Washington DC – UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol slammed the upcoming Paris climate negotiation as a “futile effort.” President Obama is determined to sign a new agreement in December in Paris and commit the U.S. to the UN’s climate agenda of emission reductions.
But UN Lead Author Tol was skeptical of the entire UN climate treaty process. Tol predicted that the UN climate summit will “ultimately proven to be a futile effort” and achieve nothing more than “sending people to Paris for no apparent reason other than to keep these people well-travelled.”
Tol, an economist and statistician, is the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam and he is ranked among the “top 50 most-cited climate scholars”. He has well over 200 publications in academic journals.
“I don’t know what will happen in Paris, and I don’t quite know what all those 50,000 people will do,” he explained. “International negotiations on binding targets and timetables have failed since 1995,” Tol said at a CATO Institute climate forum in DC today.
Tol continued: “The discussion is now about money. How much do rich countries need to pay poor countries to pretend to reduce emissions?”
According to Tol: “Climate policy has been about rewarding allies with rents and subsides rather than emission reduction.”
“Twenty five years of climate policy has made most a little bit poorer and some a whole lot richer and it has not reduced emissions much.”
“International climate policy is shifting from a hopeless focus on binding emission targets to a more realistic pledge and review,” Tol added.
Skeptical Climate Scientists Fire Back at RICO 20 Colleagues: Demand Investigations Against Their Warmist Accusers
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips 97% consensus claim: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever’
‘It’s All Wrong’: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol slams media for false claims about alleged 97% consensus
‘The Chinafication of America’: Reaction to Obama Bypassing the Senate with UN Climate Treaty: ‘Obama is taking a page from China’s government’ – New York Times: ‘U.S. seeking climate deal that would skirt Senate’: ‘Under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions…American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.’ – Marc Morano: ‘Obama is taking a page from China’s government and is seeking to bypass democracy’s ‘very detrimental’ hurdles and just impose a new UN treaty on Americans’
NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’
Global warming causes polygamy?! Dr. Richard Tol mocks: ‘Men marry multiple wives to beat drought’ – ‘Cue claims that climate change will turn us all into bigamists’
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Corrects Obama: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Debunks ‘97% Consensus’ Claim – Tol says. ‘[The IPCC’s] reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann’
‘If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s (97%) paper is an excellent case in point.’
The paper only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not. “In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Mocks climate hype: ‘2015: the most crucial year for decades in the climate battle as were 1992, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2009′
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Laments: ‘Politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment’ – Tol: ‘There is no prima facie reason to assume that any given past climate was better than the prospective one.’
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong’
Leading German Daily Paper: Climate ‘Apocalypse Will Not Take Place’…UN IPCC’s Dr. Richard Tol: ‘97% Consensus Does Not Exist’ – Germany’s print high-profile national daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) which features climate economist Richard Tol titled: ‘The apocalypse won’t take place’ – ‘Tol is one of the most productive and most respected researchers in his field. He is (co)author of more than 250 papers in renowned journals and according to the Ideas-Repec databank, among the top 100 scientists worldwide.’
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up’
Pres. Obama is bound and determined to sign someGlobal Warming nonsense before he leaves office, in the hopes that it will be approved ultimately.
Thank God for the Republican held Congress.
unfortunately not always reliable??
Bannnnner gone but replaced with hopefully paul is ok?
The whole process of calculating CO2 emissions is flawed. There is no reconciliation of atmospheric CO2 with natural emitted C
They also omit forests in those emissions calculations. The US, Canada and Russia have millions of hectares of CO2 consuming forests but they leave them out of the equations.
Can you imagine the stupidity?
If forests are included, I wouldn’t be surprised if some nations are net consumers of CO2.
I agree, Klem, but the stupidity runs even deeper. The fact is, CO2 emissions are meaningless in terms of the global climate. Why? Because there is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It doesn’t exist, and it can’t exist. Why? The greenhouse effect theory violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. The science of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is complete sophistry. First, the atmosphere is not capable of creating energy (heat); nor can it recycle energy by “back radiating” infrared radiation back to a warmer surface from which it came; nor can it pile an additional energy flux on top of the solar flux that is heating the surface. All the atmosphere can do is facilitate the transport of heat energy away from the surface — by conduction, convection, and radiation — toward the cold sink of space. Heat only flows toward cold, never the other way around, and, due to the lapse rate, cold increases with altitude. Therefore, heat flows upward, not downward. That’s why and how the earth sheds heat rather than retaining it or augmenting it.
The whole basis of calculating a country’s C02 emissions is seriously flawed. Worse, there is no reconciliation of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration with measured CO2 emitted by natural means and by human activity. That’s because there are no actual measurements available. There is no data. Si it is effectively just guesswork.
Of course it is. It’s just another variety of Marxism. That’s the economic system where the state pretends to pay the workers and the workers pretend to work.
You forgot the workers pretend to starve…oh wait, they don’t have to pretend…