COP28 President and Chief Executive of the UAE state oil company Adnoc, Sultan Ahmed Al-Jaber let the cat out of the bag this week when he said there was “no science” that says phasing out fossil fuels will achieve a cap on global warming of 1.5°C. In an interview with the impressively self-important Irish politician Mary Robinson, he demanded to be shown a roadmap for sustainable socioeconomic development “unless you want to take the world back to caves”. You would have had a heart of stone not to enjoy the antics of the BBC green activist-in-chief Justin Rowlatt as he tried to finesse Al-Jaber’s remarks. What a creative chap to write a BBC story about it headed, ‘Is the world about to promise to ditch fossil fuels?‘
Rowlatt claims that the UAE has recognised the world has to kick its addiction to unabated fossil fuels and has decided to put itself decisively on the right side of history by trying to own the decision. “But yes, at the same time it is planning to increase capacity and sell even more oil,” he helpfully added.
Other more realistic interpretations are available. The world will need as much, if not more, fossil fuel in 2050 as it consumes today, and its biggest customers will be those who are too virtuous to drill and frack the hydrocarbons for themselves. As is usually the case, the meek are unlikely to inherit the Earth. Al-Jaber might have slightly underestimated the type of housing stock available in future ‘Net Zero’ countries – mud and grass huts are suggested in a recent United Nations report, although sustainable caves could occupy a premium niche. With money comes power and all the trophy assets vast wealth can buy. For instance, by 2050 the Gulf Arabs, along with Saudi Arabia, will be able to buy all the football clubs they want. In the end it might just be easier to relocate the entire English Premier League into state-of-the art, air conditioned local stadiums.
Al-Jaber’s remarks blew holes in a ‘settled’ science narrative that has been carefully curated over decades by collectivists aiming to transform global societies with a Net Zero project. A bewildered John Kerry, the U.S. presidential climate envoy, suggested the comments may need “clarification” and “maybe just came out wrong”. Kerry’s irritation showed clearly that Al-Jaber had undermined the fixed idea that reducing human-caused carbon dioxide will somehow stop temperature moving around in a chaotic atmosphere. Despite 50 years of trying, scientists have yet to produce conclusive proof that humans control the climate thermostat. A rival hypothesis that trace gases such as CO2 ‘saturate’ past certain levels and lose much of their warming abilities has the advantage of offering an explanation for the absence of an obvious temperature-CO2 link over the last 600 million years.
For alarmists, Al-Jaber’s linking of his remarks with the 1.5°C limit was very unfortunate. The idea that humans need to cap a rise in global temperature to 1.5°C is an invented number designed to invoke panic and concentrate the political mind. The setting of an arbitrary target is credited to IPCC lead author and former climate adviser to Angela Merkel, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. At first he set the limit at 2°C, and in 2010 he was asked by Der Speigel why he had imposed the “magical limit” to which all countries must adhere. In reply, Schellnhuber said: “Politicians like to have clear targets and a simple number is easier to handle.” The ploy was so successful that it was ratcheted down to a scarier 1.5°C to persuade politicians to sign the Paris climate agreement in 2015.
Again, none of this is based on science. The rise of 1.1°C since the lifting of the Little Ice Age is tiny in climatic terms and to be expected after hundreds of years of slowly declining temperatures. In the cyclical historical record of the last few thousand years, temperatures were similar in Medieval and Roman times, while observational evidence from the mid Holocene suggests large rises of around 3-4°C
Rowlatt’s copy is of interest since it hints at the dawning realisation that a world without the power provided by hydrocarbons is impossible to achieve. He quotes the new head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Professor Jim Skea who explains that stopping the temperature rise will mean getting rid of unabated coal completely. But, in Skea’s view, the world of Net Zero will still need 40% and 55% of its current oil and gas supplies respectively. Rowlatt picks up on the word ‘abated’, noting that the technology to do that “does not exist at anywhere near the scale needed”. This is the guiding “science” that Al-Jaber is talking about, concludes Rowlatt, at a time when the Gulf States sell huge quantities of oil and gas to power-starved Western countries leading the way to Net Zero.
For some inexplicable reason, Rowlatt fails to channel similar understanding when campaigning to ban fossil fuel exploration in the U.K. And to think of all the jobs and wealth that might have been created if frackers had got on with fracking, while an understanding press praised their scientific credentials and were happy to waffle on about unworkable abatement technologies.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Ivor Cummins’ voice may sound computer generated, but I can assure you it isn’t. I suggest the writer of this piece contacts him directly and instigates a discussion, to which I believe Ivor would be fully open to.
Sadly whoever Robert Kogan is he has just binned all credibility – not because what he says strictly speaking might be correct regarding the use of the word ‘owns’ but factually speaking the WHO is IMHO such a corrupt organisation it is ‘owned’ in the sense of the gangland phrase “don’t forget, we own you”.
The UK is not ‘owned’ by corrupt hidden external political, commercial and industrial interests. But the webs of corruption in Whitehall and Westminster means the UK is ‘owned’ in the gangland sense.
