By Jo Nova
It’s time to move the goalposts to rescue some reputations
We always knew this day would come. The moment when history gets rewritten so The Blob can pretend their life and death battle for climate change was not scientific Voodoo, and a total waste of twenty years and a thousand billion dollars.
If we move all the goalposts, the Paris Agreement is looking good, even though man-made emissions are rising, and almost no one is meeting their targets.
Watch the agitprop in action — firstly they pretend this is about maths — “the numbers are in” as if they have evidence and can count to four. But every number is completely invented, totally elastic and all of it was modeled, and none of it has happened. They’re just saying (and lying) that things could have been a lot worse, but phew, the Paris Agreement is working:
Has the Paris Agreement started to work? The numbers are in
By Nick O Malley, The Sydney Morning Herald
As global heat records keep tumbling, a new analysis shows the Paris climate treaty is having an impact, with warming on track to reach 2.6 degrees if nations meet their commitments, rather than 4 degrees as was predicted before the agreement was signed in 2016.
O’Malley is trying to gaslight the audience into thinking that the IPCC was “predicting 4 degrees C” as the most likely outcome when the range stretched from 0.3°C up to 4.8°C, and all the talk at the time was about staying below 2 degrees with an aspirational target of 1.5°C.
The 4 degree extreme predictions came only from the absurd “RCP 8.5 scenario” — where the whole world flew Concordes to work every day and CO2 reached 936ppm. (But even die-hard modelers like Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather now agree this was an unlikely and unrealistically extreme outcome.)
But nine years later, after coal use hits record highs and renewables projects are collapsing, there’s not even a hint that global CO2 levels have slowed at all — yet The Blob cheer-squad hails a modeled 2.6 degrees future as a success (if everyone keeps their word which they never do).
And since the 2.6 degree “future” is calculated with models we know don’t work, every single part of this might as well be chicken entrails.
If man-made emissions mattered at all, this is not what “success” looks like:
Back in 2016, the goal was 2 °C. Later, when it looked like the disasters weren’t coming in fast enough, they decided that 1.5 °C of warming was still a terrible thing. Now they’re celebrating 2.6 °C. Only in climate politics can every miss be a win.
REFERENCES
IPCC AR5 Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers, page 23. Table SPM.2
Z. Hausfather, and G.P. Peters, “Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading”, Nature, vol. 577, pp. 618-620, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3
No, it’s clear that in practice the Paris Agreement has failed thereby undermining the UN climate campaign. Here’s why:
https://cliscep.com/2025/10/13/the-end-of-paris/
300
A big big NO on a UN carbon tax!!!!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/un-institute-de-facto-tax-american-citizens-ultimate/
210
Australia remains fanatically committed to the Paris Agreement despite it obviously destroying the economy. It’s all part of “the plan”.
We will remain committed until the last light goes out and the last car grinds to a halt and the last zoo animal eaten like they did in Venezuela due to starvation.
That is, unless Australians wake up and elect a conservative Government, not fake conservative Liberals who are part of the problem because they agree with the BS and have introduced some of Australia’s most destructive anti-energy policies, Labor is just expanding the madness the Liberals started.
760
I don’t see any real possibility of that happening soon. Watching Paul Murray the other night, the stats seem to show that while there is some progress, way too many people still want net zero. The pain isn’t cutting through. It must get a lot worse.
I wish the bits and bobs conservatives like Hanson et Al would form up and start soaking up the non soft lefty Liberals. That sort of party, Leadership and direction is what is required imo.
461
It is obvious that it will take blackouts/demand management to wake up the populace.
260
But they won’t call it “rationing”. Pity.
100
Never believe the Net Zero polls. They do them to make skeptics believe they are in the minority. The questions are loaded. Whenever we ask good questions like “how much do you want to spend” 90% of the people say “almost nothing”.
The point of polling is not to find out what people think, it’s to tell them what to believe.
150
I totally agree Tim.
The process has already started with the rise of One Nation ratings and the fall of the wet Liberals under Ley.
Once Baraby Joyce joins ON the push against Net Zero will accelerate and either Ley will join in or be rolled
by Lib right. Even though the science on climate change is wrong and there is no crisis, the energy policies pushing Net Zero are an independent entity that is screwing up the economy and needs to be eliminated ASAP whatever happens to the climate debate. That will sort itself out naturally, once the credibility of the UN energy policies is fully demolished. Globally resistance to NZ is rapidly increasing as the costs of compliance escalate and the public is starting to realize they have been duped by their governments and are paying the extravagant costs of NZ through their taxes. Conservatives need to hold their nerves on this one and they will be rewarded with increased votes as the public understands who is in the `moral right’ here, but we have to work together to achieve this or Labor and the teal and Greens won’t be held to account for the disgraceful climate/ energy mess we are in now, that will look very stupid when we look back on it in the near future.
10
Most of us know – in the most cursory conversation with some people, that they are truly oblivious. Most say “I don’t know” or “I don’t really care” further to “I don’t want to talk about it!” so it doesn’t really compute – so back to the footy. Maybe it’s just me, a 70 year old bush boy talking to these urbane Millennials – out of touch and not hip enough. All I can say is there are other things to consider like what is the price of your present prosperity O’ smug company.
140
As an Aussie I am looking forward to the closure of Eraring power station. That’s when the chickens begin coming home to roost. Only regular blackouts and unaffordable power bills will wake up the masses.
230
Once again, the left lie about everything and rewrite history constantly. Aided by media and celebs as window dressing, too many leftist politicians have seen climate change as an opportunity to exert control, and in its worst manifestations to wreck western democracies by strangling their energy systems and killing off manufacturing. Heads should roll, and the UN should be defunded, as Governor De Santis has suggested.
480
How are you feeling?
Better.
Better?
Better get a bucket coz I’m gonna be sick.
210
They use non-validated computer models to make fake predictions and when the actual temperature doesn’t fulfil the fake prediction they claim “success”.
Back in the day, one would never use a computer model unless it had been proven correct and it’s predictive powers validated by extensive testing.
The climate models they use now are not scientific but merely weapons of political propaganda developed by a community of what can only be called computer gamers, not scientists. (No offence intended to gamers.)
490
Non validated?
David, you are too kind!
70
Orwell said it first.
470
Meanwhile the idiot responsible for Australia’s anti-energy policies, Blackout Bowen, is visiting China and India excited like a child of the possibility that they will “invest” in Australia’s unreliable energy industry.
Well why wouldn’t they agree to an invitation to further destroy their economic competition by this most anti-productive of economy-destroying industrial technologies?
470
Wouldn’t you love to know how someone as demonstrably incompetent as Bowen has had the political career he has managed.
Who has what damning evidence on the ALP that sees Bowen not only re-elected without any internal opposition from the ALP, but continually given senior Cabinet positions, every single one of which he has been a complete disaster in.
70
“The Paris Agreement is beginning to work” has a distinct ring of Whitlam after he was sacked, bleating that “The Hayden Budget is beginning to work”.
The last squeal of a loser sinking into the morass.
380
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/16/orsted-vs-trump-an-offshore-battle-looms/
Not in Trump Land it isn’t working. The whole scam is facing headwinds
220
So we accepting global warming, but now we are arguing about the rate?
This is big change from the stance listed here on 2016, when this site championed global cooling.
252
No one here, except you and your comrades, is accepting any part of the Official Narrative.
We only do science here, not political propaganda.
And we don’t subscribe to the Aristotlean model of a never-changing, invariant earth either. We know that the climate constantly changes all by itself as we know from episodes of natural global warning such as the Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods when Civilisation thrived, and the destructive cool periods like the Little Ice Age.
QUESTION: WHY is your beloved China exempt from CO2 emissions limits and is building two coal power stations per week when you tell us the cheapest and most reliable electricity comes from wind and solar? And China is already an advanced economic, space, AI, military, nuclear weapons and nuclear electricity superpower anyway?
540
It is the purview of the more circumspect and wiser people who occupy this site that can see beyond mind- numbing propaganda emanating from our media and politicians. Others take the “Zu Befehl” line of authoritarian sources.
140
Excellent summary.
60
Sure, climate changes, the rate is the interesting part. And nobody with half a brain thinks change go on in a straight line in a narrative preferred direction to some imaginary drama date
230
I accept Climate Change. The Earth’s climate has always been changing.
End of story.
No models required as the evidence is in the rocks and the ice cores and the tree rings.
300
Curiously I was just trying to measure that. Not helped by various databases having different figures.
For what it is worth
1960 to 1965 3.14 CO2 causes a temp. rise of minus 0.16
1965 to 1970 5.4 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.18
1970 to 1975 6.52 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.18
1975 to 1980 7.2 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.29
1980 to 1985 7.83 CO2 causes a temp. rise of minus 0.27
1985 to 1990 8.16 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.53
1990 to 1995 6.52 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.16
1995 to 2000 9.02 CO2 causes a temp. rise of minus 0.19
2000 to 2005 9.68 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.56
2005 to 2010 10.25 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.04
2010 to 2015 10.89 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.05 (or 0.14)
2015 to 2020 13.17 CO2 causes a temp. rise of 0.33 (or 0.42)
Or CO2 96.38 rise caused? a temp. rise 1.67 or 1.77C
120
CO2 in 1960 317ppm.
CO2 now 430ppm.
So it’s gone from 3.17 molecules in 10,000 to 4.30 molecules in 10,000.
But only a small proportion those molecules are of anthropogenic origin.
Even if the entire increase since 1960 was of anthropogenic origin it would still only be 1.13 molecules in 10,000.
And yet this tiny increase, no matter what the origin, is claimed to cause a global climate catastrophe? An economic catastrophe due to an inappropriate response, yes, nothing more.
What a magical gas.
410
Graeme,
For Australia, between 1910 and 2024, the temperature was measured from start to finish at 47 weather stations. Their “warming” was 0.9 to 1.0 degrees C on average.
All other estimates are WRONG because they use subjective assumptions like adjusted ACORN-SAT temperatures or data from stations that do not cover those 115 years, like a lot of BOM stations starting in 1950. The official figure is a convicted 0.51C. Paper almost ready. Evidence inarguable. Geoff S
50
Geoff, Does that include the decided step up in the data figures around 1998 when the move to digital temperature apparatus was introduced?
00
Also, there is a big difference between natural climate change and anthropogenic assisted climate change.
Climate changed on its own back when we were a powerless species.
110
There is no denying that its been warmer, but I argue its not possible to reach 4 degrees above preindustrial levels.
Championed global cooling, yes we put too much faith in the effect of solar behaviour. Over long timespans like the Maunder Minimum its easy to see, but in the interim oceanic oscillations are the main drivers.
26
It’s hard to follow the ever-changing logic.
RCP8.5 is “Business as Usual”, if nobody made any attempt to reduce emissions. That of course is happening, so we are on a slower trajectory, probably more RCP4.5 rather than RCP2.5.
RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) have been largely superseded by SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) which provide more context on how we get there.
Unfortunately, global average concentration of CO2 increased by 3.5 ppm in 2024, the largest increase since modern measurements started in 1957. https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/carbon-dioxide-levels-increase-record-amount-new-highs-2024
We’re not really on the right track.
131
CO2 does not cause global warming, natural variables are the driving force.
150
RCP8.5 was never “business as usual”. That title was promoted by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg in November 2012, when Bloomberg gathered a bunch of folks at his ranch to discuss how to make climate change feel real for people. The result was the Risky Business” report in 2014 that promoted RCP8.5 as the most likely outcome if no action was taken.
Note that this was NOT the IPCC promoting its most extreme model as most likely – it was a bunch of climate activists and business folks. In fact, the IPCC folks who created the models said that “RCP8.5 cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario…”.
It is unfortunate that RCP8.5 has been incorrectly referenced as the “business as usual” case in over 6700 academic papers, when that was never IPCC’s intention.
100
Zeke Hausfather has a good summary here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario/
18
Can you see the problem with this? They are putting the cart before the horse.
‘These produce emissions scenarios that are then used by scientists to run complex climate models that simulate how the climate might change in the future. As modern climate models take an enormous amount of computing power to run, the number of future emission scenarios that can be used tends to be fairly limited.’
In an ideal world they would have analysed the climate first, paleo climate history put through AI, then we can discuss emissions scenarios.
70
And a year after he said that Simon, he said this: (in my link in the references)
— https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
130
Well said Jo! The IPCC made a huge stuff-up when, in AR5, they showed RCP8.5 5 as the Baseline. And this was further exploited by the Risky Business report. But in AR6, the back-pedalling began, when they realised that the global temperature change wasn’t going to be anywhere near RCP8.5. So the IPCC scientists started to say in AR6 that RCP8.5 was NOT representative of business-as-usual. They stated in WG1 that the RCP8.5 scenario had a “ low likelihood”, but naturally this statement wasn’t highlighted in the SPM.
Judith Curry covered this mess in November 2022, Roger Pielke Jr in October 2023, and again in April 2024.
60
It certainly was their intention, but they just couldn’t prove it!
So, they had to promote it as a possibility and the activists elsewhere took the initiative
and made it their thing to further scare governments into even more demented anti carbon policies.
The UN is complicit in this process through their Summary Reports that are literally propaganda for the environmental nutters trying to shut down the fossil fuel lobby- the enemy of the neo marxist eco activists that want a global totalitarian government run by the socialist UN. However, Trump and other responsible leaders won’t have a bar of it, so on climate the UN is stymied and is as ineffective as all its other globalist policies, particularly on peace!
20
Your emissions are not my emissions. My take on emissions is toxic stuff that destroys the environment.
CO2 is not such an emission. It is the molecule of life. End of story.
Now go away and be a pest on another blog.
In the words of Dr Spooner, you are a shining wit.
140
Its easy Simon. Just do what Mother Nature does and adapt.
Trouble is, you can’t as you are a Dinosaur.
61
No one is arguing about anything because the facts are in:
1 Man made global boiling is complete garbage with NO scientific evidence to support it
2 Any slight warming which has occurred has nothing to do with human emissions of CO2
3 The climate today is benign
4 Climate change in the past featured temperature increases and decreases up to 15C in less than 50 years
5 The most pro life climate on the planet was during the Eocene Optimum ~ 55 million BYA at which time the GAT was 18C warmer than today and the Nth and Sth ice caps did not exist
30
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/15/taking-action-to-defend-america-from-the-uns-first-global-carbon-tax-the-international-maritime-organizations-imo-net-zero-framework-nzf/
I’m anticipating that Federal Labor is already ready to implement it to curry favour with UN/Globalists
170
Yes.
Exactly as intended.
The purpose (along with other Leftist policies) is the destruction of Western economies and societies to be replaced with socialist dystopiae.
Australia’s globalist socialist Government, “led” by an actual communist as documented in Trevor Loudon’s book, is fully, fanatically compliant.
It’s difficult to imagine a country more committed to economic destruction via ruinable energy than Australia is.
TRUMP is one of the only Western leaders resisting the destruction of his country by ruinables or any other devious Leftist means.
410
So, for the last 30 years, if Australia hadn’t signed any of the UN climate agreements, not introduced any renewable energy infrastructure, not closed down coal mines, not wrecked our remaining manufacturing/ processing industries, not introduced the Safeguard mechanism or any of the other crazy climate initiatives- what temperature would it be this morning? Well , where I am it’s 12°C right now. So I would wager it would still be 12°C. Plus we would have the same amounts of floods, bushfires and cyclones. But what would the temperature be in 70 years time , ask all the climate alarmists. Who the hell would know because we can’t predict the future.
470
Seems to be a lot like Viet Nam and sex.
If only somebody could have had the presence of mind to declare victory and withdraw.
170
I don’t think the typical politician, and I have met quite a few including PMs, is actually smart enough to dream up these devious plans whose objective is economic destruction.
They are told what to think and do by some very evil people embedded in the upper echelons of the public “service” or as TRUMP would call them, the Deep State.
410
Name and shame them, DM.
We are past the time to hint.
Geoff S
20
I only have to again show CO2 levels over the last 50 years (and ignore the typical commentary)
It’s not just the Paris agreement. There is no evidence of any human activity, volcanoes, bushfires, 2020 world lockdown, nothing that indicates the planet is aware of our existence.
The graph is a dead straight line at 0.4% growth pa. Even if exponentially increasing CO2 from fossil fuels has reached 1% pa!
Because CO2 is all in the ocean, 98% of it. And if only 10% of it came out, atmospheric CO2 would increase 500%. Oceans which received 72% of all incident solar heating and with 1600x the heat storage of thin air determine all our climates, our rain, supply all our water and our CO2. It’s not just that humans are insignificant, all life on earth came from the oceans in the first place. And phytoplankton established all the O2 we breathe. Trees, plants and humans are a recent phenomenon. And Al Gore who dreamed up the whole scam. And the UN is now looking for $42Billion a year for their bunker oil tax when they are not a government and have done nothing for world peace. Just 80,000 grifters.
