|Pic: KIARA WORTH/IISD/ENB|
But back to the BBC. Their author notes 'One of the most striking things about this conference of the parties was the presence of energised young people in far greater numbers than I have ever seen them at a COP before.', and goes on to conclude his piece with a photo and a quote from the troubled Swedish schoolgirl who has been presented as the leader of school 'strikes' to promote climate alarm.
What I take to be an official blog/site for COP24 is also big on children: check out this video on how they were used in the opening ceremony:
'This Friday, December 14th, during the Climate Change Conference
The intellectual and/or moral poverty of climate alarm
latest COP parade adds to the pile. As more and more
adults are able to tackle, refute, and object to the specious
and hyperbolic claims of those seek to raise alarm over our
impact on climate variation, it makes sense for campaigners
to increase their already substantial attention on children -
not only to brainwash them for future use, but also to use
them now as levers on political power.
How about a conference on how to help children cope with
and recover from the climate alarmism foisted upon them?
How about recommendations to help adults who have been
harmed by such alarm during their school years?
in academic discussions, but it does not have anything like
enough substance to be used for important decision-making.
Professor Nir Shaviv summarised this neatly the other day
in an address to the German parliament (emboldening by me):
with something that might shock you. There is no evidence
that CO2 has a large effect on climate.
'The two arguments used by the IPCC to so called “prove”
that humans are the main cause of global warming, and
which implies that climate sensitivity is high, are that:
a) 20th century warming is unprecedented, and
b) there is nothing else to explain the warming.
These arguments are faulty.'
Note added 20 Dec 2018. The Global Warming Policy Foundation
(GWPF) has just published a note concerning some of the shoddiness
in the recent IPCC report. Here are the concluding paragraphs:
'The SR1.5 report represents a very significant departure from
previous IPCC reports in the direction of increased alarm regarding
global warming, particularly as compared with the Fifth Assessment.
No rigorous justification for this departure has been provided.
In reality, since the Fifth Assessment considerable evidence has
accumulated suggesting that global warming is more of a long-term
threat than a planetary emergency.
This evidence consists mainly of observational results suggesting
lower climate sensitivity (i.e. less warming in response to any given
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations) and results indicating a
greater contribution from natural variability to explaining observed
global temperature trends.
The IPCC has not passed on this evidence to policymakers in its
SR1.5 report. The report has also not passed on to policymakers
some very important information published by climate modellers
since the last IPCC assessment report regarding the empirical tuning
of climate models to achieve desired results.
The failure of previous IPCC reports to document the models’ tuning
procedures has been described by these modellers as a ‘lack of
transparency’. The projections of future warming published by the
IPCC are completely dependent on the reliability of these models.
In view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being
regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.
There is much recent scientific evidence, not referred to in the report,
to support a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme
measures proposed in the report. Meanwhile, the worthy goals discussed
in the report, such as sustainable development, poverty eradication
and reducing inequalities, should be pursued on their own merits
and not made dependent on unsettled climate science.'
The note was written by Prof J R Bates.
(' Professor J. Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology