Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 12, 2021

There Is No Will To Fight Climate Change

The recently published report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is grim:

B.1.3. Global warming of 1.5°C relative to 1850-1900 would be exceeded during the 21st century under the intermediate, high and very high scenarios considered in this report. Under the five illustrative scenarios, in the near term (2021-2040), the 1.5°C global warming level is very likely to be exceeded under the very high GHG emissions scenario, likely to be exceeded under the intermediate and high GHG emissions scenarios, more likely than not to be exceeded under the low GHG emissions scenario and more likely than not to be reached under the very low GHG emissions scenario.

The global reductions of Green House Gases (GHG) which are required to fit even the intermediate scenario are unlikely to be reached with the current policies:

The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over.

The reasons are of course political. There is a lot of lobbying for policies which continue the output of GHG while there is little immediate interest in reducing them. A decade ago Peter Lee had already done the math. Looking back at what happened since he lays out a list of failures:

The United States under Joe Biden has doubled down on the absurd narrative that the United States has the national capacity and moral stature to lead the world’s response to climate change.

Let me dismiss this claim in a few words.

First, the doom of the climate change regime was sealed when the United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1998.

It was double doomed when the United States under Barack Obama imposed a successor regime that eliminated legally binding caps for anyone.

It was triple doomed when Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

It was quadruple doomed when the United States under Joe Biden decided that its highest priority and organizing principle of policy was to treat the People’s Republic of China as America’s prime geopolitical adversary.

Doom doom de doom doom doom. You get the picture.

It is not only the U.S. which is guilty here. All political system seem to prefer short term rewards over avoiding future pain., especially when others can be plausibly blamed for the outcome. The U.S. is just the most hypocritical actor here.

That Joe Biden is still playing nice with the fossil fuel industry demonstrates the mechanism:

The Biden administration is now on track to approve more oil and gas drilling on public lands—activity that accounts for a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—than any administration since George W. Bush. Climate envoy John Kerry has balked at the idea of committing the U.S. to a coal phaseout. Politicians who call themselves climate hawks are still going out of their way to make clear that there’s a vibrant future ahead for the companies that funded climate denial, whose business model remains built around burning up and extracting as many fossil fuels as possible. Administration officials, meanwhile, have talked repeatedly about the need to cap warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This is climate denial.

Just look at the recent infrastructure bill:

Many of the bill’s provisions are on the oil industry’s wish list. The proposed legislation has more than $10 billion for carbon capture, transport and storage — a suite of technologies fossil fuel companies hope will allow them to extend their license to operate for years, if not decades. There’s also $8 billion for hydrogen — with no stipulation that the energy used to produce it comes from clean sources. A new liquid natural gas plant in Alaska won billions in loan guarantees, while other waivers in the bill will weaken environmental reviews of new construction projects, experts say.

“This infrastructure proposal is not a down payment on real climate action,” said Mitch Jones, director of Food & Water Watch Policy, a Washington accountability organization. “It is doubling down on support for climate polluters.”

Just yesterday Biden confirmed his pro fossil fuel position by asking for cheaper pollution:

President Joe Biden on Wednesday afternoon added to the pressure on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, after one of his top advisers said earlier in the day that OPEC and its allies “must do more” to support the economic recovery.
Oil futures recently traded higher, but they had retreated earlier Wednesday after U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan pressed OPEC and its allies to further boost output and described a recent agreement to increase production as “simply not enough.”

Which lets me agree with Peter Lee's scary conclusion:

Lacking a time machine that can take us back to 1998 when we still had a chance to turn things around--or a nice big catastrophic war that wipes out enough humanity and industrial capacity to accomplish the same thing--it might be up to the planet to deal with the problem herself: churning up enough sea level rise, weather calamity, drought, famine, and disease to reduce the human load on the planet by the ugliest means imaginable.

That’s all the climate change optimism I can muster, and that’s it!

This not a pessimistic view but a realistic one. It does not mean that we should give up. All of us, personally and politically, should try to reduce our environmental footprint as much as we can.

Unfortunately that is neither easy nor convenient to do.

Posted by b on August 12, 2021 at 14:05 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Top 5 polluters based on 2018 figures:

Country CO2 emissions (total)
1 China 10.06GT
2 United States 5.41GT
3 India 2.65GT
4 Russian Federation 1.71GT
5 Japan 1.16GT

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions

Posted by: Down South | Aug 12 2021 14:24 utc | 1

@ Down South | Aug 12 2021 14:24 utc | 1:

Those figures would have been at least as meaningful if communicated in per capita terms.

Posted by: corvo | Aug 12 2021 14:26 utc | 2

oh, and --

welcome back, b. I hope your post is a sign of improved health.

Posted by: corvo | Aug 12 2021 14:27 utc | 3

b, it would help if the lobby for climate change action could be taken more seriously. I’m thinking specifically of the issue of purchasing new fighter jets in Canada, a project which has brought out the climate change lobby in protest. This stinks of politicization of a supposed “universal defence of humanity” issue. The climate change argument also seems to be used against Sweden’s MIC (like Saab) with the totally blatantly obvious agenda of shutting it down, and forcing Sweden into NATO. In defence of the planet. I guess lobbying against such actions as destruction of the rain forests grew stale and boring after the 80’s. Save the whales!! That one doesn’t seem to grow old, thankfully!

Posted by: Bruised Northerner | Aug 12 2021 14:32 utc | 4

corvo @ 2

Rank Country CO2 emissions (total)
1 Saudi Arabia 18.48T
2 Kazakhstan 17.60T
3 Australia 16.92T
4 United States 16.56T
5 Canada 15.32T

I didn’t post it because it is meaningless.

Does anyone really think the two biggest polluters on the planet are KSA and Kazakhstan? Really???

Posted by: Down South | Aug 12 2021 14:34 utc | 5

wrt Down South
Meaningless in terms of Countries but indicative of the countries where politicians are unwilling to take any real action against climate change as they fear it will cost too much or provoke a backlash from their population perhaps?

Posted by: Iain | Aug 12 2021 14:47 utc | 6

And speaking of forest fires, I was shocked to discover a cause other than climate change for them, while watching (what else?) CBC’s The National a few years ago.

Posted by: Bruised Northerner | Aug 12 2021 14:48 utc | 7

carbon capture.

Posted by: Stephen | Aug 12 2021 14:49 utc | 8

Lets remember that a large amount of China's emissions are to produce cheap crap consumed in the West. The Saudi and Kazakhstan ones are mainly for the processing of fossil fuels consumed elsewhere. Also, the US and Canada emissions are significantly underreported due to the conscious underestimation of fugitive methane emissions (probably also Australia's).

Unless the US, China and Russia can come to a geopolitical understanding that allows them to reduce fossil fuel usage and use their collective might to force others to do so, nothing happening. Even if that miracle happened, the US and Russia would have to deal with the fossil fuel related corporations and their owners, and all three would have to work out how to do degrowth (which would completely destroy the financiers). Not happening. So, onwards we go with the usual eco-modernist bullshit (SRM, BECCS, DACS ....,) until the climate kicks us in the teeth and the elites all say "we never saw it coming" and they run off and do crazy shit such as SRM - while the climate continues on its merry positive feedback-loop way.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I have been studying this train-wreck for two decades now, and it never gets better - except for the political bullshit. First climate conference that identified the need for action on climate change was in 1979, held by the World Meteorological Organization. The text there was clear and simple, as was the first UN IPCC Assessment report in 1990. All the fancy graphs etc. in the later reports have added nothing, and the language is no longer so direct.

Posted by: Roger | Aug 12 2021 15:00 utc | 9

Posted by: Down South | Aug 12 2021 14:24 utc | 1

Have you seen cumulative emissions for the last 100 years? The US and Europe have contributed the most for them. China has a long time until it catches up.

Posted by: Passer by | Aug 12 2021 15:03 utc | 10

It’s not all bad news. You assume Government is the driving force behind saving the planet. It isn’t. Market forces will drive the decarbonisation of the world and save our planet.

A revealed truth, suppressed for the last twenty plus years: pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, is actually waste. It costs money. Pollution is an expense. The company that does not pollute is more profitable than one that pollutes. Sustainability - zero pollution is actually a very, very, good business strategy. This was taught to me by an american business man but seems to. have been suppressed.

Second truth: the insurance industry will drive sustainability or die.

The first industries and countries that understand the above will prosper. Those that don’t will destroy themselves.

Posted by: walrus | Aug 12 2021 15:03 utc | 11

meaningless fossil fuel talking points like "the climate change lobby", used by shills like Anthony Watts to cover up his lack of knowledge of climate science, are not helpful. i'm so shocked by the fossil fuel companies continued influence on united states policy under that scumbag biden, even as they pretend they are helpless victims. you want to take climate science seriously, don't pretend the roots of it are political.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 12 2021 15:06 utc | 12

market forces aren't gonna do sh.. imo. they got us into this, if by "market forces" you mean the rigged political and economic markets that externalize costs and privatize profits.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 12 2021 15:08 utc | 13

@Down South | Aug 12 2021 14:24 utc | 1

CO2 is not pollution

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 15:09 utc | 14

whatever you call it norwegian, it's driving climate change, no matter how much money norwegians get for the fossil fuel products that they sell.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 12 2021 15:16 utc | 15

Anyone looking to blame China needs to understand they account for 20% of the world's population. Per Capita emissions is where international pressure must be focused on; countries profiting from GHG need to be either taxed for it or supported in finding alternatives.