430
The oceans control CO2. Humans are irrelevant. Even volcanoes, bushfires, China.
Oceans cover 72% of the surface to a depth of 3.5km and totally control the other 28%. (plus 2% for the gigantic 3.5km high ice block which is Antarctica, the size of South America)
Despite our egomania, our Gods and our satellites, there is little to see of humanity from space. Except lights at night and slight discoloration and the odd very straight canal.
And if we vanished, nature would reclaim the place quickly.
The dinosaurs lasted 150 million years. We have not yet survived one million.
Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley
“I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Man made Global Warming is nonsense, a fantasy of omnipotence.
A phantom conjured by innumerate Presidential candidate Al Gore in 1988.
“A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Shakespeare’s Macbeth)
280
In some ways this climate hoax is going the same way as the Montreal Protocol in relation to ozone layer depletion. They have made some changes, taken some actions, but the numbers or amount of refrigerant gases in the atmosphere haven’t really changed. However, when none of their catastrophic claims come to fruition, they claim it was all down to their actions.
So it will be in 2050, when the climate will still be doing its thing, they will claim it was all down to them as we haven’t all perished despite the fact that none of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will have changed to any great degree.
Grifters have to grift, and we shouldn’t hesitate to point out their lies, and if some of our politicians found an ounce of courage, they could do the same.
380
It was the same gent, Maurice Strong, that was involved in the Montreal Protocol, as well as setting up the forerunner of the IPCC, together with Bert Bolin.
70
And there was the centre stage invention of the 1989s cancer from man-made chemicals scare. Edith Efron covers it in exquisite detail of 580 paperback pages in “The Apocalyptics”. Read it to reveal the modus operandi of the bureaucrat scare, aka The End Is Nigh. Geoff S
20
‘Emissions Impossible’ staring ‘Blackout No Map Bowen’. Coming soon to a theatre near you.
150
As long as they have their own generator.
100
‘Big hat, no map’.
30
Thanks again Jo for trying to help us think about the liars and con merchants and their evil games.
The data proves the OECD has wasted trillions of $ and all for a zero return. Why can’t they just look up the data and at least try to think and then wake up?
This only takes a few minutes, so what’s their problem?
200
“We must have reached the saturation level that physicist Will Happer predicted, where additional CO₂ would have little effect.” Believe the science Nick, it’s not the Paris Agreement boondoggles.
110
The looks on the faces of the Blobsters will be priceless when they are trying to justify the inevitable flip-flop. Especially Blob Bowen; mind you he will have rehearsed it in advance since even he surely knows Climate Doom and Net Zero are scams.
140
‘Blackout No Map Bowen’ will just blame his Advisers. And then collect a Taxpayer funded lifetime pension when he is eventually booted out. What a Scam.
120
My reply to a supposedly duplicated post –
I wasn’t allowed to reply to the post in the ‘dupicated’ post to post number 11.
“Only because this site gets confused when I use a VPN and it tells me I have posted twice when I haven’t. Then, I manage to post again with a near duplicate after I have added a few more words. Very strange but there you are.”
40
So why are global sea levels much lower today than during our Holocene optimum and 6 to 9 metres lower than the previous Eemian interglacial?
See their ABC and their Wikipedia.
Why was the previous Eemian IG 8 c WARMER than our Holocene in 2025?
See the co2 Coalition Scientist’s facts section and a peer reviewed study.
70
‘Why was the previous Eemian IG 8 c WARMER than our Holocene in 2025?’
The Younger Dryas interrupted the early rise in temperature, the Holocene never reached its full potential.
21
‘ … 6 to 9 metres lower than the previous Eemian interglacial?’
Better to leave out the Eemian and focus on the Holocene Climate Max to gauge sea level. The GBR should give us a starting point.
21
Again why do so few people understand that co2 warming effect decreases logarithmically as the co2 concentration increases?
Here’s the quote from the co2 Coalition……
“Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply”.
190
There has been an alarming drop in co2 levels over the last 140 million years.
