Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 28, 2018

Trump Administration Acknowledges Climate Change - Predicts Large Rise In Global Temperatures

The Trump administration admits that climate change will increase the global temperature more than anticipated:

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees [Fahrenheit] by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.

That increase though, says the Trump administration, is no reason to stop emitting gases that, for a large part, cause such warming:

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

"The child already fell into the well, there is no longer any need to cover it."

The administration uses such faulty reasoning to eliminate regulations that are supposed to limit 'greenhouse' gas emissions. It is set to allow higher emissions from cars and trucks.

For millions of years plants on earth used the energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and water into hydrocarbons. Where those plants were later covert with volcanic ash or sunk into the sea, geologic pressure and time converted them into coal, oil and gas. Since the start of industrialization humans have used an enormous amount of these dead plants to generate energy. Coal, oil and natural gas - the hydrocarbons - oxidize in exothermic reaction. They burn and give off heat which humans transform into various kinds of usable energy. The emissions from such fires are basically the stuff from which the plants were created - carbon dioxide and water.

A large part of the energy from the sun that hits the earth is reflected back into space. Carbon dioxide and other gases (Methane) in the atmosphere lower the reflection rate of the earth, they trap the energy (heat) the sun shines onto earth within the atmosphere just like the glass of a greenhouse traps the heat inside. Spectroscopic measurements from space over several decades show a decrease of reflections from earth at the spectral range of carbon dioxide. Long term measurements on earth of carbon dioxide concentrations correlate strongly with the general temperature increase.

All this is well known and not controversial. But, as John Maynard Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. Humans are not willing to give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far away future generations. The 2015 Paris agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions was largely a scam. Hardly any country stuck to the endorsed targets. After the Fukushima disaster the Merkel government in Germany decided to shut down nuclear power plants but increased the use of brown coal for electricity production.


It was a 'populist' decision, sold as a "green" policy even as it was the opposite, and contradicted the commitment to decrease emissions. The Obama administration allowed a huge increase in fracking which, next to the hydrocarbons, releases a large amount of other greenhouse gases.

The decision by the Trump administration is wrong. Yes, we will likely not be able to stop a global temperature increase in next few decades. But future generations also deserve our compassion. We must still do our best to limit the long term increase by ending the use of hydrocarbons wherever possible.

It will not be easy to replace hydrocarbons as a source of energy. Large amounts of electric energy are difficult and expensive to store. We need a certain locally distributed base capacity in our electricity networks to provide energy when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. For now nuclear energy is still the most climate friendly way to generate this base capacity. It also creates highly toxic waste that is extremely difficult to get rid of.

The effects of climate change, higher temperatures, rising sea levels and generally more extreme weather, will hit the poorest people the most. This within the U.S. as well as in a global frame. The consequences will be mass migration on a never before seen scale, widespread lack of consumable water and large violent conflicts arising from both.

Two countries may hope to profit from the rise in global temperature as it will increase their access to natural resources that are currently covert by ice. The U.S. (with Canada) and Russia may be the winners of the trend. Most other countries will be losers.

While short term human greed will likely prevent a reduction in hydrocarbon use, and a slowing down of climate change, there may be other effects that could suddenly turn the trend. A large volcanic eruption or a big asteroid impact could cloud the earth and bring back (much) colder times. Some yet unknown effect in the atmosphere that is not anticipated in current climate models could stop or reverse the current trend.

The human race is able to adopt to extreme climates. Humans can live in deserts as well as in the arctic. But such extreme climate zones do not allow for high density populations. The current number of people on this planet may prove to be too high to sustain. Climate change itself, through large scale conflicts and famines, may well provide for its own natural regulation. Reduced to some 100 million individuals humanity may well survive. Nature will not be compassionate in effecting such.

Posted by b on September 28, 2018 at 18:15 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Come off it. The world was much better at sustaining life when Greenland was actually green, which means it was a whole lot warmer on earth then than it is today.

Posted by: Tony B. | Sep 28 2018 18:29 utc | 1

The fraud of global warming. Look up fellow Canadian Maurice Strong and his plan to use this fake science to advance globalism. How about Heinrik Svensmark, climate scientist from Copenhagen who rightly describes the effect of cosmic rays on our planets weather. A Grand Solar Minimum is upon us. Just look at summer snow in US & Canada! Al Gore was a fraud and YT channel Oppenheimer Ranch Projects does daily reports of the actual science of our changing planet.

Posted by: Don Task | Sep 28 2018 18:30 utc | 2

B, the Empire knew back in the 1970s, at the latest, Club of Rome etc, where it was all headed. They still think their wealth and technology will enable them to survive. Climate change as far as the Empire is concerned is WWIII by another name. It gets rid of the 'surplus' population, consumes all that surplus capital, clears the decks so-to-speak. So when the waters (or whatever) recede, they'll (the 1%) pick up where they left off. It's called Hubris. Look at Trump! Lives in in his own, sociopathic bubble. BTW, Kavanaugh nominated. Run for cover!

Posted by: barovsky | Sep 28 2018 18:32 utc | 3

Here is an interesting look at when Shell admitted that the production of oil and natural gas was leading to global climate change:

Big Oil has, for decades, known the repercussions of its business model.

Posted by: Sally Snyder | Sep 28 2018 18:36 utc | 4

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.

They're lining up with the overly conservative projections of the IPCC which keep being outstripped by events, mostly because they stick with linear models and discount positive feedback loops and other non-linear effects. The most recent IPCC report gave 4.8C as the upper extreme of the likely range for the 2100 average temperature.

But studies which try to account for likely feedback effects tend to place c. 4C at the low extreme and project upper extremes of 7 degrees plus. At a 7C rise a region would be uninhabitable for humans and most other mammals.

I see the pro-corporate, pro-Pentagon, pro-empire deniers are out already. The logic is extremely stupid: Just because liberals like Al Gore are frauds (which they certainly are), does not mean that the physical phenomenon isn't real. By that logic there must be no US wars because liberals lie about opposing those as well.

In the case of the climate crisis it's simply that no one, including those who cry crocodile tears and foment scams like the Paris accord, really wants to change anything. But it’s always been true that there is one and only one solution to avert the worst of climate chaos:

Stop emitting; stop destroying sinks; rebuild sinks on a massive scale.

All else is a lie. Most of all, the Big Lie is that anything constructive can be done within the congenitally destructive framework of the economic civilization.

Posted by: Russ | Sep 28 2018 18:47 utc | 5

We are going to a new ice age. MOA you shouldn t believe on AGW. It doesnt makeup any sense for you to believe in such scan.

Posted by: Paulo Vaz | Sep 28 2018 18:54 utc | 6

What is that temperature inside a nuclear blast?
I heard it might really be a bit heated there.

Posted by: Arioch | Sep 28 2018 18:59 utc | 7

Only mentally lazy people fall for this climate change bullshit. Go the extra mile, look at the actual raw data, and you will see that recent temperature trends are historically unremarkable.

Meanwhile, I have made it a rule to not support any websites promoting climate change bullshit, so I will now cancel my contribution to this one.

Posted by: Mike P | Sep 28 2018 19:05 utc | 8

a good question would be this... do you think corporations are going to change?? do you think people will be willing to change their consumer habits?? even if it was possible to change direction here, who would be leading the charge? scientists on gov't payroll? corporations? the general public that are being squeezed constantly?

my answer is that change will be forced on everyone, as no one wants to embrace any change.. then there are those who see no problem to begin with, or those like trump who want to get rid of the epa!

Posted by: james | Sep 28 2018 19:07 utc | 9

Whoops!! Sorry about that! B, could you delete it please and do it again.

Posted by: barovsky | Sep 28 2018 19:12 utc | 10

Climate change is not primarily caused by "greenhouse gasses" (althought they do contribute a small fraction), but primarily by changes in the sun's activity. It is not only Earth that has changing temperatures (the debate is still as to whether there is cooling going on or warming, which means that scientists are NOT all in agreement!), it's also the other planets in the solar system, since solar activity affects them all. To say that "greenhouse gasses cause global warming" is political, not based on science. Politicians (and disingenous "scientists" on the payroll of such) say this, and mainstream media parrot it, because there is some political, economic or power benefit to it, not because it's true.

For real climate change, look to the sun, not to politicians (although i'm sure all the hot air they expell must contribute as well... ;))

Posted by: rigol | Sep 28 2018 19:15 utc | 11

Thanks for the science lesson b, obviously, it was "casting pearls before swine", judging by some comments here.

Personally, I think we, as humans, will poison the environment, as to make it non-sustaining, long before the climate change gets us.

Posted by: ben | Sep 28 2018 19:16 utc | 12

Seem to be a lot of AGW-denialists jumping onto this thread. No limits to the delusions suckers will award themselves, when they REALLY want their delusions to be true. Especially when they're fed their delusions by the organised lying propaganda of criminal gangster capitalists defending entirely unimportant short-term special interests. There's a certain grim schadenfreude to be had from watching wholly-indifferent geophysical reality roll over them - both the suckers and their manipulators - crushing them and their delusions in the process. Some compensation, for those of us who can stay alive long enough to see it happen. Shouldn't be too long now... :O)

Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Sep 28 2018 19:32 utc | 13

I see climate change as part of the limits to economic growth - perhaps the most important part but, for all that, part of a larger picture of the global economy running up over carrying capacity of the ecological system.

Further growth entails more harms than benefits - uneconomic growth - with the production of "bads" not goods - spawning chaos and thus a lot of vulnerable people, climate refugees, conflicts over water and food over depleting material and energy resources - and thus a profitable market for arms, security industry, corporate PR/spin, grabbing resources and exploiting the vulnerability of populations "shock doctrine/disastercapitalism" style.

The potential for epidemics and public health crises is considerable - for example consider the outbreak of ebola in the Congo at the moment in a war zone which prevents public health actions.

In all of this climate change may not turn out as bad as feared because of fossil fuel depletion - there will continue to be plenty of fossil fuels in the ground but it is becoming much more expensive in money and energy to extract them - fracking, for example, is much more expensive than tapping conventional oil and gas. There is a reason the oil and gas industry are not making money.That however would or will lead to lasting economic stagnation.

On the other hand there is a real nightmare that climate change could turn out to be much worse than feared because of reinforcing feedbacks in the Arctic that is warming much faster than previously thought likely - with an ice free Arctic much earlier than anticipated. The change in the earth's albedo,dark sea water soaking up solar energy where previously it was reflected by ice, and releasing methane hydrates from under the sea and from melting tundra - could create an unsurvivable abrupt temperature rise much faster than previously thought possible - as in the next decade.. I am not saying that will happen but to my mind the science is plausible that it could...

Posted by: Brian Davey | Sep 28 2018 19:33 utc | 14

everyone should consider that this so called human made 'climate change' is in reality militarised 'weather control' at its best.

that does not mean industrial havoc was and is brought upon nature every day, but regarding the extreme weather symphtoms which have replaced normal weather cyrcles , this is obvious for everyone who still has eyes to see and a functioning brain to research!

good starting points for the latter : geoengineeringwatch and weathermodificationhistory

The political agenda of course running in the background via control of energy and mobility is the UN Agenda 21/30.

And yes, the weather is defnately heating up. Here in the middle of Germany i measured 47 degC in April, up to 65 degC in July/Aug , and now still 35degC this morning in the direct Sunlight ! (with a Real Thermometer, not smartbullshitapp!) . Only the reasons are not the ones the powers that shouldn't be want us to believe they are and as i said, its obvious for everyone, almost everyday who still uses his eyes to see !!

Posted by: youss | Sep 28 2018 19:40 utc | 15

B, when it comes to seeing through the BS narrative of western geopolitics you're one of the best but unfortunately your lack of critical thinking when it comes to the extraordinary and terrifying but completely natural climate changes of today is disappointing. The Powers that Be knew perfectly well what was going to happen since the 1970s. The Anthromorphic Global Warming BS narrative was devised to distract the masses from what's really going on and meanwhile the PTB could make a pretty penny for themselves through the Ponzi Carbon Tax scheme (devised in Wall Street, where else). Good luck with your supreme efforts in ridding the Earth's atmosphere of all the human made CO2, pity it will be all for nothing. In short (and trust me I've spent the better part of 10 years researching it) we are dipping now very rapidly into a Mini Ice Age. By 2030 there will be no more argument and by 2050 a full on Ice Age probably to last at least 100,000 years. The transition period of about 25 years (which began in 1998) is a period of extreme ,and increasingly regular, weather events. This winter in the Northern Hemisphere will be substantially worse than last year and crop failures around the world are already getting very serious, food inflation will skyrocket in the next four years as countries cease exporting what harvests they can salvage. The Sun is powering down and there's nothing we can do about it, it's the Grand Solar Minimum and it's a natural process, i just wish more scientists had spent the last forty years figuring out why our own star powers down in regular cycles, alas too many took the 30 pieces of silver to go along with the AGW nonsense.
Call me a 'climate change denier', whatever. In the next 10 years Nature will do the talking and the AGW proponents will be silenced.

Posted by: Sertoreo | Sep 28 2018 19:41 utc | 16

I am myself doubtful of the Global Warming trope; to me, the science seems shaky.

Over the years I've grown cynical about anything promoted by the major Mass Media.

IMO solar activity is the greatest influence upon the envelope of Earth's atmosphere.

From the Global South GW looks like an attempt to constrict 3rd World industrialization.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 28 2018 19:46 utc | 17

The big problem with global warming is food. Just one example: if average annual temperature in Brazil rises 1°C, coffee production is wiped out. We are going to starve long before the USA is able to get that Arctic oil.

CO2 is recyclable by nature: it is absorbed by the oceans in the form of limestone. The problem: this cycle lasts 350,000 years to complete. We are also going to starve long before the next one completes.

As for the meteor: a large meteor (more than 1km diameter) will shock with the Earth. But it will happen only in 500,000 years aprox. (yes,NASA's estimates for these kind of things are crap, but it is all we have now). So, don't count on it.

A big volcanic eruption is the best short term solution, because we still cannot forsee it with the theory and technology we have nowadays. But, if memory doesn't fail me, the best guess is 250,000 years from now. Again, don't count on it.

Realistically, the only happy ending for humanity would be a world socualist revolution, which would involve a global civil war, wiping out at least 50% of the human population but in a civilized manner. Sovialism being victorious, profit motive would be eliminated, and a new mode of production, ecologically friendly but also technologically much more advanced, would emerge.

Posted by: vk | Sep 28 2018 19:50 utc | 18

Humans are fouling their own nest with greenhouse gases and plain old pollution. Will there be a solution? No.

Environmentalists say, "Oh the planet!" when they should really be saying, "Oh the human race!". I don't think all humans will perish in the coming catastrophe but most of them will and most of the remaining ones won't learn anything from it at all as is shown by the ignoramuses commenting above. Earth will still be here and will recover from the scourge of humans.

Earth is overrun with humans, their population is too high. When a species gets too numerous nature always takes care of the problem. It isn't pretty but it gets done and homo sapiens are no different from any other animal species to Mother Nature.

However, a good nuclear war might help solve the problem of excess humans and global warming sooner rather than later.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Posted by: Jim | Sep 28 2018 19:51 utc | 19

I agree. There are Sun's cyclic events occuring and we know of just a few and more than 10 are predicted. We also measure our weather last 200+ years, the rest we search for in tree rings,ice and mud. So, we can only assume and not even guess.
I do not deny the man made climate, but even if we stop industrial activity right now and cease emissions, The Earth is not getting better. Ever.

Posted by: laserlurk | Sep 28 2018 19:59 utc | 20

I wonder why it is that climate change
gets so many into frantic denial mode.

Is it that it callenges their way of living
on a more fundamental level than they can
cope with?

Personally I'm annoyed with all the talk
of climate change because it skews the
debate towards a single easily digested
issue, obscuring the many and complex ways
in which civilization sows the seeds of its
own destruction. And this will certainly
result in misallocation of resources on a
vast scale, and many endeavours undertaken
that will do more harm than good.

Posted by: Per | Sep 28 2018 20:01 utc | 21

"Humans are not willing to give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far away future generations."

Are profits really something like hair or fingernails, they're going to grow for everyone in the normal course of events? Wanting to be able to get to a job and a supermarket and a physician is self-indulgence in comfort? No wonder the OP can barely keep from smacking lips at the prospect of a massive human population collapse.

Personally I'm not able to regulate carbon emissions. As for a world government strong enough to plan new forms of technology, regulate emissions, move populations, democratically resolve questions about reproduction rates, and so on, I will point out that the OP and the OP's paragon Putin are resolutely opposed to economic planning. And they are both opposed to the kind of internationalism where nations aren't free to do what they want, regardless, whether it is war or a different environmental policy.

The Good Place tells us that God will send us to hell if we aren't vegans who recycle and drive hybrids. But I'm not a fan.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 28 2018 20:02 utc | 22

"Pentagon: Climate change a national security threat"

The above believe in CC, and they're not exactly hoax believers. But, believe what you will...

Posted by: ben | Sep 28 2018 20:10 utc | 23

"Two countries may hope to profit from the rise in global temperature as it will increase their access to natural resources that are currently covert by ice. The U.S. (with Canada)"

Not sure about the total gain for the US, Alaska is a gain, but desert regions in the mainland will increase.

Posted by: Passer by | Sep 28 2018 20:12 utc | 24


As an earnest young choir boy, who used to stare into the past as the priest droned on about sin and redemption and the Host and the collection plate, I could never reconcile how the teachings of Jesus to give your possessions to the poor, had become so easily corrupted into give your tithes to the Church.

With the rise of a New Carbon Catholic at the turn of this Second Century's Anti-Christ epoch, it's not so obscure to me anymore. Pope Albertus laid out the Even Newer Testament of a Scientocratic State as Saviour for our Prosperity Sins against Mother, a Mother they have transmogrified from Cruel Nature into an obtainable, results take time and tithes, but I know we'll get there, Rajeuni Garden of Eden.

Pope Albertus, and Church Scribe McKibbon, are both, of course multi-millionaires now, living on rich estates in their 'existential suffering', while Church Science Cardinal Hansen, anothe multi-millionaire, spends his time running from the IRS for violating the US Hatch Act, to show how deep his faith is in service to Our Mother. Church Chief Bean Counter Mann remains deep in his dungeons, wrestling with hockey sticks and thumb-on-the-scale nudged and redacted Deep Data strings of the New Provenance.

And what a glorious supra-national Carbon Catholic Church this 'scheme' of theirs shall become, able to strip away our last savings and our poor prosperity, fatwah by fatwah, specious futurology by specious futurology epistle, all in lock-step with the $4,000B a year bleed-out Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty!

Sure hope Pope Albertus takes their Carbon Catholic 'scheme' public! Then we can abandon our seniors and rob our grandchildren to eke yet more profits from our 401k!

Buy Carbon stock! It's the next Bitcoin!!

E pluribus now get back to work.

Posted by: Anton Worter | Sep 28 2018 20:15 utc | 25

s t Johnson 22
What nonsense -about Putin . He wrote his major research project on resource pressures vis-à-vis competing economies and what Russia could do to protect herself in this new era of potentially violent struggle for resources .
That approach does and will demand consummate PLANNING and organization across many time zones .

Posted by: ashley albanese | Sep 28 2018 20:20 utc | 26

Perhaps there can be more winners. E.g. Sweden, Finland and independent Scotland becoming breadbaskets of Europe. India loosing excess of population to heat strokes. More seriously, temperature change would distribute precipitation differently, turning valuable agricultural lands into worthless and vice versa.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 28 2018 20:22 utc | 27

rigol @11

You appear to be be mistaken.

"Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature."

Sketical Science link

Posted by: ADKC | Sep 28 2018 20:27 utc | 28

amazing that so many people who seem to exhibit critical thinking when it comes to claims about the white helmets or the skripals uncritically swallow propaganda from the fossil fuel companies. you really think scientists aren't aware of the sun? you really think fossil fuel companies are politically powerless, or don't have enough money to publish scientific studies refuting the established science, if they could. they can't, so they funded a propaganda campaign instead. the big money is provided by fossil fuel companies, not grants. follow the money.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 28 2018 20:30 utc | 29

@Brian Davey #14

There's a problem - a big one - with the scenario of catastrophic release of methane from the Arctic sea floor. At sea floor water pressures, methane is solid. It is not a temperature-dependent phase under high pressure. There is a large amount of solid methane in ocean sediments in temperate regions. Don't equate sea floor methane with tundra methane.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Sep 28 2018 20:34 utc | 30

LOL 4 degree's C is literally enough to sterilize the planet.

Wowzers to the level of denial in the comments. Yes All the big money from ???? is pushing the climate change 'myth' while a dozen of the largest companies on the planet just mind their own business and dig for oil.

Rather than go point by point debunking the nonsense about the sun and the upcoming ice age I'll just leave this paper here that explains that and points out we might be on the path to feedback loops that set us way hotter.

Also, we could have multiple fukushima's a year, take the maximum number of possible deaths and illnesses that could plausibly be related and it would still be leaps and bounds less deadly than the thousands of people that die from smog and small airborne particles from fossil fuel use. And those extra meltdowns might make it as deadly as the number of people who fall to their death installing solar and wind. My mom the flight attendant gets way more increased radiation throughout her career than just about anyone exposed to fukushima, spare the employee's that had to go in after the meltdown.

And for the few people that try to say nuclear isn't green, your wrong.

Posted by: UserFriendly | Sep 28 2018 20:35 utc | 31

Sure, oil was a pandora's box, but not in the way that b has it stated here. Rather, it has exponentially sped up the shit storm that is humanity intersecting with modern technology and the lack of thought that it engenders in our mad rush to just be going fast. AGW is a myth and the gov't just 40 years ago issued a warning for the coming ice age. You gonna trust that source? But they actually had it right in that we are approaching a solar minimum. You guys think being hot sucks...wait for the cold.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Sep 28 2018 20:36 utc | 32



The $850B a year Pentagon, BILLION, will translate any Papist epistle into a 'Threat from the Other!!!!!", in order to grow their own salaries and pensions for life.

Your key mistake then was mistranslating 'defense'. The Pentagon, and Pope Albertus, doesn't give a frack about you. There are millions and millions and milliins of 3W living hand to mouth, reading at night by fossil lamps, massively 'carboning up' the air. Simple solar solves all that. Solar systems begging for UN funds. Pope Albertus never mentions it. He wants a Carbon Credit Bourse!

A Carbon Credit Bourse, I must add, where hot-money flows to foreign tin-pot dictators, who force the same indigent populations off their small holdings, aggregate lands, and plant for-profit palm oil plantations, then sell the 'carbon credits' to German coal plants and steel mills.

Now we are all Good Carbon Cathoilic soy boys, and we solved the 3W problem! No more smoldering oil lamps, the millions and millions and millions of now disenfrachised and landless 3W indigents are sent starving and dying in sweltering urban ghettoes as a result of our Good Actions. But somehow this is not enough, and the New Garden of Eden keeps receding into the far specious futurology dustance of the Scientocrat cardinals and bishops latest shock epistles. 7 degrees Kelvin!!!!

These observations are all unrefutable fact. The real inconvenient truth is we have all been had by the New Scientocrat Deep Satan State:Corporate.

Posted by: Anton Worter | Sep 28 2018 20:37 utc | 33

polarizing topic! it is unfortunate it is so polarizing!

Posted by: james | Sep 28 2018 20:40 utc | 34

"Humans are not willing to give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far away future generations."

b, your slide into human nature-based explanations here falls very short of your usual analytic ability. Most of the planet lives in social orders that are structured so as to prevent the formulation of a response to the coming catastrophe. Elites resist devaluation of their investments very effectively. Denialism at the mass level feeds on an unwillingness to be the ones who would get stuck with very unevenly shared burden of de- and re-industrialization. Etc. What appears "natural" about human nature is very actually very artifactual.

Posted by: dadooronron | Sep 28 2018 20:42 utc | 35

Posted by: ben | Sep 28, 2018 3:16:40 PM | 12

Personally, I think we, as humans, will poison the environment, as to make it non-sustaining, long before the climate change gets us.

That's likely in many cases, especially the process of deforestation leading to desert. Global warming most likely will just come in to mop up, with the Amazon and all other rain forests and most temperate and boreal forests long since desertified by humans massacring the trees.

Posted by: vk | Sep 28, 2018 3:50:28 PM | 18

CO2 is recyclable by nature: it is absorbed by the oceans in the form of limestone. The problem: this cycle lasts 350,000 years to complete. We are also going to starve long before the next one completes.

Yes, that's the primary carbon sink and acidification is causing that mechanism to shut down as the algae, coccolithophores and other organisms which form skeletons from the carbon are no longer able to do so. The oceans are beginning to phase change from the greatest sink to a CO2 emitter.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 28, 2018 4:22:17 PM | 27

E.g. Sweden, Finland and independent Scotland becoming breadbaskets of Europe....temperature change would distribute precipitation differently, turning valuable agricultural lands into worthless and vice versa.

It takes thousands of years for Gaia to build arable soil. The whole notion that agriculture can simply move to higher latitudes is a gross misconception. What's going to happen, assuming industrial agriculture doesn't collapse sooner from any of several causes, is that the current tropics will become untenable, the current temperate zones will have greatly reduced productivity. And of course deserts will be covering most of the world.

Posted by: Russ | Sep 28 2018 20:44 utc | 36

Some of the comments reminds me of a real life experience as a twelve year old in the 1950's
American South: A twelve year old friend was already a heavy cigarette smoker. His father's rationale was he would rather buy cigarettes for the son than have him swipe a few from his packs. Sad thing about this is fact the father had lung cancer and he knew it was caused by cigarettes.....but not caused by tobacco!! True. He believed it was caused by the cigarette wrapper paper. Could it be global warming is not caused by the heat and a few billion will die due to the wrapper?

Posted by: Ger | Sep 28 2018 20:46 utc | 37

I used to assume that AGW was real. Everyone said so and I saw only poor arguments against it.
Then one day I thought I'd double-check to make sure of my facts in this very polarised issue.
Here are some facts that changed my mind (you are under no obligation to even consider these facts):

1. "97% of scientists"
The original study found that, among 3146 scientists of various disciplines, about 77-82% favoured AGW. The criteria were progressively narrowed until 97% of 168 scientists agree. This 97% claim is such a linchpin of the pro-AGW argument that it is important to know in what way is it both true and misleading.

2. "100% of temperature increase is adjustments"
It is essential to know whether or not this anti-AGW claim is true or not. To investigate, I shuttled back and forth between the two sides. To summarise:
Pro: US land temperatures show an increase over the last century
Anti: Yes, but the adjustments to temperatures account for all of the increase. raw temperatures have not increased much at all
Pro: The histogram of adjustments show a balanced bell curve of positive and negative so they must be fair
Anti: Yes, but the adjustments plotted over time show a steady increase, adjusting 1920 temperatures down and 2010 temperatures up means adjustments increase steadily over the last century, and account for ALL of the increase in temperatures that is reported
Pro: But experts from NOAA make these adjustments for good reasons so you should trust them
Anti: Yes, some of the trend can be explained by time-of-day bias (TOB) adjustments, but less than 0.3C so what about the rest of the 0.6C of adjustments?
At this point, my Pro correspondent lost interest and went back to talking about 97%

3. Ocean rise
We have satellite data for the last 25 years. Satellites orbit lower each pass (eg. 19cm per year) so you need to make those kind of adjustments and everyone agrees with those. With only those adjustments to sea level readings, there is no discernible change to sea level over the last 25 years.
Then there is a second set of adjustments that experts like Professor Mölner regard as arbitrary and unproven, but they produce a chart showing sea level rising.
Against those charts, however, we find that most of the "vulnerable" Pacific islands that were feared to go under the waves have actually been increasing their shorelines over the last decade.

I'm happy for my mind to be changed again, but it cannot be changed by name calling.
I think its important to know the level of scientific certainty, if temperatures are rising, and if seas are rising. The more I looked into it, the more I found that it is uncertain.

The media are not uncertain, however, and I do not have a ready explanation for why that is. Although, if pushed I'd refer you to Matt Taibi's magnificent 2010 article on Goldman Sachs with its reference to how the idea of climate change can create a huge market for GS to manipulate.

