Climate Change

Climate War: Bill McKibben’s Really Bad Metaphor for Solving Man-Made Global Warming

Centralized top down planning of the climate would work as well as it does for economies.

|

EcoWarriorYannPoirierDreamstime
Yann Poirier/Dreamstime

"We are used to war as a metaphor," writes Bill McKibben in his new article on climate change at The New Republic. In "A World at War," McKibben insists, "But this in no metaphor. By most ways we measure wars, climate change is the real deal." The trend toward higher average global temperatures is seizing territory, sowing panic, killing people, and even destabilizing governments. "It's not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. And we are losing," he declares. McKibben then suggests we must look to the vast mobilization that took place during the last world war in order "to assess, honestly and objectively, our odds of victory."

Honesty and objectivity are certainly important when trying to devise policies aimed at addressing problems, especially wicked problems like man-made climate change. It is therefore disappointing to find that McKibben cites some context-less weather disaster data to press his case for a WWII-scale economic onslaught against man-made.

For example, with regard to Arctic sea ice trends, he quotes an unnamed climate scientist as saying, "In 30 years, the area has shrunk approximately by half." The quotation evidently comes from Christian Haas, an Arctic sea ice geophysicist at York University, Toronto, talking about June 2016 Arctic sea trends cited in an article in Arctic Deeply. As it happens Arctic sea ice currently is melting at the third fastest rate in the satellite records starting in 1979. But what does Haas mean by "half?" The average extent of Arctic sea ice in the 37-year record in June is 11.9 square kilometers and the June 2016 extent was 10.6 million square kilometers—about 10 percent less.

Looking further in the article finds that Haas measures the average thickness of arctic sea ice of first year sea ice, which is apparently "more than 50 percent thinner than usual." While that's important data—thinner ice melts faster enabling the darker sea to absorb more warmth—it's not the same thing as the extent of sea ice. Nevertheless, the extent of Arctic sea ice is falling at a rate of 7.4 percent per decade. Or perhaps Haas meant to reference calculated Arctic sea ice volume where May 2016 sea volume was 45 percent below the highest level in May 1979. If you're trying to persuade people that there is a problem, accuracy matters.

McKibben cites the vast fire this past June in northern Alberta that forced the evacuation of the city of Fort McMurray as evidence of climate change. Drought conditions enabled that fire to burn nearly 600,000 hectares (2,300 square miles) of boreal forest. While certainly of unusual size, the Fort McMurray fire is not the biggest in the region. Also following drought conditions, the Chinchaga fire in 1950 burned 1,700,000 hectares (6,500 square miles) of boreal forest in northern British Columbia and Alberta.

McKibben points to the flooding of the Seine River earlier this year that threatened the storage basement of the Louvre Museum in Paris as further evidence for climate change. However, the Seine at flood was higher in 1982 (6.2 meters) and 1955 (7.1 meters), and its highest ever-recorded flood was in 1910, reaching 8.62 meters. But what about overall flood trends? The Dartmouth Flood Archive has been keeping track of floods only since 1985 reports that the numbers of large and extreme floods have trended upward, although they have dropped since peaking in 2007. The good news is that a 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found with respect to river floods that "rising per-capita income coincided with a global decline in vulnerability between 1980 and 2010, which is reflected in decreasing mortality and losses as a share of the people and gross domestic product exposed to inundation."

As evidence that climate change is destabilizing governments, McKibben states that record-setting droughts fueled the rise of Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and the ongoing civil war in Syria. With regard to Boko Haram, McKibben may be referencing a 2014 Mother Jones article that suggested that environmental disaster is making Boko Haram violence worse. Nigeria, like much of the rest of the world, has been warming. Interestingly, satellite data finds that the Sahel region of West Africa has been greening since the great droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. Rainfall seems to have been increasing over the past 30 years as well. Perusing Nigerian Meteorological Agency reports does show that some years have been drier than others but does not turn up instances of recent record-setting droughts. In his chapter, "Does Climate Change Lead to Conflicts in the Sahel?," in The End of Desertification (2016), Norwegian University of Life Sciences researcher Tor Benjaminsen concludes that the conflicts between pastoralists and farmers "are primarily caused by politics, not climate change."

Concerning Syria, McKibben is thinking of a 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that argued that climate change is "implicated in the current Syrian conflict." University of East Anglia climatologist Mike Hulme and University of Sussex international relations scholar Jan Selby in their op-ed over at The Guardian point out the numerous flaws in the study including the vast overestimate of the number of "climate migrants" in Syria who supposedly sparked the unrest that led to the conflicts in Syria. "The case for international action on climate change is strong enough without relying on dubious evidence of its impacts on civil wars," assert Hulme and Selby. "Claims such as these are mostly rhetorical moves to appeal to security interests or achieve sensational headlines, and should be recognised as such."

Setting aside McKibben's evidentiary problems, let's look at what his prescription for World War II-sized climate mobilization would involve. "You would need to build a hell of a lot of factories to turn out thousands of acres of solar panels, and wind turbines the length of football fields, and millions and millions of electric cars and buses," writes McKibben. He further notes, "American scientists have been engaged in a quiet but concentrated effort to figure out how quickly existing technology can be deployed to defeat global warming."

The World War II models McKibben cites as examples of the kind of vast climate change manufacturing mobilization he advocates are the B-24 Liberator factory in Ypsilanti, Michigan and the tank factory in Warren, Michigan, so forth. It is certainly true that the United States was the arsenal of democracy that enabled the defeat of the Axis powers.

McKibben fails, however, to consider what happened to the "existing technology" in the aftermath of the war's manufacturing frenzy. During the war, the United States built very nearly 300,000 warplanes, of which the majority survived and were scrapped as obsolete, including the 18,500 B-24 Liberators that were built. Tanks, armored vehicles, warships and more war materiel were similarly scrapped or abandoned as useless. Why? Of course, because the war was over, but also because more effective technologies, e.g., jets and nuclear bombs, were available. Mobilizing now to build current versions of existing solar and wind power could similarly lock us into outmoded, expensive and less effective technologies.

To give readers some idea of the scale of mobilization required, McKibben cites a study by researchers from Stanford University that outlines a pathway toward producing all U.S. energy using renewable technologies by 2050. They estimate the total cost of that transformation at $13.4 trillion, or about $400 billion annually for the next 35 years. For comparison, World War II cost the U.S. just over $4.1 trillion, or about $1 trillion per year.

One final observation: McKibben cites in passing the "mighty Manhattan Project" as an example of the kind concentrated technological effort toward solving urgent problems that he favors. But his only mention of the word "nuclear" comes in the context in which he suggests that climate change is more menacing than the prospects for nuclear war. Since McKibben believes that climate change is such an urgent problem, keeping the deployment of no-carbon nuclear power off the table is more than a little perverse. After all, he should take heart from a 2015 study in PLoS One that calculated that it would be possible to replace all fossil fuel energy with nuclear power in 25 to 34 years. If nuclear weapons helped win World War II, then surely nuclear power has a role to play in "winning" McKibben's metaphorical war against climate change.

Instead of putting the country on top-down centralized control war-footing to address climate change, the better strategy is to free up entrepreneurs to encourage rapid economic growth and technological progress.

Disclosure: Bill McKibben very generously blurbed my book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution (2005).

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.

235 responses to “Climate War: Bill McKibben’s Really Bad Metaphor for Solving Man-Made Global Warming

  1. Hell. If we’re at war with the climate, then the climate is at war with us, and what does that make Earth First! and all the eco-warriors?

    TRAITORS. Treasonous back-stabbing sonzabitches.

      1. “We poison our air and water to weed out the weak! We set off fission bombs in our only biosphere! We nailed our god to a stick! Don’t fuck with the human race!”

  2. I went up there, I said, “Shrink, I want to kill. I want to kill! I want to see
    Blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth! Eat dead, burnt bodies! I
    Mean: Kill. Kill!”

    And I started jumpin’ up and down, yellin’ “KILL! KILL!” and he started
    Jumpin’ up and down with me, and we was both jumpin’ up and down, yellin’,
    “KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL!” and the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me,
    Sent me down the hall, said “You’re our boy”. Didn’t feel too good about it.

    1. +1 father raper

    2. I did have Alice!

  3. Sounds like a good candidate for #SomeIdiotWroteThis on the Fifth Column

  4. Nice alt-text, Bailey.

    1. Oh, and Gillespie: that is how you do a disclosure.

  5. I wonder what Mr. McKibben thought of Bush’s declaration of “War on Terror.”

    Also, any attempt to contextualize the terrorism and civil unrest in the middle east as a product of environmental dislocation is moronic and frankly a little racist. “Those noble savages would have stayed put except that the planet may have warmed by some infinitesimal amount.”

  6. Centralized top down planning of the climate would work as well as it does for economies.

    Jesus, Ronald, you’re supposed to make it look like a bad idea!

  7. The trend toward higher average global temperatures is seizing territory, sowing panic, killing people, and even destabilizing governments.

    Change is always and everywhere bad. Got it.

    1. Death and destabilization is merely “change”? Obviously you must have no political beliefs at all if that kind of nihilism is how you approach the world. Who cares if we adopt autocratic communism… shit happens!

  8. You know who else seized territory, sowed panic, killed people, and even destabilizing governments…

    1. *destabilized

    2. Tmerlane.

    3. Hillary Clinton?

    4. Monsanto?

    5. Pokemon?

  9. Can we, at least, use Yucca Mountain to store the toxic batteries from our electric cars?

    We did spend all that money on a hole.

  10. McKibben then suggests we must look to the vast mobilization that took place during the last world war in order “to assess, honestly and objectively, our odds of victory.”

    So harnessing the power of the atom will ultimately win this war and keep the reds in check? I agree.

  11. “After all, he should take heart from a 2015 study in PLoS One that calculated that it would be possible to replace all fossil fuel energy with nuclear power in 25 to 34 years. ”

    Ummm, he’s not looking for a solution.

    1. So much this. Careerist warmistas want a cozy academic or political sinecure, not a solution.

      1. If the news on climate change were to be positive, they’d still react negatively because for the reason noted.

        It’s not about the environment at all. All about system change, control and protecting careers and grants.

        This idiot wants to go to war against Mother Nature via destroying man. Think about that for a second.

        Talk about shadow boxing.

    2. You are exactly right Playa, and he isnt the only one. I remember Steven Chu complaining that his job entailed writing checks all day long as fast as he could, day in, day out. The green energy industry is nothing but a pretense for looting the treasury.

      The whole goddamned thing is a scam from top to bottom. McKibben’s job is to convince the mark and create a sense of urgency.

  12. Since oil is used ,mostly,for transportation and chemicals just how will nuclear ,solar and wind replace it? Natural gas is used for heat and chemicals. They are compact,energy dense fuels and feeder stock. You an not run the modern wold with out them , Think chemicals,farming,shipping,air travel,heavy trucks. Many people still heat with fuel oil in cold climates and cook and heat with propane. Nuclear dose ,of course provide steady on demand power,and do coal and gas. McKibben is living in a fantasy world. Now,let’s talk about their hate for A\C and refrigeration .

    1. This is absolutely true and i’ve never met a “Green” that was willing to accept it.

      Even in their theoretical top-down-implemented, “total renewable universe”, where all electricity is generated w/ green-approved sources…

      (*a scenario which, incidentally, itself has some huge environmental costs which the greens refuse to acknowledge)

      ….there would STILL be nothing stopping the extraction and use of all the fossil fuel resources this planet has.

      Because all of that stuff would still be necessary for other things. You can’t fly planes without jet fuel. All the container-ships will still run on bunker fuel. all the small engines will still need gas. and plastics and skin-creams and chemical industries will all still have important uses for petroleum. and homes will still need heating oil.

      and even more importantly = any govt meddling which forces *other* industries (e.g. car-transport) away from oil will obviously have a significant negative impact on demand for oil, and consequently the price. and that sudden affordability will likely prompt *new* uses for oil which the world hasn’t dreamed of yet.

      Even if they “get their way”, there will be no stopping the use of fossil fuels. And when you explain this to them they just stamp their feet and say, “BUT WE’LL MAKE A LAW”. They refuse to accept that reality won’t ever conform to their silly wishes.

      1. See: Tony in just about any thread.

    2. According to the government, over half of the petrochemicals used in the U.S. were for chemical manufacturing feedstocks, and the percentage of feedstock use is projected to rise. Even if we replace all petrochemical use in power generation with nuclear or renewables, it won’t make a very big dent in our usage.

