Warning: Don't invite Anthony Watts to your parties. He has a habit of leaving a lot of vomit on the floor. Or Eric Worrall, who has been nothing but wrong.
I predict Worrall's string of failures, shown below, won't change his inept and stubborn mind one bit.
"Everyone knows the Paris agreement was dead on arrival."
- Eric Worrall, WUWT 5/28/16
"It seems likely Lord Deben’s concerns about the Paris Climate Treaty are shared by other prominent green politicians."
- Eric Worrall, WUWT 3/9/16
"If the Paris Climate Agreement was already a joke, the Chinese electricity export plan is surely the punchline."
- Eric Worrall, WUWT 4/17/16
"Aussie academic David Holmes, of the University of Melbourne, suggests that Politicians are using the Paris Agreement to defuse climate concerns, by claiming Paris “solved” the climate crisis – and he’s not happy about it."
- Eric Worrall, WUWT 5/23/16
"The initial explosion of green Euphoria at the announcement of the COP21 climate agreement, is rapidly giving way to dismay, as various environmentalists and other expectant parties realise how feeble their climate “victory” really is."
- Eric Worrall, WUWT 12/15/15
"It’s been a few weeks since the U.N.’s Paris Climate Conference (COP21) ended. Mainstream media from around the globe praised the impotent agreement, as though anyone expects political promises to be kept. The COP21 agreement reminded me of the proverb A promise is a comfort for a fool."
- Bob Tisdale, WUWT 12/30/15
PS: Doesn't Anthony Watts ever contribute to his own blog anymore? Then what are his sponsors paying for?
DeSmogblog has more.
I wonder what Worrall meant by "dead on arrival". Yes, the agreement was ratified, so it's alive in that sense. OTOH it has no mandatory reductions in emissions, and many people think it won't have any significant effect, so it's arguably "dead" in that sense. The other quotes presented in this post suggest to me that Worrall was using "dead" in the latter sense.
ReplyDeleteCheers
Worrall was wrong -- the Paris Agreement was not "dead on arrival" -- it has been put into effect.
ReplyDeleteDick wrote:
"OTOH it has no mandatory reductions in emissions"
And how exactly would such mandatory restrictions happen, given the structure of the world's nations today??
David in Cal, have you given up on what you claim Trump didn't say, via the Huff Post article a post or two ago?
ReplyDeleteWhich he obviously did say, as I showed.
Or are you going to try to sneak underneath that and pretend it didn't happen?
David -- I appended a response to your post about Huffington Post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the world's nations are not ready for mandatory reductions in emissions. In fact, I am pessimistic that an effective agreement will ever happen. I believe the situation is what economists call the "Tragedy of the Commons". For a particular country to severely curtail its use of fossil fuels would be a big sacrifice. It would reduce that country's wealth. But, the benefit to that particular country would be negligible. Perhaps that's why Americans rank climate change as a low-priority concern, According to a Gallup Poll.
Our debate here is semantics -- what Worral meant the metaphor "Dead on Arrival" -- as described above. I agree with you that the Paris agreement was put into effect, and I think you agree with me that the Paris Agreement will not have a major effect on global warming.