And it is interesting that whenever I have tried to get information from WHO about their accounts I have been blanked.
Robert Kogan it seems has not.
I wonder why?
What is the smallest number of politicians and officials one has to ‘own’ to have influence over what happens in a country?
Politicians are easy [not all of course] with what is relative small change for the wealthy to make political donations or offer other incentives.
How much does it cost to buy a senior civil servant or two – and of course I am not suggesting they are for sale but one or two are likely to be open to financial or other incentives.
So it is not a matter of buying UK plc’s or WHO plc’s balance sheet.
It is a matter of getting the right people for the right price/incentives to win the day – sadly not great for the rest of us.
And we are simply unlikely ever to find out if this is going on and if it is the extent of it.
But unfortunately we have a pretty good idea it must be happening to some extent.
I am sure the majority of civil servants are genuine honest people some of whom are so committed they want to ensure DEI is strictly observed to the national detriment.
How much does favourable press coverage from the average journalist cost?
How many are open to incentives?
Are the many freebies showered on journalists from wealthy corporations and the like enough?
A few canapes and glasses of wine and the annual or more frequent invitation to those kinds of events?
After all one would not want to be gratuitously erased from the corporate or other Christmas card list.
Of course, I am sure the vast majority of journalists are ethical and would never stoop to such incentives for favourable coverage.
But then again, how is it a lot of news about important stuff is not available from the legacy media and we have to rely on sources like the Daily Sceptic and GB News?
Robert Kogan is mistaken. All his other writing suggests his motives are pure, so do not take my comments above to mean anything else.
I have no reason or evidence to suggest Robert Kogan is anything other than mistaken IMHO.
But I am not happy as you might guess from my foregoing comments.
Slightly off topic but I’m sure the man photographed above can shoulder some responsibility. Part of the COVID enquiry that the BBC have been all over. We have been witness to pure evil.
https://ufile.io/iuhhlg59
See what the WHO admits themselves about funding and the influence it has in Lillian Franck’s 2018 documentary TrustWHO.
An interesting pre-Covid documentary which also includes a section on swine flu and the involvement of Neil Ferguson.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/
Geo-engineering.
Here is something Billy is funding. This utter Next Tuesday is playing God with the whole of the planet now.
In Billy’s eyes he is god.
I know.
Even if you discard Billy boy’s “philanthropy” who is running these so called government funded NGO’s and what agenda do they have?The article skirts passed Germanies involvement, it invested heavily in bionTech even purchasing manufacturing facilities on its behalf so they could become the world leader in vaccine technology. It is the classic he who pays the piper calls the tune.
And of course no money passes under the table from – ahem – interested parties.
No.
No no no.
Naivety of the Week Award, awarded weekly on a week by week basis goes to:
ROBERT KOGON!
But I agree – the “X algorithm”, under Mr Musk’s “leadership” just as under Jack Dorsey’s, is indeed guilty of some serious sh*t.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/plastic-bottle-cap/
Thought we had left the EU?
No we are still tethered just like bottle caps. When these appeared a few months ago I thought ‘aye, aye,’ more manipulation. Oh yes, my behaviour has been manipulated, I just rip the damned things off.
Hey, stop showing off, hux, some of us don’t have a spare 25 Newtons of requisite force to tear the caps asunder. Actually, come to think of it, you’re directly guilty of excess CO2 production – that force doesn’t come from nowhere, y’ know!
On a serious note, the first time my milk carton had this cap, I thought I had moved it out of the way. A few sploshes of spilt milk and a couple of curses later, I found that the blasted cap had spun itself around under the effect of gravity to the bottom and thus diverted the flow of milk onto my kitchen top. That IS a waste.
Yes, zero tolerance now – caps get ripped off, first thing. Including that annoying dangly bit which also gets in the way.
Gotta love saving the planet.
Thanks M A k.
The multinationals producing or procuring these bottles won’t bother with creating a special line of bottles just for the UK market.
Similar annoyance you might be unaware of: Old Holborn tobacco sold in the UK comes with paper sticker with a banknote-style pattern printed on it which is otherwise empty. This paper sticker must be removed or destroyed before a pack can be opened. It serves no function in the UK but for sale in Germany, a tax stamp must (Steuerzeichen) must be on these packs. Presumably, it’s cheaper for the manufacturer when there’s just one kind of packaging, hence, people in the UK get bothered with the emtpy stickers because authorities in Germany demand such stickers.
Off-T
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-chemical-analysis-natural-years-today.html
This is definitely one for Chris Morrison.
Ridiculous article.
In the donors list provided, Kill Gates + Gavi is the largest financier.
This article is as nescient as saying that the Corona scamdemic was uninfluenced by Pharma + Kill Gates.
If Pharma controls ‘health’ in most countries which it does, is it not rational to believe that if the US Criminal State gives x $ p.a. that they are doing what their Pharma masters want?
Jesus Christ guy.