      Granted, I’m not sure what the actual CO2 output of chemical manufacturing is. It can’t be that much comparatively, since the chemical manufacturers want the carbon in their products, not the atmosphere.

      1. Once they’ve lost the war on CO2 they’ll be turning on methane again.

        1. They haven’t really stopped, they’ve just toned it down some. They are still more than happy to bloviate on bovine flatulence if you are dumb enough to bring it up. I also get to hear it quite a bit, with all the fracking going on where I live.

    3. Nuclear, probably high temperature nuclear, can supply the heat energy to produce synthetic hydrocarbons.

  13. Liberals are obsessed with the WW2 mobilization as a symbol of a great collective effort. As if everyone willingly dropped what they were doing and started making tanks and missiles, rather than being prodded with a rifle to do so. Just come out and say it, McKibben. You would love to be Chairman McKibben, directing the masses to save the planet and sending the unwilling ones to re-education camps.

    1. Eh, a lot of people weren’t prodded by their own government so much as by the threat of a far worse one.

      The scary thing is that many of them worship crisis more than control. They’d rather everyone was constantly scared and working for the “collective good” even if the reason why was entirely manufactured or otherwise avoidable.

    2. You would love to be Chairman McKibben, directing the masses to save the planet and sending the unwilling ones to re-education camps.

      No, no, NO!

      Re-education camps are expensive and not guaranteed to be successful. You wanna crank up those gas chambers, after which, I’m certain, they’ll feed the corpses into biomass generators…

  14. OT: Anyone else annoyed/entertained by Clinton supporters seemingly unanimous agreement that any mention of possible impropriety regarding the Clinton Foundation is media bias to create a horse race?

    I even just saw a comment by a Clinton supporter arguing that the media talking about Clinton’s emails while not demanding Trump release his emails from his time at the Trump Organization is a double standard. Seriously? How can you not realize why a former SOS under FBI investigation for her email practices got more attention and scrutiny for her email practices than someone who has never had a government job or been under investigation (or even accused of anything as far as I’m aware) for email practices? Partisanship really makes people stupid.

    I think the right can go overboard blaming the media for everything bad that happens to them, but at least the notion that the media largely doesn’t like them isn’t totally detached from reality.

    1. In some ways I almost feel sorry for the lefty media. They do their best to carry water for the Democrats and the Republicans hate their guts for it and a good part of the country doesn’t trust them. Yet, for all that, it is still never enough for the Democrats. They end up being loathed by everyone and respected by no one.

      What is really funny about this is that the Democrats are claiming the email issue is “just partisan horse race stuff”. Yet, portraying it as just “another line of attack by Republicans” rather than as a stand alone scandal that would matter even if there wasn’t’ an election this year, is the primary way the media is protecting Hillary. Yet, the Democrats think because of that, the media is wrong to even mention it.

      1. I just want to know in what universe do these people think a former SOS and major presidential candidate being under FBI investigation and then getting publicly condemned for her practices by the FBI director (even if there were no criminal charges brought) is a non-story.

        1. The “but no charges” defense is perfectly galling. It’s goldfish memory, they can’t recall anything except the last five seconds of Comey’s presser.

          1. Hey, the only thing they ever got Al Capone for was tax evasion, so that means he never did any of those other nasty things he was accused of and was no different than any other white collar tax-evader.

      2. Oh, I rather doubt it crosses the mind of many lefty journalists to worry what anyone outside the progressive media bubble thinks of them. Or, if it does, it’s merely affirmation of the rightness of the progressive cause, because all the people who disagree are hicks and rubes with the wrong accents and the wrong degrees.

    2. So name something improper that happened with the Clinton Foundation. I’m sure whatever it is really keeps you up at night worrying about corruption, since you’re so nonpartisan and all.

      1. You’re an idiot if you can’t see what’s going on.

        Jesus, do you even Mafia?

      2. Holy shit. I can understand why people don’t want to vote for Trump, I would never vote for him either. But the obscene level of denial and dishonesty it takes for someone to actually sink so low as to support and excuse Hillary, and pretend in face of all evidence that there is nothing wrong is just incredible.

        1. I’m just supposed to take you idiots’ word for it?

          1. I’m just supposed to take you idiots’ word for it?

            Go ask anyone who’s ever held a clearance in the military if they could get away with what Clinton did.

            I say the military because I assume, like a normal person, you know people who’ve served.

            1. “I assume, like a normal person, you know people who’ve served.”

              You mean like a waiter?

              I hate how the worship of the military is so ingrained in the very fabric of our language. Every that is paid for labor is serving, those on the free market more so than those in a socialist institution like the military.

          2. Or, you know, actually read up on the shenanigans between the State Department and Clinton Foundation, the many coincidences of payments to the foundation being followed by favorable State Department decisions (like the Russian donation of $25 million which was followed by State allowing the Uranium deal to go through, giving a Russian entity control over a sizeable percent of the US uranium supply), the less than 10% of foundation funds going to actual charity works while the Clintons and their cronies get mysteriously rich, etc. etc.

            Not that you won’t just deny reality anyway.

            1. Or, you know, actually read up on the shenanigans

              You assume Tony is capable of thinking for himself. He has amply demonstrated, on virtually every issue, that that is not the case. He has to be spoonfed the correct interpretation by the right people. How he can know who the right people are without being able to understand whether or not what they say is correct is beyond the reasoning of mortal men.

      3. Tony there are two elements to this:

        1) Hillary Clinton’s corrupt influence peddling was not that big a deal. Sure, it dwarfs the Teapot Dome Scandal, but the fact of the matter is the stuff she greenlighted/redlighted were business deals that would either go forward or not.

        2) The Clinton Foundation itself does do harm. The aid money the embezled that was intended for Haitians for example. But, like the widows and orphans whom the CLintons robbed to fund one of Bill’s campaigns, they really aren’t important to most democrats.

        3) One major fallout that I think Democrats would be concerned about; it’s pretty obvious that in the process of shielding her servers from FOIA oversight, and in only allowing people really loyal to her to have access to it, she essentially had tyros securing and maintaining her email server, and its pretty obvious the Russians, the Chinese, the Saudis and the Germans were all reading her email traffic… and the Russian annexation of Crimea, the invasion of the Ukraine and the absolute disaster that her adventures in Syria and Libya kicked off were fueled by the fact the U.S. government’s adversaries were being fed great intelligence thanks to the incompetence of Hillary.

