COP21 – Doing the climate can-can in Paris.

It’s that time of year again. The annual climate conference is nearly upon us. As is by now customary, I’ll try and write something about it from an aspect that hasn’t been well covered by other commentators in the skeptic blogosphere; the dreaded new angle if you wish. As ever, that’s a tough ask. Over the years and in order to give you some fresh insight into the then current shenanigans, the flavour of my articles have evolved and dare I say it, closely tracked the Zeitgeist of the event.

Looking back over the previous five years, I went from serious political analysis, to even deeper political analysis, then to outright comedy as the event itself descended into vaudeville via some pretty good fan dancing burlesque concealing nothing much of note, and then back to a parable about greed and most recently and most probably out of sheer boredom with the whole damn subject, to the shortest blog piece I’ll ever write.

I’ll give you a couple of predictions about COP21 that I already know will come to pass.

The first is it’ll be hailed as a great success.

Okay, I’ll admit that’s a cheap one. One way or another, it always is, no matter how much of a bloody disaster it’s been. All the heavily invested organs of the mainstream media cannot do otherwise. They have a certain type of audience sector they’ve managed to dangle on the climate high anxiety leash since well before the Copenhagen disaster of 2009, and as they didn’t disabuse them at the time of how forlorn any prospect of deindustrialising the world was, why should they start now?

We’re talking dumb brand loyalty here, and managing some sincerely held but massively unrealistic expectations.

Essentially, they know when they’ve got a long-term fashion victim by the short and curlies of their sense of self-righteous and permanently offended sensitivity, and that’s a nice cushy gig you don’t disturb with a lot of grubby Realpolitik analysis. The poor little darlings wouldn’t know what to make of it anyway.

Circulation is important, especially if you’re someone like the Guardian hanging over the precipice of a £25 million annual running deficit by your fingernails and being bankrolled by nothing more than moneyed friends of the big green machine. To hell with any reality check about saving the frigging Earth, my comfy reporting job is actually quite important to me, so thank you very much but no thank you.

A month or so after the whole circus has departed Paris and it becomes obvious to even an attention deficit, fifth generation, knuckle dragging, Ozark mountain hillbilly inbred that every significant target was missed, you start to run the if only they’d have listened to us sort of pieces.

You go full on lament, beat your breast, pull out some hair, rend some slightly dated designer garments you’re not too particularly bothered about nowadays and yet again start the whine about the preventable death of the planet. They’ll all weep bitter but righteous tears of frustration in the comments under your piece, a few skeptics will attempt to crow, get banned as usual, Ford will be in his flivver and all again will be well with the world.

With that bitter coda, the annual climate catharsis in the media will be complete.

That’s your cue to fuck off down to the pub with your mates from the office and get totally bladdered at another job well done. Roll on next year, and the next absolutely last last last and a bit more last last and very very definitely the last (and I mean it most most sincerely this time around folks) last best chance to save the planet and the same ole same ole bollocks that’s been running quite successfully for years. Hey, don’t you start getting all sneery at me, it’s a bloody living.

The second prediction is that nothing of any real consequence will be agreed.

Sure, agreements will be made, papers will be signed, people will look suitably serious for the media photo shoot, but if you can actually be bothered to burrow into exactly what everyone is signing up to, and that won’t be much, there won’t be a single binding clause in the whole damn mountain of paperwork.

It’ll all be best effort, contingent, subject to current commitments and dependent on exigent developments. Yap, yap, yap. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Badda bing, badda boom, but as Sam Goldwyn observed, while a verbal contract may only be worth the paper it’s written on, any agreement they sign up to in Paris will be worth considerably less.

That second prediction didn’t exactly need a crystal ball, since most observers and all but the most climatically deluded attendees expect little of any consequence to be agreed in Paris. After all, the pattern over the last six years of conferences has been for less and less common ground to be found between the participants and more and more finger jabbing and infighting going on behind the scenes.

However, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future as Neils Bohr observed, and we’ve all seen the favourite horse go arse over tit in sight of the finishing line. Fortunately, there’s a way of getting a measure of confidence in the end result, or non-result to be more precise, of the Paris talks.

When you get approximately 140 countries meeting up over two weeks to thrash out a global policy about any issue, then realistically you know it isn’t going to happen unless the viable set of options open for discussion have been winnowed down and agreed well beforehand. All that pre-Paris discussion has been happening in a post-war fifteen minutes of fame place called Bonn, since would you believe it as far back as August of this year. The point of the Bonn talks was to produce a list of realistic options, with anything else excluded from the Paris talks.

