I’ve been looking at the tweets on #cop21 and put simply, they are discussing anything but the actual facts about climate. Indeed many have nothing to do with climate and are the usual “saving the whales, saving the rainforest, saving our grants, saving our right to protest about saving the whales …”
As far as tweeter goes, it is largely a festival of the ill-informed “hangers-on” who use climate to push entirely unrelated issues.
Here’s a typical selection:

Do we really need to take action now? Nah, #flexibledeadlines will do. That’s what world leaders think at #COP21 ^KG
Ce matin, focus sur la résilience secteur #eau en direct de la #COP21 #ClimateIsWater
Looking forward to speaking this morning on crossover between private and public commitments- side event on INDCs #COP21
Tuesday “Ray of the Day” at #COP21
Will the PM be mentioning KP billion tree tsunami and plantation of 130 million trees last year at #COP21? Pakistan’s massive contribution
Corruption = Climate change = Death #ClimateMarchKE 3 Dec 2015 @hakijamiitrust @UKatiba #StopCorruptioninKenya @nanodo2001 @KimanziN #COP21
Tomorrow at #COP21 – We share our work helping develop a process for countries to communicate climate change impacts

I received this email – at first I assumed “Haszeldine” was someone taking the micky out of “Haseler” – however, it does appear that there is an Professor in Edinburgh (a hot bed of alarmist fanatics in Scotland)

---

Dear Professor Haszeldine,
Thank you for your views, which as you say do not coincide with mine on carbon capture and storage (CCS) or on alleged man-made climate change.
As a professor of CCS I suppose it is only to be expected that, to paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, “You would say that, wouldn’t you”.
I will defend my stance by disputing just the first two of your climate assertions, which seem to me to be particularly unfounded.
1) “2015 is the warmest year since modern records began”.
This is disputed by the satellite temperature record which many experts say gives a better indication of man-made global warming, or the lack of it, than surface temperature records. In any case, so what? All of the global warming since 1659 (when CET recording began) has been natural, not man-made. I have still not seen a credible rebuttal of this assertion, evidently dismissed by some as not being sufficiently “erudite”. (It is not my assertion, it is credited to Bob Tisdale, an expert in ocean climate thermodynamics, whose extensive source material I link to in my paper.) Even the biassed, politician-controlled UN IPCC say (indirectly) that we have had only a barely perceptible 0.25ºC of man-made global warming since the start of industrialisation, which the biassed media and politicians routinely obfuscate to be 0.8ºC or even, when laying it on thickly, a full 1ºC.
2) “Sealevel rise rates are above the norm 2000 years and are measureable”.
This is disputed by a leading expert in this field, Dr Nils Axel-Mörner, who describes how biassed scientists have manipulated the data. In any case given that we are not causing any global warming there is nothing we can do about it, other than to adapt.
This exchange illustrates how discussions around this subject have been poisoned by deliberate spin, exaggeration, obfuscation and deception created mainly by politicians. I am walking away from it for the sake of my mental wellbeing. I will restrict my future “campaigning” to the ballot box, to vote for the least bad option.
Finally, I am all for sustainability, which is why I think unsustainable CCS is a particularly bad idea, because it would increase the consumption of finite fossil fuel reserves and would probably exhaust safe long-term underground storage reservoirs, on top of being very expensive.
Yours faithfully,
Douglas S Brodie

A while back I wrote an article “why women love ugly men” in which I made the argument that because human faces varied so much, that there had to be a strong impulse to pick faces that are not “normal”. Which could not happen if there were a single concept of beauty and we all sought mates who fitted this stereotype. Because if we did seek mates who were “beautiful”, then very quickly any genetics which caused people to diverge from this standard would be removed from human race.
Logically, humans must select features that are distinctly different from the idealised standard of “beauty” – otherwise diversity of human features would disappear.
So, I was already aware that humans selected for “ugly” (or at least – counter intuitively – we actively select against some idealised form of beauty) but I didn’t understand why.
Then, watching a video on bees it suddenly occurred to me why women love ugly men:

