Donald Trump

Game Over for the Climate?

First dispatch from COP22: Trump, Peak Carbon Dioxide, and Extreme Weather Events.

|

MarrakechCOP22
COP22/Marrakech

"The American people are very engaged and committed to the fight against climate change," asserted Moroccan Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar at a press conference on Saturday at the U.N. climate change conference in Marrakech. Mezouar, who presides over the conference, also declared that "negotiations are going well" and noted that 105 Parties have now deposited their instruments of ratification of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Some 20,000 negotiators and climate activists from over 190 countries are convening in Morocco at the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP-22) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Some 1,500 journalists are accredited to report on it.

With regard to the engagement of the American people in the fight against climate change, the most recent Gallup poll on the topic did find that 64 percent of Americans surveyed worry a "great deal" or a "fair amount" about the phenomenon. On the other hand, Gallup reports that climate change is second from the bottom on a list of 13 national issues that concern voters.

The election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States has provoked some dismay among the participants at COP-22. For example, Carbon Brief published a roundup of comments from climate scientists from around the globe. "The U.S. de-elected expertise and will likely show a blockade mentality now, so Europe and Asia have to pioneer and save the world," asserted Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "Having a person in the position of US President who does not acknowledge scientific facts establishing the clear reality of human-caused climate change is a disgrace," concurred Bristol University cryosphere researcher Twila Moon. Danish glaciologist Jason Box said, "Those of us in the sciences are all about the rational and we surround ourselves by rational media. The U.S. election outcome reflects the irrational and how those voters were influenced by irrational media." And Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann succinctly observed, "To quote James Hansen, I fear this may be game over for the climate."

COP-22 is not just about climate negotiations, but also showcases findings from the latest research. On Monday, the Global Carbon Project released its most recent analysis of carbon emissions trends. Interestingly, the analysts report that "global carbon dioxide emissions were almost flat for the third year in a row, despite strong economic growth." During the first decade of this century carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry grew at over 3 percent per year, but growth slowed in the 2010s and in the last three years levelled off at around 36.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. This flattening in global emission appears largely to be a result of a slowdown in the use of coal China to generate electricity.

In addition, U.S. emissions have generally been falling since 2007, dropping a further 2.5 percent in 2015 and are projected to go down 1.7 percent in 2016. "It remains to be seen whether US emission reductions will be sustained if president-elect Trump rolls back key environmental policies as promised in his election campaign", said report co-author Jan Ivar Korsbakken, who is a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo.

In any case, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed and stayed above the 400 parts per million threshold for the first time. Pre-industrial concentrations were about 280 parts per million. This year also is on track to tie with 1998 as the hottest year in the global satellite temperature record.

During the first week of COP-22, the World Meteorological Organization published its The Global Climate in 2011-2015 report. "The five-year period from 2011 to 2015 has been the warmest five-year period on record globally, with 2015 being the warmest year on record to date," notes the report. The report also claimed that the "record temperatures were accompanied by rising sea levels and declines in Arctic sea-ice extent, continental glaciers and northern hemisphere snow cover."

The rate of sea level rise has recently risen to 3 millimeters per year, up from 1.7 millimeters annually. Interestingly, the WMO calculates its 1.7 millimeter rate from 1900 to 2010 which would imply that sea level rose by a bit over 7 inches during that period. At the higher rate of increase, sea level would be about 10 inches higher than at present by 2100. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data northern hemisphere snow cover has been trending downward at a rate of half a million square miles per decade and Arctic sea ice extent is dropping at a rate of 7.4 percent per decade since 1981. Most mountain glaciers are also melting away.

In addition, the new WMO report updates the findings in its 2015 study and finds that more than half the studies published analyzing extreme climate events in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society between 2011 and 2014 conclude that human-induced climate change contributed to them with some studies finding that the probability of extreme heat increased by 10 times or more.

I will be reporting daily dispatches from the Marrakech conference for the rest of this week.

NEXT: 'Rights' and states -- more on the flexibility (good and bad) of English words

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. “Having a person in the position of US President who does not acknowledge scientific facts establishing the clear reality of human-caused climate change is a disgrace,” concurred Bristol University cryosphere researcher Twila Moon. Danish glaciologist Jason Box said, “Those of us in the sciences are all about the rational and we surround ourselves by rational media. The U.S. election outcome reflects the irrational and how those voters were influenced by irrational media.”

    Yes, clearly, half the electorate is irrational and voted against their best interests. Thank you for smugly sharing that in depth analysis.

    1. Rational people all think the same. It is known.

      1. “It remains to be seen whether US emission reductions will be sustained if president-elect Trump rolls back key environmental policies as promised in his election campaign”

        What a fucked up world view.

        1. Emissions reductions will be sustained if the economy is as shitty under Trump as it has been for the last eight years.

          1. Economy, shmeconomy! What matters is whether we’ve got regulatory policies in place or if Trump is going to fuck up reality.

        2. The problem with “climate change science” is that too many scientists have falsified data – which leaves people with no idea what theory is actually credible. At present – none.

      2. Rational people all think the same. It is known.

        Of course they do. And they all agree with me about everything.

        1. Rational people would agree on everything, but it’s impossible for anyone to be perfe tly rational. Economics has learned this the hard way.

          1. I’m not even sure about that. Unless everyone has perfect information, perfectly rational people might still reach different conclusions about many things.

            1. We just need to make sure everyone has exactly the same information and are forced to reach the correct conclusions.

    2. There’s one thing I’ve never quite gotten. Let’s assume AGW is a real phenomenon. The models, even then, sound like they’re all over the place in terms of and extent of warming.

