The British Prime Minister, until recently a climate skeptic and now a fresh convert to the green faith under the influence of his young activist wife, warned before the conference start that human civilization was only a few minutes away from its fall. Even the age-old British queen called for a quick action "for our children", and indeed one of her children – Prince Charles – was the focus of the conference, for example when the first day he degusted an exquisite cognac in a convivial circle of world leaders. Charles is indeed one of the most devoted saviors of the planet climate.
Paradoxically, previous conferences were funded mainly by fossil fuel companies, which COP26 sought to change; however, coal moguls can easily reincarnate into gas moguls and eventually into wind moguls. COP26 has become the largest such event to date, with leaders from 120 countries and 50,000 participants from 194 countries; it was also the first conference attended by the United States again after the election defeat of Donald Trump, the last climate-skeptic among Western leaders. The TV footage showed cheering politicians clinking glasses and patting each other on the back, but the backstage activities allegedly addressed the fateful problems of the world on the brink of the abyss. It is said that every fraction of a centigrade above the intended temperature will lead to great loss of life.
The COP26 conference reaffirmed the importance of all genders in stabilizing the earth's temperature
We learn from the conference documents that the tireless negotiations of dedicated politicians between October 31 and November 13 "saved the dream of keeping the average temperature on our planet within 1.5°C from the temperature at the beginning of modern industrial era" (set in 1880 by the UN). Conference president Alok Sharma further said with tears in his eyes that "the dream has survived, but its pulse is weak and will only remain alive if we keep our promises and turn our commitments into quick action". In my opinion, however, it is to be hoped that the dream will die, because those quick actions would lead to a weakening of the West in favor of totalitarian despots.
The conference further reaffirmed "the importance of the rights of indigenous peoples, migrants, women and other genders in achieving climate goals". The planned sum of $ 100 billion for developing countries and endangered island states has not yet been fully collected, but hopefully it soon will, so that exotic dictators will manage even fatter accounts. The conference called for greater support for "indigenous people", even though they are known to be the biggest contributors to burning forests and wiping out rare species.
Coal and cars are villains – but banning them will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10% and 4%, respectively
In the end, 190 countries decided to limit coal (phase-down) in power plants, but only 65 countries agreed to eliminate it completely (phase-out). However, even if everyone stopped using coal altogether, the greenhouse gas (GHG) production would not fall by more than 10%, and even less, as natural gas is not a much "cleaner" source than coal. Most countries have promised carbon neutrality in the middle of the century, but to the disappointment of green enthusiasts, China promised neutrality only after 2060 and India after 2070. It was also decided that COP27 would take place in Egypt and COP28 in the United Arab Emirates, although the rights of women and other genders in these countries are nonexistent.
According to conference documents, road transport produces 10% of GHG worldwide, and it is therefore necessary to speed up its electrification; however, even a complete replacement of internal combustion engines with electric ones would reduce the production of car GHGs by less than 40%; thus the replacement would reduce overall GHGs by merely 4%, despite all terrible sacrifices. Furthermore, 100 countries decided to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030; however, anthropogenic emissions represent, according to official estimates, barely half of all methane emissions, and methane emissions account for less than 20% of greenhouse gases, so even if all countries reduced emissions by 30%, this would provide an overall reduction of less than 3%. In fact, methane is emitted far more in nature than the UN admits: even plants have been found to produce methane, and termites, for example, produce as much methane as cows. The COP26 documents also point to an alleged critical increase in the number and intensity of extreme weather events; this, however, conflicts available meteorological statistics for the last 150 years.
Climate control is a global problem, more dangerous than global warming
So, nearly all of 200 countries of the world participate in the “rescue operations”, by either pretending a fight against the temperature or by asking for a financial contribution. There is nowhere to escape on this planet, reminding the old story about Mr. Goldstein who wants to emigrate from Eastern Europe but is not sure where; when given a globe, he turns it hesitantly, and finally asks, "Don’t you have another globe?" Yes, the world is globalized across the globe. While politicians from all countries have joined forces to fight the temperature, the "people in the streets" are calling for even greater cooling. Greta, whose family cleverly created the image of a mentally handicapped but messianic girl, is now adult and without braids, and her message uses adult words, calling the world leaders to “shove their climate crisis up their arse". She calls out to the mob: "What do we want?", and the crowd chants back "climate justice!".
The media, social scientists, and artists support the just fight for climate. The attitude of the media, politicians, and "people in the street” is clear, but the silence of natural scientists is striking. They are not visible in the conference or television discussions. Tens of thousands of scientists and technicians have signed petitions against overestimating human influence on warming and against suppressing free debate, but the media do not give them space. Many scientists oppose the catastrophic scenarios of the UN, including the greatest climate experts like the American physicist Richard Lindzen and the Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv. However, according to the media, there is a consensus among scientists; while the idea of man-made global warming has reportedly been supported by 97% of scientists over the last 15 years, now it is said to be as high as 99.9%. Unfortunately, scientists today risk losing their livelihoods and even persecution for their scientific views, much like the scientists of the late 16th century, and therefore they keep a low profile.
And what can we, "simple citizens", do to protect our future from opportunists pretending to believe in green delusions (like Boris Johnson), from exotic activists (like Greta), and from dictators (like president Xi)? We must not just wait for this madness to pass away, because the rule of charlatans, and the mass investments in windmills and other nonsense will deprive us of living standards and freedom. At the very least, we should gather and share arguments against the UN climate hypotheses. After all, everyone can find on the Internet (yet) that ocean levels are rising more slowly today than in the past 20,000 years, that polar bears are not declining, that natural disasters have not increased over the last 150 years, that the area of the Maldives has not diminished in recent years, that a one-degree increase in temperature cannot cause fires, that crickets grown instead of beef for protein consumption would emit as much methane as cows, that deserts are not spreading, and that warming will lead to richer rains.
exhales the same amount of carbon dioxide per year as all fossil fuel power
Take, for example, the allegedly dangerous carbon dioxide. Anyone can find that this material makes up 5% of the gas we exhale. Every elementary school graduate can calculate that humanity will annually exhale as much carbon dioxide as all fossil fuel power plants in the world. For this calculation, she/he can use either the above amount of exhaled dioxide, or the amount of human daily energy consumption (2000 Kcal per day), or the output of one human body (about 100 W, for 10 billion people it is a million MW, which is roughly equal to the production of all power plants on fossil fuels). So even an immediate shutdown of all fossil fuel power plants in the world would not reduce the amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide by more than we exhale; the effect would be 3 times smaller if we stopped only coal-burning power plants and 15 times smaller if only Europe did so.
In addition, human-reared cattle can be found to exhale 1.5 times more carbon dioxide than humans. We could also consider breathing of other creatures on Earth; for example, arthropods (including termites and ants) have a mass even 16 times larger than humans). So, if we stop all the power plants, transport and production, most people will become extinct, but it will hardly affect the earth's carbon dioxide output, and we have not even considered the enormous production of greenhouse gases by submarine volcanoes.
Yes, Western civilization really doesn't have much time left until its fall. But it's not because of warming, as Boris Johnson lies but because of people like him. We should start defending ourselves against our politicians and use all the means still available to us to replace opportunistic or simpleton politicians to survive this difficult period of green and politically correct madness with the least possible scars.