        I guess a lot of people are so sexist that her having a vagina overcomes her corruption and incompetence.

        1. 1. Anything in particular you’re talking about? Business as usual with arms sales? Deals that were approved by multiple government agencies?

          2. Presumably you’re talking about the Clinton/Bush money that to some degree failed to go to needed projects because of chaos and political corruption in Haiti. Did Hillary direct or endorse that corruption or what? How much money have you attempted to raise for Haiti?

          3. So Clinton’s private server caused all the chaos the world is currently experiencing. At least that’s a new one to me.

          None of this is remotely convincing, and you should very well know that positing weak sauce like this undermines the overall claim that she was engaged in massive corruption.

          1. Holy fuck.

            Really this stupid, or really just this dishonest?

            Keep denying reality, fucktard.

            1. Tony is a lot of things (evil, racist, disingenuous, a complete dem asshole shill, etc.) but he’s not stupid.

      4. Tony,

        First of all, my point was about the assumption that the media even talking about anything related to it must be anti-Clinton bias. Do you agree with that.

        Secondly, in many jobs, particularly politics, appearances are almost just as important as what’s actually going on. Many such jobs have strict rules to avoid appearances of corruption. Even if we assume there was nothing wrong done by the Clinton foundation, I think it’s relevant that the Clintons don’t care about how it looks when the private foundation of a former president and aspiring future president/past SOS takes millions of dollars from some of the people they do.

        Thirdly, some of the emails do indicate that, at the very least, foundation donors were given an advantage in terms of getting access to Clinton. Liberals always make a big deal about how campaign contributions cause corruption, the appearance of corruption, and disparities in access to elected officials, yet for some reason that logic doesn’t apply to donations to a politician’s private foundation?

      5. So name something improper that happened with the Clinton Foundation.

        They broke every pledge they made re donations and disclosures when Hillary took office.

        They filed late and incomplete tax returns the entire time she was in office.

        Those are just the easy ones, without getting into the details of the pay for play money laundering scheme they ran there.

    3. – Cali: It is not “Partisanship really makes people stupid.” but many stupid people are very partisan, and also many stupid people. (and that is how I meant to type that)

  15. Is there a good takedown of “advanced global warming” out there in the literature world that I can pick up at a bookstore tonight? Just finished Black Rednecks and White Liberals, the lamp needs a new companion.

    1. If you want to read a book length collections of essays, I recommend Climate Change: The Facts.

      If you want to read a nice overview, the various postings on Dr Judith Curry’s site are pretty good.

      If you want to read a book that essentially tracks one scientific controversy and I think captures how broken climate science is, the Hockey Stick Illusion.

      If you want to go into the stats and nuts and bolts of paleoclimate, Climate Audit is a great resource. Again, it really exposes the statistical incompetence that is considered great work in the low quality field of climate science.

      1. You really don’t give a shit and/or are incapable of understanding how science works.

        Finding every last geologist and dentist who has a political/ideological issue with climate science and slapping their ill-informed bullshit into a book doesn’t debunk the mainstream science.

        And how sad for people to be openly seeking confirmation bias. Why don’t you simply respond by saying “Go to reliable scientific sources as you would for anything else”?

        1. To Tony, the “science” is settled. To Tony, the majority wins every time. To Tony, consensus is correctness. To Tony, “science” is infallible. To Tony, we send our regards.

          3/10. Would read again!

          1. Unless it goes against him

        2. Project much tony?

        3. This has got to be a parody. Or the most intense case of projection and lack of self-awareness ever.

        4. Go to reliable scientific sources

          You have established many, many times that you are not a scientist and don’t understand the science. You are literally incapable of distinguishing reliable sources from unreliable ones.

          1. Even if he could, and I doubt he could, I bet it wouldn’t matter a bit. For people like Tony credible sources translate to those that say what they want to hear/believe.

          2. Reliable sources are all the ones that advocate a denier position, right?

            1. Tony, if it’s settled, why do you care what the cockroaches are talking about? Troll people who care about your opinion, mate; you’ll get better results.

              2/10/10.

    2. Cynic-Zen,

      You might also check out the web site: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

      Anthony Watts has many scientific articles regarding climate change.

      Stevecsd

  16. To give readers some idea of the scale of mobilization required, McKibben cites a study by researchers from Stanford University that outlines a pathway toward producing all U.S. energy using renewable technologies by 2050. They estimate the total cost of that transformation at $13.4 trillion, or about $400 billion annually for the next 35 years. For comparison, World War II cost the U.S. just over $4.1 trillion, or about $1 trillion per year.

    There is another point that we need to hammer home. Renewables don’t produce dispatch-able power. Their output is random and subject to vagaries (a cloud moving across the solar panel or mirror, the wind dying etc). Thus they have to be paired with a plant that can produce dispatch-able power that can make up the entire rated power of the renewable plant it is assisting. And since the renewable system is producing some power, it basically means that the dispatch-able plant is operating not at its most efficient operating regime, but outside of it. essentially, you are using a similar amount of fossil fuels to produce less power.

    McKibben’s crazy ideas are incapable of working. Like his ideological cousins the Nazis, is oblivious that to eradicate what he hates he will have to destroy his civilization and will necessarily will have to war with the rest of humanity to bring his hateful, malevolent dystopia into being.

    1. This.

    2. Thus they have to be paired with a plant that can produce dispatch-able power that can make up the entire rated power of the renewable plant it is assisting.

      That, or some form of energy storage. Then, the theory goes, your renewable plant only needs to satisfy the criterion that its average output equals or exceeds the average demand. When production transiently exceeds demand, you store the excess, and when demand transiently exceeds production, you drain the storage.

      The problem is that energy storage is dangerous and inefficient, somewhat on a sliding scale between the two (you can trade less danger for greater inefficiency). The mythical perfect battery/super-capacitor does not exist. Not to mention that the various forms of energy storage have high upfront and maintenance costs, and are produced in very non-green ways.

      The most likely outcomes of an “all green” energy grid are drastically increased electricity prices, frequent brownouts, and occasional disasters (water + lithium is a fun combination).

      1. I like the idea of pumping water uphill (and similar forms of physical storage). You’d run gas-powered plants during the day while the solar collectors pump water; at the end of the day you’d know exactly how much energy you can produce via turbines overnight, and you scale back the gas plant to supplement exactly what’s needed.

        Obviously I’m no sort of engineer. I just like the idea.

        1. I think physical storage would be preferable to lithium batteries, but it would be less efficient, and still pretty dangerous. A dam/levee break could be catastrophic.

        2. I am partial to mass breeding of hamsters and putting little turbines on their little wheels. Perhaps we could even train them to pull vehicles. I envision city streets full of mushing herds of the little furry fuckers pulling us to our destinations. We could use their little turds as fertilizer or even building material. Can you say “utopia”?

    3. You think Judith Curry is an expert on this subject, so what the fuck do you know?

      1. I was waiting for the ad hominen.

        The weapon of choice by smug liberals.

        1. If by smug you mean “I consult reliable scientific sources if I’m interested in learning about science,” then guilty.

          If libertarianism is going to be this overrun by science denialism, it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously on anything, not that it ever did.

          1. Says the idiot who has no actual understanding of science.

          2. Which sources might those be?

          3. No matter what sources or citations these guys give you won’t be good enough for you unless it has the Obama/Hansen/Ehrlich/Gore stamp of approval. Everyone else on the other side daring to challenge this charlatans are ‘fools’. So we get your shtick.

            1. As a nonexpert I would tend to do what I do with anything I’m interested in, go here. Yeah, it’s Wikipedia, but it’s heavily sourced. You could spend days and days. So go knock yourself out. Or isn’t it easier to go to the Watts blog and confirm what you want to believe, no matter how outlandish and debunked?

              1. No matter what sources or citations these guys give you won’t be good enough for you unless it has the Obama/Hansen/Ehrlich/Gore stamp of approval.

                And, here comes Tony to prove your point.

              2. You just linked Wikipedia. You just linked Wikipedia. You just linked Wikipedia. No matter how many times I type it, you are still an idiot.

                1. Wikipedia links to outside sources, and we can be fairly sure this particular article is well moderated. Unlike the horse crap Anthony Watts puts on his blog, which is literally taken for the premier and primary source of all knowledge on this subject by most of you guys.

              3. Yeah, it’s Wikipedia, but it’s heavily sourced.

                BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                Tony, lectures everyone on their ignorance and inability to scientifically source.Literally goes ‘read the wiki page, idiot’. Jesus Christ you’d be laughed out of any sane academic institution. Get back to me when you’ve actually read IPCC reports.

                1. Too bad Tony can’t apply this “scientific rigor” to economic arguments.

      2. The manmade CO2 hypothesis has been falsified by the failure of the models based on it, so what else does Tony have, really?

        1. Source please! This oughta be good.

          1. Idiot, even the purveyors of the models admit they failed.
            Maybe you should try not to go full retard right out of the gate.

            1. No they haven’t and you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and I asked for a source. Please.

              1. Deny, deny, deny, Tony.

                Here and

                here.

                Of course you will just deny the facts and continue to ad hom, but whatever.

                1. So you demonstrate a willingness to consult sources on this subject… just not reliable ones. Why? Why do you go only to the bullshit deniers? You do get that they are discredited outliers, right? What motivates you to deliberately ignore real science in favor of bullshit? Genuinely curious. Is it all tribal? Your libertarian pals believe in bullshit, so you must too? How pathetic that would be.

                  1. Of course you will just deny the facts and continue to ad hom,

                    As predicted. By the way, assnugget, I am a scientist. It’s what I do for a very nice living, dipshit.

      3. T: Attacking Curry for not being expert in climatology, really?

        1. It’s a sock Ron. It serves a good purpose in that by refuting it people put forward good arguments. A Devil’s advocate of sorts.

        2. Ron, after reading upthread, do you really think Tony is going to be swayed by reality?

        3. She has credentials, but she’s a noted contrarian whose main skeptical arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Don’t you agree that someone trying to be informed on climate science should probably not consult Curry first, and certainly not solely?

          1. And, there you go.

          2. It must be exhausting moving goal posts all day Tony, eh?

            1. Not nearly as exhausting as it must be for Ron Bailey to snipe at my posts while holding his tongue at the flood of denier bullshit on these threads that he undoubtedly disagrees with.

              1. That term “denier” definitely sounds scientific. In fact, i remember the Catholic Church labeling Galileo with the same for daring to point out that the settled science of the day was not just wrong but rigged to suit a religion (and nothing comes closer to a cult than the people with faith in AGW despite the lack of either proof or observable and falsifiable events that back the nonsense peddled by the cultists).

          3. I love the “thoroughly debunked” bullshit line. Leftys think somebody saying “nuh uh!” is a thorough debunking.

            1. Breaking: Tony Destroys Judith Curry.

          4. “Credentials only matter when the person accepts the pre-determined conclusion I accept, that’s what science is all about.”

            1. This is what Tony actually believes.

    4. True tarran, but more than that renewables ultimately require more input of energy (measured in cost) than they produce. With current technology it is simply a losing game. Unless you are the CEO of Solyndra of course.

      1. And that is another major driver behind the AGW cult: some people connected to the pushers have become stinking rich peddling crap that if not made attractive through government mandates and a campaign of fearmongering, would never had seen the light of day. It is one of the most lucrative scams perpetrated by the left.

    5. He is a Green and Greens are not capable of knowing that that problem exists. I don’t understand why they aren’t but they aren’t. They just believe in a Green fairy tale.

  17. Now,let’s talk about their hate for A\C and refrigeration .

    While we’re at it, let’s ask how it’s possible that millions of people can live in places like Las Vegas and Phoenix, and hardly anybody lives in Alaska or Siberia.

    1. seriously, AC and little heating is more energy efficient than little AC and a shit ton of heating.

  18. People who look on the privation and regimentation of private life inherent in a total war scenario with longing tend to scare the hell out of me.

    1. It should War is about privation and sacrifice for the common good. Whenever someone wants to launch a “war” on something, it should scare you.

    2. He’s just a fascist. Not trying to mean or suggest he’s a racist or whatever, but he is a fascist. If it wasn’t environmentalism demanding total central control, it would be something else. He needs a god to order the world for him.