      But, without knowledge of timing and extent of warming, any relative estimate on costs (and even any offsetting benefits) is going to be pretty much completely unreliable. So, really when you don’t have sufficient data to even hazard a meaningful estimate, any conclusion you make is ultimately irrational.

      1. Adapting to changes as they occur will be both easier to implement and more cost effective than trying to control a process we can’t even predict.

        1. My thought entirely. But, there’s really not even enough data to definitively conclude even that.

        2. This is also my best guess.

          People who don’t believe in climate change are dumb. But they’re dumb strawmen, because no one actually believes that venting gas into the atmosphere is climate-neutral, they only believe that the crisis is, to varying degrees, less terrible than the proposed cure.

          Until the mainstream discourse on the subject acknowledges this and stops pushing the idea of “believers” and “deniers”, we will go nowhere and climate policy will continue to see-saw back and forth based entirely on unrelated factors like how bored of the current party’s control people are.

          1. 400 ppm: I would say that is pretty climate neutral….after all, the stuff ain’t poisonous….

            1. Ever hear of the carboniferous period?

              1. Why? Was CO2 poisonous back then?

            2. CO2 has been declared an actual pollutant. If you were to ask propagandized schoolkids if removing all CO2 would be a good idea, most would probably agree. Of course, even were this possible, it would mean the end of life on Earth.

              H2O is most likely a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I wonder when they’ll declare it a pollutant.

              1. What the AGW crowd continually refuses to talk about is that all life on Earth dies at somewhere around ~170 PPM of CO2. Historically it’s been as high as around ~2,500 – 3,500. In other words, we’re closer to dying from not enough CO2 in the environment rather than there being too much. They don’t mention this because they have no idea what they’re talking about or they just don’t care. ‘Climate Science’ didn’t really even exist before the 1970’s, and it’s basically a bullshit amalgam of half a dozen other sciences only they don’t know as much about any of the sciences as someone who specialized. It’s basically the marketing degree of the sciences.

                As for H2O, you are correct. It is a more powerful greenhouse gas, and it comprises around 80% of the surface of Earth. So, yes, in other words these people are retarded. Their claim is that CO2 will cause a feedback effect with H2O and destroy the Earth, yet have no proof of such a possibility in laboratory tests let alone reality.

                Another fun fact? They have zero ways to meaningfully model clouds.

                1. Most of the earth’s water is not in gas form. We would, indeed, be super dead if it were.

              2. dintjya see the vid about the guys circulating the petition to ban dihydrogen oxide a few years back? TYhe idjits on the university campuses (campi?) were very gald to learn of the dangers posed by this chemical. They were lining up to sign it……

      2. The models from 20 years ago are wrong. So they just “update” the models and make new predictions based on the new data.

        That’s totally fine. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to do with models. It’s called a testable hypothesis.

        The problem is insisting that they’re right this time when the hypothesis needs about 20 years to be tested. It’s an inversion of the basic premise of the scientific process: hypothesize-test-repeat-….-take action. Not hypothesize-take aggressive action-test-take more aggressive action…

        1. But we need to act now to avert a crisis! We need to act now because we’re hitting peak oil. We need to act now to save the whales. We need to act now to save the Amazon. We need to act now to save the bees (though we don’t know what’s happening to them).

          Environmentalists are always in crisis mode about something. That tends to create a boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome when their predictions don’t pan out.

          When the proposal necessarily indicates destruction of the economy, our in failed models should be taken into account. It’s like we need a “coefficient of trust” to apply to models after their hypotheses do or don’t pan out and think rationally about how much we can trust the new ones given that they’re largely produced by the same people who created the old ones.

          1. When the proposal necessarily indicates destruction of the economy, our in failed models should be taken into account.

            This speaks to the central questions no one on the warmist side can be bothered to answer: why do you think govt policy is the answer and why do you trust bureaucrats to do things that do not cause negative side effects?

            1. I suppose I should clarify that everyone is an environmentalist, it’s just a matter of degree.

              Nobody wants to pour toxic waste into their bed and sleep in it. Nobody likes acid rain, smog, polluted rivers, pesticide infiltration of the water table, etc.

              Then there are the other type of environmentalist who shit their pants at every possible opportunity. These are the people who believe all manner of crackpot theories. Environmentalism is apparently a deep well of conspiracy theorizing to be tapped.

              1. The ones in the third paragraph are driving the discussion. And it is those people who refuse to consider the questions I have asked. Try asking someone in that camp why anyone would trust govt to do whatever it is they think should be done.

                1. Proggie pants-shitting a form of mental dysentery. It’s highly communicable.

                  1. Proggie pants-shitting a form of mental dysentery. It’s highly communicable.go

                    That’s how they got Ron Bailey.

          2. “That tends to create a boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome when their predictions don’t pan out.”

            This pretty much describes the left’s whole shtick, just replace the subject: racism, sexism, rape culture, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

          3. The scary part is that some of these otherwise rational, left-wing atheists, who would pooh-pooh the idea of being tied to a belief system, really do believe in the climate apocalypse. And in this instance, truly believing the world will end without their intervention, makes them just as dangerous as jihadis who believe that Allah himself has commanded them to save the world by imposing the caliphate and destroying all infidels.

            I honestly fear that the eco-left is going to become more and more violent as they feel under threat, just as extremist islamic radical terrorists have.

            1. Violent tribalism is in our nature. If you can’t focus it on religion, you can focus it on politics instead.

              What’s most important is not who is right but how many we can induct into our tribes.

        2. The models projected a rise in temperatures. Temperatures did in fact rise significantly. However, the models were wrong in the sense they overestimated the severity of the rise.

      3. Which should be more difficult: to build a predictive model for the global climate, or for a single presidential election?

      4. I pretty much do assume that AGW is a real thing with the potential to cause problems for people. But, for the reasons you state and others, I don’t think any government policy to “fix” the problem is wise or appropriate given the state of the science and my assumptions about the inevitable failure of such government projects and regulations.

        1. I tend to think we’ll need to rely on technological advancements, which are often retarded by government regulation. Nuclear power is a good example.

          1. I have often told the AGW cultists that I will know they are serious about AGW being the calamity they claim it to be, when we start building nuke plants like they are fast food chain stores serving the grandest of gourmand products. Only source of carbon neutral energy, period.

          2. If Lockheed’s fusion power plant actually works, global warming will have been averted by a defence contractor, and the progressives’ heads will explode.

        2. AGW is the deadly fruit of faulty predictive models, falsified data, and tonnes of money driving an agenda that is certain to profit certain specific entities… consider the chinese funded investment group wanting to erect a huge solar generatinv field in rural Nevada…. and whose American investors just HAPPEN to be some high profile political actors, who used their clout to mobilise FedGov to attempt to remove some hard working honest cattle ranchers to make a new home for some few hundred desert turtles….. just like the few hundred that same FedGov agency had “euthanised” (slaughtered) because they (FedGov) had decided there wasn’t enough money to pay the bills to continue feeding them in captivity…… and since they were “endangered” they could not simply release them back into the wild from whence they’d been captured for “study” and “protection”.Yeah, I;m talking about Bundy Ranch….. THAT is the sick fruit of FedGov meddling where they have no call to meddle.

      5. It truly is amazing how quickly scientific principles like falsifiability and predictive value of a model are thrown out when it comes to the climatepocolypse. Any other non-sacred cow would be branded as pseudo-science and laughed out of any journal or university.

    3. Glaciologist, eh? Shouldn’t he be more concerned about the misogyny, sexism, and rampant gender issues of glaciers?

      1. +1 Icy Mountain Rape

        1. Oh, so that’s why Gary Johnson didn’t get elected.

          Mountain Lives Matter

          Dicks Out for Everest 2016

      2. She had nice mountains, but they were entirely too icy for me… So bring on the globabble warmererering!!! “It was a hot and steamy night”. Great lead in to a fun story, yes? Better than her icy mamtians!

    4. Those of us in the sciences are all about the rational and we surround ourselves by rational media.

      Even scientists can be comically un-self-aware.

    5. clearly, half the electorate is irrational and voted against their best interests.

      That’s likely true. The question is, which half?

    6. “Those of us in the sciences are all about the rational and we surround ourselves by rational media.”
      AKA echo chamber.

      1. Rational media?

        Oxymoron Alert, citation needed.

  2. Apparently it’s very rational to spend trillions not reducing emissions in any noteworthy way.

    1. Well that depends – who gets the money?

  3. What scientists must study over the next several years is the effect that a massive border wall and fence will have on warming trends.

    1. It’ll keep all that hear in Mexico, where it belongs.

  4. Well, just had our open enrollment meeting.

    I can look forward to paying 35% more for health insurance.

    1. We finally got a HDHP with HSA option. Mine is actually going down (though if I’d stayed on the regular plan it would have gone up ~11%).

      1. I already had a HDHP with HSA, still went up 35%.

        The deductible went up by $400 too.

    2. I had close to a 40% increase two years ago. Smaller one last year. Pretty nominal this year.

    3. Our private plan went up 28% with the out-of-pocket going up from 6k to 7k. None of the cheaper plans actually cover anything till you hit the crazy high deductible (not that doctors take any bronze plans anyways).

      So, for the first time in my adult life I will be without insurance next year. Yea!

      1. and that’s just the whole point – the leftists yammer about “lowest rate of uninsured evah” while totally ignoring that coverage on paper that is unlikely to be used unless you get cancer or are seriously hurt is worthless.

        1. That’s not worthless at all.

          It’s just not what they were hammering on about in 2010.

        2. Of course, high deductible plans are what health insurance should be. But not what was promised.

          1. I dream of a day when you can know exactly how much your yearly physical is going to cost and insurance is no longer necessary for that. Kinda like with an oil change and tire rotation for my car.

    4. I really struggle to understand the wisdom on non-catastrophic health insurance. Insurance is to cover the risk of unlikely but catastrophic events, otherwise it just dramatically increases cost. It’s like buying insurance for groceries. You’re just going to pay more to cover administration costs. Covering regular check-ups just makes them that much more expensive. I wonder how much health care would cost of insurance were eliminated.

      1. A lot less, and you’re absolutely right. You can not insure against certainties, at that point it becomes a preemptive finance plan except your payments disappear into other people’s pockets.

        Employer provided insurance came into being when the government imposed wage caps, and to attract talent companies started offering health insurance as a benefit. Thus, a government incentivized problem needs a government incentivized solution. The ratchet really does only go one way, long term.

        Apparently, when a problem is older than two years, people have absolutely no recollection of the circumstances that caused the problem. This is extra retarded, as there is only more data. Go figure.

