Climate change

United Nations • Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

The Fatal Policy Flaw

CDN
111K subscribers

Subscribe

9.7K

Share

151,229 views Premiered on 1 Feb 2022

Overwhelmingly, climate alarmists say we must meet our “Paris targets” to avoid disasters. But Dr. John Robson explains that their own computer models say meeting Paris will make no difference to temperature by 2100. Some activists and politicians may not know it… but the scientists do, and it’s wrong of them not to speak up about the fact that the Paris Accord, like Kyoto before it, means massive pain for no gain.

To support the Climate Discussion Nexus, subscribe to our YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_egd…, our Rumble channel (https://rumble.com/user/ClimateDN), our newsletter (at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com/) and our podcast on Spotify (https://open.spotify.com/show/6IX3QVN…) and Google (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0…, like us on Facebook ( / climatedn , follow us on Twitter ( / climatedn ) and Gettr (https://www.gettr.com/user/climatedn), and make a monthly or one-time pledge at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com…

In this video

Timeline

Chapters

Transcript
Search in video
Introduction
[Music]
Governments around the world keep introducing new and increasingly ambitious climate policy measures
and world leaders like to brag that they are taking action on climate or solving the climate crisis.

But  not keen to talk about a catch and it’s one they namely know it won’t work. 

The same scientists who have told them there’s a problem have also told them that none of these policies will make any difference to the global climate no matter how much they cost they won’t tackle or solve climate change.

In fact they won’t do much of anything let’s begin with the kyoto protocol which was signed in december 1997 it was an agreement that if implemented would have capped co2 emissions from wealthy countries and reduced global co2 emissions by about five percent.
Well in a 1998 study climate modeler dr tom wigley looked at what kyoto would accomplish if fully implemented he showed that by the modeler’s own assumptions full implementation of kyoto would have
had barely noticeable effects on climate over the 21st century.

Atmospheric co2 would still have gone up just very slightly more slowly instead of reaching its forecast no cure to accord level of 680 parts per million in the year 2100 with kyoto
fully implemented by everybody it would have gotten there in just five years later.

So massively cutting human energy use worldwide with all the misery that would have resulted would have yielded the same outcome as business as usual a century from now or to be fair two-tenths of a degree under the best-case scenario.

As in no real world effect at all nothing you’d notice not directly not indirectly through its effects.

Paris and kyoto turned out to be too expensive to implement so most countries failed to keep their promises that’s why kyoto failed it offered huge costs for minimal benefits.

So what about Paris here’s the harsh truth the politicians and activists don’t seem to want to hear
a 2016 study by dr bjorn lumberg showed that if all signatories of the paris agreement do everything they promise global average temperatures will only be about one-tenth of one degree lower by
the year 2100 than if we do nothing at all.

So as with kyoto under paris we get the same global average temperature increase as if we don’t cut emissions though a tiny bit slower in return for enormous sacrifice in terms of standard of living.

It’s the kyoto problem all over again the policy is too costly to implement and too ineffective to solve the alleged problem it’s all costs and no benefits and we’ve learned nothing.

Climate Discussion Nexus

And now a word from our sponsor and that’s you because of the climate discussion nexus
we’re dependent upon support from our viewers and our readers. Please go to our donate page make a
one-time pledge or if you can a monthly one. I’m not talking a lot of money though if you’ve got it we’ll take it two dollars a month three dollars five dollars that’s the sustaining funding
that we need to produce these videos on our newsletter.

And now back to me now notice that the argument i’m making here has nothing to do with whether
man-made global warming is a problem or even a crisis it’s about whether by the alarmists own
logic the alarmists own recommendations would fix the crisis that they are certain exists and the answer is a resounding and you know it no.

It doesn’t matter how urgent you think it is that we do something if the thing that you’re calling for us to do can’t possibly work based on the same reasoning that says we have to do something it makes no sense to do it.
So in looking at this issue don’t get distracted by calls to action or insults about deniers focus here on the crucial intellectual point that the same scientists who call for these actions say.

They won’t accomplish anything you know a great many alarmists may not understand this point and if so it needs to be brought to their attention but the serious modelers do understand it perfectly well
and they are doing us all a real disservice by not being frank about several key aspects of the situation.

Conclusion
The reason climate policies don’t have any effect over the 21st century is that the global carbon cycle is so big compared to human-made carbon emissions and most emissions aren’t even covered by the treaties especially those from developing countries who taken together account for more than half the world’s emissions.
What it means is that policies that are affordable accomplish next to nothing policies that would actually stop climate change would devastate the global economy. Picture a global shutdown like the one we experienced for covet 19 but lasting for 50 years.
Tthat’s the scale we’re talking about or rather that’s the scale we’re not talking about nobody’s talking about it because it would make no sense it would make no sense because even the worst case projections of the effects of climate change over the coming century only involve shaving a few percentage points off a growth path that leads to doubling or tripling of global income.
Trying to prevent that minor harm by destroying the global economy would be like treating a sprained wrist by cutting the patient’s arm off then letting him bleed to death.

It wouldn’t make sense even if you put on a tourniquet and the patient didn’t bleed to death because by the alarmists own models fully implementing paris wouldn’t change global temperature at all.

Just the way cutting the arm off won’t make the risk work so let’s stop pretending that proposed
or actual climate change policy will stop climate change or even slow it down in any significant way.

It won’t and they know it when it comes to practical measures we really only have two strategic options one is we let economies grow and then we deal with whatever climate changes are coming our way with the extra wealth that’s been generated.
The other is to waste a megaton of money on a futile effort to stop climate change and then deal with whatever climate changes are coming from a much worse economic position.

Now if anyone thinks there’s a third option in which we stop the climate from changing significantly
they need to if i may coin a phrase here start listening to the science.

For the climate discussion nexus i’m john robson
[Music]