Worst Joke Ever 2024

[rooster59]

Nations agree on global climate pact rules, but they are seen as weak

By Nina Chestney, Bate Felix and Agnieszka Barteczko

 

COP24 President Michal Kurtyka is greeted after adopting the final agreement during a closing session of the COP24 U.N. Climate Change Conference 2018 in Katowice, Poland, December 15, 2018. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel

 

KATOWICE, Poland (Reuters) - Nearly 200 countries overcame political divisions late on Saturday to agree on rules for implementing a landmark global climate deal, but critics say it is not ambitious enough to prevent the dangerous effects of global warming.

 

After two weeks of talks in the Polish city of Katowice, nations finally reached consensus on a more detailed framework for the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit a rise in average world temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

 

"It is not easy to find agreement on a deal so specific and technical. Through this package you have made a thousand little steps forward together. You can feel proud," Polish president of the talks Michal Kurtyka told delegates.

 

After he struck the gavel to signal agreement had been reached, ministers joined him on the stage, hugging and laughing in signs of relief after the marathon talks.

 

Before the talks started, many expected the deal would not be as robust as needed. The unity which underpinned the Paris talks has fragmented, and U.S. President Donald Trump intends to pull his country - one of the world's biggest emitters - out of the pact.

 

At the 11th hour, ministers managed to break a deadlock between Brazil and other countries over the accounting rules for the monitoring of carbon credits, deferring the bulk of that discussion to next year, but missing an opportunity to send a signal to businesses to speed up their actions.

 

Still, exhausted ministers managed to bridge a series of divides to produce a 156-page rulebook - which is broken down into themes such as how countries will report and monitor their national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions and update their emissions plans.

 

Not everyone is happy with everything, but the process is still on track and it is something to build on, several ministers said.

 

"While some rulebook elements still need to be fleshed out, it is a foundation for strengthening the Paris Agreement and could help facilitate U.S. re-entry into the Paris Agreement by a future presidential administration," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

 

AMBITION, AMBITION, AMBITION

 

Some countries and green groups criticized the outcome for failing to urge increased ambitions on emissions cuts sufficiently to curb rising temperatures. Poorer nations vulnerable to climate change also wanted more clarity on how an already agreed $100 billion a year of climate finance by 2020 will be provided and on efforts to build on that amount further from the end of the decade.

 

A statement by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who left the talks on Thursday, stressed the need for more work.

 

"From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition and ambition," it said.

 

"And ambition must guide all member states as they prepare their (emissions cut plans) for 2020 to reverse the present trend in which climate change is still running faster than us."

 

A U.N.-commissioned report by the IPCC in October warned that keeping the Earth's temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C would need "unprecedented changes" in every aspect of society.

 

Last week, Saudi Arabia, the Unites States, Russia and Kuwait refused to use the word "welcome" in association with the findings of the report.

 

The decision text now merely expresses gratitude for the work on the report, welcomes its timely completion and invites parties to use the information in it.

 

For many low-lying states and islands at risk from rising sea levels, this is not strong enough but had to be accepted grudgingly in exchange for other trade-offs.

 

During the two weeks of talks in Katowice - in the mining region of Silesia, a focus on the fossil fuel industry provided an unwelcome distraction for some countries and environmental groups which want to focus on cleaner energy.

 

The conference itself has been hosted by coal-reliant Poland, which has sought to protect its mining industry. The U.S. administration’s only event in Katowice was seen as trying to rebrand coal as a potentially clean energy source.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-16

 

 

 

[TopDeadSenter]

 The excellent Jordan Peterson claims the whole global warming charade is a nonsense. The problem is the time scales are too long and the error in calculations becomes too great that results are un-measurable, and without results there can be no concise strategy. He does say that probably the best humankind can do is to ensure a worldwide minimum GDP of $5,000 per capita, with the idea that those earning above this level start to care about their environment and act accordingly.

 The whole idea of taxing astronomical sums out of citizens for some pie eyed scheme makes me sick. In my opinion it is one giant con, and we will pay dearly for it. The French seem a but miffed by their new "green" taxes, a nice shot over the bows for our globalist masters. Sit up, and take notice.

[RickBradford]

Another meeting of 20,000+ people, another orgy of virtue signalling and bureaucratic self-congratulation, another meaningless agreement, another waste of time and taxpayer money.

[Nyezhov]

Meanwhile US emissions go down, China and India go up, but its the west that has to go vegan.

Its all a scam.

[DoctorG]

Now it is finished they can hop into their big limos and head to the airport to take their private jets home. 