Instead of holding my breath and keeping a beady eye on events in Paris as they unfold, I’ve been watching the input decisions to the big climate clambake coming out of Bonn and unless there’s some massive bloody miracle, what’ll happen in Paris is already a foregone conclusion, and the handful of important decision makers amongst the estimated 40,000 attendees already know that.

Looking at the proposals on the table open for discussion in Paris, there’s not really much meat on any of them, and absolutely no hope of car crashing the agreed agenda with new more substantial ones, or the whole thing will spiral back into the four-month long morass of trench warfare that happened in Bonn.

There is another crucial factor. Since there probably won’t be any world leaders of note attending, they’ll all be represented by delegates, none of whom will be plenipotentiary. What’s invaluable about a delegate from a political perspective, is that they’re like disposable shields protecting their boss. They can be instructed to agree to something nice but outrageous to make the boss look good, knowing that months later it’ll never stand a snowflake’s chance of being ratified by the elected government.

That’s what Bush did with Kyoto – the delegates, acting on instructions, accepted proposals that were so ludicrous, Congress refused ratification by ninety-four votes to zero. Half of any delegate’s time is spent haggling, and the rest trying to second guess what the opposing delegate’s instructions were.

The big point is, even if stuff is agreed, it doesn’t mean it’ll get ratified. We’re again heading in that direction I feel with America and Obama’s enthusiasm to pledge billions of dollars to fight global warming rather than Islamic terrorism, and Congress just recently warning him they’ll block every red cent. He’ll look good for a while, safely adding to his decidedly meagre presidential legacy thing, and a few months later Congress will flush any agreement down the john. Both sides end up with a big win – all a bit cynical, innit?

That reference to money segues nicely into what’s actually up for agreement. The proposals as such are what you’d expect after four months of apparatchik negotiation behind closed doors on what might possibly be agreeable to 140 countries and then hammering out the exact wording in excruciating detail. In trying to describe them, I’d lose the will to live and you’d fall asleep, but suffice to say they’re nominally all about saving the planet but the grubby reality is they’re all about money.

Some people want other people to give them money. Other people don’t feel like giving them money. In summary, that was four months of negotiations in Bonn, and Paris won’t be any different.

Essentially, it’s what’s termed aggressive begging, aided and abetted by a liberal media overplaying a white guilt card that only exists in their head and the more fashionable parts of medialand. The bottom line is electorates haven’t given a flying fart about their emissions for years, methane or otherwise, and every politician worth his salt knows that.

On a more practical consideration, throwing money at a delusional problem like global warming comes with the political double curse – you won’t gain any votes by doing it and you’ll certainly lose some. It won’t seduce people away from voting for fringe parties like the Greens since stupidity lasts for life, and in an age when Islamic terrorism is slaughtering innocents across the world, you’ll lose votes and get a kicking from your own bedrock supporters for not spending the money on their security.

If you’re some weak sister, you give into it. Unfortunately, the leaders of the developed world know their electorates wouldn’t stand for that and are already subtracting monies from third world poverty relief donations and are renaming them as sorta climate change mitigation funds, while at the same time admitting absolutely no liability. So money that used to actually go to save a few lives of the desperately poor is now redirected into saving the planet from nothing.

Most of it will still end up as usual in some Swiss numbered accounts, so what’s the difference? It’s an acceptable level of domestic political cover and the usual endemic third world corruption. Realistically, even if the developed world was going to be crazy enough to throw the rest a mooted 100 billion USD climate bung every year, the recipients wouldn’t be able to sort out the resultant bun fight over their fair share of the booty anyway.

There was a morbid feeling floating around Bonn that Paris might just be the last of the great massed climate conferences. This was understandable. We’ve had years of the media hyping each one up, years of politicians avoiding going there because they knew it was futile and years of politicians getting a bollocking in the media anyway for not agreeing global treaties to save the Earth that nobody in their right mind would touch with a barge pole.

People at the top weren’t happy.

For bureaucrats who’ve made a twenty year career out of global warming and conferences in nice locations, all the distress rockets were being shot up into the night sky as the good ship Climatanic looked to be foundering. In an effort to make some progress after six or seven years of going backward, certain people hit on the idea of excluding what’s called civil society from the Bonn talks. If you haven’t heard the term civil society before, it’s a collective noun used in climate industry circles covering all the NGO’s, pressure groups, fringe maniacs and even more disturbed organisations like Greenpeace.