“As long as the queen is mated with drones that are not closely related to her … otherwise spotty brood and diploid drones”.
Obviously closely related queen and drones is a big problem for bees (they become infertile), however closely related humans also causes problems as offspring of closely related parents have a much higher chance of receiving two defective genes from both parents.
How does mother nature tell us not to fall in love with closely related kin? “instinct” tells us that people who look like us tend to be closely related. So, by avoiding people who are as good looking as we all are … we end up with partners who will tend to be only distantly related.
This problem of too much inter-breeding is not such a big problem for loan animals who by their nature have to actively seek a mate, but it is a huge problem for human societies, particularly tribal ones, where “mates” tend to come from within a small social grouping leading to a lot of genetic interbreeding.
So, paradoxically, nature seems to have found a way around this problem of “inbreeding”: by encouraging us to like “ugly” – or at least variations from some idealised concept of beauty. This, to some extent explains why humans have such diverse features, voice, etc.
But of course, we are not the only animals to see such diversity. Seagulls have distinctive calls otherwise chicks would not be able to recognise their own offspring, likewise humans have distinctive voices so that we are all distinct enough to see as individuals. So, in part the reason must also be the advantage of being able to recognise individuals within a large group.

Whilst looking for news from the Climate Conference, I found this:

From the press coverage today, I would hardly know that there was any meeting on global warming, let alone one with most of the leaders of the world.
Indeed, I can’t find anything of any substance to report except Inhofe’s new book.

As we all known the alarmists were jumping up and down for joy at the prospect some global warming caused by the El Nino peek. So I have been interested to know when that peak occurred – and now it has!:
So, what did this “massive warming” effect have on the only credible & nearly global temperature from the satellites? If you look hard and use some imagination, I think the “effect” was that small upswing near the end which didn’t even bring it above the “bulk” of the noise. So really no warming at all!

And if you compare it with the 1998 El Nino they are like Chalk and cheese. This suggests this recent El Nino was very different. One possible explanation, is that the El Nino did have a profound warming effect – it’s just that we have already entered a period of cooling and that try as it might the El Nino could hardly offset the cooling.
As such, as we seem to be past the peak, within two years rather than “no warming for 18 years”,we may well be saying “the coldest global temperature in 20 years”. (But no doubt by then NASA and NOAA’s fabrications will show the planet is already being boiled like a cabbage).
But, I think it may be much worse than that. If we look below, NOAA got the ENSO prediction massive wrong. Almost everyone was predicting more warming (how familiar). But if I take the recent failure to predict the El Nino trend, and then this trend as well as assuming that NOAA continue being as wrong as they started, I’ve project it forward along the red line.
And now, just as rising index for El Nino was (supposedly) linked to warming, now the declining El Nino index suggests that pronounced cooling is likely to occur. Not by end of 2016 as NOAA suggest but as early as April 2017. In other words, there is a reasonable chance that April-June will start seeing headlines with a string of “coldest temperatures in >20 years” – or indeed “End of Global warming”!

The state of California has embarked on a 25-year green power odyssey in an effort to reduce the amount of CO2 we place into the atmosphere, all aimed at leading the world in an anti-climate change crusade for humanity.

Beginning in 2030, 50 percent of all electrical power produced for our regulated utilities will be mandated “renewable” energy. This definition under the current law includes energy from solar, wind and small hydroelectric facilities built, or to be built, over that time frame. It excludes residential solar installations and existing large hydroelectric projects such as energy produced from Hoover Dam.
While some of this new power will be “infill” development (smaller solar projects that may be placed in vacant or brown-field urban areas), most of it will be new development in areas of the state where sunshine and wind are most plentiful, our more remote inland desert regions including much of the Inland Empire.
Read more: Stop These Things

To coincide with #COP21, I’ve added a tweet button to uClimate.com (which includes the #cop21 hashtag). So please get tweeting.
I’ve also, taken the chance to undertake a few other changes which I’ve been planning to the layout of uClimate.com also hopefully to speed up the site as well as a new mobile version intended to make it easier to view on small screen devices.

The people responsible should be locked up in jail.