Climate Negotiators Fly to Germany: Plan for More Talks, Conferences, and Meetings

Thousands of negotiators from 200 countries have flown to Bonn, Germany, to begin two weeks of “round the clock” talks planning the next round of climate meetings and conferences.

The most immediate issue confronting attendees on Monday will be to set the stage for a fresh round of major United Nations talks later this year in Egypt, AFP reports.

Also on the agenda at the World Convention Center is discussion on how to extract funding from “rich polluters” and transfer it to vulnerable developing nations least responsible “for global heating to cope with its increasingly ferocious consequences…”

These talks come as national leaders demand climate matters rise above all other concerns.

A promise of $100 billion a year from 2020 still has still not been met, with many countries balking at the sheer scale of payments demanded by the U.N. and its many subsidiaries.

“Climate change is not an agenda we can afford to push back on our global schedule,” outgoing U.N. climate change chief Patricia Espinosa warned ahead of the get together.

She said it is imperative that nations arrive at the UN COP27 meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh in November prepared to further talk about “bold, concrete steps — backed by specific plans — to deliver the urgent and transformational climate ambition we simply must see before it’s too late”.

U.S. envoy on climate change John Kerry has warned the war in Ukraine must not be used as an excuse to let the world continue its reliance on coal.

If countries extend their reliance on coal in response to the war, then “we are cooked,” Kerry told the BBC.

“As a world we are still not moving fast enough,” to rein in the emissions of warming gases that are driving up temperatures, Kerry cautioned.  “We can still win this battle,” the former senator said, but it will require a “wholesale elevation of effort by countries all around the world.”

Today’s meeting in Bonn will last until the end of next week.

It occurs halfway between the big conferences in Glasgow last year and COP27, to be held in Egypt later this year.

The talks will be carried out by civil servants with limited political input and will review progress on a host of issues agreed in the Glasgow Climate Pact,

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/06/climate-negotiators-fly-to-germany-plan-for-more-talks-conferences-and-meetings/

A disastrous bill for a non-existing problem

A disastrous bill for a non-existing problem

Andrew Kenny 

 A disastrous bill suggesting disastrous technology to solve a non-existing problem. This sums up the government’s Climate Change Bill, 2022.

The non-problem is manmade (anthropomorphic) climate change; the disastrous technology (not stated but implied) is solar and wind for grid electricity. The bill proposes a compulsory, bureaucratic, snooping horror show, which includes provincial and municipal forums on climate change, a climate change co-ordinating commission, a national adaption strategy, an emissions trajectory, targets and so on. This is just the sort of thing the ANC loves.

The greens love this sort of thing too. Because of their elitist instincts, the greens long to interfere in the lives of ordinary people, to control them and to ban the cheap, reliable energy that ordinary people want. They will support this bill enthusiastically – unless it doesn’t have enough coercion for them.

CO2

The main aim of the bill is to de-carbonise the economy, which is completely mad. It is the worst thing we could do for the planet and for human welfare. CO2 is the gas of life. It is the gas from which plants are built, and all animals depend on plants. It is a wonderful, clean, safe, natural gas. It is now at very low levels in the history of the planet. It should be increased. It is a weak greenhouse gas (one which traps outgoing infrared radiation), with only one significant absorption band (at 15 micron), which is already saturated at its peak. Over 150 parts per million (ppm), CO2 should have very little effect on temperatures; in practice none has ever been seen. By burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas), we have pushed CO2 up from the awfully low level of 280 ppm in the 19th Century to about 430 ppm now, still too low but an improvement. The increase in CO2 has had a hugely beneficial effect on plants, including forests and food crops, and has greened the arid regions of the world.

Over the last 10 000 years, following the last Ice Age, global temperatures have risen and fallen, with warmer and colder periods following each other. During these warm and cold periods, until 150 years ago, CO2 remained at about the same level, 280 ppm. For the last 3 000 years the trend has been downward. For most of the pre-industrial period, global temperatures have been warmer than now (making nonsense of the absurd Paris Agreement to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees C from “pre-industrial” times). The present warm period is cooler than the previous one (the Mediaeval Warm Period), which was cooler than the one before, and so on.