In one sense, this was merely recognising their fading political influence, but the more practical reason was the theory that by removing the bickering fanatics from around the negotiation table, the professional bureaucrats from each country could roll up their sleeves, talk some real turkey to each other without the constant and contradictory interjections of the enthusiastic amateurs, and perhaps something albeit modest but actually substantive could be agreed for a change.

At face value, this was a sound stratagem which had been dictated by the major principals to their delegates prior to Bonn but alas it overlooked the fact that most of the habitual delegates had already gone native years ago, and the distinction between them and civil society was by now a nice one, in the subtle Shakespearean sense of the word nice.

For both of them, global warming was by now a career, but only for as long as it remained an open wound that hadn’t been sutured closed once and for all. Consciously or unconsciously, whether they know it or not, too many of the professional conference attendees are not actually invested in making any final binding agreement in Paris.

That and the natural tendency of the climate fanatics to always demand the impossible, no matter what might have already been conceded, is our ace in the hole when it comes to the chances of any big agreement ever being made at any of these gigunda climate conferences.

You do have to ask yourself why these annual gatherings of thousands of people keep happening. Nothing substantive has been agreed at them for nearly a decade and with each passing year, the prospects of reaching any agreement become slimmer and slimmer as concerns about global warming have already slid to the bottom of most people’s worry list years ago.

Money of course is an answer, but it must be obvious by now to even the most greedy delegate that no matter how hard they rattle it, the begging bowl is just not going to get filled.

It seems to me it’s degenerated down to nothing more than a climate trade convention, a work’s outing, a jolly, an annual occasion to meet like-minded people and feel good at doing something noble, and best of all, someone else is picking up the tab for your trips to exotic places like Cancun, Durban, Doha, Warsaw, New York and now Paris.

I can’t help but think that if you added up all the money it takes to assemble forty thousand people from all around the world in one city for two weeks, house them, feed them and entertain them, never mind provide conference facilities, how much real poverty relief that money could do.

The thing I’ve found about all those beautiful people primping and preening their egos because they’re saving the Earth, is that they simply won’t see what’s under their nose, or maybe they just don’t want to deal with it. Like all poverty, it’s dirty, unkempt, ugly, distasteful and definitely in your world right here and now, not safely tucked away a hundred years hence.

It’s invisible to them.


Related articles by Pointman:

2014 – What was actually agreed at the NY Climate Conference.

2013 – COP19 Warsaw the grubby truth behind it all

2012 – The real doh! about Doha.

2011 – The Durban debacle awaits …

2010 – Cancun and the Chinese perspective on it.

Click for a list of other articles.


25 Responses to “COP21 – Doing the climate can-can in Paris.”
  1. asybot says:

    I live in a soft fruit growing region (beneficial in many ways , climate being the main one) we grow grapes and every year we anticipate the annual “Ice wine” harvest. It requires a -8 c temperature for long enough to freeze the grapes and long enough to squeeze the juice out (very hard on presses btw). I do not think we have missed a harvest for decades. so there goes your “global warming”. Any thing that does not get cold enough gets processed as “Late Harvest” wine , not nearly as hard to do but those very sweet wines do not sell well so every year it is an economic gamble . Do you pick? Or wait and see if the fruit freezes, but I know global warming has not have had any effect on this.


  2. asybot says:

    “A month or so after the whole circus has departed Paris and it becomes obvious to even an attention deficit, fifth generation, knuckle dragging, Ozark mountain hillbilly inbred that every significant target was missed,”
    It has become clear that “Knuckle Draggers” actually went to Harvard and Princeton and ended up in DC


  3. Retired Dave says:

    Another thoughtful and insightful piece Pointy as usual. Thank you.

    We need a whisleblower on the corruption of the Global Temperature datasets. The whole thing needs a Red Team to look at the problem – no climategate style whitewash by the mates of the perps. NOAA have been called out in the United States over the “no pause” fiddling but something needs to happen to make the NASA GISS fiddling more visible. Only an insider can really give real exposure to what we all know has been going on.


  4. Well written, Pointy.


  5. diogenese2 says:

    This post came instantly as a shock to me. Had Pointy made a placement error? There, sitting on the steps of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in Keppel Street, alongside the Senate House Library I haunted for 4 year some 50 years ago, was one of my clients. Definitely it was a London street, with the characteristic protective layer of chewing gum, and definitely Joseph, with his characteristic wardrobe disfunction and Warfarin induced upper limb bruising. Besides I had visited Joseph, and his wife Ellen (in stage 2 of dementia – one ahead of me) only 2 days ago.
    Something bugged me about the picture as I read the rest of the blog and it wasn’t just the vulnerability of both to the imminent consequences of my governments insane energy policy.
    I agree totally with your perception of the UNFCCC but there is more. A few years ago I realised that the Global Warming Narrative was conceived by the progressive “west” as a proxy by which they could express their perceived issues of population growth and the depletion of resources, obsessed with the intuitive visions of Malthus and Jevons. The objective being to inhibit the economic development of the third world. They have failed, but instead of abandoning the strategy, it has metamorphosed into a proxy for ALL of the worlds problems. Hence, despite the recent reminder, the great world meeting place is discussing the weather in 85 years ahead instead of the corrosive Islamic civil war which is threatening millions of people now.
    My visits to the UNFCCC website amaze me at the gigantic weight of effort and horrendous futile activity now expended on this delusion, the interminable endless chatter to no purpose.
    And therein is the link. It is the boots – forlorn and abandoned as those painted by Vincent . It is Paris! It is not Joseph – there are no holes in his socks. My memory takes me back to the Royal Court Theatre in 1965, the old boots adorning the stage as Vladimir and Estragon (Putin and Hollande?) engage with futility;

    E: All the dead voices.
    V: They all speak at once.
    E: Each one to itself.
    V: What are they saying?
    E: They talk about their lives.
    V: To have lived is not enough for them.
    E: They have to talk about it.
    V: To be dead is not enough for them………..

    E: What do we do now?
    V: Wait for Godot.


  6. Michael Daly says:

    “That’s what Bush did with Kyoto…” As I recall Vice-President Gore signed the Kyoto protocol but it was never ratified by the Senate.


  7. Graeme No.3 says:

    Many of the blogs I read have been infested by trolls for the last couple of months. It’s not the standard appearance of the lone looney who stays around for “a duty shift” to be replaced by another. This involves 2 or occasionally 3 at the same time. (The third is usually one with some public presence.)
    t seems to be a desperate attempt to present a ‘popular front’ i.e. trying to represent the gullibles as a overwhelming majority, hence the clinging to the 97% line. The let down from the collapse of the Climate Conference will be devastating for many. They’ve been through the buildup to Copenhagen, all the others up until Paris, and to face the bleak future when the mainstay of their beliefs is relegated to irrelevant status, will be too much for some to remain sane. Expect some irrational violence – as if we don’t have enough of that.
    The other problem will be when the western governments realise
    1. the economic damage caused by this idiocy (they won’t care about the ecological & human costs).
    2. the cost of fighting a war against terrorists.
    3. the on-going effects of the Financial Crisis (which most countries have not undestood).

    The net result will be a rapid reduction in the subsidies that keep much of the scam going. See the change of direction by George Osborn in the UK. Now there is a report that Abengoa will go bankrupt taking billions of subsidies down the drain ( 2.7 billion in the USA alone). As more and more “renewable energy” outfits bite the dust, there will be less and less enthusiasm for it.
    As the phrase is – lay in a supply of popcorn.


  8. Pointman says:

    The climate change crowd in Paris pay their respects at a memorial to the people murdered last week.



    • Old Rooster says:

      The dollar doesn’t buy the quality rent a rabble that it used to.

      I want to see the chief holidaymakers…err…world leaders acknowledge the casualties of their failed economic, defence, and climate/ecology policies; begging forgiveness on their knees before they hand over all their wealth and go to volunteer work as hospital cleaners in some blighted hellhole for the remainder of their miserable lives.


  9. bobl says:


    Actually if they took the stupendous cost of running this farce and built some coal and diesel fired power stations and electricity distribution networks with it then they could erase a lot of poverty permanently, rather than temporarily as the usual poverty relief handouts do.

    If the UN wants to eliminate poverty as they hypocritically say they do then they need to stop this attack on cheap energy, instead they need to make the cheap energy more widely available. The late Maurice Strong was 180 degrees wrong. Rather than trying to impede fossil energy the UN aught to build and run energy systems for the third world.


    • diogenese2 says:

      “the UN ought to build and run the energy systems for the third world”
      Bobl; what do you think they intend to do with the $100b p.a. glommed from the marks in the western world. They will give them ruinous windmills, useless solar panels and bribes to ensure
      their economies fester along with their people.
      There is an action elegantly described by M.R.James wherein a lethal curse is inflicted, the condition being that victim willingly accepts the gift. That process is in full swing in Paris at the moment. It is called “Casting the Runes”.


