Mike Mann on COP24 and Accepting the Science

December 9, 2018

Saudis, US and Russia attempting to dismember science.

Hope to talk with Mike and many others this week at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in DC.

BBC:

Attempts to incorporate a key scientific study into global climate talks in Poland have failed.

The IPCC report on the impacts of a temperature rise of 1.5C, had a significant impact when it was launched last October.

Scientists and many delegates in Poland were shocked as the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait objected to this meeting “welcoming” the report.

It was the 2015 climate conference that had commissioned the landmark study.

The report said that the world is now completely off track, heading more towards 3C this century rather than 1.5C.

Keeping to the preferred target would need “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. If warming was to be kept to 1.5C this century, then emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be reduced by 45% by 2030.

The report, launched in Incheon in South Korea, had an immediate impact winning praise from politicians all over the world.

But negotiators here ran into serious trouble when Saudi Arabia, the US, Russia and Kuwait objected to the conference “welcoming” the document.

trumporb_MBS_Putin500

 

Instead they wanted to support a much more lukewarm phrase, that the conference would “take note” of the report.

Saudi Arabia had fought until the last minute in Korea to limit the conclusions of the document. Eventually they gave in. But it now seems that they have brought their objections to Poland.

The dispute dragged on as huddles of negotiators met in corners of the plenary session here, trying to agree a compromise wording.

None was forthcoming.

With no consensus, under UN rules the passage of text had to be dropped.

Many countries expressed frustration and disappointment at the outcome.

“It’s not about one word or another, it is us being in a position to welcome a report we commissioned in the first place,” said Ruenna Haynes from St Kitts and Nevis.

“If there is anything ludicrous about the discussion it’s that we can’t welcome the report,” she said to spontaneous applause.

Scientists and campaigners were also extremely disappointed by the outcome.

“We are really angry and find it atrocious that some countries dismiss the messages and the consequences that we are facing, by not accepting what is unequivocal and not acting upon it,” said Yamide Dagnet from the World Resources Institute, and a former climate negotiator for the UK.

Others noted that Saudi Arabia and the US had supported the report when it was launched in October. It appears that the Saudis and the US baulked at the political implications of the UN body putting the IPCC report at its heart.

“Climate science is not a political football,” said Camilla Born, from climate think tank E3G.

“All the worlds governments – Saudi included – agreed the 1.5C report and we deserve the truth. Saudi can’t argue with physics, the climate will keep on changing.”

21 Responses to “Mike Mann on COP24 and Accepting the Science”

  1. John Says:

    Reblogged this on jpratt27 and commented:
    We need to listen to the scientists to avoid catastrophic climate change

  2. Sir Charles Says:

    Michael Mann: We Are Even Closer To Climate Disaster Than IPCC Predicts

  3. indy222 Says:

    My only complaint, is the claim that we’re at (reading the graph) about +1.13C right now. Relative to what “Pre-Industrial” benchmark zero point? Using the conventional 1880-1910 average that’s not far off, but using the new Schuur, Mann, et al 2017 work, we’re another 0.2C higher.

  4. dumboldguy Says:

    A lot of nice distraction and deflection by Sir Chucky here000spread iver several comments. I wonder why he doesn’t want to address the very clear CONTENT of the Mann clip. That is basically that Saudi Arabia, the US, and Russia are COLLUDING to allow AGW to continue (as we’ve known all along about Trump). Is Chucky doing the Russian Troll thing and trying to blow smoke over that FACT?

    • Sir Charles Says:

      Get your medication, grumpo 🚑

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Another typical non-response by Chucky. YOU are the one that needs “medication”, Chucky, beyond that Guinness that you seem to imbibe too frequently.

        Deal with the facts at hand—what do you have to say about Mann’s contention that Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Putin’s puppets here in the USA are colluding to obstruct efforts to combat climate change?

        And just what does the 20.000 year graph “nail”, Chucky? You incessantly post things without giving the slightest indication that you know what they represent.

        • Sir Charles Says:

          Nobody is forcing you to read my comments, grumpo. When you feel distracted by my contributions you might have a problem with your mental health. Your sole ad hominem blasts against my person speak for themselves. I don’t think I have to explain that graph above, because it’s also speaking for itself.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            YOU are forcing us to look at your comments and delete them. We also have to waste time scrolling past them in the thread if we want to look at others. Just how did your ego get so large that you think you can take over this blog and fill it with what YOU want to post? Tell us, please!