  5. Is Reason paying for Bailey’s trip to Morocco? Cause that does not seem to be very earth climate friendly.

    1. Reason is part of the Kochspiracy and Ron made profits off of oil stocks at some point in his lifetime.

      This is known.

    2. Are you complaining about people releasing CO2?

      1. No. CH4.

    3. Incidentally, I’ve always been interested in getting a pilot’s license and getting one of those old Piper Cubs or the new variants.

      I’m not sure how much longer it’s going to be legal for civilians non-commercial pilots to fly.

      Anyway, the rugged individualist in me wants to make my own biofuel–so I don’t have to depend on any of you fuckers.

      Biofuel for aircraft, however, remains an emerging technology.

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

      The original tractors were built to burn biofuel–so farmers could grown their own fuel. It didn’t take off because the big advantage of tractors was that you didn’t have to grow feed for horses anymore and you could devote that land to cash crops. But, Jesus, why is aviation a hundred years behind tractor technology?

      1. It’s not. They went on different trajectories because if you have a fuel system failure on a tractor, you stop, climb off, fix an injector or clean the fuel and refire. If you have a fuel system failure on an airplane you…fall from the sky and die.

        Biofuels are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent. It’s just that with farm tractors on old 40 acre farms, it wasn’t that catastrophic if you got a bad bit of fuel in the tank. Nobody really uses them nowadays on production farms unles they’re getting a fat ass subsidy to go along with it.

        1. They went on different trajectories because if you have a fuel system failure on a tractor, you stop, climb off, fix an injector or clean the fuel and refire.

          +1 fixing it ‘the right way’ at the end of the season

      2. Yesterday they were going to take your motorcycle, today it’s your airplane?

      3. Also, Ken, that biofuel for aircraft you keep hearing about is jet fuel (highly filtered kerosene). Most small planes, like the Piper Cub, have piston engines and use aviation fuel, which is simply high test gasoline (higher octane than available at the gas station). Back in the day the amateur drag racers would go out to the airstrip to fill up before hitting the drag strip (or whatever).

      4. Av fuel mixtures have tighter tolerances, and need to be just right, because the engines themselves require tighter tolerances to reduce weight and increase power. It could be done, but it would be expensive to develop.

  6. Enjoy your last US taxpayer-funded junket, parasites.

    1. They’ll just lie low and come back out when the Democrats are back in power. Then the party’s back on for a while. These meetings are not about climate anyway, that’s just a cover for moving large sums of money around and installing a left leaning world government ruled by unelected bureaucrats. The EU nearly pulled this off Europe wide, but Farage pissed in their cheerios. And then the Trumpocalypse. Yummy delicious crony and econazi tears to ensue.

  7. Handing out trillions of dollars to cronies and tin pot dictators is not going to change the climate. Ron knows this, he’s just reporting some data here. The sun will decide what the climate is going to do, so until we have a remote control for the sun, we’re not changing anything. We just have to adapt.

  8. “You libertarians refused to address climate change! So the rest of us are moving ahead without you! With Obama, and the executive orders, and the Paris Accords, and the Martin Act, and …. ”

    * Crushed by falling piano with Trump bumper sticker *

    /Jackand Ace

    You keep trying to light the jackand signal, but I don’t think it’s going to work.

    1. Speaking of bumper stickers, I finally saw a Hillary sticker – almost a week after the election – in New York.

      1. I saw maybe 3 in Baltimore, period, entire election cycle. One Hillary yard sign, one Trump sticker, and quite a few Bernie stickers. Enthusiasm was either down or all the blue state democrats around here were too fearful to display their undying love for Hillary because of the roving gangs of violent Trumpets.

        1. “roving gangs of violent Trumpets.”

          The ones who blow a loud C# inches from your ear and you can actually feel the spittle hitting your face?
          They’re the worst!

          1. I just looked out my window and all I could see was a sea of red baseball caps raping and pillaging. I’m afraid to go outside!

        2. There were a good number of Hillary yard signs that popped up in my neighborhood and they are all gone now, but the one guy on our street with a Trump sign still has his standing. Hillary ended up winning Virginia by nearly 5 points, but still just under 50% of the vote. DC is a magnet for proggies and they can’t all fit in there or in Maryland I guess.

          1. I actually saw about 5 Johnson signs, although 3 of them came down after Weld went-a-Quislin’.

      2. I still see more Obama ’08 bumper stickers than Hillary stickers. Sad!

      3. Oh, you need to visit Maryland. They were/are all over the place. Yard signs too.

        1. Not anywhere I’ve been, and I drive in downtown Balmer on avg about 3 times per week. A total of 1 Hillary sign and no more than 3 Hillary stickers in over a year. Obama/Biden stickers are still a common sight.

          1. Ah, I’m in the DC suburbs.

            1. My thoughts and prayers are with you!

              1. I don’t want to get my hopes up but am wondering if the new Trump regime will lead to a mass exodus of proggies from the DC area, especially Northern Virginia.

                1. But they want to live at the Capitol. They like to think they’re Katniss, but in reality their just President Snow and his cronies.

                2. Doubtful, unless he nukes the city.

      4. There are some Johnson-Weld signs around town here, but I saw the first Johnson-Weld bumper sticker the day after election day.

        It was on an SUV that had crashed into a telephone pole.

        I said to myself, “seems about right.”

  9. “The U.S. de-elected expertise and will likely show a blockade mentality now, so Europe and Asia have to pioneer and save the world,” asserted Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

    I’d say the world owes us one at this point.

