Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100
Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has come out denouncing the UN climate Paris agreement as a massive waste of money that will do nothing to impact climate change. In a January 16, 2017 Prager U video titled, “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” Lomborg explains that “the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.” (Full transcript here)
Lomborg ridiculed the UN Paris agreement supporters as making “grand pronouncements and vague specifics.”
Lomborg first took his analytical skills to take apart President Obama’s EPA climate regulations done through executive order.
“Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained.
“In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees. To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century,” Lomborg said.
Lomborg continued, aiming his analysis at the much touted UN paris climate agreement.
“Now, let’s add in the rest of the world’s Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met — which itself would be a UN first — but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop 0.3 degrees — the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model,” Lomborg said.
He continued: “But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and …
Climate activists suggest Paris Terror attack linked to ISIS-OPEC attempt to kill UN climate treaty & raise oil prices
Climate activists are suggesting a conspiratorial plot in the aftermath of the Paris terror attack.
“Could the attacks and [the UN climate summit] COP21 possibly be related?,” asked Oliver Tickell, who edits The Ecologist, in an article on November 14.
Tickell’s article asked: “Is it a coincidence that the terrorist outrage in Paris was committed weeks before [the UN’s] COP21, the biggest climate conference since 2009? Perhaps. But failure to reach a strong climate agreement now looks more probable. And that’s an outcome that would suit ISIS – which makes $500m a year from oil sales – together with other oil producers.”
Tickell asked “ISIS Inc defending its corporate interests?”
“To answer that question we should first ask, what do the attacks mean for COP21?” he continued.
“So, assuming – as seems probable at this stage – that the Paris outrage was carried out by or for ISIS, was it in any way motivated by a desire to scupper a strong climate agreement at COP21? And so maintain high demand for oil long into the future, together with a high oil price? Let’s just say that it could have been a factor, one of several, in the choice of target and of their timing.”
Tickell seems to allege that the Paris Attacks were committed by some coalition of ISIS & OPEC to derail the UN climate treaty and raise oil prices.
“And of course ISIS was not necessarily acting entirely on its own. While not alleging direct collusion between ISIS and other oil producing nations and companies, it’s not hard to see a coincidence of interests,” Tickell wrote.
Reaction from climate skeptics was swift.
“Looney green tunes at @the_ecologist. A real OMG moment here folks. Completely and utterly bonkers,” wrote Andrew Montford at the blog Bishop Hill.
Montford ridiculed Tickell’s notion “that the Paris terrorist attacks were intended to disrupt the COP21 climate talks, driving up oil prices and putting petrodollars in the pockets of ISIS. Oh yes, and western oil interests were probably in on it too.”
Montford said of Tickell’s assertions, “Blimey, he’s so bonkers.”
Tickell laments terror attacks’ impact on UN climate summit
Tickell lamented that tighter security would detract from the upcoming UN climate summit. “Undoubtedly France already had a high level of security planned for Le Bourget. But now, whatever those plans are, they will be redoubled. Expect a ring of steel and …
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol has ‘massive criticism’ for new paper — German newspaper Der Spiegel takes apart global warming/violence paper: Accuses ‘authors of gross errors and a distorted selection of data’ — ‘Global Warming: Study on Climate Change/War Met With Fierce Criticism’
Jürgen Scheffran, Professor for Climate Change and Security at the University of Hamburg and his colleagues evaluated 27 studies and found that 16 were statistically significant in showing that global warming increased the probability of violent conflict, but that 11 studies said they could actually have the opposite effect, i.e. decrease the likelihood of violent conflict. Eight of these papers were not even considered by Hsiang and his colleagues, Scheffran says.
Finally Sociology Professor Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch also told Spiegel that the worst error in the Hsiang study was that it ignores man’s ability to adapt to weather and climate events. Hans von Storch says “they falsely assume that man’s reaction to climatic stimulations would be unchanged“. Another expert reminds us that man will be even better equipped in the future to adapt to changes than we are today.