Posted by: Deltaeus | Sep 28 2018 20:46 utc | 38

Well, first time in years I wholeheartedly disagree with B. For once, you're short on facts and the debate is so limited that it means nothing. B, out of all people, cites as a reference? Are you for real? And no, this is not the first of April... Unfortunately...

Posted by: lili | Sep 28 2018 20:48 utc | 39

The article mentions an old, unproven, but widely held hypothesis about how oil is generated.
"Where those plants were later covert with volcanic ash or sunk into the sea, geologic pressure and time converted them into coal, oil and gas."

Soviet scientists set out to discover how hydrocarbons are created. They hypothesised that methane is converted to complex hydrocarbons under extreme temperature and pressure in the Earth's mantle. This was later confirmed by laboratory experiments.
They discovered plenty of oil by drilling where the theory predicted hydrocarbons generated deep in the mantle would come closer to the surface.
To me the killer fact is that Russia went from a country with little oil at the end of WW2 to a major exporter of oil. How did they do that if they were wrong about oil?

What this means is that all the ideas about how we're such terrible people for burning oil that took millions of years to create is wrong. Well, we might still be terrible people :-) but our grandchildren will still have plenty of oil.
Please don't misread this as "burn baby burn". I'd like to protect the environment as much as you. But I think all of us are here because we value the search for truth so I offer these thoughts in that spirit.

Posted by: Deltaeus | Sep 28 2018 21:07 utc | 40

I wonder what reverse we will se next week from the Trump misadministration.....
I love this quote :
"But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed."

I dont know whether to laugh or cry, frankly.
I simply assume the main part of the American population has turned into blathering idiots in the last few years, there is no other explanation. To much GMO modified starch combined with to much Fox news.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Sep 28 2018 21:09 utc | 41

I am another of those who doesn't believe that man made CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. This is good news. The belief that CO2 is a major factor in determining climate is believed because it is one of the easier factors to mathematically model - everything else staying the same - which of course it doesn't. All of the disastrous predictions (‘It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future' - Yogi Berra) are from climate models - not observable evidence. There is a reason they changed the name from Anthropogenic Global Warming to Climate Change. Climate change happens all the time. Global Warming has been happening since end of the Little Ice Age. Sea level rise happening at the same rate also. The ice cores say temperature changes first - CO2 levels follow - not initiate. A carbon footprint would be the basis for almost total control of people's lives. Why the Little Ice Age happened is not settled science unless you're Mike (Mike'e Nature trick) Mann who just made it go away like he did the Medieval Warming with his hockey stick. Before NOAA went and changed the temperature figures to make the pause go away there were over 100 peer reviewed papers trying to explain the pause Even Michael Mann wrote a paper trying to explain why the pause wasn't a pause - most of them say natural variation mostly in the ocean has a number of his short videos on why the climate change alarmism is a hoax. Why do most climate scientists agree with climate alarmism?: Lennart Bengston - the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers on why he resigned from GWFP - In 2014, only three weeks after his appointment as a member of the Advisory Board to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), he was forced to resign(20). The GWPF is a significant organization known for its support of sceptical views concerning climate change. The reasons for his resignation are clear from the following abstracts from his resignation letter to the GWPF. “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become almost unbearable to me. If this is to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety……….I had not expected such an enormous world wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc………It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.” Judith Curry used to be the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Being part of the IPCC led her to be a climate skeptic - which led to Scientific American calling her a heretic. Later to her leaving academia all together. There are billions (yes plural) of dollars for research grants for studies that validate climate warming caused by CO2. Thge millions the Koch brothers spend skeptic views is paltry. I could go on but its not science but religion where one has heresy if one disagrees with the consensus. `

Posted by: gepay | Sep 28 2018 21:09 utc | 42

Good article, b, and spot on. With regard to the silly comments... I've found that you can't expect people's knowledge in one area to carry over to another with any reliability. This is why I'm always willing to work with people who I have disagreements with in other areas as long as they're ready to push in the same direction on an important issue. Some of the folks above might be ready to defend Syria even though they're 180 degrees off when it comes to recognizing the causes and impact of climate change. To each his or her own.

Posted by: worldblee | Sep 28 2018 21:10 utc | 43

It's foolish and foolhardy to argue the scientific merits here. MoA is primarily about international relations, not climate science.

b points to a Trump Administration study. The Trump Administration is pro-oil, yet even they are saying that climate change is real.

Climate change trolls appear whenever global warming is discussed because oil companies want to take pressure off politicians to do something about it. They have actually stopped fighting the science and turned to public relations/propaganda instead.

PS I know that not all anti-global warming comments are from trolls. Please don't attack the messenger.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 28 2018 21:10 utc | 44

Don't you love how a public utterly uninterested in science all become experts whenever this topic comes up?

Posted by: Ash | Sep 28 2018 21:10 utc | 45

I remember when they said acid rain will kill all forests. And the ozone holes will make us all sunburned and riddled with skin cancer. They do not talk much about acid rain and ozone holes nowadays - are those issues fixed?
Now they are talking about planet warming and how we will get all cooked and fried.
And the greenhouse emissions are to blame they said. But the emissions from what? Just from our cars and from cows farts? Bullshit. Every summer forest fires in BC and California spew huge amount of smoke to the air. If you look on the world map of forest fires you will see that in sub-Saharan Africa those forests and savannas burn all year around. Few eruptions from volcanoes in Iceland, Central America or Indonesia put more crap in the air than whole world combined.
And actually, the smoke in the air can have a cooling effect, as BC residents witnessed this August when the smoke was blocking the sun and lowered temperature from normally 34 to pleasant 26 degrees. But boy did it stink, yuck and cough.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 28 2018 21:10 utc | 46

Deltaeus @38

I hope you don't mind if I simplify your issue with regard to global warming. What I glean from your post is that you don't believe that global temperatures are increasing and are looking for a straight-forward indicator which demonstrates whether this is true or not.

In my view the temperature of the Earth's oceans are that indicator. The Earth's ocean do not really have a green house effect. What they do is maintain a temperature that is in 'balance' with the that of the rest of the Earth. The Earth's oceans act as a regulator and absorb heat during the day and emit heat at night.

If there is no global warming the temperature of the Earth's oceans will not be increasing. And if there is global warming the temperature of the Earth's oceans will be increasing.

If you check I believe that you will find that the temperature of the earth's oceans are increasing and this must mean that global warming is happening.

Posted by: ADKC | Sep 28 2018 21:12 utc | 47

If "climate change" rubbish were merely junk science it would be a huge improvement. The climate has always been changing. "Climate change" has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with politics.

Posted by: Steven M Barry | Sep 28 2018 21:16 utc | 48

@Russ #5

The IPCC model is not overly conservative or being "outstripped by events." The model was developed to fit observed late Twentieth Century trends, based on certain assumptions. When they came up with a model that fit those data, they called it good and decided to rely on their empirical model as a predictive model, with all sorts of dire forecasts. The model has thus far predicted greater change than has actually occurred. It seems that some of what went into the model was not the result of CO2 emissions but reduction of SO2 emissions that formed reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the whole acid rain thing). There are numerous examples of confirmation bias in how normal variations in weather events are viewed. Hurricane Katrina was the supposed herald of a new era of AGW-driven superstorms. What followed was a quiet period that lasted over a decade. The past couple of bad wildfire seasons in the western US get attributed to AGW, overlooking the obvious fact that they followed some of the wettest winters on record. The recent drought in the western US got attributed to AGW when there is in fact evidence for a megadrought corresponding to the "little ice age" around roughly 1300 AD. The list goes on.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Sep 28 2018 21:17 utc | 49

@45 hoepehely.. the bc forest fires have become a regular phenom the past 3 out of 4 years and in all my life i have never seen anything like it.. and it didn't cool as much as you suggest either.. the smoke is an irritant that is toxic to the lungs and other organs in the body.. it ain't something to embrace.. maybe it's only a temporary glitch, but on the surface it ain't pretty.. summers have gotten drier and winters drier too for the past number of years.. again - maybe it is just a glitch..

Posted by: james | Sep 28 2018 21:20 utc | 50

UNICEF projects that the total African population will nearly quadruple to about 4.2 billion by the end of the century. This does not seem to fit with the idea of massive death because of climate change.

Posted by: Passerby | Sep 28 2018 21:23 utc | 51

Western democracies are a commodity and oil and gas have the money. Alternative energy does not have the cash to out bid oil and gas.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 28 2018 21:31 utc | 52

Posted by: james | Sep 28, 2018 5:20:10 PM | 49
.. the smoke is an irritant that is toxic to the lungs and other organs in the body.. it ain't something to embrace..
You better start embracing, in few weeks there will be lot of recreational smoke in the air! :-D

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 28 2018 21:36 utc | 53

ashley albanese@26 says Putin wrote about "what Russia could do to protect herself in this new era of potentially violent struggle for resources." The violent struggle for resources will not be the impoverished rabble nations mobbing the rich nations: It will be the rich nations keeping their riches at the expense of the poorer nations. That is, it will be pretty much the US foreign policy where there is no hegemony but a glorious free-for-all of independent states supposedly protecting themselves. When Bangla Desh destabilizes because of sea level rise, it will be India attacking them. Putin is opposed to any international authority. He wants a world where the strong nations can exercise their leadership over weaker nations without interference from a hegemonic power. This is not the problem.

The problem is the US, the current hegemonic power, is the fortress of a decayed empire that can no longer move forward. It can only maintain itself by looting a series of weaker nations. The terror of destruction supports the US role in the world. The dollar is based on blood, not gold the declining economic power of the US cannot earn. But, Putin is not an enemy of this decadence. He is not even an enemy of the flagrant fascism of the Kyiv government!