[marqus12]

Remember the ozone hole ??? They pushed it 20 years ago!
Does anyone hear about it now???

This is another scam , a new scam, a bigger SCAM

for which corrupt 'scientists' harvest grants !!!

[marqus12]

energy prices in my country will go up by 30% next year just because of this scam

[howbri]

7 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 The excellent Jordan Peterson claims the whole global warming charade is a nonsense. The problem is the time scales are too long and the error in calculations becomes too great that results are un-measurable, and without results there can be no concise strategy. He does say that probably the best humankind can do is to ensure a worldwide minimum GDP of $5,000 per capita, with the idea that those earning above this level start to care about their environment and act accordingly.

 The whole idea of taxing astronomical sums out of citizens for some pie eyed scheme makes me sick. In my opinion it is one giant con, and we will pay dearly for it. The French seem a but miffed by their new "green" taxes, a nice shot over the bows for our globalist masters. Sit up, and take notice.

Amen, amen,amen. Well said. It's all a scam.

[jm91]

This is a good start. More needs to be done, especially in the area of education. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 The excellent Jordan Peterson claims the whole global warming charade is a nonsense. The problem is the time scales are too long and the error in calculations becomes too great that results are un-measurable, and without results there can be no concise strategy. He does say that probably the best humankind can do is to ensure a worldwide minimum GDP of $5,000 per capita, with the idea that those earning above this level start to care about their environment and act accordingly.

 The whole idea of taxing astronomical sums out of citizens for some pie eyed scheme makes me sick. In my opinion it is one giant con, and we will pay dearly for it. The French seem a but miffed by their new "green" taxes, a nice shot over the bows for our globalist masters. Sit up, and take notice.

Con, absolutely. If anyone doesn't realise that it's just a taxation exercise, they need to get out more.

The French have had enough of it, and the same fate will befall  any western government that tries it on as well ( hopefully ).

Meanwhile back in the real world, I see zero actually happening that would work. Roads get wider as more cars are bought ( petrol ones, not electric as there isn't and never will be the infrastructure to allow all electric ( do they even know how many more power stations will need to be built? ), airlines increase flight numbers and governments build bigger and more airports. Just those 2 facts make a mockery of any claim to make changes by 2020.

IMO they don't actually have a clue as what would actually change anything, and are just guessing ( plus probably buying shares in windmill and electric car companies ).

Meanwhile, the circus will continue, and more expensive meetings will occur around the world at taxpayer expense so the select few can have a jolly good old knees up, and all they have to do is put out a meaningless statement at the end saying that they have set up a framework to discuss something else at the next meeting, without actually doing anything that would make a change  to anything ( except the amount of carbon they emitted on all the planes they used to get there ).

 

I wish they would stop saying "nations agree". It's not nations, just an insignificant number of people at a meaningless meeting that agree. No one asked the people in my, or anyone else's country if they support the scam.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, jm91 said:

This is a good start. More needs to be done, especially in the area of education. 

OK, lets say that I agree with you, but education about what? Use the car less, don't go on holidays using airplanes, stop using the mobile phone for chatting in public ( I'd support that one ). I have zero choice when it comes to the electricity I use, the fuel for my car, etc etc.

I don't even control the amount of plastic they wrap my food in at the supermarket, which is probably the largest source of pollution in the country.

While education is always a good thing, if it affects people's lives adversely, don't expect any support. People nowadays are way too selfish to make any sacrifices.

If there were any education on offer, it should definitely include reasons not to have children. Way too many people on the planet, which is why there is too much pollution.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, marqus12 said:

Remember the ozone hole ??? They pushed it 20 years ago!
Does anyone hear about it now???

This is another scam , a new scam, a bigger SCAM

for which corrupt 'scientists' harvest grants !!!

The ozone hole was real, and the solution was real. The hole is closing.

The only reason you are not affected is that it is only at the poles where people don't live in significant numbers.

[Chomper Higgot]

22 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 The excellent Jordan Peterson claims the whole global warming charade is a nonsense. The problem is the time scales are too long and the error in calculations becomes too great that results are un-measurable, and without results there can be no concise strategy. He does say that probably the best humankind can do is to ensure a worldwide minimum GDP of $5,000 per capita, with the idea that those earning above this level start to care about their environment and act accordingly.

 The whole idea of taxing astronomical sums out of citizens for some pie eyed scheme makes me sick. In my opinion it is one giant con, and we will pay dearly for it. The French seem a but miffed by their new "green" taxes, a nice shot over the bows for our globalist masters. Sit up, and take notice.