In a century where finding alternative energies to fossil fuels will mark the future of humanity and the alter shape of the planet, i feel we are much better off seeking the leadership of a country not only run by a Government that isn't afraid of elections or its own billionaire class, and perhaps most importantly, dependent on imports for most of its fossil fuel energy. Like it or not, China is actually our best hope to get us out of this mess.

Posted by: Et Tu | Aug 12 2021 15:18 utc | 16

The runes are cast
The fates are sealed
I see the stone
in Potter's Field
that marks the place
where we shall sleep
in death we keep
our vigilance
we guard no more
that which we
held dear before
was but a dream
and now it's dead
murdered by
our heavy tread
We had our run
and now it's done
The race has died
The devil won

Posted by: ld | Aug 12 2021 15:21 utc | 17

The chart above I am guessing does not include anything that envolves the pentagon. The largest Carbon emit or in the world. It is never included in anything the big greens talk about including Greta

Posted by: Susan | Aug 12 2021 15:24 utc | 18

@ pretzelattack | Aug 12 2021 15:16 utc | 15

Nice ad hominem attack. But it does not change the fact that there is ZERO evidence that C02 is driving the climate change that isn't happening any more that climate change in previous years.

Those that deny the right of climate to change and believe it should be constant (so called climate deniers), should actually have a look at history and see that climate has always changed and much more than today. The drivers of such changes are the Sun, Milankovich cycles and catastrophic events like the Younger Dryas when the earth was hit by a comet, and temperature dropped 15C overnight.

The fact that this stuff comes up on a political blog shows that there is a political motive, it doesn't have any more to do with 'science' than 'covid', but it serves the same political purpose.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 15:26 utc | 19

The "super" fires are caused because underbrush are not allowed to burn off when naturally occur.

How exactly does shifting from generating "green house" gasses from cars to power generation plants solve the issue?

Are the "human caused global climate change" crowd proposing nuclear power plants? Ten of thousands of acres of land to be raped for windmills or solar/photovoltaic panels?

What kind of machinery is required to mine and manufacture all that wonderful saving "clean" technologies?

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Aug 12 2021 15:32 utc | 20

Gosh what alarmism! Schwab, Gates, Soros, Bezos, et al have it all figured out. Just do what they tell you and a happy ending is assured.

Posted by: gottlieb | Aug 12 2021 15:35 utc | 21

Why is 1.5 degrees warmer year 2030 than year 1850 "grim"?
The climate is much improved.
Less people die of cold since it is warmer. Less people die of heat since fossils has made us rich.
Everything grows better because of more CO2.
Fewer people die of extreme weather.

The temperature might go up on an average of 0.02 degrees per year. Who cares? Should be easy to adapt.
The oceans go up 2mm/year like they have done for a long time. We should be able to move 2mm/year.

William Nordhaus( 2016 Nobel laurate in economics. For his work in climate economics) thinks global warming will cost us 4% of BNP in 2100. BNP will probably be 300% higher per capita. So global warming will cause our great grand children in 2100 to be only 3.84 times as rich as us, instead of 4 times as rich.

If our fight against climate warming will reduce yearly growth from 2.0% to 1.8%, then they will be poorer.

1.5 degrees is like moving 200 km south. So if your family had moved 1km south per year since 1850 you would have the same climate.
1.5 degrees is moving up 200 meters. So move up on the hills and you will get the 1850 climate.

Ignore it. The world is full of real problems.

Posted by: Thorbjørn Willoch | Aug 12 2021 15:36 utc | 22

gottlieb @Aug12 15:35 #21

Q: How many oligarchs does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Oligarchs don't change light bulbs.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 12 2021 15:42 utc | 23

>>Anyone looking to blame China..

It does not work to blame China since most CO2 was released in the atmosphere by the US and Europe. Under current trends, it will take 40 years for China to catch up to the US cumulative levels.

Posted by: Passer by | Aug 12 2021 15:45 utc | 24

Carbon is life! Carbon is required for all life on earth, and CO2 specifically for plants; it is basic high school chemistry and biology. Carbon-based chemistry is called Organic Chemistry for a reason - all biological (organic) processes of all life depend on carbon.

Norwegian and Thorbjorn Willoch are right because they have real science behind their posts.

Posted by: MarkinPNW | Aug 12 2021 15:49 utc | 25

B is right and wrong.

The crisis is a crisis of capitalism. It is a crisis of our economic system's inherent drives toward competitive expansion and profit maximization. These are the laws of motion of capitalism which make climate change a reality. Professor John Bellamy Foster has made these points most eloquently and precisely in his many books.

In addition, you can't explain climate change in abstraction from the class struggle. In fact, much of the impetus towards carbon intensive mechanical applications in manufacturing were the result of efforts to discipline and eliminate the working class, as Andreas Malm has showed in his book, Fossil Capital.

So, the climate crisis is not just a problem of political will and corporate lobbyists. It is a problem of the social system of capitalism, and that system must be destroyed and replaced by one of eco-socialist planning at many scales of governance.

The idiot libertarians here can't understand any of this, just like they can't understand Covid and vaccine science as anything but a conspiracy. Libertarians are an acute expression of the imbecility of loser American capitalist men, who have no future in this world.

Posted by: Prof | Aug 12 2021 15:52 utc | 26

Which is a bigger crisis: Imperialism/Enslavement or Climate Change?

"The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitudes.”

Climate change is a non-issue until monetary imperialism is ended and the U$A & UK closes all their outside military bases (800+ & 145 respectively). No more IMPERIALISM & Enslavement. Great, there is no will to fight climate change!

Report: The U.S. Military Emits More CO2 Than Many Industrialized Nations

A group of powerful CLANS dream of capturing nations and enslaving its populace monetarily, culturally and militarily. Name a democracy that isn’t a suzerainty. What % of human beings have integrity?

The culture in Empire’s suzerainties is completely distorted and dark (wrong values). Empire’s subjects are no better, as they just want to rape Mother Earth for their fun, money and power, and kill people to loot & enslave for the Empire. Individuals without conscience (Orcs), just obey. Such individuals are lost in DARKNESS, can’t solve humanity’s challenges correctly until they gain conscience. “In God We Trust”

Has the Empire come up with a new RUSE, “climate change” to distract and maintain its dominance? What ruses has it used in the past? The Financial Empire uses a good old trick in the world: having created a problem, it then starts ‘selling’ ways to solve it. The Empire funds international terrorism and then fights it. Nations would do better by avoiding this trap. The Empire prefers captured & controlled territories & markets. Its banks want to create more debt for climate change. Why not use sovereign money?

Humanity has will to fight what?

Posted by: Max | Aug 12 2021 16:06 utc | 27

"All political system seem"

to those with limited facility in analysis, and such lack of facility afford opportunities of agency by others, rendering all seeming poltical systems surplus to requirements, with the additional option of the choice of mercy when the planet cannot sustain life, by accelerating the process by usage of nuclear weapons, since catalysing such would only require a relatively limited use of the resources available, as the opponents are aware but do not publicly acknowledge.

Posted by: MagdaTam | Aug 12 2021 16:06 utc | 28

It is not only the U.S. which is guilty here. All political system seem to prefer short term rewards over avoiding future pain.

That's not scientifically true. The socialist system can and does sacrifice in the present in order to safeguard the future. The whole saga of sacrifices made in the USSR during the end of the 1920s-1930s was about that (they purposefully sacrificed their life standards in order to build up heavy industry in order to catch up with the advanced capitalist West), in a process that involved a lot of counter-intuitive economic policies from the point of view of capitalism. They openly spoke on those terms and it is very well documented, it was not an accident. Some projects lined up at the end of the 1920s were put on hold because of lack of resources to do all of them at once, but they were built after WWII (the Volga canal was finished in 1952).

The thing with capitalism is that it is an automated reproductive process that operates in cycles. Once a cycle starts, it cannot be cut short. If governments start to cut capital cycles short, the whole system falls apart. In the case of the oil industry, we're talking about immense and extremely expensive investments that takes centuries to fully depreciate. A POTUS doesn't have the power to block the oil industry.

For capitalism to go green, it would first have to wait for the totality or almost that to fully depreciate, thus finishing the cycle of capital in the industry. It would then have to, in a process of anarchic competition and through sheer luck, wait for a superior and green energy technology to emerge precisely at that moment, so that it can smoothly take the place of the oil industry. Alternatively, you could haste that process through war between two nations: one with the revolutionary green technology, the other with the old fossil fuel technology. The one with the green technology would have to win the war, destroy the bourgeoisie of the defeated fossil fuel technology, and rebuild everything with the new green technology, thus starting an "economic miracle" - that's what happened in WWII, where the electronic technology took over the old technology at once.

As the true successor of the USSR, I believe China can fulfill its promise of going carbon neutral by 2060. They're already doing progress in that area.

Posted by: vk | Aug 12 2021 16:10 utc | 29

The most ridiculous head-in-the-sand take on this situation may be that of Canada's Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Jonathan Wilkinson. He reasons that the way to fight climate change is to build an expensive pipeline to facilitate the transport of Alberta's sludgy oil, since the money generated by that will help Canada pay for its climate reduction targets.

I find it difficult to disagree with Peter Lee's assessment...

Posted by: farm ecologist | Aug 12 2021 16:12 utc | 30

I'm beginning to believe that China is the one country that might make the jump with its massive investments in renewable energy, closed-cycle nuclear power and fusion power. There are two advantages to this, replacement of GHG power generation and employment to build the necessary hardware and infrastructure. If it enables a hydrogen-based society using these energy sources it will break free of its dependence on imported hydrocarbons and the choke points the US is trying to control become worthless.
The United States could follow as it needs to find an alternate use for its land in the south west. Putting the 0.01% up against a wall could be used to fund the move to a hydrogen-based society and stop the waste of resources on vanity space projects that do nothing for most Americans.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Aug 12 2021 16:12 utc | 31

Even if Kyoto or whatever protocols are followed to the letter - the net effect on future temperatures is in the tenths (0.01s) degree reduction, by the "mainstream climate science" own admission.
I agree that we all should conserve where possible, but this is very different from thinking we can prevent climate change by doing anything other than a radical redesign of our entire society and economy.
Furthermore, the reality is that doing things like recycling is almost entirely window dressing. American and European cities are finding this out now that China and many other 2nd and 3rd world countries now refuse to accept recycling waste - which means municipal garbage and recycling utilities are now plowing most of these recyclables into the ground in landfills: Recycling is not working
The greentech shills are now pushing for in-US recycling - meaning we can keep all the pollution in house - but of course with massive government subsidies.
The fact is still that it is far more expensive to recycle most commodities than it is to spin up new raw materials.
And that might be fine, except that the greentech/climate change glitterati are busy flying around in private jets, dining in 3 Michelin star restaurants and living in 4000+ square foot homes.
"Do what I say, not what I do" doesn't work politically nor should it.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 16:15 utc | 32

@Max | Aug 12 2021 16:06 utc | 27

Has the Empire come up with a new RUSE, “climate change” to distract and maintain its dominance?

No, this particular case of pathological science (Symptoms of Pathological Science) has been ongoing for at least the last 30 years, it has just temporarily been overshadowed by a different case of pathological science, one with a much higher peak and shorter duration. But as the second gradually falls to oblivion, the first springs back into political action.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 16:19 utc | 33

Sure, carbon is life. So is water, especially to humans. So let's put Norwegian, MarkinPNW, and Thorbjorn Willoch face down in a tub of water for 10 minutes or so and watch them thrive.

The stupidity and sophistry displayed by the oil/natgas corporation shills is astonishing, especially in the face of this year's obvious demonstrations of a fucked-up world climate. Melting glaciers and ice caps, exploding permafrost, murderous heatwaves, coldwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires, and these boneheads use economic forecasts to try to convince us that all is well or that taking any action against global warming is impossible, so we should just continue driving off the cliff. The things people do for money.

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | Aug 12 2021 16:20 utc | 34

Some will remember a UK book/TV show called Alternative 3 which is about the secret colonization of Mars due to the Green House effect which was predicted/warned about in the late 1950s. (Loved the book). While well done science fiction, scientists have been warning that the then nuclear weapons testing and industrial pollution would have a devastating effect on the planet. While atmospheric nuclear testing was banned, industrial waste, and poison emission have enjoyed a world of laissez-faire.

I believe the planet is in deep shit. But I don't think the answer is to regulate every facet of people's lives while billionaires build escape pods to Mars. We should follow our great friend, Saudi Prince MBS, and round up all the billionaires, torture them until they sign away their wealth, and put it to good use. Billionaires are not producers, they are parasites.

Posted by: gottlieb | Aug 12 2021 16:25 utc | 35

Fortunately, we have the Deep Oceanic and Antarctic Currents to absorb the heat and keep Antarctica Cool.

However, his Trend of increasing concentrations of CO2+CH4 released in the Atmosphere and will continue until:

A)All Nation-States are primarily sourced on Non-Carbon forms of Energy (Fusion/Fission, Orbital Solar, etc); and

B) As "A" happens, any trends in
B1) Permafrost Thawing;
B2) Oceanic expulsion of excessive CO2(they've been absorbing for some time);
B3) Oceanic/Permafrost ejection of Methane Hydride based CH4 resultant from any warming;

All Stabilize in sustained Equilibria.

THEN, we "might" see a decreasing trend in CO2+CH4.

Decades ahead.

"A" may not happen.
"B1" thru "B3" may not happen. Quite possibly, if warming continues until the Permafrost are set to thaw outside of Winter Months, expect more CO2+CH4 to be released in Scale.

We're in "Uncharted Conditions" wrt CO2 levels. The last time they were allegedly at these levels, it was on a Downward Trend 5.5Mil - 2.5Mil years ago; and Trees grew in the most northern Arctic Lands.


That being said, with the World Avg IQ being around 82 - I don't expect many Nation-States to move completely beyond Non-Carbon forms of Energy. They're abundant, transportable, sought after venues of Economy and Quality of Life.

Therein lie the potential Trap. Can Humanity continue to live comfortably on Hydrocarbons? Will the Arable Lands eventually diminish? Will the Oceanic Fauna and Flora consumed for Food eventually diminish?

IMHO, only several Nation-States are capable of dealing with and overcoming potential Calamities of Capacities

Posted by: IronForge | Aug 12 2021 16:26 utc | 36

apologies for the second post
Thank You Prof 100%

Like a parasite we feed
A horde that strips the landscape clean
Taking more than what we need
Common sense surpassed by greed

The end of Eden's on the rise
Selfish Wanton Apathetic
Hastening our own demise
Watching while the planet dies

A mistake of cosmic proportion
An experiment gone wrong
A disappointment to the Ones that made us
Sad to see what we've become

Ego's slave to acquisition
Permanent Spiritual Malnutrition
We have more than what we need
The Few will hoard while the many bleed

Like a cancer we have spread
Consume the host until it’s dead
No thought No mind for the Hive
Without us it might survive

Posted by: ld | Aug 12 2021 16:27 utc | 37

@17: Pretty good verse, ld. Your last one about Biden touching girls was excellent. By the way, are u the same person who wrote “black rock is a crack rock”?

Posted by: Absurdio | Aug 12 2021 16:30 utc | 38

@ c1ue | Aug 12 2021 5:53 utc | 271 in the previous open thread

@Roger #232
Sadly, all you seem to be capable of is repeating nonsense written by others.
Skeptical Science is an excellent example. None of the authors there are climate scientists either, yet somehow you swallow every bit of garbage they spew out, uncritically.

This is indeed the case. Skeptical Science is/was fronted by a cartoonist by the name of John Cook and enjoyed dressing himself up as an SS Nazi.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 16:30 utc | 39

Fun facts about environment in China.

1. China is the country that grow the most forest (afforestation) in the world [1].
2. China has the most installed solar photovoltaics in the world (more than the next 3 countries combined) [2].
3. China is the largest producer of wind power in the world (more than the next 9 countries combined) [3].
4. China is the largest hydropower producer in the world (more than the next 4 countries combined) [4].
5. China has the longest high speed rail (more energy efficient than plane or car) in the world (more than the rest of the world combined) [5].
6. China has the largest green investment in the world (more than the next 4 countries combined) [6]
7. China produces and uses most electric cars in the world.
8. In addition, the trends will continue and may accelerate for all the above, and the gap between China and others will keep growing.

and the list goes on…



1. China is feeding 20% of world population with just <10% of world's arable land. Chinese consume mostly pork/poultry (less pollution) than beef.
2. China increases its forest coverage from 16.6% to 22% from 2000 to 2020.
3. China plans to have peak CO2 output by 2030, and CO2 neutral by 2060, the most ambitious goals among major countries.

Afforestation is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees in an area where there was NO previous tree cover. China has the largest afforestation area in the world: 1990-2015. The latest numbers continue to indicate China lead other countries.

25% of the trees planted in the world in the last few years were planted in China. Even NASA acknowledges that the results are visible through satellite:

The following is a collection of interesting videos by Chinese government and foreigners about some of the Chinese anti-desertification projects. Some of these projects dated back to the 1950s:

China's war against desertification, part 1, 2 (New China TV):

In 1986, the city of Aksu in China's Xinjiang began an ambitious tree-planting project that looked to turn swaths of desert into forest. The result was over 13 million acres of green that became the Kekeya greening project (CGTN video):

China's green growth through solar plant in Datong, Shanxi province, and other research and planting projects by Xinhua reporter Colin Linneweber:

Informative video about how China turned desert into productive land:

A foreigner personal experience working in Chinese anti-desertification project and making friends with Chinese workers:

Another foreigner who works in many countries green projects. His views on reforestation and anti-desertification in Lhasa Tibet with water efficient Groasis Waterboxx:

China has many research projects on how to combat desertification. The following video shows 6 interesting and innovative methods China uses to convert desert into productive lands rich with crops, by Richard Aguilar:

Other videos of Richard Aguilar about China's big desert transformation projects:

Animation of solar and wind producing countries:

Posted by: d dan | Aug 12 2021 16:32 utc | 40

@Thorbjørn Willoch

Nordhouse is a fool and a propagandist. He's also isn't a Nobel laureate, since there is no Nobel prize in economics. Steve Keen has extensively debunked Nordhous's gibberish:


Try harder. This is like a baby-tier denialist talking point; surely you can do better than that. Water is crucial for life as well, I guess that means in no circumstances can there ever be such a thing as too much water. Do you see the flawed logic now?

