COP30 Is Lying To Justify Its Existence
COP30 is building its case on climate misinformation that rewrites the past to claim a victory it never earned.
The COP30 agreement claims the world was previously on track for more than 4C of warming until the Paris Agreement heroically “bent” that trajectory down to 2.3–2.5C:
However, “this is misinformation,” says Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. It is a fiction built on the carcass of RCP8.5 — the extreme scenario that scientists quietly abandoned years ago because it required impossible coal use, implausible demographics and an economic collapse that never happened.
COP30 is resurrecting an unrealistic, disowned scenario in order to claim that Paris saved the world. The problem is the data. Real-world emissions show no curve bending, no slowdown and no “Paris effect”.
Paris didn’t change emissions, but it did unlock a permanent justification for climate taxation, energy rationing and the dismantling of cheap, reliable power — the foundation of economic prosperity.
COP30 needs a victory to justify its existence. So it has rewritten history: invent a 4C trajectory, pretend Paris knocked it down, and congratulate itself for saving humanity.
The world was never heading for RCP8.5. Paris didn’t change emissions.
Lies.
more news
Right, New York Times, Scientists Do Disagree on The Polar Vortex
A recent New York Times article explores claims that climate change may be worsening winter cold extremes. While some scientists argue that Arctic warming destabilizes the polar vortex, long-term data show a clear decline in extreme cold events, challenging that narrative.
The Endangerment Finding Was Pre-Cooked
In this analysis, Dr. Matthew Wielicki examines the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, contending that the ruling was effectively decided in advance and later justified through a structured scientific review, with far-reaching consequences for climate regulation.
Why Climate Science Is Not Settled
Claims that climate science is “settled” are frequently used to justify far-reaching policy decisions. In this article, Vijay Jayaraj examines how model uncertainties, conflicting evidence and real-world observations challenge the idea of certainty in the climate debate.