In all the previous warmer warm periods, CO2 has been lower than now, always about 280 ppm. So we know for certain that the recent rise in temperatures has NOT been caused by CO2. What has caused it? What caused all the other warm periods?

The Sun

The answer is the Sun. The climate changes with variations in solar radiation. The important changes are not in the Sun’s total irradiance but her emissions of charged particles and her magnetic field. These affect the formation of low clouds on Earth, the single most important terrestrial driver of our climate. When the Sun is active, we have warming; when inactive, cooling. Sunspots give a measure of this solar activity. Galileo began to look at sunspots in the early 17th Century, and astronomers counted them after him. They found that the fewer sunspots, the colder the weather. (Since then scientist have found other ways of measuring historical solar activity.)

A very quiet Sun correlated with the Little Ice Age, from about 1300 to 1850 AD, the coldest weather of the last 10,000 years. It was a time of dreadful weather extremes. Then the Sun became active again and temperatures rose to the rather pleasant weather we enjoy today. Over the last hundred years there has been no increase in extreme weather, including floods, droughts, storms, and cyclones.

There is no climate crisis. But of course we always have to be concerned about natural weather changes. The climate has been changing since the formation of the Earth about 4.5 billion ago, sometimes dramatically but always naturally. We must plan for floods and droughts.

Lunatic goal

To achieve the lunatic goal of zero carbon, governments around the world want to force us into using the most ruinously expensive we know, which is also environmentally blighting, namely solar and wind for grid electricity. This has proved a disastrous failure in every country that has tried it. Nowhere in the bill do I see any reference to the energy sources the ANC recommends for reducing CO2 emissions, but all commentators assume, based on previous ANC policies and statements, and based on the ANC’s enthusiastic embrace of the ruinous REIPPPP (renewable energy program), that it means solar and wind. Far and away the biggest problem with solar and wind for grid electricity is that it is intermittent, unreliable and unpredictable. You can never depend on its providing power when you want it, for as long as you want it, in the quantities you want.

The biggest dishonesty from solar and wind operators is that they almost never tell you their Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE). They do not tell you the full costs of providing you with their electricity at seven o’clock in the evening on a cold, still, raining winter night. They just tell you the cost of electricity at their solar panels when the Sun is shining brightly enough or at their wind turbine when the wind is blowing at the right speed. This is meaningless. The FCOE is the total cost of always delivering reliable electricity to the right place. The FCOE for solar and wind includes back-up generators, spinning reserve, loss of electrical inertia, extra transmission lines and storage, all of which are very expensive. I estimate that to get the FCOE for solar and wind, you need to add at least 200 cents/kWh to the cost at the generator. If a solar operator tells you his electricity is 25 cents/kWh, the FCOE is 225 cents/kWh – twice Eskom’s average selling price.

Every country that has turned to solar and wind for grid electricity, including Germany, Denmark, the UK, the US, and Australia, has seen final electricity prices soaring, and electrical failures increasing. Our own REIPPPP (the compulsory renewable energy program) has forced upon us the most expensive and the worst electricity in South African history.

Prosperity

Since about 1800 AD, the Western world has delivered itself from poverty and low life expectancy by using the energy of coal, oil, and gas. Fossil fuels are the reason Greta Thunberg is so rich and privileged and Sweden is so clean, healthy, and prosperous. Fossil fuels could do the same for Africa, including South Africa. The greens don’t want this. They are horrified at the prospect of Africans becoming as prosperous as Swedes. So, they want to deny them cheap, reliable energy. Deep down, the greens, mainly white and Western, are racists who don’t want black nations to develop. Why is the ANC siding with them?

The best energy source for our grid electricity is nuclear power, which is safe, clean, reliable, sustainable and affordable, and which as it so happens releases no CO2 in operation. But most of the green elite (not all) hates it. The ANC’s attitude towards nuclear is uncertain.