If you're genuinely in the Pacific Northwest and are still in "this is fine" mode, there's probably not much I can say to convince you otherwise.

A homeless charity I volunteer at is having to do an emergency opening of their cooling shelter for the second time in just a few weeks, the last time having been an absolutely insane 115 degrees, when standing in the breeze was actually hotter and more miserable than no breeze. This is completely abnormal, and its increasingly happening year after year. Climate and weather are not the same thing, thank you, I'm well aware. But one follows the other. When a region sees a repeated, consistent trend in a certain direction, there's probably something bigger underlying it.

Posted by: Ben | Aug 12 2021 16:35 utc | 41

@ Norwegian (#33), the very fact that this science board doesn’t speak against imperialism, enslavement (including their own) and demand closing of military bases, demonstrate they have no conscience, and thereby ZERO CREDIBILITY.

Climate change is a non-issue unless the Dollar Empire’s 800+ external military bases are CLOSED. Until then the U$A, its science and institutions have NO CREDIBILITY. Even many Americans don’t trust their administration!

If the creator asked individuals without conscience (Orcs), why they should live on this planet? What would Orcs respond? What % of human beings have integrity?

Posted by: Max | Aug 12 2021 16:36 utc | 42

@c1ue | Aug 12 2021 5:53 utc | 271 in the previous open thread

@Roger #232
Sadly, all you seem to be capable of is repeating nonsense written by others.
Skeptical Science is an excellent example. None of the authors there are climate scientists either, yet somehow you swallow every bit of garbage they spew out, uncritically

This is correct. Skeptical Science is/was fronted by a cartoonist called John Cook who had some, shall we say peculiar dressing habits.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 16:37 utc | 43

If the subject of greenhouse gases were so dramatic, we should not just limit emissions.It would be logical to recapture all the CO2 emitted since about 1850 with each industry having to finance its share.In other words, the Western industry of steel, cement, transport, energy or even information technology should not survive.Is the collective suicide of the entire West a socially just reparation for 500 years of malfeasance?Or, isn’t all this just a pretext to slow down the development of others?

There no possibility to change climate change. We are only human beings [human beans?].
"limits footprints" is just a way of life [self gratitude]. Those who really want it must move to any small village and modestly lived as peasant. Possibly in their own country, Like any Amish.

Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 16:41 utc | 44

@Max | Aug 12 2021 16:36 utc | 41

Not sure of this reply gets posted, because the last two responses with factual information I posted got nuked for some reason. I strongly agree with your statement that unless the US occupation bases world wide are closed, there is no credibility in talking about 'climate change' which only serves the empire the same people supposedly criticize.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 16:44 utc | 45

Thanks Absurdio
No I am not the auteur
many of my 'poems' are lyrics tho

Posted by: ld | Aug 12 2021 16:49 utc | 46

This particular one is not
I am guess in black rock is a crack rock is a rap rock

Posted by: ld | Aug 12 2021 16:51 utc | 47

@ Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 16:41 utc | 42

From what I've read, carbon capture is vaporware.

Posted by: vk | Aug 12 2021 16:52 utc | 48

@NoOneYouKnow #34
The problem is that - of the list you presented - NONE are increasing except heat waves according to IPCC. And even heat waves are only in specific areas.
So the real problem isn't the science - it is that green shills emphasize lies.
Furthermore, it is also notable that the positive effects of more CO2 and higher temperatures is never taken into account.
Food production is up at least 15% from atmospheric CO2 level increases, and plant growth across the globe is increasing such as the greening of the Sahara.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 16:53 utc | 49

Les chiffres du World Resources Institute montrent que les Etats-Unis (366 milliards de tonnes émises) et les pays européens (329 milliards de tonnes émises sur la base de l’Union européenne à 28) sont historiquement responsables de plus ou moins un quart chacun du réchauffement global actuel, soit ensemble la moitié. De son côté, la Chine n’est ici redevable que d’un peu plus de 10 % du cumul des émissions de CO2 dues aux énergies fossiles, et la Russie de 7,5%.

[Pons automatically translated]

the figures of the World The Resources Institute show that the United States (366 billion tonnes emitted) and European countries (329 billion tonnes emitted on the basis of the European Union of 28) are historically responsible for about a quarter each of the current global warming, i.e. half of the global warming. China, for its part, is responsible for just over 10% of the cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, and Russia for 7.5%.

Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 16:55 utc | 50

Roger @9:

Greetings fellow traveler!

As a journalist I wrote my first pieces on global warming (as we then more correctly called it) in '99. The reaction back then even among radicals was mostly 'melting glaciers on Greenland? Oh come on!'

The most frequently reoccurring news since then has been 'things are a lot worse than expected, new study finds'.

Posted by: Jörgen Hassler | Aug 12 2021 16:56 utc | 51

Yes, grim for two big reasons.

(1) Domestic politics in powerful oil producers

Oil and natural producing countries do not want to stop, and their political systems will fight to delay stopping oil and natural gas use as long as possible. This means US, Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and a dozen others too. The politics in each of these countries is subject to veto by energy industry.

(2) Geopolitics

Furthermore, with China dominating manufacturing and deployment of all globally significant forms of non-carbon energy production (solar, wind, hydro, nuke), they are positioned to be *the* energy superpower of a post-carbon world.

The only possible reaction of the policy apparatus concerned with prolonging US primacy, is to delay the post carbon transition as long as possible (holding out for US leadership in some future energy technology, perhaps).

Result: lots of talk, slow action, as the Peter Lee article observes

Posted by: ptb | Aug 12 2021 16:58 utc | 52

@d dan #39
Nice but irrelevant.
China is the single largest producer of "climate science" emissions in the entire world: they emit over 29% of the entire world's GHG emissions but represent only 18% of the world's population.
To put this in perspective:
The US emits 15% of the world's emissions but has 4.25% of the world's population.
The EU emits 18% of the world's emissions but has 6% of the world's population.
Keep in mind some significant percentage of China's emissions are good made for use in the US and EU, so the ratios are further skewed against the developed nations.
But it is entirely true that what happens in the US and EU is irrelevant vs. what happens in China.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 16:59 utc | 53

I guy named Lizard I think, did the black rock poem. Haven’t seen him around for a while. Nor Richard S Hack, the former anarchist. I don’t know if he got pissed off and left or had some life event. He got into a lot of arguments tho.

Posted by: Absurdio | Aug 12 2021 16:59 utc | 54

@Ben #40
Yep, Nordhaus was great when he was supporting the cause - he's now the devil because he isn't (fully and unquestioningly) supporting the cause.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 17:00 utc | 55

@ vk | Aug 12 2021 16:52 utc | 46

If "we" can fight Coronavirus and develop such a good medecine and vaccine, why not capture CO2?

Isn't "Climate change" the next Frontier?

In Fauci We Trust

Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 17:02 utc | 56

@ Norwegian (#43), great, we agree on the greater common good!

Don’t worry about research information, as long as we get the big picture right and act with INTEGRITY.

We human beings need to act responsibly when it comes to stewardship of our planet and people. No discrimination, all are part of the global community. If the global elites want credibility then they need to do the right thing and right the wrongs. That is called living with integrity and being a good citizen of humanity.

Posted by: Max | Aug 12 2021 17:02 utc | 57

@Rêver #42
That's China's line.
The US is responsible for roughly 25% of all historical emissions. China's (and the developed world's) view is that this past behavior shouldn't be ignored, now that the US has already built up its (now decaying) infrastructure.
IMO - this is all irrelevant bullshit.
Even if the US and EU were to get on their own professed bandwagons - which it is far from clear they will do - China and the rest of the developing world aren't going to limit themselves to their second and third tier economic status.
This is why I don't hyperventilate over the egregious shenanigans in the US and EU - whatever happens there, it is irrelevant.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 17:04 utc | 58

Welcome back, b. Hope you're feeling better.

And you're back with a bang; this is a timely post. I agree that there's "no will to fight"; humans are not good at responding to slow-moving threats, and they're even less good at self-sacrifice on behalf of others. That is a generalization, of course - there are plenty of exceptions.

For those that posit that China might be the first big nation to effectively respond to climate change, I agree. China, as a nation, is better at adapting to change than the West is at the moment.

And for those of you that admire action as much as abstract thinking, I think a key question to answer here in the U.S. is "who's got agency?"

It's very clear that decisive adaptation to climate (or any other) major change is not going to come top-down, and I think everyone understands the reasons for this.

So, where do I, as powerless, frustrated individual turn in order to get some influence? Well, my own household, of course. It's my best bet for upping my volition index (agency, potency, etc.)

I think the sooner we psychologically de-couple from the world as it's dictated to us, and re-couple to the world within which we have agency, the sooner things will change.

I assert that an economy is a giant summation of household actions. "Final demand" - for finished goods - happens at the household. All other intermediate goods are inputs to final demand.

If it isn't final-demanded, it isn't produced. (gov't spending in contravention of public will is the exception, and it's a significant exception).

So, while it certainly doesn't carry the scale and cachet of top-down power plays, taking action at the household level to achieve one's political and economic goals certainly is effective, and it works wonders to restore one's sense of well-being.