  10. Pointman says:

    There’s a little bit of a formulaic feel to these climate confabs.

    Click to access ClimateCycle.pdf



    • Old Rooster says:

      Has there ever been any research on the impact of junkets such as COP21, CHOGM, G (pick a number), etc on the STD incidence in the host city following the event? Surely a good target for epidemiologists. I wonder how it compares to major “sporting” events.


  11. Blackswan says:


    So hard not to shout from the rooftops …. “WE TOLD YOU SO!”

    “A renewable energy company personally picked by US President Barack Obama is on the verge of collapse, potentially leaving international banks on the hook for around $29.6 billion.

    Abengoa, a Spanish solar energy firm which has received $3.74 billion in loans from the US government since 2010 to construct several large-scale solar projects, looks set to become the largest bankruptcy in Spanish history.”

    The most priceless quote from that article is ….

    “When you have a company that is based on subsidies, it is no surprise they run into financial trouble because their business model isn’t based on economics; it’s based on politics,” said Mr Simmons.

    What a flash of genius!


    • Old Rooster says:

      Not sure whether to laugh 😃 or cry😭 Perhaps I’ll do both⁉️

      Limited in time and amount subsidies can be used to overcome market failure: the good ideas take off, the duds wither and die. Ongoing and profligate subsidies only ever prop up failed enterprises in the market; life support for the brain dead if you will.


  12. Blackswan says:

    Hard to miss the irony of Maurice Strong finally doing us all a favour by dying on the eve of the Paris gabfest, but in the several stories I’ve seen marking Strong’s demise with the usual cliched epithets for the departed, James Delingpole seems to be the only one willing to call a spade a bloody shovel ….

    The UN’s Agenda 21 was Maurice Strong’s brainchild and it’s a policy blueprint for changing our concept of private property and self-determination, both to be sacrificed on the altar of “sustainability”.

    It’s happening already with the Swedish Government confiscating people’s unoccupied holiday homes to house the overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants. It’s “unsustainable” and ‘politically unacceptable’ for citizens to own houses that are vacant when there is a pressing need to accommodate those in need. Are Swedish citizens rioting in the streets to protest the seizure of their private property?

    Thin edge of the wedge comes to mind.

    Maurice – we can only hope that wherever you are, you’re slowly turning on a rotisserie in a place far hotter than your fantasy Mother Gaia ever imagined.


    • Old Rooster says:

      Funny (peculiar not ha ha) how it was not necessary to appropriate such housing before to accommodate the domestic homeless.


      • Blackswan says:

        Only a matter of time O/R – it worked a treat for the Nazis in 1940s Warsaw as Jewish families were forced to live in other people’s homes.

        Oh …. and Godwin (just another Texan lawyer) can get stuffed.

        When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it isn’t a bloody partridge.


  13. Pointman says:

    Paris day 3. US wants developing countries to kick in some money. The beggars being asked to contribute?



  14. David Crea says:

    Pointman, I admire your ability to write, and document with prose the skepticism that is in my skull over the concept that was first AGW and now is just “Climate Change”. Love your eloquence!

    My Morning Coffee Group is also concerned about “Climate Change”; we address it simply and personally though, talking about how the recent weather impacted us, and speculating about the upcoming weather. Polite but generally worthless chatter.

    “Man-Made Global Warming aka AGW aka Climate Change” is proving what most of us intuitively know already: Long-range weather forecasts generally aren’t worth a damn!


  15. Kevin Lohse says:

    Not so much a can-can, more a can’t-can’t.


Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] the whole climate schtick is passé. I’ll leave you with one more link to another blogger. Pointman’s take on what is and is not likely to happen in Paris next week really, really is something you should […]


  2. […] Lyons: The People’s March for Climate? Yeah, right Pointman: COP21 – Doing the climate can-can in Paris. Ben Pile: The world needs more energy, not green […]


  3. […] The Pointman has delved into the details of the Bonn preconference conference and assures us this event is set to fail. Meanwhile there is a timely reminder in a guest post at Bishop Hill on the real problem of extreme poverty. […]


  4. […] The Pointman has delved into the details of the Bonn preconference conference and assures us this event is set to fail. Meanwhile there is a timely reminder in a guest post at Bishop Hill on the genuine problem of extreme poverty. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: