From wattsupwiththat.com

By Andy May

In a new paper by Gianluca Alimonti and Luigi Mariani, they argue that the public needs a proper definition of precisely what a climate crisis is to make rational decisions about how to address potential climate change threats (Alimonti & Mariani, 2025). They propose a set of measurable “Response Indicators” (RINDs) based on the IPCC AR6 Climate Impact drivers (IPCC, 2021, pp. 1851-1856).

Their intent is to switch from subjective perceptions of possible dangers to quantifiable metrics. Potentially this could put climate change debates on track and ensure that both sides are arguing about the same thing as opposed to talking past each other due to each of the debaters arguing from different definitions. It might also lead to real solutions to real problems, rather than flights of ideologically-based fancy.

The IPCC defines climate impact drivers (CIDs) as climate events that affect society. The impact on any affected society can be detrimental, beneficial, or neutral (IPCC, 2021, p. 1770). They define 33 categories of CIDs and have found that most of them have not emerged from the expected range of natural variability.

Alimonti and Mariani examined the EM-DAT disaster database, managed by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters from the year 2000 to the present. In this period, they detected no trend in deaths due to weather-related disasters. Just as important, there were clear improvements in global health over the period, once the growth in population was accounted for.

Temperature-related mortality accounts for 8% of the total weather-related deaths, of these 91% were due to cold and 9% to excess heat. From 2000-03 to 2016-19 cold related deaths decreased by 0.5% and heat related deaths increased by 0.2%, very small changes.

As Alimonti and Mariani’s Table 1 indicates, most measures of their climate change response indicators show no change, including cyclones, drought, floods, and wildfires. They show global GDP is improving, as is food availability.

The paper emphasizes that the reduction in climate-related deaths can be partially attributed to improvements in civil protection systems (levees, seawalls, forest management, etc.) which demonstrates that adaptation to climate change often proves more effective than mitigation. Most objective measures of the human-welfare impact of climate changes show no change, and most of the rest show improvement or an ambiguous impact, rather than detrimental effects.

The paper is worth the time to read; it is time for less subjectivity and more harder objective measures of the impact of climate change.

It is as if Satan disappeared from the Bible

The sacred fabric of the climate religion is unravelling by the day. The COP30 deal is being hammered out in Brazil — but in the draft any mention of “fossil fuels” has been dropped.

Apparently the rich oil nations have formed a block that objects to a sentence committing countries to stronger, faster, action to reduce their use of fossil fuels. The UK, France and a few other nations have rejected this but the same small island nations that are frightened of drowning have joined the oil block.

Apparently they were offered more money to adapt to climate change.

UN climate summit drops mention of fossil fuels from draft deal

By Georgina Rannard, BBC

All mention of fossil fuels, by far the largest contributor to climate change, has been dropped from the draft deal under negotiation as the COP30 UN climate talks in Belém, Brazil enter their final stretch.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and some countries including the UK want the summit to commit countries to stronger, faster action to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

An earlier text included three possible routes to achieve this, but that language has now been dropped after opposition from oil-producing nations.

French Environment Minister Monique Barbut said the deal is being blocked by “oil-producing countries – Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, but joined by many emerging countries.” She suggested that small island nations may agree to a weaker deal on fossil fuels if they secured more finance to adapt to the changes in their countries caused by rising temperatures.

It was always about the money

The big question here (if this sticks) is why the oil block didn’t do this years ago?

The even bigger question is whether the oil block have found a way to circumvent The UN Blob? If they are paying the small countries off directly behind the scenes, the UN will miss out on collecting its share of the cash flow. The travesty!

The irony is that if  “man-made climate change” was really a crisis, it makes more sense for the oil giants to pay the islands to build sea-walls  — instead of rearranging the global economy to try to control the clouds and the ocean. But this unthinkable sacrilege cuts out the middlemen Blob-o-crats and stops the whole totalitarian power game.

The UN will not give up its aim to be the One World Government so easily.

The French Environment Minister was not happy:

On France’s position she said:”At this point, even if we don’t have the roadmap, but at least a mention of the fossil fuels, I think we would accept it. But as it stands now, we have nothing left.”

Expect The Blob to fight this all the way. There will be wrangling and then possibly “euphoric joy” about a “historic agreement” ready for cameras on the nine o’clock news.

From Jo Nova

Image by ThankYouFantasyPictures from Pixabay

By Jo Nova

The stench of failure is written all over Cop30 in Brazil

The USA, China and India are not attending. The UN has said the 1.5 degrees target is no longer possible. And the OECD admits “policy commitments have fallen from 10% annual growth to just 1%.

The Consensus is not only dead, but no one can hide the body under the rug any longer. Things are decomposing so fast, even Kier Starmer has flown all the way to the COP conference in Brazil to say “the consensus is gone”.

Kier Starmer didn’t even want to go to COP30 lest he look like he’s in the palm of the globalist Blob which would feed his nemesis – Nigel Farage. So he’s put in a last minute appearance and gone out of his way to avoid the usual fire and brimstone devotion by uttering a blasphemy. The consensus, after all, was the holy grail. It was the reason “to believe” and a reason to act even if we didn’t believe. The Blob always said: “We don’t want to fall behind” like being part of the herd was a benefit in and of itself.

For a bunch of Groupthinkers, this is big admission:

[The Guardian]  The UK prime minister told world leaders on Thursday at the Cop30 climate summit in Brazil that the “consensus is gone” on fighting climate change around the world, a decade after the landmark Paris agreement in 2015.

“Ten years ago, the world came together in Paris … united in our determination to tackle the climate crisis,” Starmer said. “The only question was how fast we could go. Today, however, sadly that consensus is gone.”

For Starmer, this might be the best escape route from the Net Zero bomb. As long as the fuse is lit and the carbon-clock is running, the globalist Blob parties face a wipe-out at the next election. But if “the consensus” is over, maybe he can pack the climate-talk away in a box for a few years and curb the fury over electricity prices. It’s what Mark Carney did to win in Canada. He scrapped the carbon tax on his first day in office and de-fanged the opposition. It may even placate the Groupthinking Greens, if he can convince them that no one else is acting and to wait for a better day.

Chris Bowen, the Australian Minister for Weather Control even agrees with Kier Starmer

But in renewable-crazy-land that just means that Australia has to do even more. The Guardian asked him about Kier Starmer’s words and he replied:

“I think that’s fair comment. Yes, it’s a contested space, but that makes supporting action in keeping with the science more important, not less important.

“It makes continued action by governments and industry who get it – that this is a scientific and environmental imperative, but also excellent economics – even more important. And that’s certainly our approach in Australia.”

Unlike the Reform Party in the UK, the opposition in Australia is a Lump of Jello, and doesn’t have a climate policy. So Chris Bowen is free to keep sprouting crazy witchery. He’s not afraid of the opposition because, effectively, there isn’t one.

Indeed, Bowen has to keep waving the flag, because the Australian government wants to host the next loser COP event this time next year. Thankfully, the opposition and the Nationals have both said “Let Turkey have it”. We want our billion dollars.

Even the OECD admits policy commitments have stalled. Globally, they only increased by 1% last year, when previously they would grow by 10% each year.

Global climate action losing momentum: OECD

By Ryann Cropp, The Australian Financial Review

The pace of global efforts to address climate change has ground to a halt, according to a report by the OECD that is likely to turbocharge Coalition wrangling over its commitment to emissions reduction.

The expansion of international climate policy commitments increased by just 1 per cent in 2024, with only 17.7 per cent of global emissions now covered by legally binding net zero pledges, according the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s annual Climate Action Monitor.

According to the OECD, the slowdown in climate commitments since 2021 contrasts significantly with the prior decade, when average emissions reduction policies expanded by about 10 per cent each year.

They have run out of excuses:

“This slowdown can no longer be explained by the COVID-19 pandemic or economic shocks: it reflects a loss of momentum in implementing effective policies,” the report said.

Now even the UN agrees that we will fail to hit their 1.5 degrees magical target, and that this is a “moral failure”:

It is, of course, our fault:

The failure to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is an emergency and nations must now “lead or be led to ruin”, UN secretary-general António Guterres has said as the COP30 climate conference got underway in Brazil’s rainforest city Belém.

He added: “Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement and loss — especially for those least responsible. This is moral failure — and deadly negligence.”

Mr Guterres, being a Blob man and the total socialist, paints this as capitalist greed:

“Too many corporations are making record profits from climate devastation, with billions spent on lobbying, deceiving the public and obstructing progress,” he said. “Too many leaders remain captive to these entrenched interests.”

After all, it’s not like the consensus died because millions of people in the largest economy on Earth were not convinced and voluntarily voted (twice!) for a man who called Climate Change a con and a hoax. Oh no…