COP26 headlines: 31/10/21

On the opening day of the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, the President Alok Sharma told delegates:  “COP26 is our last best hope to keep 1.5 in reach.”

At the G20 talks in Rome, Boris Johnson warned that the summit was at serious risk of failure. The target of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5C was not on track and pledges from countries so far were a “drop in the rapidly warming ocean”.

COP26 Coalition. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Alok Sharma tells the opening session of COP26 that the lights are flashing on the climate dashboard – but he deflects questions from journalists on the Cambo oilfield – opening session of COP26 climate talks (DrillOrDrop)

Young people have every right to be angry and worried about the future, says COP26 president, Alok Sharma (DrillOrDop)

New report from the World Meteorological Organisation concludes that extreme weather is the new norm as climate crisis pushes world into unchartered territory (DrillOrDrop)

Cop26 criticised for excluding delegates from climate front line (DrillOrDrop)

Campaigners stage foot-washing ceremony for visiting delegates to climate talks (DrillOrDrop)

G20 pledge climate action but make few commitments (BBC)

Cop26 summit at serious risk of failure, says Boris Johnson

G20 leaders endorse tax deal, pledge more vaccines for the poor (Reuters)

35 official side-events at the climate talks are organised by or feature large polluting companies or their lobby groups. (The Ferret)

Glasgow bin strike during COP26 back on as union accuses council of ‘bad faith’ (Daily Record)

Regularly updated with new headlines

Categories: COP26, slider

15 replies »

  1. My guess for what it’s worth is that were it left to him neither project would go ahead. Unfortunately he is not in a position to tie Johnson’s hands and Johnson hasn’t the remotest idea what he is doing. The sad irony is that the fools who entrusted our country to this man will do so again.

  2. Ahh, those “fools” again! (But fools who have maths. working for them.)

    Always the resort of those who can not get enough to agree with them.

    Politics is always about the best option as the voters see it. Not the perfect option, but the best.

    Sorry, 1720, if the opposition can not put forward a candidate and policies that appeal, it is their fault not the “fools”. The “fools” are not as easily fooled as you would like. (As an NHS nurse said to me seeing Starmer on TV with number 3 re-launch-“that guy needs to live in the real world”. Not from a banker but an NHS nurse!)

    “Anyone but” candidates rarely succeed, but are a short term measure. Both Starmer and Biden are in that category.

    You post like a disgruntled football fan. The other supporters are fools just because you got trounced. Get your game together.

      • Maths, Phil, is that chap working for the fools. You know, the one who thinks you can keep on emitting polluting gases without contributing to the quantity of polluting gases. He is of course indispensable: without him the fools’ case would collapse. He is always popping his head up, even when he is not at all required to back up the fools’ claims. He’s probably up in Glasgow now wondering when he can have his say about an additional oil field here or coal mine there which would make no difference to the stated aims of COP26 regarding reducing sources of emissions. I’m sure he’ll find a way.

        • Very good Iaith1720! Excellent “maths” analysis. Now we know who this mysterious “maths” person is and his fools bosses?

          Maybe “maths” was also the one who cant calculate a simple two sided equation of 1 in 5 deaths that are caused by fossil fuel pollution? 1:5 = FF( ;-( ). And maybe also the one who cant count up to six, for the sixth major extinction event on Earth going on at the moment? 1:6 = 0.

          I’m sure its not the last “we” will hear from him? Oops! I just did another “we”!

          • That previously unnamed person in charge of the dark money, the funding for lobbyists and the one in charge of controlling the right wing media could well be this bloke (or woman of course) Maths. He’s got a lot to answer for. As it’s plural, there could actually be a whole team of them. If it was singular, he’d be just a lone hideous American of course.

            • Yes Mike, this “maths” (is that short for Mathis?) he/she/it may be one of those sub prime numbers that can only be divided by themselves and 1. Or one integer that sub divides under multiple terms?

              Divide and multiply, add and subtract, positive and negative, an associativity of identity, invertibility and closure, an integrated sub set of group axioms?

              What ever it is, its clearly miscalculated.

  3. Perhaps you mean what are maths., PhilC?

    The abstract science of number, quantity and space studied in its own right.

    Rarely applied on DoD, rarely applied (yet) within climate change discourse, but as long as democracy is retained, determines how most things happen. Will 30k gathered together spread Covid? Now there is number, quantity and space. What will be the result?

    Or, for some, when things don’t add up to the number we want, lets attempt some division.

    • No, old thing, you said “But fools who have maths. working for them.” Mathematics you mean? A curiously placed full stop I must say. Perhaps that has some deep “maths” significance? You should have said so. Or was that arithmetic?

      Please provide the “maths” you refer to. One sided equations no doubt I’m sure, but some amusing examples would lighten the day.

      Amuse us with your apparently extensive knowledge of Quadratic equations, Divisions, Multiplications, Differential calculus, Integral calculus, Factorising, Logarithms and Exponents, Polynomials and Quantum mathematics? Combinatorics, Numerical analysis, Data analysis, or Control theory perhaps?

      I’m sure “we” could all do with some light relief….Oops! I just did a “we”! Must have been all that “maths”?

      Charles Lutwidge Dodgson would have been amused too. (the famous mathematician of his time. Otherwise known as “Lewis Carroll”) “Curiouser and Curiouser” said Alice Liddell?

  4. Oh, you forgot those maths., from 2019?

    13,966,451 produced 365, 10,295,912 produced 203.
    3,696,419 produced 11.

    And yet only 1,242,380 produced 48! (Someone is on a good number.)

    (See above definition. Think that just about meets the definition.)

    Mind you, the last one perhaps does not! Just a different space?

    Maybe the fools are those who have forgotten those maths.?

    1720 was also famous for some bad maths. The South Sea bubble was full of it-including Isaac Newton, who used the “irrational exuberance” excuse.

    Apt really. Interesting how numbers can connect.

    • Yeahhhh….? What was that? Poor old maths having a bad day? It looks like he’s fallen down the bunny mugger hole again. That will teach him to work for fools…

      Try this for maths: 1:5 = FF x ( ;-( ). 1:6 x ELE = 0. Both two sided equations.

      Never mind. Its all in the dream of the Red King you know.



      • “What was that?”

        So, you couldn’t understand the maths.?

        It was the answer to the original point made by 1720.

        Always one in the class, usually at the back of the room, who is not able to understand and attempts to divert attention away from that, but simply draws attention to it.

        • Oh Dear, here we go again, endless diversions from the subject over just a few words. Much safer than actually saying anything constructive is it? Another waste of everyone’s time just to bolster ego is it. You know if you ever get around to actually discussing anything relevant to COP26, then please let us all know. I’m sure someone will look at it. But no guarantees….

          “What was that?” Describes precisely what your that deserves. If it meant anything at all that is, and that is in doubt. It was just a string of unrelated numbers that has no foundation or reference to the real world other than the usual vague fixated fantasies so commonly offloaded onto Drill or Drop.

          Merely reciting unsubstantiated numerical abstractions without basis says nothing. No change there.

          As for “understanding” mathematics, I have degrees in Mathematics, Engineering and several other subjects as I have said before. What qualifications do you have?

          Any university tutors, regardless of their discipline, would look at what you posted and say much the same thing, or perhaps more succinctly.

          You see I’m far too kind and polite to follow such directness. So I let you down easy. But of course endless prevarication and extending anything into irrelevant nothing is what the rest of us have come to expect.

          Some of my university tutors would be far less kind and polite. Like:

          “WTF was that load of old nonsense meant to mean?”

          No doubt followed by a reminder that if that is all that the contributor can come up with, may they suggest that mathematics is clearly not their strong point, and recommend they divert their attention to something less demanding of their limited mathematical resources? Like politics perhaps?

          Just plonking down a bunch of numbers and calling it “maths” (how is he by the way? Still coughing up spurious impossible one sided equations?)

          Clearly what was in your post doesnt understand “Mr/Mrs Maths”? To make a mathematical statement, it has to have a meaningful context to something real, not imaginary. It must be relevant to the subject. Not some vague unspecified illusion of having any meaning at all. Otherwise its just set of random numbers that has no relevance and says nothing.

          Sorry. But what your post contained wasn’t mathematics old thing. Not even arithmetic. Time to go back to the classroom perhaps?

          Have a Nice Day.

          Oh, yes. And: “We”

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s