Global climate negotiations marred by revelations COP28 president planned to push oil trade deals

It's only disinformation because you refuse to understand the issue.

 

Boy, I'm think Bill Gates and Al Gore and others like them should be embarrassed by this.

I'll also wager none of them will.

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...ped-carbon-offsets-and-thinks-you-should-too/

 

To be cross-filed under "So what?" and "Falsehoods."

Exxon hits back on ridiculous RICO allegations: 'When it comes to climate change, read the documents'
Guest essay by Ken Cohen
"Read the documents.

Go ahead, you really should. Read the documents on the InsideClimate News site purportedly proving some conspiracy on ExxonMobil’s part to hide our climate science findings.

In case you need help finding them, the link to the documents on theInsideClimate News site is right here.

Why do we want you to read them?

Because you will see that they completely undercut the allegations made by InsideClimate News in its series about ExxonMobil – allegations that were subsequently echoed by activists like Bill McKibben and Naomi Oreskes.

McKibben, for instance, wrote, “Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.”

But if you read the documents, it will become clear the opposite is true. . . . "

AND:

The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared
Guest essay by Andy May
If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. New York Attorney General Eric T.…

 

What “issue”? A whacked out conspiracy theory?

 

All that proves is that without government regulation- you will get scammers enter the market. Oh! And congrats for actually providing a link. Meanwhile we are in a holding pattern. Government won’t act because there is no will to act because in America, looking after the environment is never a vote winner

 

Wow using astroturf sites funded by Exxon to justify not believing that Exxon has been funding disinformation for thirty years. Got anything more independent??

 

No. Why physics denial is BS on its face.

 

1. WUWT does not receive (and never received) any funding from Exxon. Any claim to the contrary is a lie from the propagandists.
2. My first link is based on Inside Climate News, the site to which you linked.
3. My second link is based on a review of publicly available documents.

Game. Set. Match.

 

The torrent of lies about Exxon is because they are too lazy to pursue the reality since the documents have been in public view for decades that makes clear Exxon was echoing others (Published papers and scientists statements) about the topic which has been shown repeatedly but brainwashed people completely ignore with hilarious dodging excuses such as the worn out false funding claims which doesn't address it all.

It is clear Warmist/Alarmists have worn a big hole in the bottom of the barrel.

 

And your point would be . . . ?

 

Developmental energy requirements will undo activists' hopes for COP28.
Economic Progress and Fossil Fuels: The Elephant in the Room at U.N. Climate Conference
Guest Blogger
The reality of economic imperatives, however, will eventually expose the folly of decarbonization plans. . . .

 

Reality bites.
COP28 President Challenges Mainstream Climate Narrative on Fossil Fuels
Charles Rotter
As COP28 unfolds, the tension between economic pragmatism and environmental idealism will undoubtedly remain a central theme. . . . .

 

Sleight-of-hand replaces energy transition.
L A Times Article Reveals California Changed Designation of “Clean Energy” to Enhance its Political Influence at COP28
Guest Blogger
The L A Times article is full of hand waving climate alarmist politically contrived propaganda claims and assertions that are unsupported by well established and extensively available energy and climate…

 

Net zero can't work.
Another Critical Thinker Reaches The Obvious Conclusion: Intermittent Renewables Can't Work On Their Own
December 03, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  Let me welcome to the small and elite club of critical thinkers on the supposed energy transition a guy named Balázs Fekete.
  
  
• Fekete, with several co-authors, has recently (September 1 succeeded in getting an article published in a journal called Frontiers of Environmental Science, with the title “Storage requirements to mitigate intermittent renewable energy sources: analysis for the US Northeast.” Fekete then followed up by publishing on November 14 at Judith Curry’s Climate, Etc. blog a lengthy post summarizing the article, titled “Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?”
  
  
• As with the previous competent analyses of energy storage requirements needed to back up intermittent renewable generation that have been featured on this blog and in my energy storage Report, there is nothing complicated about the Fekete, et al., analysis. The authors call it “a modified surplus/deficit calculation [as] taught to water engineers to size reservoirs for meeting water demand when the water resources vary.” When there is surplus production you add it to storage, and when there is a deficit you subtract; and then you sum over a year (or two, or ten) to calculate how much storage you need. It’s all basic arithmetic. What could be simpler?
  
  
• You will not be surprised that the conclusion is “CO2 obsession driven dead-end.”
  

READ MORE

 

In the words of Forrest Gump's mother: "Stupid is as stupid does."
X-Raying a Hollow Phrase: 'Energy Transition' - Mark Mills, RCMarkets

 

As the Four Tops used to sing, "It's the same old song."
COP28: China and India Reject Climate Loss and Damage Demands
Eric Worrall
Everyone agrees the USA should be looted, but China and India want to be recipients of funding, not contributors. . . .

 

He said the quiet part out loud.
COP28 President Challenges Mainstream Climate Narrative on Fossil Fuels
DECEMBER 5, 2023

Al Jaber’s assertion is:

“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels

This is a direct challenge to the prevailing climate doctrine. His argument strikes at the heart of policy discussions that have been increasingly dominated by calls for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. . . . .

 

As both the demand and the supply of fossil fuels are quite inelastic, a small difference in quantity makes a large difference in price -- and profits. How are you able to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that the political restrictions on fossil fuel production demanded by AGW scaremongers have reduced supply and greatly increased both prices and oil company (and OPEC government) profits?

You are the one being played by corporate fossil fuel interests.

 

"Ever" is a long time. It is indisputable that fossil fuels are a fixed resource that is being exhausted; and unlike metals and other mined resources, it is impossible to recycle them on a human timescale. Fossil fuels will therefore get more expensive. Meanwhile, solar power is certain to become cheaper as the technology improves, and that is a one-way process. At some point, those two cost lines will cross, and fossil fuels will be obsolete except for certain niche uses like aviation, space travel, and high-latitude heating fuel.

 

“Our supplies of natural resources are not limited in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce, and will constitute a smaller proportion of our expenses in future years.”
― Julian L. Simon

 

That's just false. Most natural resources are not only limited but fixed in the economic sense: their supply cannot be increased by labor and does not respond to price. It is the extracted resources that are produced by labor and are not limited in the economic sense. A very simple example serves to conclusively refute Simon's claim: whales.

Wrong again. Whales refute Simon's claim: early in the last century, the massive whaling industry collapsed because there were so many whalers chasing a rapidly declining number of whales.

As I explained, fossil fuels are different from other natural resources in that they cannot be recycled. Also, there is an energy cost to extracting them. The more energy it takes to extract them, the less the net energy gained thereby. This is quite different from the case with other mineral resources. You don't use up gold by mining gold, lithium by mining lithium, etc. You do use up fossil fuels in the course of extracting fossil fuels.

 

Are you familiar with this?

The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, "to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run."

Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.[1]
Simon–Ehrlich wager

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Simon–Ehrlich_wager


The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon ...

 

Yes. And I have explained why it is not very relevant to fossil fuels. And winning a bet with Paul Ehrlich is not exactly a source of bragging rights.

 

“Discoveries, like resources, may well be infinite: the more we discover, the more we are able to discover.”
― Julian L. Simon