Today, I have to go to Prague to participate in a two-on-two climate debate with one moderator in a Prague café which should be published in a magazine. So I have tried to study some details about the planned "treaty" that could result from the Paris climate talks. That included some time spent with
Also, the text is full of brackets and parentheses and options and the meaning of the text probably depends on which of them are included and which of them are omitted and it can make a huge difference.
A majority of the apparatchiks who participate at this insane gathering are ready to sacrifice the other countries' economies. In particular, most of the poor countries are willing to encourage the rich countries to commit the economic harakiri or pay trillions of dollars to the poor countries. But the desire of each country to sacrifice itself is – thankfully and understandably – much lower.
Some poor countries want to limit the "total warming" to 1.5 °C instead of 2.0 °C. Needless to say, natural factors guarantee that fluctuations by tenths of degrees will always take place and it's impossible to "plan the global temperature" this accurately. It's not even possible to measure it this precisely – different methodologies to quantify the "global warming" in the recent 50 years differ by as much as 0.3 °C. And even if it were possible, it's obviously complete nonsense to fool yourself into thinking that there is some temperature level slightly above the current ones where "things start to be bad".
The world that would be 5 °C warmer would probably be a better world than the world we inhabit now. But we won't get any comparable warming in coming decades. It makes no sense to "plan the temperature". In the past, they were at least planning to impose misguided goals to reduce the CO2 emissions by some huge percentages. But to plan the temperature? Nature contributes some terms that you simply can't change. So the efforts to plan the "whole temperature" is similar to the planning of the alcohol consumption of your and a similarly large adjacent nation – when you can only influence your numbers. It's extremely difficult to keep a sum of two numbers in an interval and pretend that you're in charge of the sum – when you are actually not.
These unbelievably annoying annual meetings represent a huge concentration of hypocrisy and stupidity. All of us are wasting tons of money for these useless people. A single annual climate alarmists' meeting itself produces as much CO2 as an average African country in a whole year. Nothing positive may ever come out of them.
It costs lots of money and there are no meaningful conclusions. But be sure that if these loons actually agreed about something and decided to regulate the economies, it would be far worse. I sincerely hope that the number and the total strength of the sensible countries that de facto block this kind of insanity will stay high enough. In Kyoto, America and Australia were these "blockers". Canada has left the Kyoto Ponzi scheme a few years ago. Alarmists have returned to the Canadian government but I want to hope that the rich-poor gap that became the key hurdle will remain very deep; and that the Indian politicians are sufficiently independent and sensible and they will block any arrangements in their country – and, indirectly, in the whole world.
I also hope that regions such as the post-communist Europe – led by the more independently thinking post-election Poland that still totally depends on coal – will be able to liberate themselves from the influence of deluded bullies such as the would-be politicians who work in Brussels and who would love to dictate regulations to the whole European continent. Other countries, including Czechia, could clearly afford tougher rules than Poland. But if our politicians were responsible, they would fully support the Polish position. (Needless to say, numerous Czech politicians are sycophants parroting the positions of Brussels and that largely includes our PM Sobotka who made some anti-carbon statements recently.)
But there are tons of fanatical imbeciles on the other side. Richard Branson became a poster boy of a group of CEOs who want "decarbonization" by 2050. What the hell does it mean? Carbon is the most important element that life and most technologies depend upon – at least among those that are solid at room temperature. And CO2 is the most important gas that contains the carbon atoms – and it is often critical to transfer carbon through gas. Why would someone want to "decarbonize" the Earth? It's pretty much equivalent to efforts to terminate life on Earth and Branson and similar fanatics must be treated in analogy with the Nazis.
I think that almost all Czech see through this nonsensical propaganda. The two-on-two debate is a sleight-of-hand designed to pretend that the alarmist pseudoscientific loons are far more legitimate than they are. It would be much more reasonable if FBI-like cops rather than sensible people and scientists – i.e. skeptics – were talking to the ecoterrorists. I am afraid that I will get too angry today. ;-) I've interacted with one of the opponents, Dr Moldan, a well-known Czech ecologist, in a TV program a few years ago and realized that all my assumptions that he was basically sensible (because he couldn't have otherwise joined the center-right ODS – that's how I was thinking) were complete misconceptions. The other alarmist, Mr Kotecký, seems to be associated with all kinds of radical ecoterrorist organizations such as the Rainbow Movement.
It will probably be a gift from the heaven that Mr Loužek, a skeptic close to ex-president Klaus, will be on my side. ;-)
Update: It went fine, I am convinced that we have won, and I remained calm. But after a subsequent 4-hour-long meeting with a friend and a persuasive guy who claims not to have eaten for 2 years, I got really upset about the climate debate on my way back home. The debate with the alarmists was insane. They constantly spoke as if the IPCC reports were a holy text which was particularly ironic because they didn't have the slightest clue what (even) the IPCC reports were actually saying (let alone about the truth). They disagreed that the climate sensitivity reported in the reports had a huge error margin. They denied the 2.0-4.5 °C window for the climate sensitivity in the previous report. They denied that the values of sensitivity went down in the recent 5-10 years. They denied that there was no warming in the satellite records in the recent 18.9 years. They claimed that all the natural factors have been perfectly quantified and said all similar conceivable nonsense you could think of.
They were constantly trying to insult us – especially me – personally although these zeroes had absolutely no justification for that, having contributed less to science than my average Saturday excrement. After the recording ended, the younger one told me that if one showed that the climate sensitivity were lower, he would get a Nobel prize. So I was explaining to him that climatology was an inferior discipline of physical sciences even before it was hijacked by the warmist movement (and it is also accumulating the very worst students of physics in most physics departments with such programs) and not a single climatogist has ever gotten a Nobel prize in physics – Milankovič was a man who may have deserved it for his cycles. It's nonsense to get a Nobel prize for a "reversal" on the climate sensitivity because no one in the 20th century could have gotten such a prize for any work on the sensitivity, not even the original one. So this guy was starting to tell me how the rest of physics was worthless. He was also saying these negative things about his father, a statistical mechanic. I knew this name because he was the closest collaborator of my undergraduate diploma adviser (and co-author of our linear algebra textbook) MZ. The young guy tried all these claims that I am an unbelievable exception – so I reminded him that MZ was about as clear a skeptic as I am (and the young guy admitted that he's known MZ since he was a kid). These professional liars never say the truth and they will do anything to suppress all facts and bully anyone who is inconvenient for their sick propaganda.
I will never participate in a similar debate because they are always framed so that the lies should be given the same room as the truth.