And co2 levels dropped to 180 ppm during the last full glaciation and just above 150 ppm and the death of plant life on the Earth.
Here’s the co2 Coalition Scientist’s quote……
“For the last 140 million years, CO2 levels fell precipitously & steadily to within about 30 ppm of the 150 ppm “line of death” below which plants can’t survive. Both the relatively short-term data from ice cores and much longer-term data going back 140 million years (Berner 2001) show an alarming downward trend toward CO2 starvation. The release of carbon dioxide by the use of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to increase concentrations of this beneficial molecule, and perhaps avert an actual CO2-related climate apocalypse”.
140
I cannot agree with Prof Will Happer even if I applaud the CO2 coalition’s work. He has decided to accept man made CO2 and go on to prove it is overall a very good thing. What he said to me is that it was a personal view. But that is conceding fault where there is none, that CO2 change is man made. C14 shows absolutely that there is only 2.0% fossil fuel CO2 in the air anyway. And of course his major story is that the CO2 effect is saturated anyway, so even doubling CO2 from here would only reduce emissivity by 1% which corresponds to +1.7C.
Overall I cannot believe that people are so scared of a few degrees. In winter anywhere it would be most welcome. Tropical areas are buffered by a lot of water. There are only the deserts of the Middle East but then you have Dubai, an impossible city in an area with no vegetation, no water, no food and five million rich people living in a totally airconditioned city without a problem. And they ran out of oil years ago. They now have nuclear power, something Australia apparently cannot afford for Melbourne or Sydney. What is wrong with Australian politicians in far richer Australia where we are not allowed use our own coal?
222
I wonder how many people could tell the temperature within two degrees? I don’t mean guess based on the weather report. Or look at the setting on the air-conditioner. And what difference does it make to anything?
We have been told this is a disaster. How? You can change your climate by driving 200km or up a hill. But for most it would just mean shorter winters. I doubt more than 1% of the world’s care about skiing.
141
The Blob must be feeling the pressure, if they still try to sound logical. They have completed the long march through the institutions, and were starting to think they had won. This was supposed to be the phase when they could simply lie with impunity. Thanks, Jo, for standing up to them so eloquently. Only you and a few others (one of whom got a bullet through the ear for their efforts) stand between us and oblivion.
70
The long march through the institutions, Rudi Dutschke’s goal.
You’re just a cog in the wheel of CON-troll, Oceana style.
40
This is what they did with the Ozone layer … pretend somehow they fixed it.
Then stop talking about it.
50
A recent military Coup in Madagascar….reportedly due to water shortages and power outage. The President has fled.
The current Two Year Solar-induced Regional Orbital Dry Cycle, began from 50 degrees East Longitude (East of Madagascar,) in early August 2024 – and the ‘vanguard’ has been moving East to West at 15 degrees of Longitude per 30 Day/Night Interval Month. It will affect Australia from early January, to June 2026.
The recent deaths in a flash flooding event in Southern Texas USA, of occupants at a riverside Christian Retreat, was indirectly caused by the passage of this Dry Cycle Vanguard, which caused accompanying increase in temperature and evaporation in the Gulf of Mexico to the SouthWest of the Texas Location.
It is time for Science (and Education,)to acknowledge the Earth/Solar Orbital Calendar…
The Earth always orbits through 360 degrees of Solar Longitude per Earth/Solar Year.
There are always 360 Day/Night Intervals per Earth/Solar Orbital Year.
This equates to 12 X 30 Day/Night Interval Months.
There are no 7 Day/Night Interval ‘Weeks’, or ‘leap years’.
If the Earth Orbit moves toward (or away from) the Sun, it is the ‘second’ of time, that decreases or increases.
10
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/graphics/png/mlo_record.png
The Mauna Loa observatory.
00
Because the warming thats been measured is less than had been forecast there was always going to be a point when the alarmists would claim that this was due to action taken on climate change and that to get an even better result we need to decarbonise quicker. This conclusion is clearly false and it is clear in 2 or 3 years of trying they have never been able to establish that increased CO2 levels actually lead to a warming climate that is greater than would be if one was to observe natural cycles.It has in fact been established that deaths from climate events have fallen by 97% suggesting that whether the temperature is indeed getting hotter is actually irrelevant because mans ability to adapt has met that its not and never will become a danger that man cannot cope with.
00