==== Separately...

The really unfortunate thing about the disagreement between climate-change believers and skeptics is that we're joined at the hip.

One group is subject to the outcomes imposed by the other. It would be great if we could somehow divide the groups such that consequences of each group's decisions were enjoyed by that group, and only that group.

That's another great reason to like household-level agency. No elections necessary. Set policy and execute it.

@55: well said Max. Figure out what needs doing and do it. Be decent. How hard is that?

Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Aug 12 2021 17:05 utc | 59

@Tom Pfotzer #57
You are welcome to return to a neolithic lifestyle.
But again, what you do doesn't matter. Any one or even 100 million neolithic lifestyles isn't going to prevent buildings from going up, roads from getting built, electricity/oil/gas/coal/steel from being generated/mined/pumped.
But of course, becoming "one with nature" will require that 4 out of every 5 family members needs to die first because food production without fossil fuel fertilizer, transport and preservation drops at least 80%. So again pragmatically, the more people go neolithic, the smaller their share of the population, voting or otherwise, will be.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 17:10 utc | 60

Both Putin and Xi are very much aware of the Climate Crisis and have incorporated measures into their development plans to deal with it as best they can. China's goal is very ambitious. At the 2020 UNGA last September, Xi pledged:

"to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.”

Much of that initial goal is weaning itself off coal by using NatGas, but also by eliminating transportation-related CO2 emissions via rail and e-car, with hydrogen fueled fuel cell vehicles being the end game, the hydrogen produced via nuclear power. I also recall that next to transport buildings were the next greatest generator of emissions. Someone upthread already mentioned the #1 polluter--the Outlaw US Empire's military machine. Controlling the massive wildfires in Siberia, Canada, and the Western USA would be a big help. This season's Greenland melt's set another record, and Western mining interests want to worsen the problem by going after the rare earth minerals located there.

I could easily write more, but presenting China's position ought to make it the global leader in the fight to solve the Climate Crisis.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 12 2021 17:14 utc | 61

@ Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 17:02 utc | 54

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but, from the few that I've read, scientists are able to capture carbon in laboratory conditions, but the problem is that the technology is not viable at the scale we need.

Many scientific "breakthroughs" are not really breakthroughs. Just because something is viable under extremely small, extremely controlled laboratory conditions, doesn't mean it is viable in the real world.

Posted by: vk | Aug 12 2021 17:21 utc | 62

@ptb #50
There is no post-carbon transition.
If you look at the LCOE vs. real world numbers - you will find that actual solar PV and wind turbine installations generate small fractions in reality what they supposedly generate in name.
I believe it is something like 14% actual cap factor for Solar PV and 26% actual cap factor for wind.
The costs for solar are thus decreased 86% vs reality, in turn pushing down LCOE costs for kwh generated; for wind it is 74% reduction.
No wonder they are "cheaper" - the various agencies calculating LCOE are using ridiculously high cap factors in their exercises, not just a thumb but a whole limb on the scale to skew results.

But even disregarding this data exercise: if solar PV and wind are so much cheaper - why are massive construction and per kwh generation subsidies needed to push utilities to installing them?

There is a direct link between subsidies and alternative energy power plant builds - when the Spanish government slashed wind subsidies in 2014, ALL new wind power installs stopped = ZERO net generation increase. You can see the same thing in the UK, in Germany, in the US etc.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 17:26 utc | 63

c1ue @51 says: "Nice but irrelevant."

Of course, it is relevant. It shows that China is making the BIGGEST efforts to reduce its emission, to capture CO2, to create sustainable development paths and to set examples for developed/developing countries.

Posted by: d dan | Aug 12 2021 17:28 utc | 64

@Max | Aug 12 2021 17:02 utc | 55

Thank you, it is good to see common sense and actual talk if integrity, because integrity is totally gone from people in power and lots of others today. We probably disagree about many things (and that's ok), but I support 100% the principle of acting with integrity. If that happened it would solve most problems. Thanks for bringing this important point up.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 17:33 utc | 65

@vk | Aug 12 2021 17:21 utc | 60

Many scientific "breakthroughs" are not really breakthroughs. Just because something is viable under extremely small, extremely controlled laboratory conditions, doesn't mean it is viable in the real world.

Correct, you have to start with something that exist in the real world and not create models of fiction, because otherwise you end up with fictional results

Here's a good walk through about what is wrong with 'climate science'
Toy Models, Free Body Diagrams, and the Debunk of Climate Science - Skeptical Science

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 17:37 utc | 66

@Posted by: Ben | Aug 12 2021 16:35 utc | 40

Yes, Nordhaus is a complete bullshitter. His "damage model" basically says that GDP will fall by the square of the temperature rise, so only a 9% fall for 3 degrees, 16% for 4 degrees - while actual real scientists state that those temperatures are the end of modern civilization. The usual mainstream economics self-referential arrogance. The whole discipline is based on 1800s physics (just before physics let go of the notion of a stable equilibrium) and its" laws" are asserted (i.e. made up) - pretty much medieval religious metaphysics to misrepresent how the world actually works. And that "Nobel" is the central bank of Sweden prize that was initiated because Nobel himself did not believe that economics was worthy of an award in his name and the mainstream economists got all butt hurt.

The powerful have certainly been very happy to keep supporting such beneficial (to them) bullshit:

@Posted by: Jörgen Hassler | Aug 12 2021 16:56 utc | 49

"The most frequently reoccurring news since then has been 'things are a lot worse than expected, new study finds'." Yep, same old same ....

P.S. Norway is one of the most hypocritical nations in the world, busy subsidizing electric vehicles with all the money they get from selling oil and gas. No amount of climate denial bullshit will fix that.

Posted by: Roger | Aug 12 2021 17:39 utc | 67

Plants are carbon capture devices, and they work on a mass scale. Carbon re-capture technology is like fusion technology, a goal to pursue.

On the other hand, the idea that new technology to curtail carbon emissions has to be profitable, as in c1ue@61, rests on the principle that better humanity die, than the rule of capital be contested, much less abolished.

Last, the planet is in no peril whatsoever. Human civilization is in peril. But despite the popularity of post-apocalypse/zombie movies etc., where the petty bourgeois imagine away both those pesky workers and the big rich, humanity after that kind of fall will be small bands of villagers scraping along while ruins are slowly buried by nature. Like the Amazon tribes after the fall of the previous civilization, or the Mayan tribes after the fall of their civilization. (Civilization is settled society, people living in cities, not meeting some imaginary moral or philosophical standard or criterion.)

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 12 2021 17:41 utc | 68

@Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 17:37 utc | 64

Posting a video from a channel with 2,450 subscribers and the video itself has 1,087 views. LMFAO, is that you Norwegian? That's really sad man ....

Posted by: Roger | Aug 12 2021 17:45 utc | 69

@Roger | Aug 12 2021 17:39 utc | 65

P.S. Norway is one of the most hypocritical nations in the world, busy subsidizing electric vehicles with all the money they get from selling oil and gas. No amount of climate denial bullshit will fix that.

I know it is a hit on me, but I actually agree that Norwegian policy subsidizing electric vehicles is totally hypocritical, it should stop at once. It does not have the effect claimed, but makes crooks like Elon Musk even richer. It is the worst kind of hypocrisy to give the money earned by the people in the society and give it away to already uber-rich, foreign oligarchs, under the false pretext that it 'saves the planet', which is a ridiculous idea in the first place.

It is lies, theft and false virtue signalling put into system.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 17:50 utc | 70

If the IPCC says wildfires, ice cap/permafrost/glacier melts, flooding, jet stream disruptions aren't increasing, it's because as far as I can tell, the IPCC report doesn't mention them. It says, "The global climate has changed relative to the pre-industrial period, and there are multiple lines of evidence that these changes have had impacts on organisms and ecosystems, as well as on human systems and well-being (high confidence). The increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), which reached 0.87°C in 2006–2015 relative to 1850–1900, has increased the frequency and magnitude of impacts (high confidence), strengthening evidence of how an increase in GMST of 1.5°C or more could impact natural and human systems (1.5°C versus 2°C)."

Hm, what could that evidence be? Possibly the evidence that hundreds of thousands of scientists--sorry, "green shills"--produce every day? Or maybe just the evidence of our own eyes, assuming you aren't paid to keep your eyes shut. Also, the Sahara isn't greening. "In the future, the Sahara and Sahelian regions could experience more rainfall than today as a result of climate change. Wetter periods, termed African humid periods, occurred in the past and witnessed a mesic landscape in place of today’s hyperarid and semiarid environment. Such large past changes raise the question of whether the near future might hold in store similar environmental transformations, particularly in view of the growing human-induced climate, land-use, and land-cover changes." And what other effects might that human-induced climate change cause?

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | Aug 12 2021 17:51 utc | 71

@Roger | Aug 12 2021 17:45 utc | 66

Posting a video from a channel with 2,450 subscribers and the video itself has 1,087 views. LMFAO, is that you Norwegian? That's really sad man ....

What is 'sad' is that you seem to believe that scientific truths are decided by counting of hands...

Remember Einstein told us that it takes only one person to explain that a theory is wrong.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 17:54 utc | 73

@Posted by: vk | Aug 12 2021 17:21 utc | 60

Thankyou for this note of common sense, just because something works at small scale means nothing. Cellulosic ethanol was one such "promising" technology that failed at commercial scale, also of course commercial nuclear fusion reactors (also 40 years away it seems). History is full of promising technologies that never fulfilled that promise.