To sum up, for the sake of our environment, our economy and our people, especially our poor people, the Climate Change Bill must be rejected.

https://dailyfriend.co.za/2022/05/29/a-disastrous-bill-for-a-non-existing-problem/

Why Climate Change Is a Fraud

 Source: https://newswithviews.com/why-climate-change-is-a-fraud/

By Edwin Berry, Ph.D.

January 14, 2022

The Science of the people who will not be slaves again!

The journal, Science of Climate Change, published my landmark scientific paper on December 14, 2021.

My paper, and papers by Murry Salby and Hermann Harde, are checkmate proof that natural CO2, not human CO2, causes most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Physics proves our CO2 does not change our climate.

President Bush began the climate fraud.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes this core assumption:

Natural CO2 remained constant after 1750 and human CO2 causes all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

IPCC’s core assumption is the basis of all climate laws, regulations, treaties, taxes, and education. It has cost us dearly in our energy sources, our economy, our national defense, our lives, our minds, and our freedom.

My paper shows why this assumption in wrong. But more important, my paper shows this assumption is not the result of a simple error by the IPCC. This assumption is an obvious fraud of global proportions.

President GHW Bush was the main force in forming and funding the IPCC in 1988. There is nothing in IPCC’s Charter about investigating the cause of climate change. The IPCC merely assumes our CO2 causes climate change.

In June 1992, President G.H.W. Bush and 107 other world leaders attended the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, or the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

Secretary General Maurice Strong chaired the conference that 20,000 climate activists and green lobby members attended. The UN and the US government paid all attendees’ expenses.

Strong declared in his Summit speech,

“A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns. We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Strong declared,

“the real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”

Strong long supported global governance at the expense of national sovereignty. He said environmental mandates require the eventual dismantling of the power of the nation state:

“It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”

“We need a system of global governance through which nations can cooperate and deal with issues they cannot deal with alone. The ultimate example is climate change.”

In 1992, Al Gore claimed,

“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over.The science is settled.”

I attended the meeting in the San Francisco Bay area where Bush’s toady told some 100 climate physicists like me that we were out of a job. They did not want physicists to tell them our CO2 does not cause climate change. They wanted and would fund only ecologists to write reports on the damage we do by burning carbon fuels.

We must stop the climate fraud.

I am sorry to see Frosty Wooldridge has fallen for the climate fraud (NWV Dec 30, 2022). I like many things Frosty does, but his promotion of the climate fraud is wrong.

Frosty wrote:

“The fact remains: adding population adds to catastrophic climate destabilization with millions of more people burning millions of barrels of oil 24/7.

“That means more wildfires in the 6th year of an “exceptional drought” in the West.  That means more extraordinary tornadoes in Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma ad nauseum.

“It means massive hurricanes sweeping up our coasts. It means raising the temperatures at the poles to a point where all glaciers melt into the oceans.

“It means dropping more acidic carbon molecules into our oceans to kill more than 100 species daily across the planet.”

“Well, now, we’ve got catastrophic climate destabilization breathing down our throats.”

Frosty’s climate claims are not science.

The dark side propagates its climate fraud by trying to scare you with its claimed consequences if you do not do what they tell you to do. Fear causes us to abandon our logic and common sense. Likely, the witch doctors of old used the same techniques.

How to understand the climate fraud.

Every day, the news media tells us about a new “climate catastrophe.”The subliminal message is “because it’s bad, you caused it.”

The climate fraud may be the mother of all frauds. Belief in IPCC’s core assumption dumbs us down and makes us susceptible to other frauds, like gun control and COVID mandates.

They say, “natural CO2 emissions stayed constant and human CO2 caused the problem.” This is the ecological nonsense of “Nature is Good, Human is Bad.”

My book Climate Miracle explains in a short read the logic you need to defend yourself against climate alarmism.

The proof is important.

According to the scientific method, it is impossible to prove a theory is true (as climate alarmists try to do) but it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is false. My paper supplies that contradiction.

According to the scientific method, my paper overturns the “consensus” claim that IPCC’s core assumption is true, and it “outvotes” the thousands of IPCC papers that claim IPCC’s core assumption is true.

