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
The Energy Nobody Counts
We spend a great deal of time discussing how much energy our electricity systems can “produce” but far less attention is given to a different question: how much energy does it take to build them in the first place? Energy expert dr. Lars Schernikau explains why this is important.
“Svensmark’s research must continue”
Henrik Svensmark has lost his position at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), and the research field he helped establish is being significantly downgraded. Now private donors, companies, philanthropic foundations and research funders around the world have an opportunity to demonstrate whether they genuinely support scientific freedom – including research where the politically convenient answer is not known in advance, says Karl Iver Dahl-Madsen.
How Roger Pielke Jr. Became Voldemort in Climate Science
Climate scientist and public-policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. argues that the climate debate has become increasingly detached from the underlying evidence. In a wide-ranging interview on the Love Journalism show, Pielke discussed extreme weather, climate scenarios, decarbonisation, energy policy, political polarisation, journalism and his transition from academia to becoming one of Substack’s most widely read climate writers.