“The whole idea of taxing astronomical sums out of citizens for some pie eyed scheme makes me sick.”

 

Start accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus and the fallacy making you sick will evaporate, you’ll feel better.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Con, absolutely. If anyone doesn't realise that it's just a taxation exercise, they need to get out more.

The French have had enough of it, and the same fate will befall  any western government that tries it on as well ( hopefully ).

Meanwhile back in the real world, I see zero actually happening that would work. Roads get wider as more cars are bought ( petrol ones, not electric as there isn't and never will be the infrastructure to allow all electric ( do they even know how many more power stations will need to be built? ), airlines increase flight numbers and governments build bigger and more airports. Just those 2 facts make a mockery of any claim to make changes by 2020.

IMO they don't actually have a clue as what would actually change anything, and are just guessing ( plus probably buying shares in windmill and electric car companies ).

Meanwhile, the circus will continue, and more expensive meetings will occur around the world at taxpayer expense so the select few can have a jolly good old knees up, and all they have to do is put out a meaningless statement at the end saying that they have set up a framework to discuss something else at the next meeting, without actually doing anything that would make a change  to anything ( except the amount of carbon they emitted on all the planes they used to get there ).

 

I wish they would stop saying "nations agree". It's not nations, just an insignificant number of people at a meaningless meeting that agree. No one asked the people in my, or anyone else's country if they support the scam.

You might just as well have said it’s all too difficult for you to worry about.

 

Again, another example of swallowing ‘Climate change - tax scam’.

 

Small world view for large world problems.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You might just as well have said it’s all too difficult for you to worry about.

 

Again, another example of swallowing ‘Climate change - tax scam’.

 

Small world view for large world problems.

 

 

LOL. I agree that climate is changing, and that mankind may have had something to do with it. However, I do not agree that anything we can do will change or halt it. The ecosystem is just too large and uncontrollable to actually affect it one way or another. The present cabal of lackeys that are living it up on the taxpayer to attend meetings all over the world is a farce. If they believed in their own claims they'd be doing it by video conferencing, but it's so much more fun flying around the world to a talk fest that achieves nothing but an agreement to have another meeting later. That's why I believe it's a scam.

[RickBradford]

Here's what Green lobbyists thought of this latest effortj:

 

"The weak outcome of this COP runs contrary to stark warnings of the IPCC report and growing demand for action from citizens. Governments have again delayed adequate action to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown." - Wendel Trio, director of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe. 

 

"People expected action and that is what governments did not deliver. This is morally unacceptable and they must now carry with them the outrage of people." - Jennifer Morgan, Greenpeace International

 

"Once again, developed countries failed to provide assurances that they would make sufficient, predictable funding available for least developed nations to help them cope with climate impacts." - Union of Concerned Scientists.

 

It was always going to end this way; it always does.

 

Time for the scared activists to start checking real estate prices in Oymyakon.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Once again, developed countries failed to provide assurances that they would make sufficient, predictable funding available for least developed nations to help them cope with climate impacts." - Union of Concerned Scientists

Hmmm. IMO that should read "..................funding available for least developed nation politicians to spend on things they want, like big houses and expensive cars etc.

There is a reason least developed nations are poor and backward, and it's usually to do with the corruption of the leaders; not so much rising sea levels or more severe storms.

Al Jazeera runs some excellent documentaries on poor countries and the astounding corruption of their leaders. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. I agree that climate is changing, and that mankind may have had something to do with it. However, I do not agree that anything we can do will change or halt it. The ecosystem is just too large and uncontrollable to actually affect it one way or another. The present cabal of lackeys that are living it up on the taxpayer to attend meetings all over the world is a farce. If they believed in their own claims they'd be doing it by video conferencing, but it's so much more fun flying around the world to a talk fest that achieves nothing but an agreement to have another meeting later. That's why I believe it's a scam.

You should separate your views on your ‘cable of lackies’ from the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

And then ask yourself who has a vested interest in driving a wedge between you and the people attempting to organize international cooperation to tackle climate change.

[RickBradford]

 

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should separate your views on your ‘cable of lackies’ from the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

And then ask yourself who has a vested interest in driving a wedge between you and the people attempting to organize international cooperation to tackle climate change.

And you should ask yourself: What is the value of a scientific consensus if the only people with the power and money to make substantial changes (national governments) repeatedly refuse to do what is claimed to be required to tackle the problem?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

And you should ask yourself: What is the value of a scientific consensus if the only people with the power and money to make substantial changes (national governments) repeatedly refuse to do what is claimed to be required to tackle the problem?