The scale of the equipment, pipe networks, and storage areas required to capture and store a meaningful amount of flue gas CO2 or even worse, atmospheric CO2, would be a multi-decade endeavour which has not even been started yet. We are not even at the start line as the technologies involved have not shown commercial-scale break-even operations. Thats why they are "highly speculative" and should not be in any climate change scenarios, to do is to simply facilitate a lack of action in actually cutting emissions. Vaclav Smil has written many excellent books on the reality of such cornucopian technologies.

Posted by: Roger | Aug 12 2021 17:57 utc | 74

If only we could get rid of every extra-national body or committee and scrap all global arrangements. Revert to silver and gold-backed local currencies and espouse nationalism. Lock the borders and retreat into decentralization.

Seems to be the only viable solution to deal with the death-cult acolytes who want to fix Gaia with evermore supranational groups and committees.

Debs is right. There is no future so long as this horrific modern Tower of Babel is still being erected before our bewildered gaze.

Turn back. It is the only way forward.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 12 2021 17:58 utc | 75

@ Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 17:37 utc | 64

But the imperfection of the theory doesn't mean the polar opposite of said theory is necessarily the truth. Absence of theory is not theory. Skepticism is not a theory.

If one day it is proven the Antropocene hypothesis is false, it doesn't necessarily mean it's good news. It could be something even worse. Wanting you or not, the hypothesis was able to predict the extreme weather we're seeing now with decades of antecedence (the "new ice age is coming/ending" hypothesis could not do that). Capacity of prediction is a necessary condition for the validity of a scientific theory.

Posted by: vk | Aug 12 2021 18:01 utc | 76

i agree with b, and peter lee and roger...

i don't suppose this many people living on the planet right now might have something to do with it?? clearly consumerism can't have anything to do with it, lol.. i know.. we aren't allowed to talk about population control.. it is Malthusian or something like that according to the last time i brought this up... apparently we can just keep on expanding the population and there will never be any problems, just like the stock, real estate, bitcoin - you name it - market bubbles.. they can keep on going on for forever, lol... dream world.. ride a bubble!!!

@ Bruised Northerner | Aug 12 2021 14:48 utc | 7.. thanks for sharing that link... it is depressing that...

Posted by: james | Aug 12 2021 18:05 utc | 77

This is the wolrdometers page on CO2 emissions listed both as total and as per capita.

China is the manufacturing center of the world but its emissions are very much mid range and less than the so called developed west. Any sort of life more than subsistence farming requires extra energy. US has long used that as a tool for keeping other countries down - preventing developing countries raising themselves out of poverty.
Those that think China should be the one to cut emissions simply because it has a large population are nothing more than a tool for current western propaganda.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 18:11 utc | 78

@Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 17:54 utc | 70

You equate this guy to Einstein? The great man was an actual real scientist who did the hard work (including a PhD) required to understand his area of specialization (Physics). The discipline of Physics goes through periods of "normal science" and then regularly sees a fundamental reassessment of some area, all within the academic discipline itself. The physics of climate change are so basic and well known (CO2 traps heat better than O for example) and have been proven repeatedly throughout the last century plus that they are accepted at consensus science - i.e. easily provable facts that any physics lab can replicate. Of course, climate science is not just physics but also many other scientific disciplines based upon the same extensive base of knowledge. Some smart-arse on a youtube channel doesn't change that, lets see him publish in Nature or survive a discussion with a real climate scientist.

"Sad" was understating your position, you simply cannot deal with the truth and are in full blown cognitive dissonance it would seem (unless you are a troll). No amount of evidence, facts etc, will change you world view. Not worth my effort to further engage.

Posted by: Roger | Aug 12 2021 18:16 utc | 79

@Roger | Aug 12 2021 18:16 utc | 76

You equate this guy to Einstein?
No I don't and you saw that from my reply, but you decided to draw a strawman anyway, because that's all you have.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 12 2021 18:22 utc | 80

The author is correct. There is no political will for averting catastrophic climate change and the horrors it will bring. We can point fingers at whoever we want, but nothing will be done in time for it to matter.

The only thing we know is that it will be worse and sooner than most people have predicted. I’m glad I’m old and won’t live to see the worst of it.

Posted by: TimmyB | Aug 12 2021 18:23 utc | 81

MarkinPNW @25

and plastics are dependent on carbon and organic chemistry.

Posted by: William Haught | Aug 12 2021 18:32 utc | 82

@d dan #62
Irrelevant when China's overall emissions continues to rise enormously.
China is the largest economy+people nation - they're going to be the largest whatever: bitcoin miner, solar PV installer, building builder, etc even if they invest a lower percentage of their GDP into anything.
Its like a billionaire donating $1M to charity. That's nice but they generally make more than that in hours, BFD.
What matters is emissions overall and emissions per person - both are increasing dramatically as would be expected of any nation making real economic progress.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 18:50 utc | 83

Unless everyone is down with everyone pretty much ceasing most of their everyday 'modern' lives: like not driving in cars or consuming animal products, rarely, if ever flying in planes or taking trips on cruise ships, curtailing most, if not all of our use of paints/solvents/household cleaners...etc, etc.....then whatever so-called "green" methods we might employ in a desperate attempt to continue participating in all of the above: will end up being just another one of our endless "bait-n-switch" BS placebo solutions that will be about as effective as tilting into "power-generating" windmills*.


Posted by: thewokendead | Aug 12 2021 18:51 utc | 84

@Roger #65
Nordhaus' models are no better or worse than any other economic, much less climate model.
You still refuse to address the reality that so-called climate science can't seem to get ANYTHING right - except possibly that it is still warming. And even then, they keep saying it MUST be due to humans when they can't seem to predict anything else.
So meh.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 18:52 utc | 85

Global warming.

The collection of pea brain politicians want to stop Global warming by controlling the carbon dioxide in atmosphere. That is actually more ridiculous than trying to stop the rushing train by putting a single straw on the rails.
Confident politicians are trying to change Gods setup.
Obviously they cannot succeed.
And Gods setup is that way that 95 percent of humanity will be eliminated.
God did set it up this way when he did create our solar system.

Global warming?

Global warming is continuous process that started at peak of the Ice age that did happen about 18 thousand years ago.

There is now no more global warming. There is now accelerated global warming.

People now noticed that our planet is warming up. People did not notice global warming before, because the changes were not noticeable during one person lifetime.
So what is the reason for accelerated global warming?
Some 30 or 40 years ago great change did happen. And it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide in atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide stays in lower atmosphere is not cumulative process. With rain carbon dioxide creates carbonic acid and it falls to the ground where it helps in creation of top soil. Also plants do absorb carbon dioxide. So carbon dioxide is being part of the recycling process Carbon dioxide is not and newer was the cause of global warming. Although there always were large forest fires they never influenced anything..

So here is what is happening!


I do find it difficult to pick the starting point of the explanation, but I am picking the starting point of peak of the Ice age. Ice age is now accepted fact so I do not have to prove it.
We did find some Neanderthal skeletons and some pictures on the walls of caves where they were living. (But the question is: Did all Neanderthals live in caves?)
Also we have here a traveler through Alps clothed if fur and leader with pouch of berries.
Scientist determined that he died six thousand years ago. He was discovered only because the thick layer of ice above his body has melted away.
Than we have latest excavations in Sahara desert where were find skeletons an villages and former lakes what did prove that Sahara was a place with ample flora a fauna.
But most important fact we find in Bible when Jews did leave Egypt they were wandering 40 years in wilderness and when they were very hungry God did send them manna. The manna was sweet. So at one time area which is now Sinai Desert was bursting with vegetation and life. And the manna was coconuts falling from coconuts trees.
All this is proof that Global warming was present and happening continuously to this day.

And this is only the end of the Stage, Foreword, or like I love to say Prelude.

And now I can go to the theory itself .


I have no doubt that most of readers will not understand the theory because to understand it, it requires certain minimal knowledge of static, kinematics, dynamics and vectors.
It also requires certain familiarities with works of two Slavic Geniuses , Copernicus, and Kepler, and also Holandian Ticho de Brahe.

But there is no reason to despair. All you have to understand that everything has two sides. As Newton law that every action has an opposite reaction of equal size. Also every coin has a head ant tale. So if there was an Ice age there must be also a hot age.

I will concentrate mostly on Kepler.
So how it went down,
Tycho de Brahe spent most of his life observing night skies recording the position of planets at time intervals. Eventually when he finished his work, he did not know what to do with it, so he did send all his notes and sketches to Kepler.
On bases of these notes Kepler formulated 3 laws on movement of orbiting planets in our Solar system. (you can Google Kepler to find the Laws,)
What is significant is the interpretation of second Law which is about of equal areas. The interpretation is that velocity of the earth orbiting tne Sun is not constant. The velocity when earth on the curve around the sun is higher than when is on the curve on opposite side. (Far away from sun.)

But I do have a problem with first Law (the ellipse)
First problem is that ellipse is an anomaly.
Second problem is that ellipse is inherently unstable.

As the earth rotate around the Sun trajectory is determined by two obvious forces. The gravity pull of the sun and the centrifugal force emanated from kinetic force of the earth.
These two forces never change so the orbit must be circular,

So who is right Kepler or me.
Actually Kepler is right because his Law is based on factual findings of Ticho de Brahe.

But here is the snag, First law of dynamics is that nothing changes in our universe unless force is applied to it. So there must be some invisible unknown force that warps the circular orbit of earth into ellipse. I do call this unknown force “Mysterious Lady”

So there are three forces determining the trajectory of the earth not two. (Holy Trinity,)
And so mysterious lady is pushing the end of ellipse continuously away from the other end. That is more and more away from sun making the ellipse longer and narrower. Because now earth is spending more time on the ellipse that is far away from sun, the temperature of the earth is decreasing and than the ice age sets in up on earth. Because the vector of Mysterious lady is in direct opposition to Suns gravity, strength of Mysterious lady is decreasing with each orbit. Eventually Suns gravity eliminates all force of Mysterious lady and earth execute his last progressing orbit. And that is the peak of the ice age,
Than Sun is starting to pull back orbit of the earth, making ellipse fatter and shorter until earth make last orbit which is precise circle.
But Sun pulling back the earth trajectory is building up the potential energy in earth.
And now we know the origin of Mysterious lady. It is actually inertia of earth built up by Suns gravity. So when earth makes the precise circular orbit, that is the peak of hot age. And passing that point, inertia in earth is starting to build the ellipse on opposite side of Sun and the process repeats itself.
So the movement is like pendulum.
Orbit of the earth defined by two vectors. Vector of kinetic energy and vector of earth inertia.

According my calculations movement from peak of ice age to peak other ice age takes forty thousand years,
So where are we now?
We are approximately 2 thousand years away from peak of hot age, when orbit of the earth becomes precise circle. And I believe it is not too good news for humanity,
At the beginning I did mention the red line and accelerated Global warming.
So what is happening?
Sun is emitting heat waves into universe but so does also earths, the face turned away from sun. This acceptance of heat energy and emitting heat energy was in balance.
But because earth is spending more time closer to sun the enthalpy of the earth is increasing, Increase of enthalpy means accelerated Global warming.

Prophecy and consequences


Although it was happening before now it will happen more obviously. The summers will become longer and winters will become shorter. It will happen until circular
orbit of the earth when seasons will vanish and all year will be only summer. I am not going to note on the impact on the flora. In every case the impact becomes questionable.

Going back to present.
Environmentalists are now alarmed by diminishing icebergs on poles. Claiming of the rising of the level of oceans is threat to humanity. That is not a threat. That is a joke.

About our Mother Earth.
Earth is not a sphere to call earth sphere is good enough when we argue with people who claim that the earth is flat.
Earth is ellipsoid with larger axis of distance of two opposite points on the equator an smaller axis from pole to pole.
But even that is not precise because earth is more squashed on north pole than on south pole.
That proves two things.
Earth was once liquid mass.
The solidifying of surface of the liquid mass did begin on North pole.
On North pole we have deep see while on South pole we have solid earth mass.

So what are the detrimental factors threaten the humanity?
(Here are enthusiast of global worming actually right.)
1.Increased temperature.

Temperature of air on most areas will increase to such extent that it will become non breathable.

Concerning weather, it is more complicated.
As earth will heat up and all snow and ice will vanish the temperature differences will of different areas considerable decrease. That will influence the air movement around the globe.
The air movement will considerably decrease. It will decrease to such extent that most of evaporated water from oceans in a form of clouds will not reach solid ground but they will fall back in a form of rain into oceans. Result of this will be dry lands on continents.

So here is signs to watch. Amounts of rain in all areas.
Tornados Hurricanes and Typhoons will be no more. They will die out.

The results.
The earth axis of rotation is not perpendicular to area of its ellipse it is inclined 22,7 degrees. That means that southern hemisphere is more exposed to sun when earth is on curve around the sun.
So Australia will first that will become arid uninhabitable land. All flora and fauna including the population will die out. Following new Zealand Africa Middle east South America will die out.
Eventually all area up to Northern Polar circle will become uninhabitable.

Only Northern parts of Canada, Labrador, Iceland and Russian Tundra will be habitable.

Naturally by progressing the devastation there will be great migration Earth population to North.
Some countries will accept selectively some emigrants but there will not be so many accepted .
Russian Taiga is a huge land and they will accept mostly Slavic people Except Polish and not Russian speaking Ukrainians.

We have Lucy from 3,2 million years and we have Ardi from 4.4 million years.
So humanoids and humans survived several hot ages so why such a pessimistic outlook for humanity now?
We do not know how may died in hot age and how many survived.
And here is the huge difference. They did not have an axe and saw. All surface of earth was cowered and protected by canopy of trees.

This time it will be different.
People did cut down most of the trees for inhabitation, fields and roads.
So now the earth is mostly naked.

So what can humans do now to at lest somehow diminish the impact of hot age.
Not much!
Maybe plant trees on every free area could help a little bit.
The other thing is imperative. Canada should dig a deep channel from Great lakes to arctic circle, and Russia should dig a deep channel from Baikal lake to Russian Tundra.
To have a soft water for population and for irrigation to have a back up
in case of insufficient rain.

I still stand by my calculation of peak of the hot age 2 thousand years from now, but that is within error of plus minus 5 hundred years. So maybe we will start to notice the beginning of hot age soon.

We have scientist star gazers, who could measure the distance of earth to sun at time of peak of winter, and at time of peak of summer and establish the parameters of ellipse.
And doing twice or more times could determine the gradient of earth nearing the sun.
From that it can be calculated precisely the peak of the hot age.

What is most peculiar to me that Trump wanted to buy Iceland from Denmark.
Did he wanted a safe land for future US population? Because he knew what will be coming? This is very suspicious to me. But Democrats have different idea
They just will kill all Iceland population and take over.
Soon will be here on earth life or death situations for most of nations, so conflict will arise with unforeseen consequences.

Final conclusion.
Bible is saying that God created heaven and earth. I would put it slightly differently.
Many parameters of our Earth and our Solar system that support life, in my opinion could not happen randomly. I am strongly convinced that our solar system is Gods pet project.

Post Scripted

Please do not misunderstand me. I am condoning all activities what Governments are doing, fighting Global warming and Climate change. But these activities will have zero influence on what is coming.

I am only wondering if I will get at least one echo.

April 30, 2021

Signed by Zarathustra, Diploma Engineer

Posted by: Zarathustra | Aug 12 2021 18:54 utc | 86

Has anyone here actually read the Summary for Policy makers of Working Group One (The Physical Science Basis) of the Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? You can find a link here, together with my brief criticisms.
Thing is, there's hardly any physical science in it, it doesn't summarise anything, and it's completely useless for policymakers since it's as opaque as a prosecutor's's brief in an unwinnable case which has been proceeding through the courts for decades towards an inevitable not guilty verdict.

Sure, temperatures have been zigzagging slowly upwards – on average - for centuries, long before we started putting significant amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and likewise for sea level rise. But in the seventy odd years that CO2 has increased significantly, there's been no measurable increase in the number of hurricanes, droughts, or floods. Wildfires in California were five times worse a hundred years ago. The number of deaths from weather-related disasters has diminished 95% in a century, due to improved transport, communications, infrastructure etc. -i.e. to all the things we owe to good old fossil fuels. It's all in the official statistics. Go and look it up. Because the IPCC won't tell you that.

Posted by: geoff chambers | Aug 12 2021 18:54 utc | 87

Some basic experiments for those faced with anyone that says CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere, which is an outright lie.

From 1859 by Eunice Foote (John Tyndall is credited with discovering the effect, but Eunice may have gotten there first). All you need is jars that can be sealed and sunlight and a source for CO2, water vapour and air!

"It includes a presentation by Eunice Foote to a top US science conference in 1856. She describes filling glass jars with water vapour, carbon dioxide and air, and comparing how much they heated up in the sun. 'The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas,' she writes, using the contemporary term for carbon dioxide. 'The receiver containing the gas became itself much heated – very sensibly more so than the other – and on being removed, it was many times as long in cooling.' ... 'An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action as well as from increased weight must have necessarily resulted.'”

A slightly more sophisticated recent experiment from the The Royal Society:

The basics of climate science have been open to widespread discussion and verification, the focus on consensus helps to winnow out incorrect theories and focus in on the provable ones. Thats thousands of scientists over many, many decades using the scientific method to prove/disprove current and new theories. When the theory is truly groundbreaking, like Einstein's it can take decades for that consensus to form - Einstein was validated by the academy and got a real Nobel Prize for his work. Climate science has already been through this process, thats why its called consensus science - just like many other areas of science that we rely upon throughout our everyday lives.

Its why the natural sciences are very different to the social "sciences", a good example is experimental psychology vs. social science psychology. The latter does metaphysics based on such people as Freud (disproven by experimental psychology [e.g. by Steve Pinkner etc.] and most probably lying about real sexual abuse to protect his position in 1800s society), and Jung (who was not always in contact with reality to put it mildly). The same BS with psychologists and anthropologists and others that say that human behaviour is all culture, when people such as Pinkner have experimental shown that human males and females as young a few months old tend to have different interest, and psychopathy (as against sociopathy) has been shown to be a brain disorder. So much science denial from both ends of the political spectrum, the joy of post modernism - reality is whatever you feel it should be.