I’m afraid the only thing the author has demonstrated is that he doesn’t understand how the world works.
Obviously, he who puts the money wants to call the shots. Only in the fantasy world of a foolish kind is it otherwise.
And lo and behold, the top donors of the WHO are all organisations or countries that are highly invested in vaccines. Germany has BioNTech and does its bidding as has been widely reported here. The UK and the US have some the biggest pharmas and otgs.like the Welcome Trust all gunning for more jabs.
And the list tops out with Gates and Gavi.
And what is the WHO trying to do? Pass a new treaty that is all about coordinating the fight against disease with vaccines. Jesus, what a shock.
I would be more polite about the author if he didn’t take the condescending tone he has to criticise those who can see what is plain to see and which the poor idiot cannot see.
Well said.
What a naïve article.
The WHO like the rest of the global bureaucracy is ‘owned’ and ‘funded’ by big business interests, rich men, NGOs who own and fund it by lobbying (another word for bribery), influence and complicity.
The bureaucrats are willing partners in crime as their primary aim is their survival by ever increasing the things they have to do to justify their existence and get more money and bigger establishments.
Gates doesn’t provide much to the BBC or The Guardian given their total revenues but he certainly gets what he wants from the relatively small amounts he gives them.
Who is Robert Kogon?
WHO is Robert Kogon!
Leaving aside the merits of the article, I have strong doubts about the UK government feeling it needs to worry about my health, let alone some global body that is even less accountable.
I don’t agree with the commenters who deride the author Robert Kogon as “naive”.
I think he has just given us some very useful information about Taxpayers being forced to fund their own destruction by the WHO monstrosity. So while we are all gnashing our teeth at Bill Gates, we ourselves are being forced by our own governments to fund the whole scam.
Taxpayers being forced to pay for their own destruction is not news, Heretic.
The question is why. Why governments feel the need to sell us out. And money passing under the table is as old as the hills. Kogon IS naive. Or he is begging the question. Which is not necessary on DS.
I don’t want to imply that DS is a club. I understand that DS is trying to attract a new audience of people who are perhaps new to the idea of government corruption, whatever its colour! Good luck with that, eh…
Von der Layen is the head of the European commission and the job of the European commission is to produce vote-ready EU draft legislation. She doesn’t lead anything and neither does the European commission. Further, that the EU is largely paid Germany (as is the UN, for that matter) doesn’t mean it’s dominated by Germany.
Here’s a translation of some part of the political manifesto of the AfD:
The Euro (the currency) is broken as designed. The currency union necessarily turned into a sovereign debt union. We demand that the Euro experiment is to be ended. Should the Bundestag (German parliament) not agree with this, then, a referendum about the Euro must be held in Germany.
They’re demanding this because the way the Euro works is that Germany is underwriting to sovereign debt of the whole EU but without any influence over the spending decisions of the other EU governments whose political priorities in this area are very much different from the German ones. Eg, the German constitution demands that government budgets must be balanced, ie, that spending doesn’t exceed income. This rule is – especially by the current green-left government – frequently “creatively” circumvented in practice but that’s nevertheless how things are supposed to work.
When German politicians pour money into international organisation, its usually a fair assumption that their American puppet masters have ordered them to do so.
Please see this new video about Globalists/ WHO/ UN plans to use illegal immigrants as troops (some have already been trained in Turkey) to enforce the next Fake Pandemic Lockdowns, and that masses of Bird Flu vaccines for humans have already been shipped to the UK, while in the US they are already saying Bird Flu has jumped species to humans. It hasn’t, of course, but that will be the scaremongering tactic, apparently.
Breaking: Illegal Migrants that are pouring into our respective countries are in fact UN soldiers. (youtube.com)
This would line up with the WHO treaty getting ratified, which is probably the plan
Exactly.
What a Dumb article ! If this idiot can’t see the writing on the wall he should stop writing !!
“sources. As can be seen in the below graph from Iwunna et al., the remaining 82% came either directly from the member states themselves (55%) or from other UN (DODGY ORGANISATION)agencies besides the WHO, other international organisations like the European Union (ANOTHER DODGY ORGANISATION), international financial institutions like the World Bank (WOULD YOU TRUST THEM?), public-private ‘partnerships’ like GAVI (LESS SAID THE BETTER) – which, as the above graph makes clear, are themselves overwhelmingly dependent precisely on public sources of funding – and NGOs (NO VESTED INTERESTS THERE OF COURSE), which likewise largely depend on public sponsors such as the EU (ANOTHER WORD FOR CORRUPTION) for their funding.”
I rest my case.
The sheer complexity and opacity of the funding seems designed to conceal the truth. I very much doubt this is coincidental. If you catch a glimpse of a rat and smell a rat then there is probably a rat hiding in plain sight!
A little more honesty, transparency and clarity from the WHO would not go amiss!
It’s pretty obvious that the WHO, IHR legislation,UN, GAVI are controlled by Globalists, directly or via Government infestations.