Paris agreement would have accomplished almost nothing – Video



Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions were fully implemented for the rest of the century, the accord would decrease temperatures by the year 2100 by just 0.023°F.  Bjorn Lomborg explains.



This is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.

The cost of the Paris Climate Accord would likely cost $1 to 2 trillion dollars every year. That means we would spend at least one hundred trillion ($100,000,000,000,000) by the end of the century. For almost nothing in return.

“Turns out that those politicians who gathered in Paris, Frace, could learn a lot from Paris, Texas,” says Lomborg.

_______________________________

Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish author and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School as well as President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen.

Lomborg became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Time Magazine declared Lomborg one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2004.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

Thanks to Jimmy Walter for this info


9 thoughts on “Paris agreement would have accomplished almost nothing – Video

  1. If they just wait 18 months they will see that will be reached easily w/o any wealth redistribution.

  2. Atmospheric mixing … energy upticks from the sun coming in via cyclical coronal hole solar wind upticks, on the solar plane, getting pushed to each pole where the planet takes energy in … energy in at the poles, whatever is taken in to the earth’s polarized energy field / magnetic field, at least … becomes part of the torus donut dynamic of that field … in at the poles radiated out mostly between the tropic lines out into space and eventually back in at the poles … well that energy in at the poles, it seems … or at least it might be suggested … pushes the jet stream(s) towards the equator … in between the tropics … more heat or radiation outward … a mixing bowl dynamic resulting … in the atmosphere?

    Watch for greater atmospheric mixing between the tropic lines and the poles … more warmth in between the tropic lines … with each tropic line undertaking a gradual shift in the direction of the pole (saw an article on this a bit ago, where it was already being noticed) … in the meantime … between the tropic lines and each pole … there’ll be a mixing … of the warm and the cold (?) … cold air meeting warm moisture laden air … sea ice breaking up and drifting in to warmer waters and mixing in there …

    Or so it might be suggested … at least for the years such cyclical energy upticks in might taken place … via earth facing coronal hole solar wind upticks … and that … while, it seems, sunspots wane away … so, perhaps for a time … global warming from the inside out via solar energy taken in and circulated in the earth’s polarized energy field (out to the edge of the Van Allen belts and back in at the poles (?); in any case, atmospheric mixing experienced between the polar regions and the tropics … presenting as cooling, while such mixing takes … but a trend line there, of warming … as they may be less cold to get mixed in to the warm … over time? Ah well, lots to ponder …

    • s/b ” presenting as cooling, while such mixing takes place … but a trend line there, of warming … as there may be less cold to get mixed in to the warm … over time? Ah well, lots to ponder …”

  3. Where is the proof CO2 is responsible for temperature change ?
    If you admit that it does you only give more power to organisations like the IPCC . They can always use it against the people even if temperatures would go down.

  4. That decrease is as usual based on a “model”.
    The vagaries of climate & the main engine behind it, the big orange/white ball that rises in th sky every morning will ensure that all predictions will be false.

  5. s/b ” presenting as cooling, while such mixing takes place … but a trend line there, of warming … as there may be less cold to get mixed in to the warm … over time? Ah well, lots to ponder …”

  6. Lomborg used to be admired by the gullibles until he said things like what he says in this – the truth.

    Now he is so evil he has a signature page on DeSmogBlog – obviously, as anyone ever unfortunate that evil site, it says only negative things about him.

    Funny how that works – Lomberg has NEVER said there is no global warming,/climate change or greenhouse effect !

    But say something that anyone with half a brain should know – that the Paris agreement is just plain useless – and he is no better than Satan to the holier than thou bunch of witless insulting morons incapable of mounting a cogent argument against sceptics !

    As a result of the weakness of their “science” and their cause for the 21st century “crusade” they can offer no more cogent argument than the resort to insult.

Comments are closed.