What happens after the Dead Parrot Talks?

Posted on 27 September 2015 by Scottish-Sceptic

Now that even WattsUpWIthThat have cottoned on to the failure of the Paris talks, Google forecasts no interest in Paris COP21 perhaps its time to start speculating as to how the climate extremists will respond when they once again face failure.
However, let me be frank, I’ve rather lost faith in my ability to predict the behaviour of climate extremists because they are just so irrational. At the end of 2012, when the Kyoto agreement stopped having any effect and despite having years to agree one, there was no sign of replacement, I knew the game was up. But apparently the climate extremists didn’t and when I challenged people on line they seriously told me the Kyoto accord was still functioning … that Elvis was alive (joke). But now, three years further along, even the climate extremists are beginning to admit the failure of the dead parrot talks in Paris. But whereas in 2012, I predicted a “thieves falling out” scenario after the commitment expired I now know these climate extremists are not rational people.
After all, not only do climate extremists irrationally believe in global doomsday, but they appear also to be totally irrational about their own prospects for governments to bow down and destroy their economies for the sake of their collective hysteria.
So, based on previous climate meetings, each of which has been an appalling failure – but proclaimed a success, I am rather reluctantly forced to predict that yet again they will come out of this meeting proclaiming it to be a success and yet again vowing to swallow the BS they are fed for just a few more years for the sake of “making progress”.
Or is that just too cynical?

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What happens after the Dead Parrot Talks?

  1. TinyCO2 says:
    27 September 2015 at 16:25

    I don’t think the Guardian and buddies have started their big push yet. They’ll be lamenting the lack of a an Arctic ice collapse but rubbing their hands at the El Nino. It looks like it might track the 1997/1998 El Nino.
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/index.html
    The La Nina didn’t start surfacing until md May 1998 although it may have been apparent underwater months earlier.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
    From observation (from about 2010) we need to see the warm anomaly currently coming from the deep needs to stop. The cold bubble forms at about 140W, followed by a cold stalk from the deep. It forms before it’s apparent at the surface.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-148.12,9.30,497
    The winds start blowing in an organised fashion along the equator from South America to Indonesia. At the moment they’re more oblique.
    So, expect them to make much of the El Nino warming despite knowing that there will be a La Nina correction next year, going into 2017.
    IF there isn’t a substantial upward step in temperature I expect to see the MET Office scale back on alarmism in order to maintain credibility. NASA will hold out longer.

  2. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    27 September 2015 at 17:10

    They’ve been building up to the dead parrot talks since late spring when I first noticed the Guardian upping the anti and increasing the number of climate articles whilst others cut back.
    Indeed, much of what we’ve seen this year has the hallmarks of a co-ordinated campaign as I see the campaign to portray US congresspeople as “deniers”, the attacks on academics in the US and the recent letter asking for racketeering investigation, The encyclical and Pope’s visit, all were intended to build a mass movement of supporting blah blah toward the Dead Parrot Talks.
    But it was obvious by mid summer this campaign was completely failing. The Pope’s encyclical was a laughing stock. I looked at the climate news today and all I found was something about Bees evolving .. not one article on the Pope [he’s been visiting the US]. I’d say he’s passed through the US like a dose of constipation tablets … but they have an effect so it’s not a good analogy.
    I suppose a good analogy is that they’ve been ploughing sea-water. Yes, there’s a splash at the time, but within days they are completely forgotten and support just heads steadily downward.
    If global warming were a human – it would be unconscious, on life support and the doctor would have already started urging the relatives to turn the support off.

  3. TinyCO2 says:
    27 September 2015 at 19:52

    Oh yes, there has been much about Paris already but I expect something even bigger before December. They were derailed early on because of the UK election. The moaning, lamenting and shock lasted a couple of months. The Greeks have been a source of bemusement. Then there has been the Labour election and all the excitement of Corbyn. The ISIS and the migrant crisis has built and still has a way to go. So really the Paris thing has been unimportant to almost everyone who would normally be flat out on it. Only Obama has been pushing AGW and he’s left his plans too late in his terms of office to make a difference.
    The Pope’s intervention was more unsettling to the warmists than rewarding – relying on the god botherers to push a science agenda didn’t sit well. Turns out their ambivalence was reflected in the public. Those who want to hear from the Pope don’t want to hear about AGW and vice versa.
    For the warmists the date they start their campaign will be critical. Too early and people will be bored by December. Too late and it could be snowing. At any time something politically big could swallow any interest in their plans. The UK referendum is a potential fly in the ointment though Cameron hasn’t made any real move to secure UK concessions. However we might gain some of his unmade demands without ever asking. However, I don’t think the date will be set before December.
    So if I had to guess I’d expect a blitz of AGW hysteria for mid November onwards.

  4. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    27 September 2015 at 22:57

    The daft thing is that the people who do the real negotiations in these talks decide their position months before the talks even begin.
    So, yes if the public were interested (which they are not), they could use the talks to create some public interest, but otherwise they are pretty much wasting their time.
    However, the climate extremists have to go through the motions of pretending the talks matter … so no doubt they will try to generate some publicity, but … well, almost anything going on from a lost cat to a new species of beetle being discovered will push these talks off the news agenda.

Comments are closed.