Paris Climate Change Conference

Bottom-Up Paris Climate Accord May Surprise Activists and Skeptics

Third dispatch: What happens if global temperature doesn't go up?

|

IceCreamEarth
Bailey

Paris – Yesterday I noted the optimism that seems to have affected the climate campaigners and negotiators here at the U.N. climate change conference. This got me to wondering about why that might be. I think that part of the reason is that process of putting together whatever turns out to be the Paris Accord is largely a non-zero-sum bottom-up exercise. Countries are not being told what to do, but each one gets to propose for itself what it plans to do about man-made global warming. In addition, thousands of states, provinces, regions, cities, and businesses have piled on to make voluntary pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. (This is not to say their electorates agree with the decisions being made by their governors and mayors.)

This pledging process avoids the divisive zero-sum gaming that characterized previous climate negotiations and which resulted in failed climate treaties. Both the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the successor agreement that was supposed to be approved at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 were conceived as top-down legally binding regulatory systems. They aimed to impose very specific carbon dioxide limits on developed country signatories. For example, the U.S. target under the Kyoto Protocol was to cut its emissions 7 percent below the levels it emitted in 1990; total emissions from developed countries were supposed be cut by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol was never ratified by the U.S. and the 2009 Copenhagen conference collapsed because countries, especially rapidly developing emitters like China and India, would not accept top-down imposed greenhouse gas emissions cuts. The hastily cobbled together face-saving Copenhagen Accord was styled as a "political agreement" not a treaty. It did set the goal of keeping future temperature increases below 2°C of the pre-industrial average. Under the Copenhagen Accord, rich countries committed to voluntarily adopting economy-wide emissions targets for 2020. How much to cut was individually up to each country to decide. This has become the model for the hoped-for Paris Accord in which each country submits its intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat. INDCs are basically promises countries make regarding how they will address man-made global warming.

In 2010, the Obama administration pledged to cut U.S. emissions 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020. According to the latest Environmental Protection Agency figures U.S. emissions have so far dropped to about 11 percent below their 2005 levels. In March, the Obama administration submitted an INDC pledging to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions up to 28 percent by 2025.

In November, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that whatever else was agreed upon in Paris there were "not going to be legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto." However, President Barack Obama at the Paris conference did concede, "Although the targets themselves may not have the force of treaties, the process, the procedures that ensure transparency and periodic reviews, that needs to be legally binding."

The U.S. seems to be adopting New Zealand's "bounded flexibility" approach in which each country's emissions reduction "contributions" – not "obligations" – are not formally included in the core of the legal agreement. The Paris Accord would be legally binding with respect to reporting, monitoring, and review of the voluntary pledges.  While countries cannot be told what they must contribute, each would be required to accurately tell the others how it's doing with regard to its pledges.

President Obama apparently plans to argue that the division between voluntary targets and obligatory reporting procedures is enough to avoid having to submit the new accord to the Senate for its advice and consent. The legally binding accounting provisions will supposedly be merely an extension of U.S. obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified in 1994. It is true that the U.S. government already does a pretty comprehensive job of reporting on greenhouse gas inventories and the actions taken to reduce emissions. So maybe the Obama administration's interpretation is legally plausible, but it's doubtful that Congressional Republicans will agree. In any case, U.S. Special Representative on Climate Change Todd Stern said here that the issue of U.S. domestic politics is not coming up much during the negotiations here.

The legally binding part of the accord would require that parties come back periodically to review and evaluate each other's pledges. In light the reviews countries are supposed update their INDCs in accordance with what the science is saying about the pace and intensity of man-made warming. This may, however, not work out as the negotiators and activists here in Paris expect. They believe that pledged cuts will need to be ramped up significantly as the globe grows ever warmer. But it is possible that the science may tell them something else in the coming years.

What if instead of accelerating as predicted the pace of warming were to continue at the rate of +0.11°C per decade reported by the satellite measurements? What if further research confirms that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is lower than earlier more alarming estimates? That would mean that future warming would be lower than most climate models now predict. In other words, what if the globe doesn't have the climatic equivalent of Ebola, but instead is suffering from a mild cold?

If climate science does validate such happy outcomes, the Paris Accord's mandated review and update processes would afford countries the opportunity to scale back their INDCs. The flexible structure of the Paris Accord captures some of the elements of the intriguing proposal for a temperature indexed carbon tax by University of Guelph economist and statistician Ross McKitrick. McKitrick, a skeptic of predictions of catastrophic warming, advocates putting a small tax on carbon dioxide emissions, tied to a suitable measure of atmospheric temperatures. "If temperatures go up, so does the tax," explains McKitrick. "If they do not, the tax does not change. In this way everybody will expect to get the policy they think best, and whoever turns out to be right deserves to be so." If the skeptics are right about the direction of man-made warming, it is possible that they may end up (at least faintly) cheering the Paris Accord.

Note: I am filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate change conference, and will keep readers informed on just how onerous the new accord turns out to be.

Advertisement

NEXT: Today at SCOTUS: Affirmative Action on Trial

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This pledging process avoids the divisive zero-sum gaming that characterized previous climate negotiations and which resulted in failed climate treaties.

    The Church of AGW is about to get an ultimatum nailed to its door.

    1. First again,huh,your a Time Lord aren’t you?

      1. What is this “time” of which you speak?

        1. Just as I thought,you exist outside of time and space. Your a Ancient. So,how Jack O’neill?

          1. +2 L’s

      2. What is this “Lord” of which you speak?

    2. I wouldn’t mind seeing some theses thrown their way.

    3. “The Church of AGW is about to get an ultimatum nailed to its door.”

      And you are about to get carbon-taxed! Don’t worry though, Ron assures us, it’s “bottom-up” taxation.

  2. As I hear it, if it looks like the 2 degree threshold won’t be hit, it will be lowered to 1.5 degrees.

  3. The legally binding part of the accord would require that parties come back periodically to review and evaluate each other’s pledges.

    Sounds like these “pledges” are pure PR – unenforceable eyewash. If that’s all that comes out of this, well, its just another in a long, long line of pointless climate boondoggles.

    But, is there an enforcement mechanism somewhere in all this? If so, what is it?

    As it (apparently) sits, this thing guarantees an endless stream of boondoggles as “pledges” and “reviewed and evaluated” at poshy international conferences. No wonder the delegates are so cheerful.

    1. You don’t expect them to decide what’s best for humanity in some run-down shanty town in Siberia, do you?

    2. As I linked below, the emission levels they’re reporting could be eyewash.

      When it comes time to negotiate, they suddenly start saying they’re emitting 17% more than they were before? The article I linked says the size of their revision upwards is higher than Germany’s total emission level!

      Yeah, we’re gonna cut our emissions by 15% over the next umpty years, and it’s going to be a tremendous sacrifice. Oh, but just so you know, our emissions were `17% higher than we’d accounted for before a month ago, so…

      1. Too bad the emissions cuts aren’t calculated the same way we calculate US “budget cuts”.

      2. I understand Audi has been consulting with Merkel on this.

    3. pure PR

      Basically, yeah. I took an international environmental law class and the problem of enforcement always came up. Sure, you can set up fines whatever but who is going to literally force the US or China or Russia to comply?

    4. “But, is there an enforcement mechanism somewhere in all this? If so, what is it?”

      You no pay taxy, you go jaily. Simple enough for you?

      1. “who is going to literally force the US or China or Russia to comply?”

        1. Since when do these nations have to be forced into taxing shlubs like you?

          1. I see. I thought you were actually concerned about catastrophic global warming.

            Silly me.

            1. ” I thought you were actually concerned”

              Read more, think less.

              1. So you see global warming as a cynical hoax to increase taxes on “schlubs like me,” a working family man with an income in the lower 50% nationally, and you’re completely, smugly cool with that.

                Sounds about right.

                1. “So you see global warming as a cynical hoax”

                  Whether it’s a cynical or not, schlubs like you are going to foot the bill,

                  “a working family man with an income in the lower 50% nationally, and you’re completely, smugly cool with that.”

                  Yes, I am completely and smugly cool about your choice to receive an income that puts you in the lower 50% nationally. Live and let live is my motto.

                  1. OK-Ima spell this out for you.

                    You’re supposedly a Marxist, yes?

                    Marxists generally see themselves in a noble struggle on behalf of the beleaguered working classes.

                    Those of us who are critical of Marxism often point to Marxists using cynical schemes to further beleaguere those very working people under the guise of helping them.

                    You’re actually dispensing with the guise and saying “yay, this cynical scheme I don’t believe in is creating hardship for lower income working people!”

                    In other words, you’re not even a proper Marxist-you’re just an asshole.

                    1. “you’re not even a proper Marxist”

                      I’m a Maoist and a liar. Your error lies in not appreciating this simple fact. You’re the only one here who’s yet to cotton on.

                      It’s true what you say about the cynicism of Marxists, yet they were also sincere in many of their initiatives. The Soviets were the first to pass laws against marital rape for example. The USA didn’t get around to that until some 50 years later.

                      Question: The Soviets were also the first nation to recognize the state of Israel. Cynical or sincere?

                      Also congrats if you managed to read this far.

              2. mtrueman|12.9.15 @ 3:02PM|#
                “Read more, think less.”

                Fuck off.
                trueman’s here only to see his name on some screen other than his pathetic blog.
                Hey, truman! How many times did you click on your blog to show more hits?

            2. trueman’s a hostile idiot. Don’t engage, it’s a waste of time.

              1. I enjoy engaging him. It’s a little like having a boxing match with an obnoxious 4-year-old, which is a pleasure I’m not allowed to indulge in in real life.

    5. “But, is there an enforcement mechanism somewhere in all this? If so, what is it?”

      It’s the location of your coastline relative to your population centers….

  4. My goodness, it’s so easy to raise funds during the pledge drive! Turning all that feel-good noise into money is another matter entirely, and that’s when you’re dealing with the guy who made the pledge, not the millions of citizens in whose name the politico supposedly speaks.
    We’re going to see a very clear demonstration of the difference between stated and revealed preferences here. Or we could be more honest and just recognize them as the bullshit statements they are.

  5. “Although the targets themselves may not have the force of treaties, the process, the procedures that ensure transparency and periodic reviews, that needs to be legally binding.”

    It would be absurd to let each country report their own emissions–and take their word for it. Especially after China suddenly released numbers showing that their emissions were much higher than previously reported ahead of the Paris Conference.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11……html?_r=0

    It’s easy to pledge to the world that you’ll cut your emissions by 15%–after you’ve announced that your emissions are 17% higher than you thought because of bad accounting. We shouldn’t trust the Chinese to track their own emissions.

    On the other side, if Obama thinks that he can commit us to legally binding treaty without the consent of Congress, then he’s a dangerous and evil man. He’s right in that how the emissions are counted and who counts them needs to be legally binding for a system like this to have an impact, but letting the President negotiate legally binding treaties with foreign governments without the consent of Congress is just as bad or worse as letting the President declare war without Congress. Such a precedent is especially dangerous given that we may have a President succeed Obama who accepted donations from foreign governments to her private foundation while she was the Secretary of State.

  6. What if instead of accelerating as predicted the pace of warming were to continue at the rate of +0.11?C per decade reported by the satellite measurements? What if further research confirms that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is lower than earlier more alarming estimates? That would mean that future warming would be lower than most climate models now predict. In other words, what if the globe doesn’t have the climatic equivalent of Ebola, but instead is suffering from a mild cold?

    Look. The models are correct. The consensus says so. So what you suggest indeed occurs, then obviously it will be the measurements and/or the weather that is wrong. Remember that weather is short term, while climate is long term. So uncooperative weather does not contradict climate predictions.

  7. “This may, however, not work out as the negotiators and activists here in Paris expect.”

    Of course it works out that way. If warming pauses (it hasn’t yet), or if temps aren’t sensitive to CO2, then yes goals might be relaxed. Why not? And why would you think negotiators wouldn’t want that? Unless you think they aren’t really concerned about temperatures and have other nefarious goals in mind.

    It’s one reason why the predictions from Climate Action Tracker showed more common sense than Lomborg. Facts on the ground should change things. CAT just is tracking with what science says in regard to where we are headed.

    But you might consider other what ifs. What if satellites aren’t the best measure, and ground measurements are? What if climate is even more sensitive to CO2? What if tipping points aren’t fully take into account? What if that piece in WaPo is correct and that Exxon is correct that without government action we may be headed to even 10 degrees F warming?

    So yes, goals should be reevaluated…in both directions.

    1. Boy, that’s a lot of questions for “settled science”.

      1. Taking a page from Reason science correspondent Bailey.

        1. He doesnt think its settled.

          1. We are referring to the what ifs.

            1. There are no what ifs if the science is settled.

              1. Ok, what is are only available to libertarians.

                1. What ifs are available to anyone who understands how science works.

                  If you have ever declared any branch of science settled, you are excluded from real conversation.

                  1. Okey doke

                  2. Ditto if you think Venezuela was or is a free democracy.

                  3. If you have ever declared any branch of science settled, you are excluded from real conversation.

                    Science is a never-ending quest for discovery. To declare science to be settled goes against the spirit of discovery, and to declare anyone who asks questions a “denier” is most certainly not science. “Denier” is a religious word, not a scientific one.

                    1. “To declare science to be settled goes against the spirit of discovery”

                      It also goes against the scientific method.

                      All science is predicated on the fact that our scientific understanding of anything has to be revised if there is any new data that conflicts with it.

                      We do not know what data we will collect tomorrow.

                      Galileo ground lenses that were more powerful than any anyone had peered through before. He looked into the sky, and he saw things that no one had ever seen before. We had to revise what we thought we knew because of the new data. If new data becomes available tomorrow showing that the sun orbits the earth after all, then the scientific consensus will change accordingly.

                      Because new data tomorrow can change everything we know today, scientific knowledge is always to some degree uncertain. We try to get the level of uncertainty down by publishing results and having others repeat the same experiments. But as long as we can learn something new tomorrow that we don’t know today, science will always be a consensus based on some level of uncertainty.

                      Yeah, anyone who thinks science is ever completely settled doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

                    2. It also goes against the scientific method.

                      You mean that quaint process where you start with a hypotheses, make repeatable experiments and then evaluate the results?

                      That’s like a hundred years old and stuff.

                      Nobody does that anymore. Now we have a bunch of like-minded smart people take a vote. The consensus is science, and anyone who questions the consensus is a science denier.

                    3. Science does seem to be like a priesthood to some people. Where you believe what people say about public policy because they’re scientists. And scientists are stepping over their proper boundaries all the time. When someone with a PhD tells us that we should care more about polar bears or the future than we do about coal miners or our own standard of living, they’re making qualitative value judgements that have nothing to do with science.

                      People having PhDs does not make everything they advocate scientific. When a Native American meteorologist does a rain dance, he is not being scientific. When a climate scientist tells us that we should care about other people and animals more than ourselves, he is not being scientific.

                      I’m not saying those positions aren’t reasonable, logical, or true, but we’re not talking about science anymore when we’re talking about value judgments. We’re talking about ethics, philosophy, and other reasonable, rational, logical disciplines that are not science.

                    4. In my experience, people with PhD’s are typically both overconfident of their own abilities and incapable of recognizing that concept. Outside the narrow confines of their PhD study, with one exception, every PhD I have met was socially inept and poorly equipped to perform anything outside their expertise. They can Statistic the hell out of something, but they can’t build things worth a damn.

                    5. Clearly a scientific statement.

                    6. @Jima
                      Ouch, that really stings man. Watch where you’re swinging that broad brush.

                      (now yes, I’m definitely socially inept – but I have no regard for my own “abilities” and marvel every day that I get paid for my “expertise”)

                    7. It’s also important to point out to people that no PhD, in a science field or otherwise, has a higher degree of authority on our own qualitative preferences than each of us does ourselves. The genius of markets is that they reflect the qualitative preferences of a society much more effectively than the government can–democratic government or otherwise. When we see PhDs trying to impose their ideas on us by way of the government, they really are masquerading as scientists to impose their own personal preferences on the rest of us. I suppose there may be a rational argument for doing that, probably having to do with Plato’s noble lies, but whatever the justification might be–it sure as hell isn’t scientific.

                    8. Science does seem to be like a priesthood to some people.

                      It sure has. They’re scientists, so everything they do and say is scientific. I mean, they like take a vote and stuff, and that’s science. They recommend policy, and that’s science. Scientific method? That’s not science. That’s like old and stuff.

                    9. When Albert Einstein was a college student studying physics, one of his professors advised him to pursue his musical talents instead, because physics was basically settled. There were only three problems left to solve.

                      Einstein ignored him, and went on to solve those three problems. His solutions blew the whole paradigm away and physics is still being frantically revised to account for his discoveries.

                      “The science is settled” is the never-ending litany of the permanently ignorant.

                    10. “The science is settled” is the never-ending litany of the permanently ignorant.

                      And the cries seem to be louder the closer you get to a year that ends in two zeros.

                    11. “The science is settled” is the never-ending litany of the permanently ignorant.

                      They’re the same people who are up in arms about Pluto being “demoted” after the discovery of Eris (you know, a planet sized rock in our solar system) in 2005.

                    12. My position is quite the opposite. The morons are the ones who demoted pluto. Eris should have become a new planet not demoted pluto. Along with Ceres. An arbitrary number of planets is arbitrary. My definition ( and that of many Astronomers) is hydrostatic equilibrium plus solar orbit. Period. Simple, easy to delineate, a very usable definition. “Cleared neighboring region of planetessimals” is fucking stupid from a usable definition standpoint.

                    13. Also Haumea and Makemake, assuming the two above criteria remain satisfied. And fro completeness sake: It also can’t be currently, or at any point in the past, be fusing atoms (that would make it a star).

                    14. My position is quite the opposite. The morons are the ones who demoted pluto. Eris should have become a new planet not demoted pluto. Along with Ceres

                      I agree… I was merely pointing out the irony that they were disproportionately vocal about a situation where the science wasn’t settled, and yet scream “science is settled” when it comes to climate science.

                      I think the criterion for planet v. whatever else should be sphericity. If the object is sufficiently round, it is a planet.

                    15. the a

                    16. see hydrostatic equilibrium.
                      Also, the moon is not a planet, orbital plane is a key here.

                      Star, Planet, Satellite. And Satellites can be hierarchical. Also, if you orbit a LaGrangian point you are a satelite. You MUST orbit a star to be a planet. (My opinion/other smarter peoples opinion too).

                    17. You MUST orbit a star to be a planet.

                      No such thing as a “rogue planet” then?

                    18. I would classify Rogues as not planets, correct.

                      They are interstellar bodies, but not planets. For semantics sake though I am fine with using “Rogue Planet”

                    19. How do you orbit a Lagrangian?

                    20. Put something heavy in it?

                    21. Insert the word IN where appropriate

                    22. Then you are orbiting the heavy object and still not orbiting the Lagrange point. The Earth and Moon both orbit the barycenter of the earth-moon system. Does that mean that both are satellites?

                      And technically speaking Jupiter does have some trivial amount of fusion going on, so is it a star?

                      Yes this is pedantic, but so are the rules for declaring a planet.

                    23. The heavy thing was a joke. The IN was not. And as I revisit it now and see that it would be nearly as arbitrary as “clearing neighbors” for dumb definitions. So I recant the orbit in LP. The rest I stand by.

                      Jupiter, i would like to see the evidence of such. Is it truly possible that a body can reach fusion critical mass due to gravity and not ignite? If this is the case then we would need a new definition of star more than planet. (white dwarfs, magnetars, brown dwarfs, neutron, are they still stars?)

                    24. Your barycenter point is valid. But that barycenter for earth moon is inside the earth. However, for two bodies of similar mass, where that barycenter is outside their mass…a good question. Perhaps they fall into both categories.

                    25. NAS is referring to is that scientists believe that what is called D-D fusion (Deuterium – D) is going on inside of Jupiter … think of it as a low-order fusion process whereby the approximately 1 in 1000 D atoms in the hydrogen mass are undergoing a lower-energy form of fusion than the Proton-chain fusion or CNO (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen) fusion that goes on in heavier, older stars. D-D fusion does produce helium but it doesn’t produce positrons nor a lot of gamma radiation.

                      In fact – the reaction of positrons produced in the Proton chain and CNO fusions – basically a matter-antimatter reaction between positrons and electrons producing vast quantities of gamma radiation – makes up a significant portion of the radiation output of the sun and other stars and is much of what holds up the outer layers of their surfaces.

                    26. You’re both ignorant.

                      There are nine planets because the fabric of reality naturally divides into three parts – a forward motion, a reverse motion, and a third sort of motion that arises out of and transcends the other two.

                      Once fragmented by space-time, the three naturally splits into three again. That’s also why there are nine orders of angels.

                      It’s like you people have never studied science.

                    27. Or we just make up stories about what other people think or do to make our silly points…

    2. “It’s one reason why the predictions from Climate Action Tracker showed more common sense than Lomborg.”

      Sounds like you’re going off the rails, there.

      1. Not at all. Lomborg capped his prediction of where Paris pledges will take us to the year 2030, which is where some of the pledges took us to. CAT said the pledges won’t end there, because if climate continues to warm it would be silly to assume governments won’t even do more than they pledged in 2015.

        1. “It would be silly to assume governments won’t even do more than they pledged in 2015.”

          To me it seems silly to assume the terms of another non-existing, future agreement while quantifying the likely effects of the agreement in front of you.

          If what we do proves to be ineffective, it’s silly to assume we won’t do even more of the same?

          Does that kind of logic work anywhere else outside of this analysis? Is it okay to assume that if we don’t beat the Iraq insurgency, we’ll just keep going back to do more?

          1. Here was the discussion and argument I had with Ron. Lomborg and CAT both start with the assumption that the earth is warming, and that the goal is to limit that warming to what science says should be the goal…2 degrees C by 2100. Forget if any of that is correct, it was the basis of what is being discussed in Paris.

            Lomborg said that the pledges aren’t nearly enough to get us there, by 2100. Those pledges often went only to the year 2030, so that was the end of the calculation.

            My point is, that if you assume a level of warming to 2100 it would be silly to assume, like Lomborg did, that concern and pledges would go away in 2030 when you already were concerned enough 15 years prior.

            But quite honestly, Ken, it’s really not that important in the larger scheme of things. I agree wholeheartedly that pledges should be reconsidered according to facts on the ground as time goes by.

            1. “My point is, that if you assume a level of warming to 2100 it would be silly to assume, like Lomborg did, that concern and pledges would go away in 2030 when you already were concerned enough 15 years prior.”

              I understand your point. I hope you understand mine.

              Assuming that bureaucrats will keep doing the same things that don’t work regardless of whether they work is usually the purview of libertarians.

              Seems to me that Lomborg was giving the bureaucrats the benefit of the doubt.

              1. I do. I also understand your most overriding point that it’s now time to engage is what the solutions are going to be because you don’t want them all coming from the left. Sadly, as you know, you and Ron have work to do here.

                Yesterday I quoted an article in Forbes from a Partner at Brookside, a consulting firm that believes in market solutions to climate change, about some of the innovations that are coming out of Germany that the world will pay attention to, and you would have thought he was part of a conspiracy. It’s all mystifying to me.

                1. “Yesterday I quoted an article in Forbes from a Partner at Brookside, a consulting firm that believes in market solutions to climate change, about some of the innovations that are coming out of Germany that the world will pay attention to, and you would have thought he was part of a conspiracy. It’s all mystifying to me.”

                  Correction:
                  You linked an article which said Germany is going to have to ration energy, and then hope for pie-in-the-sky solutions. From the link:

                  “Most of all, it involves lower energy consumption through efficiency and conservation and requires that energy consumption be tailored to availability. And in addition to all of this, people who used to be mere consumers will increasingly also become energy producers.”
                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/wi…..iewende/2/

                  There were no “innovations” other than rationing. You’re lying once again; do you ever do otherwise?

              2. By the way, I complimented Ron on his first post by saying that if only the GOP candidates were saying what he said.

    3. Right. A ground sampling network that fails basic Nyquist criteria and massive homogenization errors (cf. Steig) is going to be more accurate than satellite measurements with uniform and correct sampling over a larger area of the globe. Have you EVER passed a class in science after the 3rd grade?

      Oh, and the literature is trending significantly into the lower ECS regime which is why AR5 refused to give a central estimate for ECS given how embarrassing that was.

    4. “if temps aren’t sensitive to CO2, then yes goals might be relaxed. Why not?”

      The Spanish American war was paid for by a tax on telephones.

      That tax was repealed once the war was over, right?

      California recently had a special temporary tax increase.

      Guess what they want to do now? Make it permanent.

  8. “In 2010, the Obama administration pledged to cut U.S. emissions 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020. According to the latest Environmental Protection Agency figures U.S. emissions have so far dropped to about 11 percent below their 2005 levels. In March, the Obama administration submitted an INDC pledging to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions up to 28 percent by 2025.”

    According to the EIA, the primary cause of the drop in CO2 emissions through that period is attributed to the burning of natural gas displacing tcoal. Burning gas released 40% less CO2 into the atmosphere for the same amount of energy, and as fracking made the price of natural gas plummet, people used more natural gas and less coal. CO2 emissions since 2005 even continued to drop as the economy grew after the recession.

    Fracking is an environmentalist’s best friend. If stopping the use of fossil fuels entirely is the only long term solution to global warming, then discovering new, albeit less CO2 intensive, fossil fuel sources might seem like bad news. But the shock and awe of suddenly stopping the use of fossil fuels entirely would have driven all the political support away from doing something about global warming. There has to be a transition period away from fossil fuels, and if burning natural gas is 40% less CO2 intensive than coal, and less expensive too, then environmentalists should get behind the issue of fracking like they’re trying to save big-eyed polar bear babies.

    1. Bjorn Lomborg calculated that the US’s increased use of natural gas (enabled by fracking tech) reduced its CO2 emissions more than the sum of every solar panel and wind turbine on the planet. In the same talk he also demonstrated that AGW solutions based on carbon tax have a miserable value per dollar spent, and tech research is a vastly more viable investment.

      1. I’m sure that’s true.

        I like the idea of a carbon sales tax–as a substitute for income and corporate taxes. The only way a carbon sales tax makes sense to me is as a replacement for a worse tax that’s even more destructive.

        I should say, too, that I believe economic prosperity and people’s willingness to do something about the environment are positively correlated, and if that’s true, then prosperity is an important environmental issue.

        Certainly, environmentalists should get behind eliminating taxes for wealth producing activities that don’t, say, throw more CO2 into the atmosphere, and if the cost to environmentalists of getting a substantial carbon sales tax implemented was giving up income and corporate taxes, then that’s something they should get behind.

        I think the reason many environmentalist organizations don’t get behind that is because they’re beholden to donors who are socialists. Their supporters see environmentalism as an excuse for socialism or a means to promote socialism, and if the price of saving the planet is abandoning socialism, then they’d rather the environment went to hell.

        Incidentally, I think the environment makes just as good of an excuse to promote capitalism, and I wish more of more fellow libertarians saw the opportunities there.

        1. We do, every time I mention Coase, that is what I am doing.

          A Coasean solution and eliminating the income tax is better than a Pigouvian solution and eliminating the income tax.

        2. I think you have a strong point. The overwhelming media narrative seems to be that there are those who care about the planet and there are deniers who are either stupid or paid off by big oil. Having only spent a few dozen hours reading both sides, I don’t feel competent to weigh in assertively for either side. That these international conferences are taking place makes my lack of a position irrelevant, even though I strongly object to most measures intending to curb CO2 emissions.
          Since the only “solutions” being presented are from people hostile towards free markets, our only option is to counter with better ones. Want to polish and expound here, but need to run and would rather post a reply than not.

          1. In regards to people on the right being anti-environmentalist, I think they’re just mostly hostile to socialism.

            Rednecks in rural America typically know more about living off grid and using alternative energy than your typical big city progressive. They actually use that solar stuff.

            Same thing with hunters and rednecks that like to fish. They spend more time interacting with the environment than suburban progressives, and they care about the environment as much or more than anybody.

            They prefer to be called conservationists for aesthetic reasons. Mostly because they don’t associate “conservationist” with socialist like they associate “environmentalist” with socialist.

            They have similar problems with animal rights. Anybody who thinks hunters don’t care if the deer they hunt needlessly suffer probably doesn’t know many hunters.

            1. Agreed. Its as if teenage image creation (I’m a goth/jock/prep/etc,) which is declared by clothing choice/music/hairstyle, are carried onto adulthood (labels that claim to care about environment/poor people.) I don’t think its a tough case to make that aesthetics like those tend to represent an individual’s attempt to craft what others think of him/her rather than being a demonstrate their real convictions.

        3. I think the reason many environmentalist organizations don’t get behind that is because they’re beholden to donors who are cronyist socialists. Their supporters see environmentalism as an excuse for cronyist socialism or a means to promote cronyist socialism, and if the price of saving the planet is abandoning cronyist socialism, then they’d rather the environment went to hell.

          FTFY

          1. Since the term “Crony Capitalism” is oxymoronic, I’m pleased to see someone using the term crony in a more defensible sense.
            *defending the use of the term, not defending crony socialists.

    2. “Fracking is an environmentalist’s best friend.”

      You might be able to find an environmentalist who measures his environment solely on the CO2 intensity. There are other considerations for those ‘sensitive’ to the environment. According to my sources fracking is a noisy, dusty affair, and that alone is more than enough reason to oppose it.

      1. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 12:34AM|#
        “According to my sources fracking is a noisy, dusty affair, and that alone is more than enough reason to oppose it.”

        Ah, yes, harvesting energy is noisy and dusty and therefore it should be opposed!
        And as an ignoramus, I’m sure your ‘sources’ are the same as those who claim the Ukrainians were collaborators, right asshole? Still waiting for the cite on that.
        Fuck off.

        1. ” I’m sure your ‘sources’ are the same as those who claim the Ukrainians were collaborators, right asshole? Still waiting for the cite on that.
          Fuck off.”

          Keep waiting. The cite is on its way.

          1. Keep lying, asshole.

  9. Ron,it’s all a scam,it’s a socialist ploy to control the masses.It will doom large parts of the world to abject poverty and destroy free markets world wide.None of their claims have come true and none of the models have been right. And polar bears continue to increase in numbers.Get off the GW train now or lose all respect.

    1. I wish more of my fellow libertarians got to know this term:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

      It seems to me that what you’re talking about is barely still in the acceptable category, and it’s growing towards the more freedom extreme a little bit more each day–outside the Overton window and into radical. We (and by “we”, I mean libertarian capitalists) need to offer non-socialistic solutions further down towards the sensible range in the window. Otherwise, the socialists are going to steamroll us.

      I was in an accident one time, riding as a passenger. This guy hit us so hard, he spun us around twice in our car. The guy that hit us was so pissed off, he started yelling at the girl driving our car, “If you’d just moved over into the shoulder, I wouldn’t have hit you”. We could have been killed. She was driving me to the airport at the time, and when I got back, I had a conversation with her about the accident.

      I said, “You know, you could have avoided the accident if you’d gone over into the shoulder”, and she replied, “I thought about that at the time, but then I thought, if I just stay in my lane, then at least it won’t be my fault”. I told her that I’ll be sure to have them put “At least it wasn’t my fault” on her tombstone.

      Isn’t it better not to get run over by the socialists than it is to be right?

      1. Sure, why fight when it’s easier to just give ground? That’s an outstanding observation.

        1. I didn’t say we shouldn’t fight.

          I said we should fight with something capitalist, libertarian and more palatable to politicians and the general public.

          I suspect the problem is that you don’t believe any capitalist and libertarian solutions to problems associated with global warming are possible.

          And even if you don’t know what they are yet, you better figure out what they are. Because the socialists are already formulating policy in Paris. And if we stay in the same lane we’re in, we’re gonna get run over.

          1. I don’t give a single shit about climate change. I realize that whatever is going to happen is going to happen regardless of my preferences.

            What you’re advocating with your car story is not providing another solution, it’s getting out of the way because assholes are bulling ahead. If the solution you’re for is getting out of the way because it’s safer, stop beating around the bush about it.

          2. I said we should fight with something capitalist, libertarian and more palatable to politicians and the general public.

            I suspect the problem is that you don’t believe any capitalist and libertarian solutions to problems associated with global warming are possible.

            Deregulate nuclear, prune back the DoT, and kill all drone regulations. That’ll be a great start on a capitalist and libertarian solution to “global warming” along with a host of other issues.

            1. Nuclear + electric cars is the only way to remove a huge chunk of emissions.

              Obama and his acolytes didn’t build Yucca Mountain with Stimulus.

              We don’t see nuclear plants being approved.

              This means they are not really serious.

              I suspect once the carbon tax is in place, they will “discover” that the warming will be mild and not require any changes. but the tax will stay, because it will be funding poor people in India or whatever.

          3. I’m struggling to think of a salable solution that doesn’t require the use of coercion. I do believe that if the temperatures start to line up with the models that more people will be concerned with AGW- and their dollars will drive markets to respond to that value. Nothing will promote r&d for cleaner energy as well as a profit incentive. However, this is a pretty tough sell for people in a state of “do something” panic.

            1. What about moving to carbon based sales taxes as a substitute for the single most coercive, invasive, authoritarian and socialist policy of the federal government–namely income taxes?

              What’s libertarian about having to report every penny you make under threat of prison?

              What’s libertarian about taxing the wealthy and redistributing their income?

              Sales taxes are much more voluntary in that people are free to decide whether to pay them every time they make a purchase. There are all sorts of benefits to that. One of them is that if we exempted food and shelter from sales taxes and derived our national income from sales taxes exclusively, all taxes would be paid in the most voluntary way possible.

              1. How about a single land tax instead? Zero deadweight loss.

                Sales tax or income tax hurt the economy.

                SLT discourages rent seeking.

                1. How about a single land tax instead?

                  A tax based solely on one asset class, which itself is held by a relatively small portion of the populace?

                  Nope. I don’t see any problems with market distortion or public choice there.

              2. What’s libertarian about having to report every penny you make under threat of prison?

                Thats what businesses have to do with a sales tax.

                1. Reporting sales is certainly less onerous than reporting income and every expense.

                  It would be a substantial reduction in reporting requirements, certainly for companies that aren’t publicly traded.

                  And if companies and individuals willingly avoided carbon intensive activity as a result, that might just be icing on the cake. The negative impact of corporate and income taxes is not a hoax.

              3. Sounds like something I can get behind, but like the negative income tax I don’t see the vital “replace what is currently in place” necessary for it to work happening. Would be a tough sell politically too I wager, with the left decrying that it would inordinately favor the wealthy, and prog economists who would argue that it will cripple demand

            2. I’m struggling to think of a salable solution that doesn’t require the use of coercion.

              What problem are you trying to solve?

              1. Fair question. Above I mentioned that I’m not convinced either way about AGW, but that the fact that these international conferences are taking place means that actions are likely to follow- and they are dominated by anti-market types. I think Ken makes a good case as to why other schools of thought should offer solutions to lower CO2 simply in order to have alternatives to carbon-tax in addition to existing hurdles for economic growth.

      2. Thanks Ken,I’m not buying what their selling due to the lack of facts and their ‘proof’ being wrong . When you build your whole case on models that do not work and ignore thousands of years of history [Roman warm period,medieval warm period and little ice age] and other times farther back when large animals roamed the earth and pick and choose dates,I will ignore your doomsday preaching.Most area’s of the world that are poor and backwards have oppressive,corrupt governments and no property rights .History shows ,warmer is better,ice ages suck.

        1. I reject their authoritarian and socialist solutions because socialism is failure and authoritarianism is immoral.

          If new data comes out tomorrow showing that all their models are absolutely correct beyond anyone’s ability to argue otherwise, I will still reject their authoritarian and socialist solutions because socialist solutions are a failure and authoritarianism is immoral.

          So why dicker about the model?

          I believe a lot of people reject the scientific consensus instinctively because the solutions on offer are socialist and authoritarian. I just wish they would stop resting their case on the basis of something it isn’t.

          I don’t care what the science says so long as the solution is libertarian and capitalist. I highly doubt your problem is with the way they make their intellectual argument. I strongly suspect your problem is that they want to use their argument to impose authoritarian and socialist solutions on you. If you’re passionate about global warming, isn’t that why? Do you feel the same way about string theory?

      3. We’re a little off topic at this point, but giving up lane discipline is dicey at best, even toward the shoulder. Bad surprises live outside your lane.

        1. I ride a motorcycle through traffic everyday.

          Following the rules can get you killed–especially if other people are ignoring them.

      4. Ken, that’s nuts. You never give up when you know you’re right. Because then they can continue to propose solutions to an imaginary problem. And capitalists won’t always be in charge.

        1. I didn’t say we should give up. I was talking about proposing solutions.

          As Milton Friedman had it:

          I don’t think you should have a Federal Reserve.

          But if you’re going to have one over my objections anyway, then here’s what I think you should do: . . .

          “Because then they can continue to propose solutions to an imaginary problem.”

          Imaginary problems are easy to solve with imaginary solutions. Libertarian capitalism is demonstrably the world’s greatest solution to almost every real problem I can think of. I want a small state to handle the military, police, and the court system. Other than that, what problem can’t libertarian capitalism handle?

          1. Why offer solutions to a problem that is imaginary?

            1. Whether we should do something about it and whether it is imaginary are two separate things.

              Even preempting problems before they become too big doesn’t mean those problems are imaginary.

              That being said, we have more than one problem, here. First, there’s the problem of global warming (which you say may be or is imaginary), and, second, there’s the problem of politicians convincing people to accept authoritarian and socialist solutions.

              Regardless of whether you think the first is really a problem, the second problem is real. Digging our heels in, clenching our fists, and screaming that the politicians, the scientists, and the media are all wrong probably isn’t an effective solution to the second problem. I suggest we argue that we should do things to address global warming that we should be doing anyway–regardless of global warming is a hoax.

              Even if global warming is a hoax, we should get rid of income taxes and corporate taxes and move to more voluntary and less socialist forms of taxation anyway.

          2. The problem is that all of your “solutions” will be rejected.

            The UN desperately wants to directly tax people. They desperately want a court that is superior to national courts. They desperately want to have a way to control people to accept their authority.

            No small government, carbon-attentioning solution will fulfill that, no matter how far inside the overton window you propose it – because it is not the solution to the problem they are actually trying to solve. You have people in the drivers seat of this, like Christiana Figueres that say “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” She is clearly not working towards saving the planet from climate change, she is working towards an ideologically driven world government, a sort of socialist world state.

            And you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the UN, the NGOs, or the representatives from the national governments that attend these never-ending COPs that is not hoping for this same outcome. They are selected based on their ideology for this role, nothing else.

            If you come close enough to a solution it to allow them to “be okay with it” to “address carbon pollution/climate change/ocean acidification” means that you will never get libertarian capitalism to handle anything ever again.

            1. I’m not convinced that the combined efforts of pro-capitalists and environmentalists would be rejected–it if means both doing something meaningful for CO2 emissions and striking a blow for capitalism.

              What will be rejected is any environmentalist program that does enough to combat CO2 emissions–per their standard model–and, in turn, smothers the economy. They had a carbon tax in Australia that was very popular, right up until the moment it was implemented, everyone started feeling the pain, and they realized how much it was going to cost. Once it was implemented, the coalition and PM that implemented it was thrown out on her ass–and that carbon tax is gone.

              And that’s exactly what will happen to any politician or law that harms the American economy to that extent.

              I’ll say this, too. If you had asked me in 1990 whether gay marriage would ever become law in my life time or whether marijuana would ever be legalized, I’d have thought that was crazier than this. I’m not talking about bringing this proposal up before Congress in its next session (although that would be great). I’m talking about winning hearts and minds for the proposal over the course of however long it takes. Yeah, people will probably reject the grand coalition CO2/capitalist strategy the first time they hear it. But the sooner they start hearing about it, the sooner it’ll start sinking in.

              1. Your truth is a small slice of the larger whole. Australia’s government tossed its publicly popular PM out on its ear. But in Germany, the Energiewende is causing all sorts of stress, not only on the citizens but on the companies running the electrical grid – and the powers that be are doubling down. On top of that, here in the US, stuff like the ACA, which caused a majority outrage and a swell of voting out those in favor of it at the polls, and it’s still here four years later, still hurting people.

                Even if the GOP somehow magics in either a veto-overriding legislature or captures majorities in the legislature as well as the presidency, do you honestly see it going away? Sure, we might lose the medical device tax or we might move to 85% of the squeeze we have today, but it won’t actually get repealed.

                Our economy has been repeatedly depressed by laws and regulations over the last century and they have not gone away simply because of public discontent. They have instead gotten worse over both of our lifetimes, even with small setbacks to the overall path along the way. And you see this in Australia, too, where the public reaction has been replaced by someone who wants what they used to have. The small setback has been overcome.

                The only way we are going to defeat something like this from being established – within the confines of our current government at least – is to not let it be established in the first place.

              2. Since you want to take this to the public, I’d also like to point out that most polls show CO2 control at the bottom of all other concerns for the public – not just in the US, but in England, Australia, and one that was conducted by the UN a year or two ago that reflected multiple countries.

                How do you craft a policy addressing this in that sort of Overton window? After all, the people who would be interested in controlling CO2 would be the ones that would think that your proposals don’t go far enough. The others would actually think that you should concentrate on other aspects of public policy (especially the ACA in the US) and want ignore your proposals entirely.

                It’s primarily the media, some NGOs, and national and international bureaucrats that are designing and pushing this policy – and they are designing it for themselves. At the feet level, the support base for anything like this is simply a swing and a miss.

              3. Since you want to take this to the public, I’d also like to point out that most polls show CO2 control at the bottom of all other concerns for the public – not just in the US, but in England, Australia, and one that was conducted by the UN a year or two ago that reflected multiple countries.

                How do you craft a policy addressing this in that sort of Overton window? After all, the people who would be interested in controlling CO2 would be the ones that would think that your proposals don’t go far enough. The others would actually think that you should concentrate on other aspects of public policy (especially the ACA in the US) and want ignore your proposals entirely.

                It’s primarily the media, some NGOs, and national and international bureaucrats that are designing and pushing this policy – and they are designing it for themselves. At the feet level, the support base for anything like this is simply a swing and a miss.

          3. Milton Friedman also invented tax withholding.

            “If you’re going to have an income tax, why not create an effective system for collection.”

            He later regretted that mightily.

      5. You know, you could have avoided the accident if you’d gone over into the shoulder

        Well, going onto the shoulder is also an excellent way to get into an accident.

        Plus, it kinda matters who had the right of way. If she is tooling along in her own lane, and some asshole runs her off the road, then pointing out that if she had just gone off the road all on her own the asshole’s car wouldn’t have been damage strikes me as . . . inapt.

  10. Fuck you, cut CO2. Or spending. Let’s flip a 5 trillion dollar coin.

  11. “McKitrick, a skeptic of predictions of catastrophic warming, advocates putting a small tax on carbon dioxide emissions, tied to a suitable measure of atmospheric temperatures. “If temperatures go up, so does the tax,” explains McKitrick. “If they do not, the tax does not change. In this way everybody will expect to get the policy they think best, and whoever turns out to be right deserves to be so.””

    And if we leave the current ice age due to completely normal means do the right people still win? Some people don’t seem to understand that climate has been changing all on its own before a single breathing thing was on this planet much less man.

    1. What about people who prefer Coase to Pigou? Why dont we get the pokicy we think is best?

    2. Well maybe if pre-historic people would have taken action 20,000 years ago then the 1 mile thick glacier that covered northern Ohio would stil be here. Won’t someone think of the ice?

      1. All of Ohio, except for the bit by Portsmouth. The edges went to the Ohio River, which is why Cincinnati is so hilly relative to the rest of the state.

    3. You don’t understand. Burning fossil fuels must be having ill effects on the planet because Big Oil and Big Coal are making a ton of money. Thus changes in the climate must be a result of burning fossil fuels because, as we already established, the burning of fossil fuels is bad for the planet.

      1. And big beef,pork,chicken big car ,truck ,ship,plane,big houses,big vacations,clothes,furniture ,big carry out,ect

    4. Sounds so reasonable!

      So…who gets to “calibrate” the data?

      Can we base it off raw data from satellites?

      The warming experts and progressives will demand it be based on some system they can game.

      Imagine, tax increases automatically made without any approval of Congress! Awesome sauce!

  12. When we hit 10 degrees warming lemme know. I’ll be hanging out with Lou Reed.

    1. I miss Lou.

    2. I miss even more Velvet Underground.

      1. We wouldn’t miss your passive-agressive shit.
        Get lost.

  13. That is hilarious, linking Earth with a melting ice cream cone. Ice cream melts naturally, so this metaphoric display implies that global warming isn’t the result of human activity, rather, it is a natural occurrence.

    Prog fail FTW!

  14. What happens if global temperature doesn’t go up?

    They’ll fake the numbers like they’ve been doing all along.

    1. They’re actually fixing to lower the danger threshold.

      1. “We’ve got to do something about all these starving children!”

        pssst, nobody in America is starving

        “Food insecurity! We’ve got to do something about food insecurity!”

        1. They’ve come up with a new slogan.

          “One-point-five to stay alive.”

        2. “We have to stop starvation in America! Tax the rich!”

          ::hears whispering in ear::

          “We have to end the obesity epidemic in America! Tax the rich!”

  15. The only bottom that’s up is the collective ass of the taxpayer while global governments conspire to fuck them right in the cornhole.

    1. Dude. There’s no conspiracy. It’s right there in the open for anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex to see.

      1. You buy into this hoax? Or is my sarcasmometer in need of calibration?

        1. Neither. I just don’t see a conspiracy. I think of conspiracies as being hidden. There’s nothing hidden here. The agenda is clear. The end game is clear. The means are clear. The excuses are clear. Where’s the conspiracy?

          1. The conspiracy is in the fudged data and the absolute refusal to reply to FOIA requests and show the raw data points. And in the notes passed back and forth that show they’ve made the models around their predetermined conclusions.

            1. From the point of view of AGW supporters, they were simply doing their jobs. It’s not their fault that the weather (which is totally separate from climate, except when it isn’t, and then it’s a climate event) hasn’t cooperated with the consensus. They’re trying to show long term trends here. If the actual data doesn’t show trends, then the data must be wrong. That makes the raw data useless to anyone who doesn’t know what it is supposed to be. As far as making the models around predetermined conclusions, that’s the new science. The consensus determines the science, and the models follow from that.

              You’re looking at is from a standpoint of the scientific method. That’s like a hundred years old and stuff. What they’ve got is better.

          2. You give the average person way too much credit. You can hide a conspiracy in plain sight.

  16. Interesting note: the Reason mobile site now has ads. Right below this article I got an ad for Acciona. The tag line reads: The age of debate is over. It is now time for action.

    1. You know who else wanted action instead if debate?

  17. What if further research confirms that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is lower than earlier more alarming estimates? That would mean that future warming would be lower than most climate models now predict.

    No. It would not mean jack shit. Until you can prove that carbon levels cause an increase in temperature, which has STILL not been done, this statement is not remotely accurate.

    Jesus fucking Christ.

    1. As more CO2 is added, the effects of the additional CO2 is diminished. Thus you will never have runaway temperatures. They never tell you this though.

      1. What they also never tell you is that the CAGW hypothesis is predicated on the CO2 warming just enough to cause a water-vapor feedback loop.

        They also never let on that human emissions account for 4% of total emissions each year and that 50% of human emissions each year are absorbed by natural sinks.

        1. Interesting. Do you have a cite for my reference? I vaguely remember reading something before that vapor was dominant and forms a feedback loop, this would have already happened thus making additional CO2 not relevant

          1. The original theory drives from Plass in the 50s. I don’t have a copy of his original work in my library but there is a good review of Plass’s work by Real Science upon the abridged reprint by American Scientist. [A] Most of the figures Plass uses are pretty high, compared to today’s research figures for a doubling of CO2.

            How Plass lays out the warming with feedbacks is mirrored in the model sets as referenced by climate science and the IPCC. Roy Spencer has a short synopsis of what the major ones are embedded with some other details on the basics of global warming. [B]

            This water vapor feedback was to be proven by the tropospheric hot spot that hasn’t materialized. Even in 2007, the AR4 said that we should have one. [C] Basically, the heated water vapor was to rise faster into the troposphere, causing the vapor to cool and heat the surroundings, leading the troposphere to heat faster than the surface (lower trop was 1.2 and upper was 1.4 times the surface heating). With the troposphere heated, it would spread to the other layers of atmosphere and return even more heat to the surface (warmer winds, slightly warmer water falling as rain, less cool off at night, etc) and create a positive feedback.

            [A] http://www.realclimate.org/ind…..ert-plass/
            [B] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
            Link Max, add in the http and wwws
            [C] ipcc.ch/publications_and_data /ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html

  18. We’ll all be bottoming for global warming.

  19. So…all these fucknut grifters are in the same place at the same time…

  20. If climate science does validate such happy outcomes, the Paris Accord’s mandated review and update processes would afford countries the opportunity to scale back their INDCs.

    Oh, that is so sweet! You speak as if the real purpose of all this is to lower emissions and reduce global warming instead of curtailing capital formation and curtailing private property rights. Oh, shnookums!

    1. You know what?

      I don’t see any way to prevent any country to change its INDCs any time, and any way, it wants.

      Again, what’s the enforcement mechanicsm? What are the penalties, and who imposes them?

      Without that, this is just laying the table for endless, pointless, expensive, boondoggles.

  21. “What is your proposal for dealing with the unicorn problem?”

    “We plan to eat all we can catch instead of just half of the catch. We are doubling our commitment.”

    Huzzah!

  22. What happens?

    Buy Snowshoe futures.

  23. Ron Bailey, why do you cheerfully offer to tweak the COP21 process while buying-into the warmist agenda that fossil fuels use affects climate? You act like a “useful fool”, as defined by Lenin.

    Carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.

    There is no definitive evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.

    Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad.

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO = CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.

  24. OK, I see some ‘anti’ arguments I haven’t seen before, so they need some study.
    But it’s kinda late this evening and getting close to the Santa visit, so everyone needs a dose of Clyde McPhatter:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqdx47Rp0tY

  25. I watched a documentary last night about the Sahara (I won’t say desert, because Sahara means desert). In any case, it seems that scientists have figured out why it is a desert, the biggest in the world. Every 20,000 years, like clockwork, that part of Africa become wetter or dryer due to a wobble in the orbit of the Earth around the sun. In one 20,000 cycle, this wobble causes moisture from the south to flow up over North Africa and causes it to bloom and creates great lakes, greater than the Great Lakes in the U.S. The wet cycle ended about 5,000 years ago and we only have to wait another 15,000 years for the next wet cycle.

    If we were going from the wet cycle to the dry cycle today, the global warming-climate-change alarmists would be screaming that it is caused by us nasty ol’ humans. But of course it isn’t. Climate always changes. It always has and it always will and the causes are many and complex. And none of it is caused by CO2 produced by our industrial world.

    Here is the link if you want to see the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eUjXt49Qew

    1. ” It always has and it always will and the causes are many and complex. And none of it is caused by CO2 produced by our industrial world.”

      Climate is a complex phenomenon. But not quite complex enough to succumb to human influence.

      1. You need a bigger butterfly.

  26. Well, if the temperatures don’t increase like they say they will, then the politicians can point to things like this silly Paris accord and say, “See? Government action worked!”, whether it had anything to do with it or not. Who’s going to argue with them? Reason?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.