There’s a boringly familiar pattern to these climate talks in Paris. The rhetoric is all about making deals, but the reality is that everyone is backpeddling furiously behind the scenes trying the darnest to prevent any serious deal getting made. But what is different this time is that if anything the parties are being far more open in their desire not to come to any deal this time than all the previous clown fests from Jokenhagen onward.
The previous pattern has always been the pretence of vigorous negotiations, a last minute “deal” and a final push to agree a document … which basically says they agree to meet next time to discuss pretty much the same things they were supposed to discuss this time.
However, these agreements agreeing to meet again to “agree” the same basic text they were supposed to agree this time at the next meeting, seem to satisfy the Greens
But I’m not sure they are even going to get one of these meaningless agreements to agree to meet again to agree some text. Because this is what the Chinese delegate is saying:
The Chinese chief negotiator, Su Wei, said talks about the procedure for a new UN climate regime were going so slowly there was no time to discuss whether the emissions cuts added up.
“It has taken us 10 days here discussing procedural matters and we have made hardly any progress,” he told the BBC. “We cannot add any more items to the agenda to be discussed before Paris.”
That is mandarin (Bureaucratese) for: “We are slowing down the discussions and will not discuss anything new – particularly anything to do with actually implementing the meaningless nominal targets“.
This open admission of “slow progress” and the admission the agenda is shut is in sharp contrast to previous talks where one had to read between the lines to tell things were going slowly. In short, the negotiators seem to have been told not to make progress and their bosses are not too concerned if people know that.
We’ve become a society that systematically lies to itself about uncomfortable truths. Perhaps we always have done, but the types of lies have changed over the years. One of the most enduring is that we believe in god. Surely if we really believed that there was a vengeful, rule setting, all seeing deity, we’d follow those rules for our short lives on the basis we’d cash in once we’d died. ‘I was tempted by the Devil and was weak’. No, you believed more in the short term reward of sin than the long term reward of piety. Similarly people believe more in the short term reward of industrialisation than the long term reward of low CO2.
Now because we’ve developed this ability to ignore the bleeding obvious if it reflects badly on us, when a new situation comes along that matches the religious model, we fall into the same routine. In such a twisted view of reality, disputing the existence of the deity becomes a greater sin than committing a crime or in the case of AGW, emitting CO2.
Clearly nobody really believes in CAGW. The warmists need to address that before they can make any sensible progress. These meetings are just like going to church, where everyone says the payers and sings from the same hymn sheet, then goes home, fornicates and covets Kim Kardashian’s ass. You’d see the same nervousness in church if the vicar whipped out a contract for parishioners to sign agreeing what level of sin they were or were not going to get up to in the coming week. Indeed, with the advent of female clergy and gay weddings we are already seeing a negotiation of what was supposedly cast iron rules (I’m not anti those things, just noting them).
Making sceptics the Devil in their new religion is a cop out for the warmists’ own inability to convince.
Pingback: Paris – already dead in the water | Tallbloke's Talkshop
Reblogged this at tallbloke’s talkshop:
‘Scottish Sceptic has an amusing piece about the forthcoming climate charade in Paris, which looks like being as full of hot air as it is empty of credible substance’
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/paris-already-dead-in-the-water/
TinyCO2 – agree wholeheartedly, but there is also another factor – ostentatious piety/narcissism.
The greater “driver” is the conscious effort to ensure as many people as possible witness their “do-gooding” – hence twitter, facebook etc.
The historical facts, the myths, and the underlying role, of religion–much less of religious belief in non-religious contexts (or of false beliefs, such as anything having to do with coercing others to one’s religiously-held belief) is a much deeper and far wider area of study than any short comment can begin to address; it properly encompasses all of the trials of mankind throughout history, and long before known history. I will only say here what I consider obvious: There is an adult approach to thinking about God, and a childish one–the idea of a “vengeful, rule-setting and all-seeing” God is a childish view. The idea of a coherent, meaningful (and need I say, peaceful) existence in a coherent, meaningful world (and universe), among others made to the same design as oneself, is the adult view.
And “God” did not make the world as we now observe it. The “gods” of earliest and strongest myth did that (in a wholesale re-formation of the Earth and solar system), as only my unprecedented research has finally uncovered, after all these millennia of (largely childish, and orphaned by the “gods”) human trial and (inevitably, ineluctably) religious beliefs.
You can see how it gets complicated very quickly, just from these few words.
A very shrewd observation. And it explains the behaviour of a lot of people who have no idea about climate. I’m struggling for the words. They are not “convinced” or “accept” – because they don’t make a decision … it’s more like osmosis – they just adopt the values of their social group and “being green” becomes a “nice” thing to do.
These are the people who will put a carrier bag of bottles in their car and drive 20miles to recycle them. They are the people who will buy “green” food & produce, flown in from India.
And that’s the sort of reply I get from warmists when I tell them they don’t really believe in CAGW. Their ‘belief’ doesn’t fit with how people behave. What god or AGW is or isn’t doesn’t matter, how people react to them does. If people stopped looking for deeper meaning and dealt with the tangible then it would help.
That was a reply to Harry D Huffman. Think my settings light be odd after BH’s floating ladies.
johnbuk, absolutely. It’s no accident that warmists prefer to tweet and sceptics blog. With Twitter it’s possible to reach a large number of viewers without making much effort. Twitter also lends itself to slogans rather than deeper contemplation.
Just testing if I can reply
tweets can potentially reach everybody, only sceptics read sceptic blogs
One thing will certainly be decided at the Paris talks.
Which five star resort will host the next climate piss-up.
For some odd reason I thought you were going to mention FIFA.
Is the chairmanship of the IPCC still available? If so wouldn’t sepp blatter be an ideal candidate?
In March 2015,give or take a week or so,Christiana Figueres of the UNFCC stated that it was important for there to be signed a binding agreement on carbon emissions in order that the Western nations be industrialised as a first step in destroying Capitalism.
A few weeks later before the Gen.Election in May,comrades Milliband,Cameron,and Clegg signed a joint agreement to do just this at the Paris upcoming Paris conference.
Rather odd that this was not stated in their manifestos,or even put up for discussion.Surely the destruction of our Western civilisation as we know it should be debated openly if that is to be the intention.