Now, the only scientific way for them to justify their climate alarmism is to show there is a major error in my paper. Many have tried but no one has succeeded.

Human CO2 does not “accumulate” in the atmosphere.

CO2 flows through the atmosphere like water flows through a lake. Imagine a lake where a river sends water into a lake and lake water flows out over a dam. Pretend we arrive when the inflow is small but constant and the water flowing over the dam is equally small and constant.

The lake level is at equilibrium. Its outflow equals its inflow. The lake level is constant. Suddenly, the inflow increases. It raises the lake level. This rise in the lake level makes more water flow over the dam. The lake level rises just enough to make its new outflow equal its new inflow.

That illustrates now human and natural CO2 that flow into the atmosphere change the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Nothing accumulates. The level rises only enough to make CO2 outflow equal to the CO2 inflow.

Let’s do a first approximation.

The IPCC says annual human CO2 emissions are about 5% of natural CO2 emissions. This is like a recipe. What you put in is what you get. The only difference here is your recipe is flowing out of a hole in the bottom of your bowl as you pour things in.

Because human CO2inflowis5% the human CO2 level in the bowl is also5%. The natural CO2levelin the bowl is95%.

Same for CO2 in the atmosphere. This first approximation says human CO2 is only 5%.

But the IPCC theory is that human CO2 is at 30%. This shows IPCC’s core assumption is wrong.

Let’s do more accurate calculations.

My paper uses IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data and annual human CO2 emissions data to calculate the true effect of human CO2 emissions. Notice I use IPCC’s own data to prove its assumption about human CO2 is false.

Human and natural CO2 do not react with each other. So, we can calculate their effects independently, which simplifies the calculations.

My calculations include human CO2 that recycles back into the atmosphere and the transfer of human carbon from the slow carbon cycle to the fast carbon cycle. The whole banana.

The result, as of 2020, is human CO2 has increased to only 8% of all atmospheric CO2. This is still nowhere near the 30% required by IPCC’s core assumption. Therefore, IPCC’s core assumption is wrong.Not even close. In fact, a fraud.

The IPCC attempts to explain this problem.

The IPCC tries to get around this problem by claiming human CO2, but not natural CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And by staying around longer, the human CO2 goes up to 30%.

Thus, the IPCC digs its own grave.

This IPCC claim is absurd because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, so they flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate.

IPCC’s story (and it is a story) would require a magic demon in the atmosphere that can separate human CO2 from natural CO2 molecules, and then detain the human molecules. It can’t happen. No one should fall for this baloney.

IPCC’s climate fiction is so absurd that it proves the IPCC committed a fraud of global proportions.

The COVID shutdown did not reduce the increase in the CO2 level.

The 2021 emissions reduction due to COVID did not stop the inevitable CO2 increase caused by natural CO2. This proves climate treaties and green energy are useless because they ignore that unstoppable nature is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase.

Carbon dating data prove nature dominates the CO2 increase.

Carbon dating measures the percent of carbon-14 in a quantity of carbon-12. Carbon daters call these measurements δ14C (delta 14C).

We can use δ14C data to prove nature dominates the CO2 increase.

The natural level of δ14C is zero. That does not mean there is no carbon-14. It means the amount of carbon-14 compared to carbon-12 is exactly what nature has produced for millions of years.

But from 1950 to 1965, the atomic bomb tests almost doubled the δ14C level. After 1965, the δ14C level gradually decreased and today the δ14C is back to zero.

Here’s the thing.

Human CO2 from burning carbon fuels has zero carbon-14. Therefore, human δ14C is negative 1000. So, if human CO2 caused the CO2 increase, it would have lowered the δ14C equilibrium level below zero.

Look at it this way. Suppose you have a drink that has 8% alcohol, and you pour in an equal quantity of water. What happens to the 8% alcohol level? It drops to 4%.

Similarly, if human carbon causes all the CO2 increase, it would have lowered the equilibrium level of δ14C below zero. Data show human emission have had no effect on the δ14Cequilibrium level of zero. Also, the increase in atmospheric CO2 has had no effect on the equilibrium level of δ14C.

