12 years to save the planet"? Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis" #ClimateScamBS https://t.co/tsQ5XlNYVY
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) July 24, 2019
The BBC’s Matt McGrath seems a bit upset. Or, is that “unhinged“?
Do you remember the good old days when we had “12 years to save the planet”?
Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.
Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.
But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.
The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world’s top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.
“The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute.
We can solve this with a tax meeting
The first major hurdle will be the special climate summit called by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, which will be held in New York on 23 September.
Mr Guterres has been clear that he only wants countries to come to the UN if they can make significant offers to improve their national carbon cutting plans.
This will be followed by COP25 in Santiago, Chile, where the most important achievement will likely be keeping the process moving forward.
But the really big moment will most likely be in the UK at COP26, which takes place at the end of 2020.
Almost no country has plans in place to achieve their signing of the “historic” Paris Climate Agreement…which you’ll remember is voluntary…and almost none is close to meeting their stated goals nor those of Paris. No one should be surprised, because almost no country came close to the Kyoto Protocol goals. Fortunately, tens of thousands of Warmists will take long, fossil fueled trips to discuss this. Otherwise, doom in 18 months.
It is over for the climate religion. The Finn/Jap study did a number on the accepted hoax and demonstrated that humans are not in the loop on climate change, apparently this study was a good one and not associated with the corruption as in others. That combined with the push back as seen in France means the end of this stupid climate hoax.
Notice that 18 months ends 2 months after the 2020 election. This will build to a crescendo until then. If the Dems win, a quick re-appraisal will show that we’ve done enough to put it off another 4 years.
Oh, no, another “consensusâ€. Show me “scientists†spouting consensus, and I’ll show you politicians.
I’ll be glad when we hit the point of no return, whenever it is so we can finally bury this issue. Obviously, after the point of no return has been reached, further action would be futile.
The UK has just passed legislation to go zero carbon by 2050. Not saying that this will happen in reality but there are attempts to do this gong on. Trouble is the easier stuff (stopping using coal for electricity generation) has been pretty much done. It is now down to areas like transport and domestic heating where individuals can play as big a part as governments. Will be interesting to see if those who believe passionately in the science will walk the talk by investing in reducing the carbon emissions they themselves control.
david7134: The Finn/Jap study did a number on the accepted hoax and demonstrated that humans are not in the loop on climate change, apparently this study was a good one and not associated with the corruption as in others.
So good, it hasn’t even passed peer review, which might have uncovered some of the problems with the paper. The paper finds a correlation and claims this as “proof”; assumes that low cloud cover causes cooling instead of cooling causing low cloud cover; incorrectly states that oceans are the source for the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide when anthropogenic sources more than account for the increase; and the majority of their citations are to their own previous papers.
Z,
Oh, you poor thing.
Oh David, look what you started. Next the kiddiez will be claiming Mann’s Hockey Stick was not a hoax because it was peer reviewed.
Bwaha. Lolgf kiddiez.
david7134: Oh, you …
Notably you ignored the substantive reply to your own, rather vague citation.
Z,
Those are mighty big words for a high school kid, studying for the SAT is helping. The fact is that your climate religion is a hoax and has been from day one. Your belief in the Russian interference is a hoax. This has all been discussed multiple times by your predecessors and people have moved on.
Now, to have a little fun, tell the people here how a tax will eliminate the grave threat (joke) of the dreaded CO2. Also how the only, I repeat “only” solution to this made up issue is high taxes, international communistic government, elimination of our wealth and the lack of any real effort to control emissions from India and China. And, if we are going to die in 12 years, why worry about anything.
C’mon David. The kiddiez get to decide if their replies are substantive or not even without citations. You must not ignore them.
Lolgf kiddiez
Pups,
You are right. I was always thought to be kind to the mentally challenged and these kids are obviously going to special school.
Thought I’d supposed to be taught. Damn kindle puts down what it wants.
david7134: The fact is that your climate religion is a hoax and has been from day one.
Notably, you again ignored the substantive reply to your own, rather vague citation.
david7134: Also how the only, I repeat “only†solution to this made up issue is high taxes, international communistic government, elimination of our wealth and the lack of any real effort to control emissions from India and China.
None of those are viable solutions to the problem of global warming.