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 28 2018 21:39 utc | 54

The human population could be reduced drastically as postulated, but the pinnacle of evolution - consciousness would survive. If the human species is wiped out entirely it is unlikely to arise again in the same form.

What is really at stake is a conscious self.

Will our genes do their job and prevent annihilation, and will the demand of the homeostatic imperative to continue win out? Or will the genes which produce pathological rulers bent on the accumulation of power all too willing to slaughter the rest of us, put an end to self awareness - consciousness - in nature?

Posted by: Babyl-on | Sep 28 2018 21:40 utc | 55

Climate change denial is mainly an American delusion. It is not rampant out side ill-informed, ignorant communities. With the low quality education and superstition rampant in America it is no coincidence that 30 % of the plebs believe the earth is flat, 25% believe the sun runs around the earth and 16 % believe in the 6000 year Earth.
These are verifiable facts, search them and you shall find.
Any one who works with or has worked with water and sanitation, town planning knows how our rain patterns have changed dramatically. Some developed places (Where I live) has chosen to do something about it. Undeveloped third world countries (America) choose to do nothing.
OK, go and buy a house in Florida, preferably in Key West, and tell me its worth in 25 years...If I am still here.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Sep 28 2018 21:49 utc | 56

They do not talk much about acid rain and ozone holes nowadays - are those issues fixed?

Yes. Ozone through reduced CFC emissions and acid rain through reduced SO2 emissions. Only problem was, reducing SO2 emissions reduced reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere, giving a bump to global temperatures and buggering CO2-driven climate models.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Sep 28 2018 21:51 utc | 57


They do not talk much about acid rain and ozone holes nowadays - are those issues fixed?

Not totally fixed, perhaps, but significantly improved because of governmental action. In the US, the Clean Air Act of 1990 addressed acid rain, and the chlorofluorocarbons that depleted the ozone layer were banned in the late '80s. They're both excellent examples of successes in response to environmental crises.

Posted by: Tom Allen | Sep 28 2018 21:55 utc | 58

@Den Lille Abe, #55

Any one who works with or has worked with water and sanitation, town planning knows how our rain patterns have changed dramatically.

Good example of confirmation bias.

OK, go and buy a house in Florida, preferably in Key West, and tell me its worth in 25 years.

I remember hearing similar things 25 years ago.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Sep 28 2018 21:58 utc | 59

@james #49

The torching of the Great Plains to increase buffalo range was a huge carbon/methane event, some 7000 years BP. It has been cited as a cause of the early Holocene warm period (warmer than now). Buffalo fart a lot.

Conversion of land for wet rice farming was another methane event that is cited as influencing global climates.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Sep 28 2018 22:07 utc | 60

The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology. – E.O. Wilson

Posted by: Elvis | Sep 28 2018 22:07 utc | 61

And for the opposite view....
This article discusses the problems with "Climate Modeling" and how only a Russian based "climate model" has been remotely close to predicting climate trends so far. So if they have yet to accurately predict a climate trend how are they going to claim to know what is going to happen at the end of the century?

Posted by: goldhoarder | Sep 28 2018 22:13 utc | 62

@ Den Lille Abe

I agree. American idiots believe there is a difference between Republican and Democrat "representatives" too. D and R are two sides of the same coin distracting the rubes with hot button issues with the right hand while the left hand is in the rubes back pocket stealing their wallet......and everything else that isn't nailed down.

Posted by: Jim | Sep 28 2018 22:15 utc | 63

In this and most other discussions on climate change, I am always amazed that there is nothing said about the impact of war and in particular aerial bombardment across the planet since the 1940s on the atmosphere and how air pollution caused by bombing and the resultant smoke and airborne chemicals could be having some effect on weather and even climate.

In particular, the US government and the US Department of Defense must bear responsibility for large-scale pollution of the planet and the possible effects on global environments through constant bombing and warfare through actual war (in the Middle East for example) and military exercises conducted with other countries and global institutions such as NATO. Other governments (such as mine, Australia) are as much to blame.

This old Project Censored article from 2010 gives detail on just how much the US military is a threat to Earth and all its living beings:

Posted by: Jen | Sep 28 2018 22:50 utc | 64

I did extensive research on the subject a decade ago trying to refute skeptics only to become a skeptic myself. As an engineer with a good background in science and math I felt capable of the task. Much of climate science is not fully understood and a number of hypothesis or theories which are untestable and not validated by predictions .

There is a lot of data in some areas, not as much in others. Much of the current data is adjusted in unscientific /unethical fashion. The slight changes that we can observe with modern instrumentation are very small and are then compared to historical data using less modern instruments under different conditions , or proxies for temperature which have even greater uncertainty and tend to average conditions over many centuries or millennia , whereas modern data spans only decades. Comparisons are like comparing apples and oranges

Much of the data is then used in climate models with a number of free parameters filled with unproven assumptions and theories. Most of the funding for these scientists goes to those who seek to achieve the desired results. Scientists cant get published without paying lip service to AGW. The science has become politicized and right and left are now converging on the issue in the same way they converge with neoliberalism and imperialism. Science is as corruptible as economics , history and journalism

To know the present and predict the future one must know the past. During the last 730,000 years there have been ten major glaciations separated by interglacials. Previous interglacials have been up to 5ºC warmer in polar regions than the current interglacial.

Wobbles in the Earth’s orbit have produced repeated cycles of an average of 90,000 years of cold climate followed by an average of 10,000 years of warmth.

During the last interglacial period, sea level was 6 metres higher than today. Air temperature was anything from 2ºC to 6ºC warmer.

The last glaciation started 116,000 years ago. Ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice expanded. Temperature and sea level fell. During the last ice age there were short periods of warmth followed by rapid collapses into bitterly cold conditions. Humans were lucky to survive the last glaciation. The last glaciation finished 14,000 years ago. There was rapid global warming and rapid sea level rise followed. Sea level rose at least 130 metres at the rate of 1 centimetre per year.

During a relatively warm period 6000 years ago, sea level was 2 metres higher than at present. Temperature was also higher. Fluctuating warm and cold conditions continued during a period of thousands of years characterised by warmth.

In the Roman Warming from 250 BC to 450 AD, temperature was at least 2ºC higher than today.

In the Dark Ages there was a bitterly cold period causing crop failure, famine, disease, war, depopulation, expansion of ice and increased wind. There was great social disruption and climate refugee gangs wandered Europe looking for food. Civilisations such as the Mayans collapsed.

In the Medieval Warming (900–1300 AD) Ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice contracted, enabling sea exploration and settlement at high latitudes. Grain crops, cattle, sheep, farms and villages were established on Greenland which was at least 6ºC warmer than today. The population increased and there was enough food to feed the additional tens of millions of people.

The Little Ice Age started in the late 13th Century with a decrease in solar activity. The Little Ice Age was characterised by rapidly fluctuating climate and extraordinarily cold periods during solar inactivity . There was crop failure, famine, disease, war and depopulation. There was social disruption, and wandering climate refugees . The Vikings on Greenland died out. The Little Ice Age ended in 1850 and since then there has been another warming trend

History, archaeology and geology show that we live in an interglacial with variable climate.

In any event its most probable that a glacial period is in our (future generations) future which could depopulate earth by 70% or more at our current level of preparation and planning for this inevitability (which is none)

It may be that mans CO2 emissions could extend the duration of the current interglacial. Much to the dismay of the neomalthusians among the global elite, hence the push to reduce emissions to expedite the change

There are other motivations. Living standards are directly related to energy availability and cost. Reduce availability and increase cost and living standards and life expectancy plummets.

There are also some factions who seek a new global religion based on environmental and resource preservation so as to impose austerity on the people who will embrace it more readily for religious reasons than they would for political or economic reasons

And some have proposed a new economic order based on carbon credits and a carbon dollar to replace the USD, Euro, Pound, Yen and Rmb as international currencies for foreign trade.

The same banksters will control this currency and credit subject to oversight by the Priests of the NWO religion. A global theocracy of sorts with monotheism replaced by pantheism

Posted by: Pft | Sep 28 2018 22:55 utc | 65


Posted by: vk | Sep 28 2018 23:00 utc | 66

Meanwhile, the American trade deficit continues to rise, despite Trump's trade war claims:"Growing trade deficit shows US self-harm")

An excerpt:

"Data released by the US Department of Commerce Thursday shows that because of declining exports of food, industrial supplies and automotive vehicles, the country's international trade deficit expanded to $75.8 billion in August, a record for the recent six months."

Posted by: vk | Sep 28 2018 23:02 utc | 67

Anti-science movements on the left and the right of the political spectrum (in the US anyway) prevent meaningful action on climate change and the rise in CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels.

People on the right believe that climate changes is a hoax perpetrated by tree-hugging greenies ... it is not. And people on the left believe that nuclear power is dangerous ... it is not. It is however a real solution to a high standard of living civilization that does not rely on the burning of coal, oil, and methane.

Posted by: SteveK9 | Sep 28 2018 23:32 utc | 68

24, 31, 36

Climate Chains Deserts? Que?

A few 1/100ths of one degree per year in 'Global Warming ©' does not cause desertification, where did you get that crazy idea?

Desertification is caused by unreplenished deforestation, by soil runoff (detilthing) and by over-pumping the perched groundwater, something the US MidWest was doing for 50 years without creating even one square meter of desert. CO2 levels have absolutely nothing to do with deserts. CO2 was 25x higher in the geological past, with no such effect.

"Trump signs $850B Omnibus Debt Bill Two to 'avoid government shutdown'" (sic), the second such sovereign debt bill in less than a year, for a TWO TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, and now a -$24,000B irredeemable illegal onerous odious National Debt.

¿And you're hyperventilating about 2100 AD? Que loco!

Posted by: Anton Worter | Sep 29 2018 0:03 utc | 69

Perfect Storm

>> Financial bubble and failure of regulation

Financialized economies, unsustainable debt, etc. Dodd-Frank is a joke so expect to bail out banks (again)

>> Environmental failures coming to a head
We are near a tipping point for methane emissions - methane's greenhouse effect is 72 times more powerful than CO2. Climate change deniers would have us ignore the retreat of glaciers.

>> Military tensions coming to a head
Revisionist powers challenge the Anglo-Zionist-Fascist-Wahhabi Empire
(Ukrainian fascists deserve their place in the pantheon of shame)

Brought to you by craven, can-kicking elites that believe they are well-insulated from the hardships that YOU and your family and friends and neighbors will bear when the shit-hits-the-fan.

Have a nice day . . . while you can.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 29 2018 0:11 utc | 70

"...the ozone holes will make us all sunburned and riddled with skin cancer..."

You think that's funny. Buried too many family members with skin cancer to think that's funny. Grandparents generation all lived to late 90s, one of four had a mild case of skin cancer. Current generation is fucked.

Go crawl under a rock. Ignorance is something that happens. Half the population has less than average intelligence. Those who have made a conscious choice to be determined morons are without excuse. Americans just love them some corporate propaganda. Goes down well with the corn syrup and bacon.

Posted by: oldhippie | Sep 29 2018 0:26 utc | 71

Bit of censoring going on here recently so I'll be brief

People should learn more about climate history to know how pathetic the arguments about climate change due to man are

Suggest reading a kindle sample of Ian Plimers book (Heaven and Earth: global Warming the missing science) available free at Amazon

Posted by: Pft | Sep 29 2018 0:30 utc | 72


It's really sad to watch an acolyte of Carbon Catholic Pope Albertus pimp the New Provenance Gospels of the Carbon Credits Bourse.

Pope Albertus, who once famously boasted he never took a single math or science course, and was either a lobbyist or a politician his entire scum-sucking multi-million grubbing miserable life, and only 'found Jesus' after he lost to Emperor George.

In fact, he lobbied against environmental regulation!

Carbon Catholic Chief Scribe Bill McKibbon, a journalist who never took a math or science course, was a gigger unsuccessfully sending articles to New Yorker, until he borrowed Howard Stern's 'shock jock' strategy, and became a multi-millionaire writing End of Days tomes.

Carbon Catholic Chief Astrologer James Hansen has a degree in Astronomy, his thesis on climate of Venus was debunked by later probes, and he was just a drone administrator at NASA until he too discovered Pope Albertus' Scientocrat Secret, and became yet another multi-millionaire peddling Climate Papist pale, although he was forced to retroactively resign from NASA or go to IRS prison for violating the Hatch Act.

The Fourth Horseman of the Climate Apocalypse, Michael Mann, is an academic statistician, who tried but failed to grift a multi-million fortune with his hockey stick rubbish and potted Big Data Theory.

None of the four founders of the Carbon Catholic Papacy have any credentials or research expertise in 'climate', whatsoever. Frankly, Pope Albertus and his krew can pull a train on all their climate choir boys, I could care less what delusions other people follow... just don't dip your hand into my wallet.

And that's the crux. Pope Albertus is going for the Full Monte, a global supra-national, supra-NATO, supra-EU Scientocracy, with their iron claw choking the life from every human on Earth.

"There is only one great national threat to America ... and that is Iraq!" Pope Albertus, 2003

Posted by: Anton Worter | Sep 29 2018 0:31 utc | 73

@56 thirdeye... thanks for articulating that about so2 emissions and acid rain. here is a graph on this for the past 200 years that some might like to look at..

@59 thirdeye.. thanks.. i am not sure what to make of all that! what is your perspective on the topic of climate change and whether we are doing ourselves in here? obviously i think we are ruining the planet myself, so that is where i see with all the consumption of fossil fuel and etc..

@62 jen.. the impact of war is huge and one of the many reasons i am opposed to it.. talk about excess consumption and destruction to the planet.. it is captured really well in war and prep for war activities.. fully agree with your post!

@68 jr.. yer in a cheerful mood today!

@69 oldhippie.. good post.. i concur!

Posted by: james | Sep 29 2018 0:53 utc | 74

@ Posted by: Pft | Sep 28, 2018 8:30:05 PM | 70

The thing is: with today's technology, it is very easy and very precise to measure the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere and, thanks to geological layers, past eras going back to billions of years.

So, specifically regarding CO2 in the atmosphere, there's no doubt at all: from the First Industrial Revolution on, there's an unprecedented spike in the concentration of CO2, inexplicable from the geological point of view. The timing and the variables involved (e.g. there are no big volcanic emissions in this era)make global warming simply above reasonable doubt. The only question is by how much we accelerated the process and how catastrophic it will be for the Homo Sapiens (and other species that will be collateral damage).

Besides, phisophically, there's no contradiction: the homo sapiens is part of "nature", therefore also a force of nature: a mass extinction or a huge temperature rise caused by humans or a meteor or a massive volcanic eruption are as natural as it can be. The fascinating aspect of the "anthropocene" is that it would be the first time a complex (an apex predator) does it -- at least the first we know of.

Posted by: vk | Sep 29 2018 0:55 utc | 75

Our most biggest threat is not warming. It’s GARBAGE! When a piece of plastic is found deep in the Marianas
Trench, you know we are in deep trouble. But no one is paying attention.

Posted by: Jose Garcia | Sep 29 2018 1:05 utc | 76

vk @73: it would be the first time a complex (an apex predator) does it

We need a new term. Suggestions:

apex asshat?

apex serial killer?

uber apex predator?

Or maybe just go with the vernacular:
ice cold motherf*ckers that will piss on you and tell you its raining.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 29 2018 1:14 utc | 77

Molecules absorb light and increase either vibrational, rotational, or translational energy. No one doubts this, right? Its been pretty well accepted also that some molecules absorb different wavelengths better than others. Emitted eventually, a new electromagnetic wave heads either towards the earth, or back space.

There is no doubt about greenhouse gas absorption of infrared light. The question is how bad is it going to be? This no one can know.

In northern california people are tearing out old varieties and replacing them with new heat tolerant varieties. Last year it seemed between Cloverdale and St. Helena it was like 10% of the fields. That's a huge expense, and risk. They don't do it because of some environmentalist religion.

Posted by: TSP | Sep 29 2018 1:22 utc | 78

" American idiots believe there is a difference between Republican and Democrat "representatives" too. D and R are two sides of the same coin distracting the rubes with hot button issues with the right hand while the left hand is in the rubes back pocket stealing their wallet......and everything else that isn't nailed down."

Posted by: Jim | Sep 28, 2018 6:15:12 PM | 61

Truth is always worth a repost..Thanks Jim

Posted by: ben | Sep 29 2018 1:26 utc | 79

@ b who wrote:
Humans are not willing to give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far away future generations.

This is only true if you call the folks in control of the Western form of social organization humans of your statement and unknown for the population in general.
And in fact, the statement is not true for some existing and past cultures on this planet....Native Americans for example with potlatch

I will speak to the posting subject in another comment

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 29 2018 2:31 utc | 80

Thanks for the science lesson b, obviously, it was "casting pearls before swine", judging by some comments here.

amazing that so many people who seem to exhibit critical thinking when it comes to claims about the white helmets or the skripals uncritically swallow propaganda from the fossil fuel companies. you really think scientists aren't aware of the sun?

Seem to be a lot of AGW-denialists jumping onto this thread. No limits to the delusions suckers will award themselves, when they REALLY want their delusions to be true. Especially when they're fed their delusions by the organised lying propaganda of criminal gangster capitalists

Climate change denial is mainly an American delusion. It is not rampant out side ill-informed, ignorant communities.

I see the pro-corporate, pro-Pentagon, pro-empire deniers are out already.

Go crawl under a rock. Ignorance is something that happens. Half the population has less than average intelligence. Those who have made a conscious choice to be determined morons are without excuse. Americans just love them some corporate propaganda. Goes down well with the corn syrup and bacon.

My first Internet forum experience was in 2000-2001 at a cosmopolitan USA website.
The beautiful Motet software employed allows a poster to easily make internal hyperlinks,
it was ideal for socratic-style dialogs and experimental community thought experiments.

At the time I became engaged in the question of alleged chlorofleurocarbon emergency
as evidenced by the South Pole 'Hole in the Ozone' which was said to be getting larger.

I took it as an opportunity to research the subject so I would not be embarassed
by one of my posts proven to be in error, or a claim that I did not know how to answer.

What surprised me was the way in which I was attacked for questioning the thesis;
the attacks were personal and rudely dismissive of my attempt to question this theory.

I was repeatedly accused of being an "oil company shill"; yet, I am nothing of the sort
Lázaro Cardenás is one of my big heroes for having nationalized the Mexican oil industry!

From my study I found out that the chlorofleurocarbon ban was because DuPont Corp.'s
patent was expiring and they was coming out with an expensive replacement for this gas.

Meanwhile every Third World country had chlorofleurocarbon production plants established.
(Chlorofleurocarbons are a cheap, safe, and proven technology to preserve foodstuffs.)

Institutional scientists used Dobsen spectrophotometers to measure Ozone depletion yet it
was Dobsen himself who found the "Hole" decades before commercial chlorofleurocarbon use.