Therefore, natural CO2 dominates the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Conclusions:

The only scientific way for alarmists to argue that human CO2 dominates the increase is to prove there is a major error in my paper. No one has done that.

I will make videos to help you understand my paper.

My paper shows if human CO2 emissions were to stop, the small human-caused CO2 increase would quickly fall, meaning there is no scientific basis to claim there is a climate emergency or worry about our grand kids.

My paper overturns IPCC’s climate fraud with a clarity that can win in a court of law. Good high school students can understand my paper. Now, we need lawyers willing to overturn climate laws, regulations, and taxes.

Not Like That! Greta Thunberg Decries Inclusion of Nuclear, Gas in EU Green Playbook

 

Not Like That! 

Greta Thunberg Decries Inclusion of Nuclear, Gas in EU Green Playbook

Leon Neal/Getty Images

PETER CADDLE

23 Dec 2021

3:55

Greta Thunberg, alongside a host of other climate extremists, has decried the possible inclusion of nuclear and gas in the EU’s green investment playbook.

The possible inclusion of nuclear and gas in an upcoming EU playbook for green investment has prompted outcry from climate activists, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who has accused the union of engaging in “fake climate action”.

Thunberg’s criticisms come about a month after she herself came under fire for acting in an “anti-democratic” manner during the U.N.’s COP26 climate summit, however.

Aimed at guiding investors towards green projects in-line with the European Union’s climate goals, The Guardian reports that the so-called “taxonomy for sustainable activities” is set to include both nuclear energy and gas as possible routes for investment

The two energy sources are reported to be included in the playbook via a so-called “amber” category, as opposed to the full-on green category, which includes wind and solar.

The decision is apparently in response to political pressure from nuclear states in the EU, such as France, as well as from gas reliant nations that lie mostly in Europe’s east.

Despite some analysts claiming that nuclear is a clean energy source that could help fight climate change, both its inclusion, as well as the inclusion of gas in the playbook, have been lambasted by Thunberg and co.

“As climate activists have been battling to ensure taxonomy paves the way for real climate action, the “leaders” have been working hard on rebranding fossil gas and nuclear power to “sustainable”, when they are neither sustainable nor green,” reads an opinion piece co-authored by the Swede. “This could turn into a real life climate-nightmare.”

“We are living in times of mounting crises, but especially because of that there is no space for cowardly decisions, like allowing for this fake climate action,” the article continues. “There is no wiggle room now for any decision that delays reaching real zero emissions.”

Green MEP Bas Eickhout has also come out against the inclusion of gas and nuclear, saying that their inclusion is not needed.

“If Europe now starts calling [gas] green then you can forget about the 1.5 degrees,” The Guardian reports the Dutch European representative as saying.

Thunberg’s criticism of the new EU playbook comes after she was previously accused of engaging in anti-democratic behaviour during a climate rally last month.

Speaking at a protest outside the annual UN climate conference in Glasgow, Thunberg said that the conference ultimately represented “business as usual”, and that those attending were merely there to create “loopholes to benefit themselves”.

“The people in power can continue to live in their bubble filled with their fantasies, like eternal growth on a finite planet and technological solutions that will suddenly appear seemingly out of nowhere and will erase all of these crises just like that,” Thunberg told her fellow protesters.

The Swedish activist’s comments prompted a response from a Norwegian newspaper editor, who accused the 18-year-old of creating a sense of polarisation.

“She risks leading them into something authoritarian, anti-democratic and downright dangerous,” Kjetil B. Alstadheim — the political editor of Norway’s highest-circulating newspaper — said. “Her rhetoric is just a ploy away from incitement to something beyond civil disobedience.”

Norway’s Climate Minister Espen Barth Eide also came out in criticism of Thunberg, saying that her past criticisms of politics were “slightly dangerous”.

“I believe that the strong and sensible commitment to make something happen must be converted into political action – not to reject the whole idea of ​​democratic political change,” Eide said.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/12/23/not-like-that-greta-thunberg-decries-inclusion-of-nuclear-gas-in-eu-green-playbook/