            And you again make juvenile references to my “mental health”? You have already shown that your understanding of psychology is non-existent—-give it up before you further embarrass your self by your ignorance.

            If anyone is guilty of using ad hominem here, it’s you, Chucky. YOU attack my person without addressing ANY of my arguments. Nor do you respond when I attempt to get you to respond to my “content”. You give me nothing BUT your failures to attack.

            Look to the questions I asked RhymeswithGulag on another Crock thread (Green New Deal) and JUST FREAKING ANSWER THEM! Then maybe we can have a discussion or debate about real ideas

            1) Why do you obsessively post links to things we already know about?
            2) Why do you seldom demonstrate any real knowledge of their “content”?

            “I don’t think I have to explain that graph above, because it’s also speaking for itself”. Really? I will ask AGAIN!

            “Just what does the 20,000 year graph “nail”, Chucky? It’s a very dramatic graphic and not really incorrect graphic representation of data, but to those of us who understand visual representation, it’s a bit misleading. Do you understand why that’s so?

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Honestly no, I don’t understand why you feel misled. As you’re always talking in plural form of yourself. Are you schizophrenic?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I’m speaking of the relative compression and expansion of the X and Y axes, as well as the use of the colored bands. Definitely DOES produce an “Omigod” response in all that see it, especially in those like Chucky who do not understand graphic representation of data. It’s an attention grabber but not particularly honest or useful.

            “As you’re always talking in plural form of yourself. Are you schizophrenic?”

            So now I have to give grammar lessons along with trying to deal with the science? I think Chucky meant to say “third person” rather than “plural”. And yes, I DO use we and us because I believe that I DO speak for others—-they just don’t give much of a rat’s rear end about my efforts to educate Chucky and protect Crocks from his rapacious ignorance.

            And Chucky is again delving into psychology/psychiatry, yet another area of ignorance for him—–lesson time yet again. Schizophrenia is not the term Chucky was looking for—–multiple personality disorder or dissociative identity disorder come closer to his intent. Who knows though, Chucky so often sounds like a Trump clone in his language usage, it’s hard to parse his meaning.

            PS Still waiting for answers to these questions posed to Chucky earlier:

            1) Why do you obsessively post links to things we already know about?
            2) Why do you seldom demonstrate any real knowledge of their “content”?

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Why should I answer any of your leading questions, dumbo? You also didn’t answer my question above.

            The words “we” and “us” aren’t third person, no matter what you “believe”. They are clearly first person plural.

            I’m sure you could be a nice person, dumbo, had you only learned some etiquette at school.

            Over and out.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I have finally trapped Chucky into making a short but substantive answer! Let the church bells ring out! And all it took was a deliberate “misspeak”on grammar. So, it is now more likely that Chucky is NOT a simple robot programmed to post links to climate-related things. He may still be a Russian Troll though, and used his access to the grammar experts that help Russian Trolls sound more “western”.

            Chucky whines “Why should I answer any of your leading questions, dumbo? You also didn’t answer my question above”. Actually, to give another grammar lesson, I think Chucky meant to say “loaded” rather than “leading”—no matter, he simply can’t face the reality of my questions and deal with it.

            Is “Are you schizophrenic?” the question I didn’t answer, Chucky? You are such a freaking moron when it comes to things psychological/psychiatric—-perhaps that’s why you have so much difficulty examining yourself and explaining your behaviors to us? I realize you’re ad-homineming in the absence of anything intelligent to say, but only a moron would ask such a question of a someone thought to be schizophrenic—-if you even managed to get an answer, it would come only after the person consulted all the “voices”.

            Yes, Chucky is most assuredly “over” (the top) and “out” (of real arguments).

  5. Sir Charles Says:

    This inspiring teenager is from Sweden and speaks a better English than this Tramp.

  6. Sir Charles Says:

    Stream LIVE each day @ 8 am ET

    Tune in tomorrow (Wednesday) when Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman attempts to question the Trump administration representative about why he’s pushing coal and fossil fuels at a climate change conference.

    You can join in each day for the rest of the week for coverage: Voices of climate activists, community leaders and grassroots organizations fighting for the future of our planet.

    => https://www.democracynow.org/

    For a full roundup of COP24 coverage thus far, visit their dedicated page at https://www.democracynow.org/topics/katowice_climate_summit_2018


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: