The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not carbon dioxide.

When Climate Prophecy Fails: The Coming Confrontation with Reality

Contributed by Robert Lyman 2020. Lyman’s bio can be read here.

There are four ways in which actual global trends are diverging more and more from the predictions upon which climate activists base their claims of impending catastrophe and allegedly “inevitable decarbonization” of the world economy.

After almost thirty years of measurement, the gentle rise in average global temperatures is near the bottom of the range projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If, as many now expect, the world enters a cooling trend over the next few decades, average temperatures will fall entirely outside that range, and demonstrate conclusively that the IPCC models do not provide a reliable foundation for climate policy.

Fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) now supply 84% of global energy needs, and consumption of oil and natural gas is rising at its fastest rate in history, with no current prospect of subsiding. If, as projected by all major authorities on global energy supply and demand, these trends continue through to 2030 and beyond, driven by economic growth in Asia, why would people in the OECD countries accept the claims of climate activists that they must reduce their use of fossil fuels?

Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions increased, not decreased, by 12 per cent over the past decade, despite claims that the world must sharply reduce emissions. Even if global emissions were to stabilize, as some forecasters suggest, that will represent a major departure from the “pathways” to reduced emissions that climate alarmists say is essential. At which point will the claims of rapid decarbonization become untenable?

Following the COP21 conference in Paris in 2015, many OECD countries submitted plans about how they would reduce GHG emissions by 2030. Many developing countries submitted similar plans conditional upon receiving financial assistance in the form of the Green Climate Fund (i.e. U.S. $100 billion per year). When countries report on their progress before the November 2020 COP, it will become clear that nine out the ten largest GHG emitters are not on track to meet the 2030 targets. The total contributions to the Green Climate Fund, as of mid-2018, were $10.2 billion. Despite the certain calls for more aggressive emission reductions, it will be clear by the end of this year that the entire U.N. artifice of supposed commitments to decarbonization is flawed.

When reality fails to match prophesy, those who follow climate and energy policy developments closely will see the rationale for drastic transition crumble. The Canadian public, unfortunately, may not react until climate taxes and other measures impose intolerable costs on the average person. We do not have a crystal ball for that.


  1. Baron Lida

    This is such refreshing website. Thank you for your insights. It all works for me.

  2. Michael Shepard

    It would be great if one of the Conservative candidates would espouse such common sense!

    • fosadmin

      Would be great if all politicians would espouse such common sense and would ask for due diligence on climate claims. People are highly suggestible and easily led, esp by groupthink. This is why careful review of the data is so important, and questioning ‘scenarios’ that are ‘averaged’ to come up with numbers….50 to 100 years in the future. Thanks for your comment! PS one Conservative is calling for pulling out of Paris, as Trump did. US is the only country meeting Paris targets, ironically.

  3. johntwigg

    Thanks! This is great good news to start a new week and hopefully a new era or paradigm in climate politics. Eventually but hopefully soon the world will come to realize that the IPCC climate alarm was bogus, a hoax used to smokescreen a wealth redistribution agenda and deliver political power to a clique of greenflakes. But why won’t the MSM report properly on the much larger drivers of climate cycles, namely variations in solar flares and proximity and tilt of planet Earth? Yes humans should reduce their pollution but crippling economies is not a viable solution to what’s really a non-problem.

  4. Paul Schmidt

    Is that a Conservative running for leadership? I so who is that, I would like to support him/her

  5. Bob graham

    A voice of reason in the clutter of babble.

  6. Kathleen Kiely

    It’s obvious that governments want the whole issue to be politicized rather than use actual scientific data, that way they can keep up the carbon tax (which go into general revenues). Follow the money…

Leave a Reply! Please be courteous and respectful; profanity will not be tolerated.

Friends of Science Calgary