    1. Yep, Europe is going to save the world, again. LOL!

      1. “so Europe and Asia have to pioneer and save the world”
        using American-created technologies

        1. All the while wondering why Great Britain decided to give them the finger.

    2. I think from my perspective relying on European and Asian climate researchers to save the world from the dangers of CAGW is just about the perfect conversion of the amount of credence I give either side of that equation.

  10. Stick a fork in it. Thank god.

  11. “U.S. emissions have generally been falling since 2007, dropping a further 2.5 percent in 2015 and are projected to go down 1.7 percent in 2016. “It remains to be seen whether US emission reductions will be sustained if president-elect Trump rolls back key environmental policies as promised in his election campaign”

    According to the EIA reports I’ve read, the sustained drop in CO2 emissions since 2007 is attributable to two factors: 1) Americans opting for cars with better fuel mileage and 2) Fracking making natural gas move available and less expensive.

    1) Why Americans opted for cars with better fuel mileage is up for debate. If Trump dials back fuel efficiency standards, that might have an impact. However, American consumers have opted for cars with better fuel efficiency for a number of reasons.

    It isn’t clear that Trump rolling back fuel efficiency standards would make consumers stop demanding more fuel efficient cars.

    2) If Trump rolls back regulation on fracking, that might accelerate the transition from coal to natural gas.

    I know mercury regulation effectively encouraged utilities to transition to natural gas, but my understanding is that all current coal burning plants now comply with that regulation. Point is, burning natural gas remains cheaper for most new construction (even without that regulation) and so the trend towards burning less carbon intensive natural gas is likely to continue–even if Trump gets rid of that regulation.

    1. What are the greenies going to do if fusion starts becoming viable world wide? I know, 50 years. But just hypothetical, what do they do when we achieve clean cheap renewable energy? What are they going to whine and cry about? White people something something?

      1. They’ll whine about the profits from fusion not being distributed equally.

        The profits will all go to the people who invest in the technology–who will no doubt be disproportionately white, male, and already rich.

        1. White men have to stop creating stuff that is useful to society. It obviously skews the narrative and makes people sad. Maybe a 50 year ban on white males doing anything productive?

      2. There will always be something, even if it’s just invented out of whole cloth.

      3. Easy, they’ll wait for one of those fusion plants to explode spectacularly and regulate it into non-profitability. Same as they did to Nuclear power.

        The thing is, these people think mankind should be living in huts and doing the whole ‘hunter gather’ thing. Oh, and also there should be about 5 billion less of us, at least. They are whole-hog Malthusians and absolutely can not be trusted. This whole ‘green’ thing is just the latest in a long line of ‘kill all the humans, for their own good’ crusade. They’re barely even wearing a mask, if you read or watch anything put out by these crazies.

        1. This whole ‘green’ thing is just the latest in a long line of ‘kill all the humans, for their own good’ crusade.

          You mock, but this has been the green’s goal from the beginning

          The greenhadis want humanity brought down. When they’re not out to straight-up murder everyone.

    2. Fracking is the primary reason by far, and that’s the irony. Democrats are way more likely to be opposed to fracking.

    3. It’s almost as if there’s an invisible hand guiding the market and telling automakers what their consumers want.

    4. From what I recall (not in a good position to look it up right now), but CO2 emissions from cars is a tiny fraction of our total.

      1. According to this, passenger cars are 34% of the 28% of the US total emissions.

        So px cars are about 8% of our total. So increasing mileage by 10% would just under 1% decrease in our total emissions. (Someone check my math)

        So if the total actual decrease is between 2.5 and 1.7% Ken’s premise holds.

    5. It seems like, and I don’t have numbers handy to back this up so take it with a grain of salt, American demand for fuel efficient vehicles pretty closely tracks gas prices. Basically, when gas is expensive, people are more interested in fuel efficiency, and when gas is cheap they’re more interested in luxury, performance, whatever. But there never seems to be a situation where Americans are against fuel efficiency provided they aren’t sacrificing other things of value, so maybe auto manufacturers try to hedge bets by designing for efficiency as well as tow capacity, or size, or what have you.

      1. Yeah, that’s a big factor, but there’s more to it than that, too.

        Ten years ago, American auto manufacturers were still cranking out the high margin SUVs they needed to sell in order to cover their outrageously high legacy pension benefits to nonactive UAW retirees. That was before the Obama Administration bailed out GM and Chrysler.

        Management was negotiating hard with the UAW on benefits when Obama stepped in and nationalized GM.

        They got in trouble because the only cars that could generate enough profit to cover their legacy costs were SUVs–that no one wanted to buy when oil was up over $140 a barrel.

        Now oil is under $40 a barrel–and people still want better mileage cars.

        People will pay more for a hybrid version of a car than the savings on gasoline justifies.

        People’s qualitative preferences change. A lot of people don’t want a low mileage car for the same reason they don’t litter.

        Also, we had a lot of millennials join car buying market, and they don’t have 2.7 kids to take to soccer practice yet.

        Things are different now. The hot car everyone wants is a Tesla–ten, fifteen years ago, it was a Hummer.

    6. Had a discussion with my wife about this last night-she thinks everyone is going to start driving Hummers again because they will have no incentive to do otherwise without big nanny government prodding them. I told her that car makers plan their models years in advance and that, short term, they will not be rolling out gas guzzlers because there isn’t much market for them with oil price shocks (that the government has zero control over) fresh in everyone’s memory. Ditto for utilities switching to coal, because fracking has made natural gas so much cheaper. She did not like my answers but grudgingly agreed.