Chlorofleurocarbons (eight times heavier than the atmospheric oxygen molecule) were never experimentally discovered in the upper atmosphere. Only the model claimed they were there.

However reasoned and evidence-based my arguments, ad hominems attacks came back.
Over 8 months, no one at that site was willing to sustain a serious debate on this question.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 29 2018 2:54 utc | 81

Someone is going to have to explain the melting of the Arctic to me. It's undoubtedly real. The Russians have an entire geopolitical position based on it.

I just want to know if we agree it's happening or if we agree to dispute this fact.

Posted by: Grieved | Sep 29 2018 2:55 utc | 82

I have two things to say about the results of the study.

1. It could be rationale for some for nuclear war

2. Prediction of the future beyond 5 years is a fools errand. Ask China who was created and executed 13 5-year plans for their country. Prediction is most credible when it is about human endeavor that is associated with vision, mission, goals, strategies and such in support of the predicted movement. Prediction of incidents or patterns of change within the Cosmos are less reliable and entirely based on speculated extrapolation of some data.

What galls me about this discussion is that it is another in the ongoing series of much more important subjects to discuss other than the melody of my one note Samba about turning private finance into a public utility. With relation to this posting, my previous comment to b about his assumption about how humans behave in general. Humans in b's world are self indulgent and bow to the God of Mammon which produces the requisite servile and faith based behaviors. I posit that if you change the economic lifeblood of society from privately owned/controlled to publicly owned/controlled society would make totally different social decisions around issue like climate change.

And, if it is really true that we are all destined to extinction, why not go out as fellow humans rather than slaves in some dystopian elite wet dream.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 29 2018 3:05 utc | 83

Brian Davy @14

"On the other hand there is a real nightmare that climate change could turn out to be much worse than feared because of reinforcing feedbacks in the Arctic that is warming much faster than previously thought likely - with an ice free Arctic much earlier than anticipated."

See: A Theory of Ice Ages

By Maurice Ewing, William L. Donn

Science 15 Jun 1956:
Vol. 123, Issue 3207, pp. 1061-1066
DOI: 10.1126/science.123.3207.1061

This article is a preliminary report of new ideas related to the origin of glacial climates; it is based largely on observations made during the last 20 years. Glacial climates pose two problems: (i) the striking alternations during the Pleistocene epoch of glacial and interglacial stages and (ii) the even more striking change from the warm non- glacial climate, which prevailed generally from the Permian to the Pleistocene, to the cold and glacial conditions of the Pleistocene and Recent.

If it is difficult to answer the second question, it is even more difficult to solve both problems on the basis of a single theory. The present study (1) offers an explanation for the alternations in climate during the Pleistocene and proposes an explanation for the change from nonglacial to glacial climates.

Pleistocene Glacial and Interglacial Stages

"First we wish to develop the following principal points of the glacial-interglacial theory.

1) The melting of an Arctic ice sheet (such as exists at present) would increase the interchange of water between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, cooling the North Atlantic and warming the Arctic and making it ice-free, thus providing an increased source of moisture for the polar atmosphere.

2) Two factors would then favor the growth of glaciers: (i) increased precipitation over arctic and subarctic lands and (ii) changes in atmospheric circulation, the latter also resulting from the warmer Arctic and cooler Atlantic oceans."

3) The lowering of sea level would greatly decrease the interchange of water between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, which, together with the cooling effect of surrounding glaciers, would reduce Arctic surface temperatures until abrupt freezing occurred. The fairly sudden reversal of conditions favorable to glacial development would terminate the growth of glaciers abruptly.

4) As continental glaciers waned, the sea level would rise, causing an increased transport of surface waters northward until the Arctic ice sheet melted once again, completing the cycle.

5) Temperature changes in the surface waters of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans are thus the causes of, rather than the consequences of, the waxing and waning of continental glaciers."

Posted by: pogohere | Sep 29 2018 3:07 utc | 84

When the number of people on the earth was less than 10 million, did the concentration of CO2 in the air change, going up and down? Yes, according to various types of measurement. Did the climate change when global population was small? Yes, apparently. Greenland was once green. At least one map of the Antarctic continent, of very ancient origin exists, accurately depicting the character of that continent. If it were always as it is now, covered in ice, it would have been impossible to make such an accurate map. The ice comes, the ice goes. The heat comes, the heat goes. Climate is always changing on a geological time scale, and also abruptly through various exogenous influences, over the course of a human generation, or in a matter of a few weeks or even hours, if the quick frozen mammoths of Siberia are considered as evidence.

The question is not is climate change real or not real?; the question is what is the human influence on the natural process of climate? We know climate changes, what we are trying to figure out is how does the burgeoning human population influence this natural process? The subject is not climate per se so much as it is human population.

The answer is that we know little about climate and all its processes over the history of our planet. We do not know all the nonhuman factors involved in climate behavior. Our scanty knowledge in this area combines with our ignorance of the effects of the exploding human population to generate a ponderous conundrum, the likes of which the human mind has never dealt with before. Our situation is entirely unprecedented so far as we know.

Science cannot provide an answer to our dilemma because there is not enough empirical data. It is actually a moral dilemma having to do with our human presence, our human activity and effects. Can we take responsibility for our own behavior as a species? Clearly, we are driving other species into extinction, destroying ecological systems essential to their lives ans our own. We are polluting the planet. And CO2 is one of those pollutants. We must look at this issue as a moral dilemma. We cannot expect empirical science to tell us what to do.

Posted by: jadan | Sep 29 2018 3:26 utc | 85

I have always wondered:

If a PhD student put forward a thesis of Anthropomorphic Global Warming with CO2 as the main culprit and presented the same arguments as we see floating around the internet, would the student pass or fail?

Given that this is such a hot, controversial and important topic I would expect that there would be lots of research being done on proving or disproving the AGW thesis, but there isn't.

Most research on this topic seems to take global warming as given and moves forward on that basis. That is very strange and not very scientific but makes very good sense politically, if that is your agenda.

It gets curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: jiri | Sep 29 2018 3:32 utc | 86

@b - thanks for the musings. A brave venture, and maybe the time has come, finally. I had dozens of bookmarks once, but I'd have to dig them out now. Maybe I will.


@34 james - "polarizing topic! it is unfortunate it is so polarizing!"

It's also suspicious that it's so polarizing. This itself is reminiscent of many other topics. It's too bad most comment seems to try to re-evaluate the science involved in the proposition, and reinvent the discussion from scratch, instead of looking at the forces in play.

Ten years ago, when I looked at the science, what was clear was that the same forces that spread so much uncertainty around tobacco as being harmful - and which thus delayed the downfall of cigarettes for at least a decade in the US - were the same forces employed to spread similar uncertainties around climate change, and for the same reason, simply to defer the day of reckoning.

Meanwhile the ice melted and satellite video showed this. And the air temperature warmed enough to hold more moisture, and storm power increased as the air held water longer and carried it further, while evaporation increased as the air held more moisture. And then the winds changed minutely because the ocean currents changed minutely, and all this was enough to wipe out bird populations and cause rains to come at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

And all of this was recorded and measured, and also jibed with universal daily experience. But nowhere did handles appear on this opaque black box, with which to pick it up, or windows appear with which to see into it. No way opened anywhere leading to the place to do anything about it. And the corporate interests - by definition short term - benefited from this loss of engagement, and still do.

Meanwhile, rational discussion comes preformed and already polarized.


Posted by: Grieved | Sep 29 2018 3:59 utc | 87

I will add one last thing - that I expect it will be the minds and will of nations like China and Russia that eventually "solve" climate change - if this is even something that can be "solved" - and I'm glad of it. I don't believe the US has the capacity for it. Fortunately that nation is falling into the mode of following the rest of the world, rather than leading it. So perhaps there is a chance.

Posted by: Grieved | Sep 29 2018 3:59 utc | 88

jadan @83: Science cannot provide an answer to our dilemma ...

Science tells us that if someone falls out of a plane they will die by hitting the earth.

You would dismiss that truth because scientists are not able to calculate exactly when a falling person hits the ground and what crushed human organ is the cause of death?

... we know little about climate and all its processes over the history of our planet.
Actually, we know a great deal. There is data going back hundreds of thousands of years. But it's difficult to estimate things like CO2 sinks over a very short time-frame of a few decades. But there will come a point at which our influence on the planet catches up to us. And that influence is multi-dimensional: species extinction, desertification, global warming, etc.

We must look at this issue as a moral dilemma. We cannot expect empirical science to tell us what to do.
No, its not a 'moral dilemma', it's an existential crisis. Science tells us EXACTLY what to do: stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 29 2018 4:01 utc | 89

All of Industrial Civilisation involves using Energy to make and move stuff. If all Energy comes from burning fossil fuels, then Industrial Civilisation cannot last. But making solar panels or wind turbines and installing them takes Energy, lots of it. So there will come a time when there is not enough Energy to keep the solar panel factories running AND keep the lights on. If some politicans decide to turn the lights off, others will promise to turn them on and we will end up with not enough panels to keep Industrial Civilisation going. This ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN to happen, it is already too late to complete the transformation to renewables. We could have done it if we had started 30 years ago, but we didn't.

So Industrial Civilisation is finished, its only low-energy lifestyles for us in the future. Fortunately, H. sapiens is the only species to have tried Industrial Civilisation, the rest will heave a big sigh of relief as the numbers of "wise apes" falls and the bulldozers and chainsaws fall silent.

Posted by: palloy | Sep 29 2018 4:09 utc | 90

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 29, 2018 12:01:07 AM | 87
Science tells us EXACTLY what to do: stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!
Well, that is not so simple.
You put greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere every time we exhale, or pass the wind.
So, if we want to stop putting the gasses out, we have to stop breathing. And farting.
Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 4:43 utc | 91

This on-going give and take reminds me of an old Richard Pryor saying; "Who ya'gonna believe, TPTB or your own lying eyes?"

Posted by: ben | Sep 29 2018 4:51 utc | 92

So many here believe the fossil fuel propaganda. Wacko claims by so called greens and conservationists have helped the fossil fuel lobby immensely.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 29 2018 5:02 utc | 93

African overpopulation problem is going to be solved in the harshest possible way. We're going collectively to transform Hitler and co into toddlers in a playground.

I read two commentaries and the text. Here we go global warming and do avoid doing anything against it. It's our future. I hope I'm old enough to see it an I'm ashamed to think about our legacy to the next generations.

Scientists against the anthropic cause of global warming are well promoted. Others have been shut up. They represent the 95 % of the community and have nothing to say that can be heard.

It reminds me of something somewhere. I can't put my finger on it. Can anybody help me ?

Posted by: DidierF | Sep 29 2018 5:20 utc | 94

Western emissions have effectively, along with manufacturing, been offshored to China and other Asian countries.
In Australia and now in the US under Trump, alternative energy sources that compete with fossil fuels have been attacked.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 29 2018 6:02 utc | 95

Vk@73, TSP@76

I accept climate change is happening, as it has always. Read my referral on our history. I just dont agree mans causing a catastrophic change and believe our contributions may be beneficial given our known climate history

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons (GT) of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT/yr additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small.

As indicated above the oceans contain about 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere . Studies suggest it may take up to nearly 6 times more CO2 at equilibrium and the photosynthesis of land biota may increase up to 18 GT C/yr at almost three times the present emission of 7 GT C/yr 

IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake.  They assume only 50% of mans emissions are absorbed despite these 2 facts:

1. Much more carbon flows through the ocean than the amount produced by burning fossil fuels;
2. An amount of carbon equal to to the total amount stored in the atmosphere cycles through the ocean in about eight years [(750 GT) / (92 GT per year) = 8.3 years]

In essence they are stating that the approximately 3.5 GT C/yr increased by the atmosphere is all of mans C from CO2 emissions and none of natures 89 GT C/yr emissions.

This is does not sound believable

As to CO2 levels past and present comparisons, ice core evidence suggest CO2 levels change with changing temperature with temperatures driving CO2 levels and not vice versa

Geological and ice core samples don't translate exactly to atmospheric C02 levels at a moment in time except as a very rough estimate of a several hundred year or millennia average, so the effect is to smooth out the CO2 levels and erase spikes due to short term warming spells such as we have see recently since 1850

As for the GHG analogy

Carbon dioxide accounts for at most 2 or 3 percent of the greenhouse effect. By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. However, water in the form of clouds can reflect back solar radiation, causing temperature reduction.

A greenhouse is not a very good analogy. While energy is partly transferred from the heated surfaces through collision between air molecules (conduction) in both the greenhouse and atmosphere, in the atmosphere a large portion of that heat is transported vertically by rising air currents (convection), and also horizontally by wind. There are no winds in a greenhouse.

A major part of the energy striking the Earth’s surface causes evaporation. Heat is not lost (latent) but transported with the air and released when condensation occurs. This does not occur in a greenhouse.

Heat reduction in a greenhouse requires a physical change with a vent to let LW escape or a screen to block SW entering.

In nature LW escapes space with some percentage absorbed by GHG, which are then later reradiated back to the surface or into space. Clouds are nature’s screen reflecting some portion of incoming SW and outgoing LW. We have little idea how clouds work to modify temperatures.

We can see what the absence of clouds does . In the cloudless desert the day – night temperature range is the highest anywhere due to lack of water vapor. The lack of the greatest atmospheric GHG (H2O) results in the loss of LW heat into space (aka LW radiational cooling). Cold clear winter day/nights with low humidity show similar effects with plunging temperatures due to little obstacle to LW radiation to space. CO2 levels are the same in cloudless and cloudy days and nights but don't seem to be significant in the absence of H2O

Clouds are the wild card of climate change. In the 2001 IPCC Report it says,
“In response to any climate perturbation the response of cloudiness thereby introduces feedbacks whose sign and amplitude are largely unknown.”

So we have a model of the atmosphere that doesn’t know how clouds work but is the basis for climate predictions of global warming.

Posted by: Pft | Sep 29 2018 6:03 utc | 96

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 29, 2018 12:01:07 AM | 87

"Science cannot provide an answer to our dilemma ...We must look at this issue as a moral dilemma. We cannot expect empirical science to tell us what to do."

No, its not a 'moral dilemma', it's an existential crisis. Science tells us EXACTLY what to do: stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!

One big problem is, the scientists themselves won't acknowledge that, but take the lead in touting fake pseudo-solutions and insisting that the climate crisis can, must be "solved" within the framework of productionism, capitalism, the economic civilization. But this is a lie since that framework must by its existential nature destroy the Earth. That's why I call the scientists, liberal hand-wringers etc. "climate crocodiles", because they do nothing but cry crocodile tears even as they refuse to even consider the changes necessary. But it’s always been true that there is one and only one solution to avert the worst of climate chaos:

Stop emitting; stop destroying sinks; rebuild sinks on a massive scale.

Posted by: Russ | Sep 29 2018 6:47 utc | 97

I posit that if you change the economic lifeblood of society from privately owned/controlled to publicly owned/controlled society would make totally different social decisions around issue like climate change.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 28, 2018 11:05:17 PM | 81

A case in point is China, which not long ago was one of the heaviest polluters on the planet and (then) predicted to get ever more so. However because China is structurally so different from the corrupt corporative West and has strong society-based structures, China transformed itself when the strong negative impact of its own heavy pollution and misuse of fossil fuels caused too much of a local stink, in a way which the corrupt corporatist West is incapable of (indeed, because of the corruption and the corporatist structure the West tends to exacerbate the problem instead of dissipating it).

Today, as I understand, the huge pollution problem in China is much reduced (though still a problem), awareness of environmental problems and the need to counter them is high at the governmental level, and China is changing its course at a structural and policy level to tackle the problem. Even though it is the world's biggest market for fossil fuels, it is also heavily promoting renewable energy sources; is one of the leaders in research and technical innovation in solar cells, battery technology and other related technologies; is the world leader in large-scale production of solar cells; and is the biggest force in driving down the costs of solar energy making it vastly more competitive with fossil fuels. China is also heavily pushing for more dedicated efforts in tackling climate change not less.

Meanwhile as diametrical opposite Merkel - responding to pressure from manufacturers of super-expensive large fossil fuel (especially coal) power stations such as Siemens - cuts state and EU level assistance for solar and wind power (both of which already and highly successfully contribute a significant portion of power production in Germany and that at competitive pricing) to prevent super-expensive coal-fired power stations being forced into extinction.

Meanwhile talking of Siemens - in the 1980's it was one of the leaders in research into solar cells, and - though extremely expensive at that time - its top scientists claimed that as prices come down it would eventually become economic. What did Siemens do? They closed down their solar department completely, to kill the competition for its fossil fuels section.

Time has proved the Siemens scientists of the 1980's correct - solar power is now one of the cheapest forms of electrical energy (storage is still expensive though, although with new technologies even that is expected to tumble in the near future). The scale of production (and demand) of solar cells in China is gigantic. Huge numbers of multiple megawatt solar power stations are being built around the world, even gigawatt power stations. Solar energy is the energy of the future.

If you consider the fundamentally different attitudes of China/Russia towards multipolarity, win-win geopolitical relationships, and global financial structures compared to the Western model, their attitude to tackling environmental pollution and renewable energy fits in with that.

The bottom line is that the relation between government and society in China and Russia is totally different.

Posted by: BM | Sep 29 2018 8:02 utc | 98

Science has never been based on a consensus. It is only when we dare to leave the consensus behind that science kicks in. Think about Copernicus. Furthermore, I still wonder how they measure earth's temperature and all such things. There is no earthwide grid with thermometers. Everything is done indirectly (infrared light levels instead of temperature) and has to be converted. And of course every conversion needs corrections in order to reach the 'correct' values. I can imagine 'sciencists' tweaking the corrections until they can believe the outcome, i.e. global warming caused by man's behaviour. Anything else would end their subsidies so they must be pretty upset about people not believing their 'scientific model'.

From an European perspective I must note that all ways of independent transportation have been removed. Waterways have become useless because of static bridges, rail networks have been dismantled up to a few main lines. We are forced to use oil by our own leaders and to buy this from Saudi Arabia's headchopping pseudo-jihadists. There is no way to end this because people would not accept lower levels of convenience as they got used to this. That is our demise as I see it.

A few things are indeed warming up like the overheated debt-based economy and never cooling down war talking heads. And of course the wind catching frenzies.

Anyway, b, It must be hard to run a blog these days... sorry to disagree on GW.

Posted by: Antares | Sep 29 2018 8:11 utc | 99

"The child already fell into the well, there is no longer any need to cover it."
Humanity is addicted to fossil fuels, we are not going to stop using until we run out. For the end result in global warming, does it matter if we burn everything in the next 50 years or in the next 100 years? Probably not, but it does matter for how long our stash will last. Enjoying it for longer allows for a more gradual transition to sustainable energy. Nobody wants to go cold turkey. Those are valid reasons to cut down on emissions, even if we do not believe in man made global warming.

Posted by: Joost | Sep 29 2018 8:22 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.