Posted by: Roger | Aug 12 2021 18:56 utc | 88

@81: I Incorectly embedded the URL posted in my comment above. Here is a working link TO: "PLANET OF THE HUMANS"

Posted by: thewokendead | Aug 12 2021 19:05 utc | 89

Posted by: Prof | Aug 12 2021 15:52 utc | 26

Industrial pollution is more a crisis of the industrial revolution than capitalism (although capitalism certainly does drive it). Even in the Soviet Union, largely for industrial agriculture, the Aral Sea was dried up.

Admittedly, humanity is a part of nature, but it really seems to specialize in screwing up the enviroment for its own selfish purposes. It isn't just the political economic ideology that is the problem. It is our imperialist drive to conquer the rest of the natural world and bend it to our needs, ignoring ecosystems and their importance even to ourselves.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Aug 12 2021 19:10 utc | 90

Well, the covid pandemic is the absolute and ultimate proof that indeed neither governments nor most people want to fight climate change and won't. When faced with an obvious deadly major crisis, so many people did nothing, claimed there was nothing, and most governments acted merely to protect business interests - no border closure, no early lockdown, ... -, it's quite clear they won't act when faced with a deadlier but nearly invisible threat that won't become as obvious as covid for at least another decade.
Nope, there only ever was one outcome: our political systems have failed, our leaders have failed, a good chunk of our societies, of our peoples, of mankind, has failed. Sooner or later, this very century, a major culling of the species will happen, and odds it won't be for the better as far as the species is concerned, odds are that the most sensible, less corrupt won't have a better survival rate than the crazy assholes, though it might be for the best when the rest of the planet is concerned.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Aug 12 2021 19:11 utc | 91

@ 88 clueless joe... i share your pessimism, or realism as the case may be..

Posted by: james | Aug 12 2021 19:14 utc | 92

@NoOneYouKnow #68
As usual, you supposed climate science believers can't even be bothered to read your own bible: the IPCC AR report.

On the RCP 8.5 and other scenarios being doom porn:

IPCC AR6 link

socio-economic not part of IPCC AR6 assessment

the socio-economic assumptions and the feasibility or likelihood of individual scenarios is not part of the assessment

i.e. economic models are not climate science.

Now on to the climate disasters:

Heat Waves
IPCC on heat waves

It is virtually certain that there has been increases in the intensity and duration of heat waves and in the number of heat wave days at the global scale. These trends likely occur in Europe, Asia and Australia. There is medium confidence in similar changes in temperature extremes in Africa and South America

Note that likely means 66% confidence, not 100%. Medium is lower.

Likely = 66% increase in increased rainfall


Flooding increase, NO

[from 2 above] Heavier rainfall does not always lead to greater flooding.


Confidence about peak flow trends over the past decades on the global scale is low

Low means less than 33% or 5% depends on which AR version.

Chapter 8

the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers

i.e. there is no detectable trend at this or any previous time.

These 2 categories are particularly funny since more and more people are jumping on the "not enough water" bandwagon. Well, more CO2 = more rain = more water, no?

Droughts not increasing meteorologically or hydrologically

In other words - not climate. Human agriculture and ecological droughts are medium likelihood = ~50%

Hurricanes/Tropical Cyclones
No trend detected

Trying hard but failing...

Winter Storms
Winters Storm low confidence of increase

Thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, lightning
No increase detected

Extreme Winds
Less extreme winds where people live

IPCC finds less extreme winds between 60N (~Juneau) and 60S (~Antarctica)

Fire weather

This is all straight from IPCC AR6 as opposed to treehugger limousine liberal publications.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 19:15 utc | 93

@Posted by: geoff chambers | Aug 12 2021 18:54 utc | 84

Agreed that the summary document is an incredibly badly written and horrifically hard to understand one, a bit like the proverbial camel being a horse designed by a committee (just to note I consider camels to be wonderful creatures) - and it was a huge committee. They need a "simple English for normal people" person to write the summary. The politicians will not have a clue what the summary for them actually means. Its a summary of the science, not the science itself. That can be found in articles published in journals such as Nature, Nature Climate Science, Geophysical Research Letters etc.

Then you lost me with the usual list of simplistic statements.Please see my previous posts for answers to many of your statements, probably better actually go read a book on climate science rather than pontificating.

"Because the IPCC won't tell you that", yep the usual conspiracy theory bullshit - you gave it away there!

"Sure, temperatures have been zigzagging slowly upwards – on average - for centuries, long before we started putting significant amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere" - Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period etc.?, all explained by me previously and would be in that climate science book you should read. Temperatures actually went down in the couple of decades after WW2 due to all the smog created by the rapid industrialization of the West, then that effect was overwhelmed by increasing CO2 levels.

" Wildfires in California were five times worse a hundred years ago." a localized phenomenon with a number of other variables perhaps?

"The number of deaths from weather-related disasters has diminished 95% in a century, due to improved transport, communications, infrastructure etc. -i.e. to all the things we owe to good old fossil fuels." Ah, yes reality is complex with multiple confounding variables possible!

Posted by: Roger | Aug 12 2021 19:16 utc | 94

c1ue 80 "Irrelevant when China's overall emissions continues to rise enormously."

Very relevant if its taken in the context of how much China is limiting its rise of CO2 while developing to a stage of moderate prosperity.
Also relevant when looked at as China being the main manufacturing center of the world.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 19:17 utc | 95

@Peter AU1 #75
China's emissions per capita are lower because they're 75% poorer, per capita, vs. the West.
China's per capita emissions is thus completely meaningless given that they want to keep improving their per capita wealth as a nation.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 19:18 utc | 96

I truly do not understand why you "eco" folks hate forrests so much, why?
Why do you try to fool intelligent people into thinking that co2 is dangerous and want to starve all the forrests and stop the greening of the earth?

Are you guys really so daft or do you just prefer cognitive dissonans?

(All honest question asked bc i do not understand, and yes to utter such idiocy unironically and seriously makes a person daft!)

Posted by: Per/Norway | Aug 12 2021 19:19 utc | 97

@Roger #85
The tired attempts to explain CO2 is the driver of climate are ridiculous.
CO2 has been increasing in a straight line for years, overall, but there are enormous seasonal variations.
If the CO2 = primary climate driver is true, then why are the GCM models so fucking wrong?
How hard is it to draw a straight line between the CO2 straight line graph and the temperature straight line graph?
Oh right, because the temperature ISN'T a straight line graph.
What real scientists acknowledge is that they don't actually know how much natural variation exists due to whatever other causes, and therefore it is inherently unknowable how much of the recent temperature changes are due to CO2 vs. LIA recovery vs. an enormous range of potential other effects.
So meh - that "this is basic science" nonsense might work with numbskulls, but real people who work in the real work demand real proof.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 19:21 utc | 98

IMO the seemingly well-formed - and very vocal - people who ignore the rapid rise of the number of humans and the lag between carbon emissions and climate change are not making an honest mistake.

The denier farce was most evident when, a year or two ago, we suddenly saw MSM reporting about surveys that showed that only a minority of the population believed that humans were causing climate change. LOL! Does anyone really believe that policy should be swayed by the uncertainties of an ignorant, and hyper-propagandized public?

It's very clear that the oil and gas industry is acting to protecting their profits just like other industries have in the past. The tobacco industry killed millions - even after they knew the truth.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 12 2021 19:24 utc | 99

To show what I mean, take paragraph B.13 of the Summary for Policymakers (not the actual AR6 WG1 Physical Science Basis Report) which you quote in your first paragraph:

“B.1.3. Global warming of 1.5°C relative to 1850-1900 would be exceeded during the 21st century under the intermediate, high and very high scenarios considered in this report. Under the five illustrative scenarios, in the near term (2021-2040), the 1.5°C global warming level is very likely to be exceeded under the very high GHG emissions scenario, likely to be exceeded under the intermediate and high GHG emissions scenarios, more likely than not to be exceeded under the low GHG emissions scenario and more likely than not to be reached under the very low GHG emissions scenario.”

Note that these are scenarios, or “Shared Socio-Economic Pathways” in IPCC-speak. They have no physical reality, but are simply assumptions fed into mathematical models in order to generate predictions. Note further that the high and very high scenarios are totally irrealistic and put in simply to frighten the masses. Note that past predictions using mathematical models dating back to 1970 have consistently predicted global warming two or three times the actual observed warming, as measured by GISTEMP and HADCRUT. They tend to leave out the more reliable satellite measurements from NASA/University of Huntsville, since they give less alarming rises. A spaghetti graph included in the draft version of the last IPCC report AR5 (but suppressed from the final report) showed 106 different mathematical model runs, 105 of which showed temperature rises far above observations (the exception being a Russian model, which seems to have disappeared from the IPCC's radar.)

But you don't need any scientific knowledge, and you don't have to check out my claims, to see that it's all rubbish. Just look at the language, the structure of the argument. “Very high emissions are very likely to cause lots of warming; high or intermediate emissions are likely to cause lots of warming; and low emissions are more likely than not to cause lots of warming.” This is not the way normal people talk, at least not to intelligent adults, and not the way to address policymakers, who in this case are the heads of government of 195 countries. Unfortunately most heads of government are not intelligent adults.

Posted by: geoff chambers | Aug 12 2021 19:28 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.