      1. There’s an easy rebuttal to this and all of the “if government doesn’t step in” alarmism. Ask if she would buy a hummer if regularions were lifted. Then continue to quiz her about friends and family.

        This works especially well for those that claim people will die on the streets without a gov safety net. You ask, “Would you just walk by and let them die?” They answer no. “But surely you believe your friends would. Or your family, or you believe your coworkers don’t value human life enough to step in.” You can continue this with political parties or whatever else to expose the hypocrosy of such a misanthropic view of people.

      2. Just make the parking spaces smaller.

  12. And Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann succinctly observed, “To quote James Hansen, I fear this may be game over for the climate.”

    At least one of these guys isn’t actually a climatologist, but plays one for fun and profit.

    1. James Hansen also said something like we only have five years before it’s too late to do anything. IIRC, that was about 10 years ago.

      1. Death and destruction is just around the corner, and always will be.

        1. Just how many tipping points can our poor planet take, before it tips over?

  13. We don’t want to piss off Morocco.

    1. True, it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

  14. What’s the carbon footprint of 20,000 people traveling from all over the world to meet in Morocco?

    Couldn’t they have all just stayed home and video-teleconferenced?

    1. Sometimes you have to contribute to ruining the environment to save the environment… or something.

    2. And many of them are likely traveling by private plane. They aren’t packing themselves onto A380s 800 people at a time.

  15. The rate of sea level rise has recently risen to 3 millimeters per year, up from 1.7 millimeters annually. Interestingly, the WMO calculates its 1.7 millimeter rate from 1900 to 2010 which would imply that sea level rose by a bit over 7 inches during that period.

    Get back to me when New Orleans is completely under water. Until then, STFU.

    1. Overall, the amount of land (incl coasting land) available to humans is increasing, because we are outpacing sea level rise with our own development.

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..e3111.html

      1. Unpossible! We cannot adapt, humans have never done that before. We just have to sit idly by and screech for politicians to save us!

        1. Precisely! Humans can only negatively modify their environment!

  16. 1. Did Bailey have to fulfill some word-count quota today?

    2. In practical terms, it does not matter what US policy is with respect to fossil fuel use. And quoting the drama-queen and statistical charlatan michaelmann to suggest something apocalyptic about climate doom from US policy or trumpism is an instant signal of frivolous science reporting. Once Chinese and Indian politicians (and those of several African states) got serious about improving the material welfare of their peoples, the carbon emissions question was settled.

    3. “Some 1,500 journalists are accredited to report on it.” What is the carbon footprint of 1500 journalists traveling to Morocco?

    1. carbon footprints, like laws, are for the peasants.

    2. John Kerry has them beat:

      http://cnsnews.com/news/articl…..can-1-year

  17. “those voters were influenced by irrational media”

    Not in the way xe thinks.

  18. In addition, U.S. emissions have generally been falling since 2007, dropping a further 2.5 percent in 2015 and are projected to go down 1.7 percent in 2016.

    This proves our policy of doing nothing is working. If there were some cap and trade or carbon tax policy, obviously those policies would be credited. It’s only fair.

  19. So if Trump follows through and kills off the idiotic idea that CO2 can be regulated as a pollutant under the CAA and gets the government’s foot off the throat of the petroleum industry, rather than view that as the great news that it would be and the great thing for freedom it would be, we can expect reason and Bailey to go full AGW cult and oppose it?

    1. I don’t see Bailey as an unreasonable person. He might put forth a case for it, I don’t know. Maybe Shikha will write something hysterical about how climate change is killing Muslims in unfair proportions, or something to that effect.

      1. I don’t see Bailey as unreasonable either. He will, however, believe a lot if it is told to him by a guy in a lab coat. His incredulity and skepticism has a bad habit of going out the window when something is coached as “science”.

        1. I don’t see Bailey as unreasonable either. He will, however, believe a lot if it is told to him by a guy in a lab coat.

          Despite having written a book titled, ‘The End Of Doom’, he’s also pretty well rooted in socialist dogma and prone to chucking principles out the window because *health panic*.

          More than once he’s declared a problem to be a ‘tragedy of the [public] commons’ and then explained to us how the preferred solution, if not the only solution, to problems of the public commons is Statism.

          It’s true that his preferred brand of statism isn’t the typical and/or harshest brand and that he’s fairly rigorous in it’s minimal implementation. And he can certainly be found to have returned to reality once the panic is over, but he’s pretty easy to push out their with absurd and or unreal narratives. Stuff like everyone willfully contracting a here-to-fore unknown strain of polio because they all refused to get vaccinated or implementing mosquito breeding controls widely because of their suspected (in)efficacy in combating a relatively benign disease in small controlled environments.

        2. ” Pre-industrial concentrations were about 280 parts per million”. BAILEY LIED

      2. He’s not unreasonable, but he’s not a scientist, either. This limits his ability to separate hot air from… well… hot air. When he’s written about things that are within areas of my professional expertise, he has not done well. It makes me wonder about other things.

        Note that Ron (wisely) reposts the monthly climate data and analysis from Huntsville. And the guys who do the actual work to get and publish that data are far less certain about the degree, impact, and understanding of the amount of warming that is human-caused, the link to CO2 emissions, and the abilities of any models to accurately predict climate change than Ron is.

        1. Agreed. As a non-scientist, Ron seems to take “new to him” as cool – particularly when published.

    2. That’s the new ‘libertarian’.

      (1) Step one- sell out all principle
      (2) Ignore all statistics other than those pushed by the Left
      (3) Grovel to your rich white liberal betters
      (4) Become completely irrelevant

      Libertarian Moment!

  20. “To quote James Hansen, I fear this may be game over for the climate.”

    Hey, when the game’s on the line, you put your best hitter in there, right?
    I mean this guy has been 100% (wrong) on his predictions.

    1. Also, what do you think of a scientist who concludes that because generally crime ticks up in the summer that global warming will cause crime?

      This fellow is not that sharpest knife in the drawer.

      1. I think the correlation is just the opposite: Crime causes global warming. Data to follow….

      2. This fellow is not that sharpest knife in the drawer.

        This doesn’t quite cover it. He presence actively dulls other knives in the drawer and pretty generally calls the fitness of purpose of all the other utensils in the drawer into question. He’s more like the rotting gelatinous corpse of a dead rat in the drawer.

  21. “With regard to the engagement of the American people in the fight against climate change, the most recent Gallup poll on the topic did find that 64 percent of Americans surveyed worry a “great deal” or a “fair amount” about the phenomenon. On the other hand, Gallup reports that climate change is second from the bottom on a list of 13 national issues that concern voters.”

    So, Americans worry about everything all the time.

    Also, about that third paragraph…. I thought the yummy tears phase of the Trump election was over.

    1. 64 percent of Americans surveyed worry a “great deal” or a “fair amount”

      I like how Gallup had to combine those two levels of worry to get that 64%. There is a decent distance between “great deal” and “fair amount” and it screams disingenuous to me to combine the two.

      Also, 65% of Americans think humans are the cause of global warming? Based on what evidence?

      1. Yeah, it seems to me “fair amount” is what you say when you don’t do something much but don’t want to admit that to the questioner. Like, I’d say a lot of people, if asked, would say they exercise a fair amount.

  22. A little bit of historical perspective: (for democrats reading this, it means look at the dates!)
    “Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    Wrong then, wrong now.
    The only truly effective solution is to prohibit all lawyers and leftists from exhaling. After all, human breath expels vast amounts of CO2! We need to keep a few right wingers around to feed the plants.

    1. Have you ever noticed that not a single climate prediction, not a one, is absent of weasel terms like “might” or “could” or “possibly” or something else? And yet, it’s presented to the public as gospel when “might not” is just as valid a prediction. Look at Moynihan’s mights and coulds; they were only off by their entirety.

      1. Yes, you could be right…

  23. I personally support Climate Statsis. All in favor: Do nothing…

    1. ‘stasis’?

      1. ‘statistismis’?

  24. “The American people are very engaged and committed to the fight against climate change,” asserted Moroccan Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar at a press conference on Saturday at the U.N. climate change conference in Marrakech. Mezouar, who presides over the conference, also declared that “negotiations are going well” and noted that 105 Parties have now deposited their instruments of ratification of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Some 20,000 negotiators and climate activists from over 190 countries are convening in Morocco at the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP-22) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

    I’m familiar enough with Yes, Minister to suspect Mr. Salaheddine Mezouar and approximately 100% of those 20,000 negotiators and activists don’t care nearly as much about the climate as they do about their comfortable and remunerative positions as hob-nobbers with The Right Sort. How many white-tie social events they gonna have at this conference, you reckon? What’s the liquor budget? (And what percentage of the liquor budget is for stuff in the class of “stuff I can afford”?)

  25. Some 20,000 negotiators and climate activists from over 190 countries are convening in Morocco at the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP-22) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Some 1,500 journalists are accredited to report on it.

    Think how much CO2 was spewed into the atmosphere to get these douchebags there. Think about it.

  26. “The U.S. de-elected expertise and will likely show a blockade mentality now, so Europe and Asia have to pioneer and save the world,”

    I keep hearing this. Go to it, chief. I’m all tingly.

    1. I can’t wait to see the plan that involves Putin.

  27. Up here north of flyover country we had three weeks of colder than normal Oct with 2′ of snow. which was just weather, then a couple weeks of warmer than normal November, annnd…Climate Change!

    Whenever somebody around me claims agw. I just show them a picture showing a “to scale” image of the solar system

  28. “The U.S. de-elected expertise and will likely show a blockade mentality now, so Europe and Asia have to pioneer and save the world,” asserted Hans Joachim Schellnhuber,”

    God, the arrogance.

    Indeed it’s likely game over. And good.

    1. Hey, to be fair to Europe and Asia, forcing them to ruin their economy with nonviable energy sources for the next 50 years while we use the efficient stuff very well might lead to them being the ones to develop non-crappy renewables instead of us. Might even be a whole year faster than we could have done without choking out the economy for it!

      Then, obviously, we can just adopt their technology voluntarily with none of the nanny-statism. Everyone wins*!

      *obviously facetious, as Europe will be demanding reparations for our apostasy.

      1. I see another Marshall Plan on the horizon.

  29. OK, if it’s “game over” can we stop obsessing about it all the time and get on with some other things? If it’s really “game over” then why bother? Better to expend resources elsewhere.

    1. If it’s really “game over” then why bother?

      The climate may ask for a rematch.

  30. “In any case, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed and stayed above the 400 parts per million threshold for the first time. Pre-industrial concentrations were about 280 parts per million.”

    And ~170 PPM means the end of life as we know it on Earth, as plants would die en masse from lack of CO2. So why should I shit my pants over 400PPM when that is actually a far more immanent threat than any theoretical overage of CO2 in the environment.