So let me get this right.

 

National Governments fail to meet the fullest expectations of environmentalists and a growing part of the general public, and that somehow negates the scientific consensus?

 

Perhaps you need to take a look at who is leaning on governments to not sign up to the full measures recommended by the scientific community.

 

They are the same people and organizations selling you the despondency pills, and driving a wedge between the general public and science/environmentalism.

[RickBradford]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So let me get this right.

 

National Governments fail to meet the fullest expectations of environmentalists and a growing part of the general public, and that somehow negates the scientific consensus?

You managed to get it entirely wrong.

 

It doesn't negate the scientific consensus, but renders it irrelevant.

 

Because governments are the only entities powerful enough who could, theoretically, do something about the alleged dangers of climate change, and they have proved, again and again, that they are not willing to take those steps to the required level.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

You managed to get it entirely wrong.

 

It doesn't negate the scientific consensus, but renders it irrelevant.

 

Because governments are the only entities powerful enough who could, theoretically, do something about the alleged dangers of climate change, and they have proved, again and again, that they are not willing to take those steps to the required level.

Negate/Irrelevant, is that the sum of your argument?

 

I’ll say again:

 

”Perhaps you need to take a look at who is leaning on governments to not sign up to the full measures recommended by the scientific community”

 

 

[RickBradford]

^^^

The clarion call from a wide range of parties on climate change is: We Must Do Something Now

 

The practical reaction from governments: We Are Going To Do Nothing Substantial.

 

This is the inescapable truth which hasn't changed for 20 years.

 

There is a very wide range of groups pressuring governments to avoid doing anything about climate change, from big business, to political actors who understand that it is political suicide, to citizens themselves who refuse to allow political grandstanding to mess up their lives.

 

The riots in Paris against a climate-inspired fuel tax rise are scarcely different from the Indonesian riots of 2013 against the cutting of a fuel subsidy.

 

That is the reality, no matter what your view on climate  change is.

[Rimmer]

Off topic post trying to hijack the topic removed

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

The clarion call from a wide range of parties on climate change is: We Must Do Something Now

 

The practical reaction from governments: We Are Going To Do Nothing Substantial.

 

This is the inescapable truth which hasn't changed for 20 years.

 

There is a very wide range of groups pressuring governments to avoid doing anything about climate change, from big business, to political actors who understand that it is political suicide, to citizens themselves who refuse to allow political grandstanding to mess up their lives.

 

The riots in Paris against a climate-inspired fuel tax rise are scarcely different from the Indonesian riots of 2013 against the cutting of a fuel subsidy.

 

That is the reality, no matter what your view on climate  change is.

More falsehoods.

Governments are doing plenty substantial. Saying that they are doing nothing substantial is flat out false.

China becomes a 'driving power' for solar energy with $86.5 billion invested last year

 

"The world has invested $2.9 trillion in green energy sources since 2004, according to new research, with China leading the way in recent years with its push towards solar power.

The "Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2018" report was published Thursday by UN Environment, the Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Center, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It also found that 98 gigawatts (GW) of new solar capacity was installed in 2017. 

What's more, solar power attracted $160.8 billion of investment, more than any other technology."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-becomes-a-driving-power-for-solar-energy-with-86-point-5-billion-invested-last-year.html

 

"The country's solar installed capacity reached 26 GW as of 30 September 2018.^[1][2] India expanded its solar-generation capacity 8 times from 2,650 MW on 26 May 2014 to over 20 GW as on 31 January 2018.^[3][4] The 20 GW capacity was initially targeted for 2022 but the government achieved the target four years ahead of schedule.^[3][4][5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India

Chinese electric vehicle market is poised for explosive growth, says expert

• For the next couple of years, the market share of China's electric vehicles will grow by 40 percent, said Jacob George, vice president and general manager of Asia Pacific at U.S.-based global marketing information services company J.D. Power.
• China has said it aims to see total annual sales of 2 million electric and gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles by 2020 and for manufacturers to at least have one electronic vehicle produced by 2019.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/03/china-electric-vehicle-market-is-poised-for-explosive-growth-expert.html

[RickBradford]

Sorry, that won't wash.

 

China is expanding renewables, but it's also expanding fossil fuel power, and nuclear power. China desperately needs more energy, of whatever kind it can get.

 

The overall contribution of renewables worldwide is still risible, and anybody who claims that renewables are soon going to become a major energy source is either not reading the relevant literature or is being deliberately misleading.

