Climate Change News


The photo in the article was definitely NOT taken in Bonn or Paris.

Not New York either.

[The giveaway is the palm trees.]


The Paris Pact COPs are all about money, not climate. Huge amounts of money. World governments are sending 15,000 negotiators to either get it (developing countries), or to protect themselves from getting badly got (developed countries). That this monumental wealth transfer is not going to happen is irrelevant at this point. No one can afford not to be at the table, just in case by some magic it does happen.

The COP is operating on the unfounded assumption that the developed countries are going to cough up at least $100 billion a year, beginning in 2020 and going on forever. This money is supposed to go to the developing countries; to pay for combating mythical human caused climate change, which the developed countries are said to have caused. The UN even has studies saying that as much as $400 billion a year will be needed so that too is considered to be on the table.

The five rivers of gold are the five revenue channels that the developing countries are trying desperately to dig, each hoping that when the gold starts flowing, it will flow to them. Collectively these channels are called simply “finance.” In their honor November 13 is Finance Day at COP 23. I am not making this up.


Probably wouldn’t go to the people living in those countries anyway. More likely they would fund the “projects” of first world entrepreneurs like Al Gore, who kicks farmers off the land in order to raise eucalyptus trees to sell “offsets” to first world polluters.


consider this my hand raise.


Articles says all major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.


[Send money.]

[All will be forgiven … but keep sending the money.]

[Cayman Islands bank.]



It’s more like the 2nd hundred notice.



a lot of climate change apologists are pro population control and likely pro sterilization and pro euthanasia. This is why I do not subscribe to this nonsense.


Disassociation by proxy is not a good reason to reject something. You can’t just clump a variety of issues into a single basket. I mean, you can, but you can throw multiple babies out with the bathwater through those methods.

For example, let me do the same thing that you are doing:

“Wife beaters, skinheads, and neofascists are generally pro climate skeptism. This is why I do not subscribe to their nonsense.”

That is not a valid reason to reject something. There are going to be a wide variety of people falling into different camps. The Holy Father along with the supermajority of the episcopacy believes in manmade climate change and their reasons have nothing to do with population control and everything to do with the corporal works of mercy.


Its a fact that there are Zero Population Growth people that call having children wrong. It is a fact that there are people who subscribe to the nonsense that the world is overpopulated (it is NOT). I won’t subscribe to the nonsense of climate change / global warming (and no, it is NOT A SIN to reject it). Or to anything that will raise utility costs for the poor and elderly. And yes, the Paris climate accords requirements would have made utility costs skyrocket, which would hurt them the most.


Summary: The vital public policy debate over climate change is deadlocked. This is the sixth in a series about ways to restart the debate — and resolve it. This post gives Milton Friedman’s advice about the role of predictions as the gold standard for validation of theories. This implies that the key to policy action is testing climate models, the only means to give a majority of the public confidence in their forecasts.

“For such a model there is no need to ask the question ‘Is the model true?’. If ‘truth’ is to be the ‘whole truth’ the answer must be ‘No’. The only question of interest is ‘Is the model illuminating and useful?’”

— G.E.P. Box in “Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building” (1978). He also said “All models are wrong; some are useful.”

The debate about public policy for climate change has deadlocked. There are many factors at work, but two stand out as unnecessary problems — as “own goals” by scientists. First they didn’t provide information about data and methods to their opponents (there are always opponents to such large public proposals). Second they didn’t provide compelling proof that climate models’ predictions are reliable — often ignoring the large literature about validation of theories and models.

This series suggests that we restart the debate by better using our knowledge about the methodology of science — especially about models, the embodiment of theories. Box’s insight above applies strongly to debates about policy, where decision-makers are seldom masters of the subject — and so must rely on scientists’ insights.
. . .



I recall reading that burning off 1.5 acres of thick dried grassland produces as much atmospheric CO2 as four thousand cars produce in one year. And yet, millions of acres of grassland and cleared forest are burned off every year in order to allow sunlight to reach the “growing points” lower down on the plants. Repeated burning in a brittle environment will eventually create desertification.

On the other hand, a cornfield will completely use up all of the CO2 in its lower three feet in about ten minutes. The only thing that prevents CO2 “starvation” of the corn is air movement. Even in a dead calm, the rising air from moisture evaporation will draw in “new” air from the bottom.

The same 1.5 acres of grassland can be “cleared” of unwanted dead grass by heavy traffic of heavy, hoofed animals moving through in a “mob”. Then the grass will be degraded biologically and sequester carbon in the soil instead of releasing it into the air.

About 1/3 of the habitable land surface of the earth consists in drylands that will not support crops of any kind other than grass. People can’t digest grass. And yet, about 40% of the drylands have been “desertified” by poor management.

Perhaps my greatest irritant in the whole MMGW argument is the fact that nobody other than the various university agriculture departments pays any attention at all to carbon release and potential sequestration by agricultural practices. Perhaps all the “climate scientists” focus on fossil fuels alone simply because they don’t know any better.

Promoters of MMGW date CO2 increases by the dawn and extension of industrialization. But what they ignore is that something else happened during that time; intensive application of agriculture to vast areas that were not previously used for agriculture. Think about the U.S. for example. The baseline date MMGW people usually use is 1830. In 1830, almost none of the U.S. had been converted to agricultural use. Grass on the Great Plains was so thick and heavy that the plow had to be 're-invented" to allow it to be tilled. And it was, indeed, re-invented.

Much of Siberia had not been tilled. Most of Central Asia had not been ruined by ill-considered irrigation projects. Most of Southern Africa had not been tilled. The Amazon Basin was jungle.


I’m not opposed to agriculture. Far from it. But it can be done well, and in a way resulting in net sequestration of carbon, or it can be done badly. And yet, virtually no attention is paid to it at all in the MMGW debate.

Milton Friedman aside, I fail to see how any “scientific” models can possibly be accurate when they do not factor in what is one of the greatest contributors to atmospheric CO2 release and is indisputably the greatest source of sequestration.


An interesting read, especially the part where the scientists on their advisory boards were also receiving a significant chunk of their grant money


I didn’t realize NYC plans to drop their carbon emissions 80% by 2050


This fantasy will last only so long as they are subsidized by the feds. If they don’t get federal money the cost will be too great for them to bear. Still, I have no problem with individual states or cities taking this approach. I can’t think of a better way to test the belief that renewable energy is economically sustainable.


5 sentences. 5 home runs IMO.

Zero Population Growth (to a Catholic like me) = God (the Creator) … doesn’t know what He’s doing.

People = pollution. :open_mouth:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit