Kick U.S. out of Bonn? / Straight facts in Dusseldorf

By |2017-11-09T08:44:21+00:00November 9th, 2017|Climate, Conferences|24 Comments

A coalition of left-wing NGOs is circulating a petition at the UN climate talks in Bonn demanding the UN kick the United States delegation out of the conference!

The UN was founded under the principle that all nations would receive a seat at its table, free to participate, regardless of who they are.

For this reason, you’ll often see communist dictatorships sitting alongside kingdoms and democratically elected republics at these UN meetings.

Yet the election of President Trump went beyond the pale?

David Wojick reports at “Spearheading the petition drive is the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA). According to their website, they are the largest Civil Society platform in climate change and sustainable development, with a membership of more than 1000 organizations and networks.”

The United States is a full member of the UN process, and for the next few years at least, the Paris climate agreement as well.

The rule of law doesn’t matter to left-wing NGOs, but whom exactly do they think pays for this shindig?

Fun facts: The U.S. pays for 22% of the UN budget and 20% of the UN climate process.  After Africa gets done throwing us out, are they ready to pick up the tab?

In a more constructive vein, CFACT is partnering with EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy, to co-sponsor a conference which opens today in Dusseldorf, Germany. The conference will feature CFACT’s Marc Morano, Craig Rucker and many other prominent science and policy experts including Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Francois Gervais, Horst Lüdecke, Lord Christopher Monckton and many more.

CFACT is particularly grateful for the hard work and talent of longtime friends Dr. Holger Thuss, Wolfgang Mueller and Michael Limburg of EIKE who put together this important conference.

I’m writing from the conference, which opened minutes ago, where CFACT’s Marc Morano is speaking right now.   He’s taking the crowd through the history of the climate scare, from A to Z, and declared President Trump exiting the Paris agreement to be a cause for celebration.

An interesting element of this year’s UN conference is that it is chaired by the island nation of Fiji, though hosted by Germany.  The conceit is that island nations are vanishing.  One fascinating topic in our conference in Dusseldorf will be a report in just a few hours by Dr. Nils Axel Morner, a world renowned expert on sea level, who has just returned with a report from Fiji.  We’re told that aside from some local erosion, he found no meaningful sea level rise.  This would be consistent with the sea level data we’ve frequently reported.

The facts remain overwhelmingly inconvenient for the global warming narrative.

We’ll take rational exposition of the facts with EIKE over hysterical efforts by left-wing NGOs to censor the facts any time.


  1. BernardP November 9, 2017 at 11:07 AM

    Unfortunately, Mr. Morano is talking to members of the climate realists community, who are being kept in their own isolated bubble by politicians and most of the media.

    We can expect the barrage of catastrophic propaganda emanating from the Bonn conference to get massive media play.

    Climate realists think they are winning, but the global warming scare juggernaut is going on full bore. New measures to fight climate change are still being adopted worldwide by national, regional and local jurisdictions as if the whole thing was as true as the Law of gravity.

  2. Klaus Berger November 10, 2017 at 1:17 AM

    Live video from the event?? Where is it??

  3. MichaelR November 10, 2017 at 4:27 AM

    It’s not surprising that the rest of the attendees at Bonn want the US left out of the process. The Paris Accord would have been much stricter and more binding but for the protestations of the US government (under Obama, because he knew that US politicians would kick up a stink if it had anything binding).
    Then, after watering down the agreement for the benefit of the US, Trump flounced out of the agreement anyway.
    That is a pretty shitty move.
    The rest of the world therefore justifiably sees the US as a bad actor and would rather that it just got out of the room so that the rest of the world could get on with saving the planet, without the US in there running interference.
    The rest of the world sees the US as an ignorant corrupt and offensive actor right now. They will act accordingly. I would not be surprised to see carbon tariffs discussed to tax imports from countries like the US that are not engaged with the process or actively reducing emissions.

    • pkwz November 12, 2017 at 2:45 AM

      The rest of the world “saving the planet”??!!! How? By increasing their CO2 emissions? By reducing their emissions more than America?

      Good grief, do you really believe any of the nonsense you write? In comparison to evil Trump America, how much has Japan, Canada, UK, Germany or any other nation reduced their carbon emissions?

      IT’S A SCAM!!!!

      • MichaelR November 12, 2017 at 3:12 AM

        I am not sure what your point is but if it’s about the honesty of other countries intent to reduce emmissions
        UK down by 36% since 1990
        Germany down ~20% since 1990,_excluding_LULUCF),_1990_-_2015_(million_tonnes_of_CO2_equivalents)_updated.png
        It’s true the Japan has not cut emmissions as planned but some part of that was due to the Fukushima disaster where a number of nuclear plants were abruptly taken offline.
        Canada had a climate sceptic government for many years and was producing some of the dirtiest oil in the world, so it’s emmissions rose throughout the 90s and stayed constant through the 2000s, but they are falling now. It does have lots of work to do.
        But that is the point of the Accord. These governments have committed to concrete reduction targets. They would have been binding commitments had the US not been part of the process.

        Trump has only been in power 10 months. Even before then, the GOP have consistently blocked any regulation of CO2 emmissions. Trump is trying to revive the coal industry, the dirtiest form of power generation. Pruitt at the EPA is trying to reverse and action on CO2 control, even censoring the EPAs own scientists from talking at an event about climate change effects in part of the US. So clearly the direction of travel within the administration is to deny climate change is a man made phenomenon (even Pruitt has had to back off saying it’s not happening) and ignore any concerns about emmissions reductions.

        The purpose of the Paris Accord is to limit emmissions, help poor countries that will be adversely affected by climate change to adapt, and to help all poor countries with new technologies to reduce their own emissions growth. The US has signalled that it does not share these goals.

        • pkwz November 12, 2017 at 6:11 PM

          If the Paris Accord is to limit emissions, then how come India, China and the rest of the developing world get to spew out virtually unlimited amounts of CO2 from coal fired power plants? What turnip truck did you fall off of?

          Paris doesn’t do squat–its only purpose is to fleece the USA and industrialized countries and give massive amounts amount of money to poor backward countries. All the while letting China, India and the other developing Asian countries build their economies using FOSSIL FUELS!!!!!!

          It’s okay. There’s no such thing as AGW.

          • MichaelR November 13, 2017 at 2:16 AM

            You still keep stating that there is no specific such thing as AGW but in the other thread you demonstrated that you don’t d not even understand the mechanism by which CO2 warms the atmosphere so clearly you are not (yet) bringing any meaningful discussion on that point.

            Regarding who emits what under the Paris accord there are reasons why the developed countries are paying most. First, we are richest, second we have much higher carbon emissions per capita and third, we put the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place.

            Despite that, China’s emissions have already peaked and are falling.

            India has very ambitious projects underway to build huge solar plants right now but it is a very poor country with a GDP per capita 3% that of the US, just $1700 per year, so it’s hardly unreasonable that they get help to transition away from coal fired power. Also it’s carbon emissions are 1.7 tonnes per capita vs 16.7 tonnes in the US. So yes, the plan is to limit the growth in the emissions in the short term and have emmissions falling ASAP but suggesting that their emissions could be expected to fall from the very low levels right now, especially with no help transition to low emissions technologies is clearly fantasy.

            The US and the rest of rich world on the other hand have very high emissions per capita and have been emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 per year for decades. So it is fair that we make the most effort and pay the highest price to solve the problem.

            • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 2:55 AM

              Using “per capita” statistics is just lying with statistics since the only number that counts is the AMOUNT of CO2 put into the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn’t work by per capita statistics.

              And that’s BS that China’s emissions have peaked–it’s propaganda from the Communist Party. They’re getting rich selling gullible countries cheap solar panels while they build fossil fuel power plants.

              The fact that India is poor by any measure is irrelevant if they are one of the major polluters on the planet. They’re POOR and have no way to produce expensive “renewable” electricity. You can’t power aluminum smelters with solar panels.

              But this is all irrelevant because Trump has pulled the plugged on all of this insanity.

              • MichaelR November 13, 2017 at 3:20 AM

                It is ludicrous to not use per capita emmissions figures as a measure of contribution. It’s hardly unreasonable that a country with 4 times the population is going to have a higher emmissions budget.
                As it is India’s ABSOLUTE emmissions are a THIRD of the US. So as an American to call it a major polluter, is the height of hypocrisy, by US standards, in absolute and per capita measures, it’s a minnow.

                Yes, India is poor, so it’s reasonable to assist them with their energy transition to bridge the gap between the short term cost of dirty coal vs renewables in the short term. As renewables costs fall that assistance will cease to be necessary.

                And China has cut its build out of coal fired stations by 2/3 in one year (reducing it by 110GW, as of March this year) and plans to slow it further. That is a huge turnaround that belies your assertion that they are just doing business as usual.
                It is also deploying massive amounts of solar itself. It is cumulatively adding about 40% to its solar generating capacity every year and was at 77GW at the end of 2016. It has grown its installed base by 10x in 5 years.

                So every assertion you make is false or baseless in evidence. Everything you say is ignorant of the facts and heavily biased to support the conclusion that you want to be true but cannot demonstrate to be true.

                • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM

                  You lie:
                  If solar was so cheap and economical, nobody would be building new coal fired power plants.

                  You green monsters are willing to let poor people in poor countries live in poverty to satisfy your idiotic crusades against progress.

                  • MichaelR November 13, 2017 at 2:05 PM

                    Dammit pkwz you can’t have it both ways! You are the one saying that rich countries should not help poor countries clean up their energy supplies and deal with the consequences of climate change.
                    “We owe nothing to “poor” countries. Or, tell you what, when all of the left liberal celebrities start donating all of their wealth to poor countries like India, then we can have this discussion.”

                    I was the one saying we SHOULD give money to poor countries! You claimed that giving money to poor countries was part of a socialist world order or something.

            • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 2:59 AM

              BTW, the world isn’t “fair”. Never has been and it never will be. That things aren’t “fair” isn’t relevant to this discussion. Americans have done more for poor countries than any country in the history of humanity. So knock off the SJW guilt trip crap.

              We owe nothing to “poor” countries. Or, tell you what, when all of the left liberal celebrities start donating all of their wealth to poor countries like India, then we can have this discussion.

              The fact is that the elite in these poor countries live like wealthy Americans while their own people literally starve. It’s a racket just like all scams are.

              • MichaelR November 13, 2017 at 4:22 AM

                You seem unable to stick to one subject. You make an assertion. I refute it with evidence. You don’t have anything to come back with so you just make a new unrelated assertion.
                Next you will be telling me “what about the Hillary emails?”
                So I will have assume that you have no arguments to counter my rebuttals of your last set of assertions and move onto your new set o& weak excuses

                It’s not about what we “owe” poor countries. It’s about what is ethically right and what we need to do to reduce CO2 emissions at a global scale. To say that the world is not fair and shrug your shoulders is the height of irresponsibility. How do you know what left liberal celebrities are or aren’t giving? The US as a whole has creditably high levels of charitable giving. Certainly as a very predominantly Christian country, a religion that has charity and justice as central tenets, it’s suprising that you seem so happy to shrug of both these principles.

                And you can hardly criticise India for its inequality when the US has such huge income and wealth inequality itself. Indeed India has much less inequality than the US with a GINI coefficient of 35 vs 45 in the US

                So again, your assertions are refuted by the facts.

                And if it’s a scam, how come every single country in the world, rich and poor is signed up to the Paris Accord? Are you honestly saying that the US is the only country smart enough to realise it’s a scam, that the other 6.8 billion people on Earth are wrong? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you have provided NONE AT ALL.

                • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 2:02 PM

                  The poorest family (not a homeless drug abuser or psychiatric case) living in any American city lives better than the vast majority of ordinary people in poor developing nations. In America even a poor person has electricity, water, indoor plumbing (ie a sewage system) and a floor that’s not made of dirt.

                  So who cares that Bill Gates has 2,000,000,000,000,000 times more wealth than the poor people of Compton, CA. Billions in the world would give their right arm to live in Compton.

                  • MichaelR November 13, 2017 at 2:13 PM

                    Are you sure you want to use Bill Gates as your example. He gave $28 Billion to the BMGF…

                    BTW, the $3 billion that the US pledged for the Paris Accord comes to 44c in every $1000 of tax revenue in the US, once. And this is “massive” according to your earlier comment…

                    And the US is paying less than 30% of the total. The rest of the world is paying over 70%. And many countries are paying much more per capita. So if the US is getting scammed, then the Swedes, Swiss, Brits, Norwegians, Japanese, etc, etc, must be really dumb huh?

                    • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 2:45 PM

                      Did I tell you I sat next to Algore on the red eye from Chicago to LAX on UAL in the back of a 757 last week? And I saw Bill Gates in the middle seat two rows up.

                      They are trying to save the planet.

                    • MichaelR November 13, 2017 at 2:53 PM

                      Tu quoque fallacy, again.
                      Your argument is “some people are hypocrites therefore 1000s of scientists are wrong”.
                      Want to try again?

                      Or how about you stay on the point for 2 seconds and rebut my explanation of how CO2 warms the atmosphere?

                    • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 5:11 PM

                      Human activity is not causing global warming.

                    • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 5:11 PM

                      You seemed to be confused about private individual/business wealth and the money of governments. Any individual or business can give (or not give) any amount of money to poor people or countries, that is their right.

                      Our government does NOT have the right to give money away to anybody, country or cause without the consent of the people. It’s NOT the governments money, it belongs to the taxpayers.

                      Of course the socialists and communists don’t think this way.

                      I don’t want the U.S. Federal Govt giving away ONE penny to anything related to the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord was never ratified by the Senate. The USA never agreed to the Paris Accord, okay?

                • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM

                  Paris would have costs America BILLIONS. And all those poor countries would have received those billions. That’s why countries signed up for Paris. Simple.

                  You just proved that Paris is a scam.

            • pkwz November 13, 2017 at 2:05 PM

              Show me ONE adverse weather event that occurred in the USA that was the result of AGW. It ain’t happening. It’s built on models that mean nothing.

Comments are closed.