  19. This McKibben feller sounds like a real shrill prize.

  20. Bailey keeps assuming the truth of the thing he is trying to prove. Does anybody have a good idea what doubling sensitivity is? Are water vapor feedbacks negative or positive? Etc….

    I can’t think of a single prediction from the CAGW camp that has any substantial empirical backing. Not tropospheric hot spot, not polar amplification, ACE numbers are down not up,….just give me one.

    1. just give me one

      The average surface temperature, relative to an arbitrary point in the past and with varying standards of measurement, will increase by some amount over some timeframe.

      … if the imprecision of that prediction fills you with some doubt, then you’re not a moron

      1. Hey I’ve got a Bristlecone Pine I’d like to sell you.

        1. My point is that it is a bullshit prediction, so I’m not sure what your point is, exactly.

    2. The recent warming since the 1830s is not outside the range of previous naturally-occuring warming, and the failure of the manmade-CO2 models indicates a failure to demonstrate that the recent warming is manmade as opposed to another natural cycle.

      1. Source please.

        1. The same sources I’ve cited about a dozen fucking times, yet you still refuse to accept reality. I guess because you fucking love science, am I right?

          Or maybe Tony thinks the models were accurate, in spite of the lack of predicted warming.

          1. Oh, I’ve provided multiple links in the past, which Tony either doesn’t read, doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to believe. I won’t waste that much time on him anymore.

            1. I’m perfectly aware of Tony’s boundless abstinence. I have found that the replys to him by the commentariat have proved useful to me when I’ve encountered arguments similar to his in the wild, and I’m providing the links for their benefit, not his.

              1. Dammnit, obstinence, not abstinence. Stupid lack of edit button.

                1. Abstinence works. As in abstaining from rational thought or scientific knowledge.

              2. Good point. The only reason I bother replying to him at all is because I wouldn’t want lurkers to think his arguments have any merit.

          2. And what am I supposed to do with that? Warming can happen naturally, therefore it cannot happen from human causes?

            At least you can’t trot that one out to declare that global warming probably won’t be that bad. I wonder why the goalposts never simply get to what current science says. Like, what is your motivation for not just accepting facts as they come in? Is it tribal or what?

            1. And what am I supposed to do with that? Warming can happen naturally, therefore it cannot happen from human causes?

              And, here Tony demonstrates that he doesn’t understand logic in addition to not understanding science. It is possible it could happen from human causes, but to actually demonstrate that you have to clearly show an effect that can be directly linked to a human cause, while also eliminating the possibility of natural causes. So far, this has not been demonstrated.

              1. Yes it has. Amply.

                1. Your imagination and people that have fabricated evidence, destroyed data, created models they will not share because they know these models are crap, and resort to demanding people accept what they peddle or accuse them of being deniers, don’t count. Ask Lomborg how well his reversal on the threat posed by AGW worked for him.

                  AGW is an agenda looking for a scary crisis that can be exploited to foist evil leftist totalitarianism on people that would otherwise never allow such crooked and despicable behavior to happen without being beaten into submission through fear.

                2. Shorter Tony: “Nuh uh!”

    3. Well, the IPCC in 1991 concluded that the equilibrium climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 was 1.5 to 4.5 C

      In 1996, in light of the advancing understanding of climate they announced it was 1.5 to 4.5 C.

      In 2001, in light of even more evidence and the beginnings of an emerging finger print of human impact on global temperatures, the IPCC announced that they had narrowed the sensitivity to doubling to the range 1.5 to 4.5 C.

      In 2007, they published their 4th report! And they proudly announced that the range had narrowed to 2 to 4.5 C.

      In 2014, having analyzed the work product of billions of dollars worth of scientific projects, they further narrowed the likely ECS for doubling of CO2 to 1.5 to 4.5 C.

      That’s how science advances, bitches!

    4. SUUTC: Take a look at the Reason Climate Sensitivity archive. And there is also my chapter, “Can We Cope with the Warming/” in The End of Doom.

  21. I can’t think of a single prediction from the CAGW camp that has any substantial empirical backing.

    Dude, they have models. And, according to their models, their models are correct.

    1. This is why they must correct the measured temperature record, to make sure it is accurate. Like their models.

      1. You people really need to stop whoring out Feynman for your anti-intellectual horseshit. You don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s incredibly offensive.

        1. Here’s your trigger warning.

          /pulls down pants and moons.

        2. Project much, retard?

        3. Fuck off, Tony.

          Feynman was right: the fact that you religion’s bullshit prophecies have kept failing to come true, makes it an irrational and unscientific one.

          You could, of course, end the pain by embracing science, foregoing science denial and stop believing in CAGW.

          1. You could, of course, end the pain by embracing science, foregoing science denial and stop believing in CAGW.

            Unless and until CAGW is demonstrated scientifically by hypothesis, testing and observation. CAGW is possible, I just want it to be demonstrated via actual scientific method before I will accept it as scientifically likely.

            And no, Tony, science is not done by “consensus”.

            1. How much more testing and observation do you want? Ignoring it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

              Or are you suggesting, as in the reference to Feynman by denialists and their embarrassing references to a middle-school textbook understanding of the scientific method tend to indicate, that we must have at least one copy of earth to serve as a control, and probably thousands of identical earths to test variables, just to be sure?

              1. How much more testing and observation do you want? Ignoring it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

                How ironic.

                The models failed to accurately predict reality. The models were based on the hypothesis that manmade CO2 was causing global warming. The failure of the models (testing and observation) has falsified the hypothesis.

                Are you really so incapable of learning?

                1. I’m going to keep asking for a source. Since you’re so convinced that what you’re typing is true, surely you have some.

                  1. Which I have provided over, and over, and over, yet you continue to deny. Se upthread for a couple, assnugget.

          2. Richard Feynman would not have been on the side of climate change deniers. The denial side is precisely the kind of pseudoscientific bullshit he would be against. Or don’t you think that “adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere unchecked for decades has no effect on average global temperature” is a scientific claim? Or that the unanimous consensus of the world’s experts and scientific bodies is actually a giant conspiracy to impose communism is some kind of default position until we have proof otherwise. Your brain has been scrambled by misinformation, and I don’t really know what to tell you. I would think that having an open mind and consulting reliable sources would be an easy thing.

            1. “I don’t really know what to tell you. ”

              And yet you keep doing it.

            2. If Richard Feynman is a climate scientist and you aren’t…how can I support your notion that he is wrong and you are right?

              1. He was a theoretical physicist and has been dead since 1988 and thus never expressed thoughts on climate change. These people are just intent on proving the adage that having a little knowledge can mean you’re more of an idiot than if you had none at all. And they’re whoring out a dead scientific icon to support their moronic conspiracy theories.

                1. But he was a scientist correct? What is your line of work again?

            3. Name ONE CAGW prediction that has been backed up by empirical data. Rising temps don’t count. You have to name a consequence of the theory that has been observed. The main ones I know about are

              1. Troposheric hit spot…so far none has been found
              2. Polar Amplification….Antarctica is not cooperating
              3. Increased cyclonic activity….ACE numbers are way down
              4. Acceleration is sea level rise…that is not happening

              Also note that some of us are talking about very specific things while you post in platitudes. Feynman was a data guy. So far there is not a single smoking gun that would point to CAGW.

              1. Wow lots of typos “Tropospheric hot”, “of sea level…”

              2. As usual, Skeptical Science has all your bullshit covered:

                https://www.skepticalscience.com

                /increasing-Antarctic- Southern-sea-ice- intermediate.htm

                /tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

                /hurricanes-global-warming.htm

                /sea-level-rise.htm

                1. So, Tony links to a far-left climate alarmist site that has been thoroughly debunked.

                2. OH MAY GOD!!!!!

                  Skeptical Science?!?!?!?

                  The guys who keep getting caught trying to obfuscate and confuse people to make global warming look more dramatic and dangerous?

                  The guys who have been shown to argue in bad faith?!?!?

                  Tony, if you want to actually have views on science, you shouldn’t be going to a website run by a science denying cartoonist. It’s the equivalent of someone bitching about the immorality of atheists because they learned all about atheism from Jack Chick’s site.

  22. Tony are you a climate scientist? If not then how do you know what you are talking about

    1. Not being an expert my only valid recourse is to consult current science on the matter. Why is that so hard to get?

      1. How can you determine what the sources say is correct or not seeing how you aren’t a scientist?

        1. Tony help me learn how to trust you. How do I know what you say is sound since you aren’t a scientist

        2. The same way you trust that we’re made of molecules despite your never having seen one and not being a chemist? WTF? Why does this subject turn everyone into drooling morons?

          1. But you aren’t a scientist….per your own logic scientists in that field can determine if something is valid or not. Thus you are speculating and don’t really know. Per your own logic of course

            1. There are thousands of researchers working on this particular issue all over the world, and over the decades a general consensus among them has emerged. Total consensus? Never, it’s science, and all we can do is look at what the evidence indicates. And it does not indicate, I’m sorry to say, that it’s all a giant hoax in service of securing grant money or whatever the hell people think these days. You don’t need me to point you in the direction of information. All you need are basic critical thinking skills and Google.

              1. But you aren’t a scientist so how do you know it is a good consensus?

                1. You’re not a scientist so how do you know you won’t fall through the sidewalk to the other side of the earth while walking to your car?

                  1. so therefore how can you use that assertion when talking to the commentariat? That they must be climate scientists to form an opinion while for some reason get a pass. Seems odd…no?

                    1. You get a pass that is

                    2. I don’t think I made that argument. I would say that if you’re not an expert, you should consult experts, and not in a cherry-picked way.

                    3. Which experts did you consult? And how did you determine they were experts seeing how you aren’t one?

              2. And it does not indicate, I’m sorry to say, that it’s all a giant hoax in service of securing grant money or whatever the hell people think these days

                Actually, that’s exactly what the actual evidence indicates.

                1. So you believe this is history’s most elaborate conspiracy by far for the purpose of securing some extra lab equipment?

                  1. What is the equipment used for studying climate science?

                  2. No, not elaborate, pretty fucking obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and some powers of observation.

      2. Consult science on the matter…the fucking laughable. How exactly do you consult SCIENCE? Do you visit an oracle?

        1. I tend to use Google. Make sure I’m reading mainstream sources such as you would consult for any other curiosity you’d have.

          1. How did you determine Google was correct seeing how you and they aren’t climate scientists?

        2. Tony thinks science is done by consensus. And the only scientists that count towards the consensus are the ones who agree with the desired foregone conclusion.

          1. WTF thinks science is done on obscure blogs written by Republican partisans whose contribution to knowledge was a C in 8th grade geology.

            1. Projection by tony seeing how you aren’t a climate scientist so how would you know

            2. WTF knows how science is actually done, because he makes his living as a scientist.

  23. Tony how did you reduce your emissions today?

    1. By not getting anyone pregnant.

      1. What? Did you use ac or drive a vehicle at all?

        Would you support killing a billion people to save the planet?

        1. You have to love Tony. His two greatest contributions to the world are voting for Democrats and being gay.

          The only people more narcissistic are the politicians he votes for.

          1. Basically why is he worried about climate change seeing how the vast majority didn’t get someone pregnant today

            1. Someone posted the memo in the links this weekend, I think. That is the latest push, stop having children. That and unchecked immigration from the third world. It is diabolical really.

              The elite want to replace the cattle with a more manageable breed.

        2. Surely you understand that the reason people talk about large-scale mobilization to deal with this problem is because individuals taking their bike to work will never fix it. If it were a problem that could be solved on the scale of individual motivation, it would never have been a problem to begin with.

          What you should appreciate but that you won’t is that the longer denialism holds out and influences policy (as in, not doing anything about policy), the larger the efforts will eventually have to be–and the more politically palatable. You’re only making big government’s response bigger by staying on this bandwagon. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

          1. What would a large mobilization look like and how would you bring that about? How are you currently helping?

          2. Thinking about getting solar. Would you be willing to chip in for the panels? Would be a part of mobilizing and creating jobs

          3. Thinking about getting solar. Would you be willing to chip in for the panels? Would be a part of mobilizing and creating jobs

            1. As I’m not ideologically fixated on “size of government” being the most important, nay only, political question to ever consider, I’m fine with spending a significant proportion of global GDP on building a clean energy infrastructure and potentially reversing damage done. We must keep in mind that doing nothing is a positive choice with consequences that will undoubtedly be far more costly to the people of this planet than any mitigation scheme we could come up with.

              1. How did you determine this seeing you aren’t a climate scientist?

                Will you pay for my solar? Would save you money in long run per your own rhetoric

  24. Tony why are you so gung ho about fighting climate change and having others do it when you aren’t doing it yourself?

    1. Btw are you hung?!

      1. My first girlfriend nicknamed me “well-hung Tony.”

        1. Thought you were gay? So you were committing fraud?

  25. Tony what is the right number of emissions reduction needed to abate said number? I’ll just ignore you aren’t a climate scientist for now

    1. I also want to know what the “correct” global average temperature is, and why, and how he has arrived at it.

  26. Tony you speak of the 97 percent consensus…how was this determined? Though I am not sure you would know since you aren’t a climate scientist

  27. Tony,
    Why does Al Gore hate you?

  28. Tony which sources should I consult for expert opinion on climate science?

    Dailykos
    Dem underground
    Think progress
    Politicsusa

    ??? Are these good sources????

    1. No, but they’ll tend to refer to mainstream science on this issue if they discuss it, which is the entire reason I’m a liberal in the first place. Requiring the world to conform to your preconceived worldview is childish.

      1. Projection on your part. And are those publications science journals? The sites I listed above I mean

        1. What about salon?

      2. Requiring the world to conform to your preconceived worldview is childish.

        Says a man who throws a hissy fit every time the world doesn’t line up with his preconceived worldview.

  29. Tony would you ever have butt sex with a handsome skeptic like myself? It could be like a mr and mrs smith type thing.

    I am willing to learn about climate science so can you lead me even though you aren’t a scientist?

    1. Define handsome.

      1. The guy from bay watch

  30. Tony were you a denier at one point then?

  31. Tony how does one determine who is and who isn’t an expert when you aren’t an expert in that?

    1. The same way NPR does a look-this-weather-is-kind-of-funny story and then concludes it’s global warming. With zero evidence of it.

      The stupid thing about the whole climate change thing is even if increased CO2 solely due to human-produced emissions was having a warming effect on the climate- tying this or that particular weather event to that without providing a stream of evidence isn’t remotely science.

      1. You’re right, which is why that’s not what anyone does.

        1. Npr does

  32. As far as Arctic ice, maybe he is referring to ice volume, and not extent. And there have been some studies of volume that suggest exactly that. Pacific Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation is one example:

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/med…..volume.png

    The red line shows more than 50%.

    1. Regardless, the extent of Arctic ice is unprecedented over thousands of years:

      “Arctic sea ice has not been at levels as low as today’s for at least 5,000 to 7,000 years, according to Julienne Stroeve, a researcher with the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), who was not involved in the study. “It may have been sometime during the mid-Holocene, based on driftwood found in Greenland that came from Siberia,” she said. “Some other studies have suggested at least 800,000 years.”

      McKibben’s point is right on target.

      1. Re: Jackass Ass,

        McKibben’s point is right on target.

        In that aspect? Because that does not mean the ice is decreasing or increasing due to human activity. Showing the changes in ice cover has the same relevance as pointing out to someone that his shoe is untied.

        And whether it is true that Global Warming has a human component (which I believe it does) where do YOU get the idea that McKibben’s exortations to action are based in reasonable expectations of the capabilities of these highly dubious technologies, or that his trust in government action and management is well placed?

  33. Mobilizing now to build current versions of existing solar and wind power could similarly lock us into outmoded, expensive and less effective technologies.

    And arguably those highly-touted technologies are much less effective in their stated purpose than the B24s the Army Air Force used to bomb the Axis cities and factories. People like McKibben and our resident Marxian have this conceited view of things that is based on a disdain for people’s ingenuity, or an overall hatred of others.

    1. The most disdain for human ingenuity I see in this debate is libertarians’ unique pessimism with respect to the ability of clean energy technology to replace fossil fuels.

      For some reason it’s the one problem that can’t be hand-waved away by asserting that capitalism will innovate our way out of it. Instead you deny the problem exists by adopting a ludicrous conspiracy theory. But you’re definitely not all whores for big oil. That would make it all make too much sense.

      1. Re: Tony,

        The most disdain for human ingenuity I see in this debate is libertarians’ unique pessimism with respect to the ability of clean energy technology to replace fossil fuels.

        That’s not pessimism, that’s called PHYSICS. It is PHYSICALLY impossible for thess “clean energy” sources to replace fossil fuels because of the higher energy density in fossil fuels.

        For some reason it’s the one problem that can’t be hand-waved away by asserting that capitalism will innovate our way out of it.

        It would be a waste of my time to educate you for the 100th time what capitalism is and entails. Capitalism doesn’t turn low-energy energy sources into high. Theres a reason why people stopped using whale oil to light their lamps and it does not have to do with a lack of capitalism but because of it.

        Instead you deny the problem exists by adopting a ludicrous conspiracy theory.

        I deny any problem the Marxians point out. So far my bets have paid off 100%.

      2. How is wind and solar ingenuity? Not sure they have improved much at all

  34. Of course, the unspoken part is that mobilization for war directly resulted in the deaths of millions, but I’m sure McKibbens isn’t worried about that possible consequence.

  35. Holy double dose of stupid, Batman….jackass and toady. Quite the pair to draw to.

  36. “War” a metaphor?
    “One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda.” . . . Gen. Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964) . . .
    “War on Poverty” . . . “War on Drugs.” . . . Does it ever change in the minds of ass hole or politicians?

  37. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use does not materially affect climate. The theory of human-caused climate change is based on a false premise. Nature converts ambient CO2 to limestone. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through calcification. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.

    Its simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone. 99.84% of all carbon is sequestered in sediments. Earth absorbs ambient CO2 quickly.

    Climate change results from other causes that are well documented elsewhere). But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals.

    Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/. Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them. See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4.

  38. I guess some people are still stupid enough to believe in the AGW fraud. Never over estimate the intelligence level of the grubers.

  39. Anyone who can’t see and understand the SUN drives the weather, is not worth having a conversation with.

  40. Our government hasn’t won a war in 70 years . . . what makes us think we should take on weather?

  41. Failing in all other aspects to convince reasoned humans to share their “Fanaticism Of The Apocalypse” doom, eco-fascist’s logical progression is to become militant so “war” is the perfect metaphor for McKibben’s increasing militant radicalism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.