 

That's mainly why the Green lobby is complaining about the outcome of this conference.

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Sorry, that won't wash.

 

China is expanding renewables, but it's also expanding fossil fuel power, and nuclear power. China desperately needs more energy, of whatever kind it can get.

 

The overall contribution of renewables worldwide is still risible, and anybody who claims that renewables are soon going to become a major energy source is either not reading the relevant literature or is being deliberately misleading.

 

That's mainly why the Green lobby is complaining about the outcome of this conference.

 

 

 

 

This is a meaningless statistic. There already exists a huge installed base of non-renewable infrastructure. It's obviously going to take time for that to change. But it's the investment now that's going to be the infrastracture of the future. And what makes the increase more impressive is that from just 2015 to 2017 investment in solar energy bought 25 percent more power. That's because the cost per unit of electricity has been dropping precipitously.

And now that economical battery storage is a reality, that will make renewables even more appealing.

And of course there is the huge issue of subsidies for hydrocarbons that is rarely acknowledged by the right. For instance fuel subsidies in Indonesia. Thanks for that, by the way. And of course, the USA hugely subsidizes the oil and gas industry.

[RickBradford]

Meanwhile, back in the real world ....

 

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Meanwhile, back in the real world ....

 

You seem resolutely determined to ignore the fact of pre-existing infrastructure. As noted before there is that installed base. But alot of it is already economically unjustifiable.

 

India Coal Power Is About To Crash: 65% Of Existing Coal Costs More Than New Wind And Solar

Coal supplied 80% of India’s total power mix in 2016-2017, but economics have flipped the country’s energy equation – new renewable energy is now cheaper to build than running most existing coal-fired power plants.

Renewable energy costs have fallen 50% in two years, and are forecast to continue dropping apace. New wind and solar is now 20% cheaper than existing coal-fired generation’s average wholesale power price, and 65% of India’s coal power generation is being sold at higher rates than new renewable energy bids in competitive power auctions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/01/30/india-coal-power-is-about-to-crash-65-of-existing-coal-costs-more-than-new-wind-and-solar/#1de30b034c0f

[VincentRJ]

As Bill Clinton used to say, "It's the economy, stupid".

 

Countries such as China understand the importance and the absolutely essential role of cheap energy in economic development.
Countries such as Australia, that force up the price of energy for political reasons, make themselves less competitive in the global market. Energy is the foundation of all activity in a modern civilization. Nothing happens without the expenditure of energy.

 

To some extent an increase in the cost of energy can be offset by an increase in the efficiency of the use of that energy, but that increase in efficiency is limited. Countries that use cheap energy with maximum efficiency will tend  to triumph, economically, over countries that use expensive energy with the same efficiency.

 

China is a major manufacturer of solar panels because it has access to cheap power, mainly from coal. While it's true that China is reducing its vast number of small, old-fashioned, pollution-emitting, domestic coal plants, which have been largely responsible for the significant haze and smog in its cities, it's replacing them with large, modern, low-emission, ultra-supercritical coal plants which enable it to manufacture solar panels at a very competitive price to sell to countries who are deluded that reductions in CO2 levels will protect them, and the rest of the world, from the effects of extreme weather events and rising sea levels.

 

The reason for the claims that renewable energy is now as cheap as energy from coal is not just because the technology of renewable energy has improved and the manufacturing cost has come down, but also because the cost of energy from coal has risen.

 

Why has the cost of energy from coal risen? Because the coal power plants are not being used to the capacity they were designed for. They are increasingly being used only as reliable back-ups when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The wholesale price of the energy from the coal plants must therefore rise proportionally, or the company goes bankrupt, in the absence of government subsidies.

 

This is another form of delusion. We kid ourselves that the cost of renewables has now reached parity with the cost of fossil fuels because we have forced up the wholesale price of fossil fuel energy by using those fossil fuel plants inefficiently. As a result, the average cost of energy, nation-wide, has risen. We're shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

In 2007 Australia was among the countries with the lowest energy prices in the world. Now it is among the countries with the highest energy prices in the world. The State of South Australia, with the highest proportion of its energy coming from renewables, has actually the highest electricity prices in Australia, and by some reports, the actual highest in the world.

 

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/09/08/south-australias-50-renewable-energy-fail-worlds-highest-power-prices-caused-by-subsidised-wind-solar/

 

I'm really dismayed that a country like Australia, with massive reserves of coal, gas and uranium, now has among the highest electricity prices in the world. How stupid! China is laughing all the way to the bank.