    That’s before we talk about prehistoric levels of closer to ~2,500 – 3,500 PPM when, it should be noted, glaciers covered much of Earth. Or, there were comparable CO2 levels when there were virtually no glaciers at all. Of course, climatologists don’t use those data points. There’s no money in regulating necessary trace gasses that are very close to mass extinction levels, but not in the direction ‘scientists’ claim. Putting out a few billion more ton’s of CO2 would appear to be a pretty good idea, historically speaking.

    1. “Of course, climatologists don’t use those data points. ”

      Actually it was climatologists who came up with these data points. And they got paid for doing so.

      “Putting out a few billion more ton’s of CO2 would appear to be a pretty good idea”

      What could possibly go wrong? If it was good for the dinosaurs…

      1. So it’s your contention that we need to lower the CO2 down from 400 parts per million when it’s most probably been as high as 2,500 during a period of time when biodiversity was exploding outwards here on Earth? (Not, as you claim, during the ‘extinction of the dinosaurs’ immediately after a comet strike that left behind the Gulf of Mexico.)

        400-170=230 difference to death by asphyxiation for all oxygen based life.

        2500-400=2100 difference to…undefined end disaster where most of Earth’s population is still alive.

        Even assuming that the 2500 mark is catastrophic, and even assuming that it would somehow be as bad as no more air to breath, who would be retarded enough to conclude that we should reduce CO2 generation? You. You would be that retarded.

        Riddle me this: what is the perfect PPM of CO2 to avert disaster? That should be pretty simple, right?

        1. Bonus Points:

          Supposed pre-industrial average: 280 parts per million

          280 – 170 = 110

          Laughable. The world probably wouldn’t end at 170, but it would look a whole lot differently. Much below it, you can actually expect the world to end though. CO2 is a necessary trace gas.

        2. You know, the amount of typos I’ve made in these posts means I should surrender typing for the day. =/

        3. “when it’s most probably been as high as 2,500 during a period of time when biodiversity was exploding outwards here on Earth?”

          It was actually during a period of intense volcanic activity that saw the CO2 increase. And during that period the population of the planet was zero. Good luck with you CO2 proposal. In my experience volcanologists are the scum of the scientific world. You hate climatologists? Good for you, they deserve it, but save your fire for when you come across a volcanologist.

          “You would be that retarded.”

          Don’t underestimate me.

          “That should be pretty simple, right?”

          Why should it be simple? The earth’s atmosphere is about as complex an object as exists in the universe. If you are looking for simple answers, study economics. Leave the atmosphere to those who are willing to embrace complexity.

  31. In other words it is easier to squeeze the Americans if their president accepts our premises unconditionally.

  32. At the higher rate of increase, sea level would be about 10 inches higher than at present by 2100.

    OMG! We’re sinking! Time to start bailing.

  33. I would have gone with a shot of Bill Paxton from Aliens for the story.

  34. Game Over for the Climate?
    First dispatch from COP22: Trump, Peak Carbon Dioxide, and Extreme Weather Events.

    1. I sure am glad someone from Morocco is telling all us little people here in the USA what we’re thinking. Only someone from a North African country has the ability and talent to read our minds. Perhaps he can tell us if the Giants will cover the point spread tonight.
    2. Climate change is the next wonderful scam that will steal billions of dollars from the American taxpayers. First it was global cooling in the ’70’, then global warming in the ’90 and now its climate change. One has to wonder what the next weather crisis will be in 20 years. It doesn’t really matter really. As long as the politically connected over-educated idiots in academia get their grant money from the taxpayers, all will be well.

    1. “As long as the politically connected over-educated idiots in academia get their grant money from the taxpayers, all will be well.”

      One thing we can all take comfort in. When push comes to shove, the climate will side with us normal people and not the pointy headed, bossy scientists.

  35. Is this thread full of morons who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about? Just checking.

  36. “”The American people are very engaged and committed to the fight against climate change,” asserted Moroccan Foreign Minister…”

    And committed to fighting fear mongering and government overreach.

    “the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society between 2011 and 2014 conclude that human-induced climate change contributed to them with some studies finding that the probability of extreme heat increased by 10 times or more.”

    Maybe the problem is too many humans. Cut world population by 50% – 75% and the problems solve themselves.

  37. There are a large number of comments with no substance. Do any of you have any actual evidence that we are NOT doing irreparable harm to the climate? (I know we won’t destroy the planet but we may very well ruin the delicate climate balance required for human civilization.).

    1. You want us to prove a negative? I’ve yet to see any that conclusively proves we are…

      1. Do you have any evidence that everything is okay?

          1. So there are more leaves. What does that prove? As for the drought chart, I can’t figure out what that proves at all.

            1. Global warming is supposed to destroy the planet and extinctify humanity. Yet the planet is more productive (greener) than it was 30 years ago and semi-arid regions are encroaching on deserts. Most people would call that a good thing(tm) and certainly not catastrophic. The fact that you can’t understand the drought index answers your own question. Is it increasing? No? Again, most people would consider a planet that is showing no increase in drought, a bad thing(tm), to be a good thing(tm).

              1. Whether more leaves proves something positive depends on what those leaves are. Citrus plants growing in North Dakota proves my point. Forests being replaced by cornfields is a bad thing but might not actually produce a net result of fewer plants. Do you have an answer for that?

                Finally, there are lots of other species on Earth. Scientists have already changed the name of our geologic epoch to the Anthropocene and stated that we are the cause of the Sixth Mass Extinction. Do you have anything to comfort those of use who don’t want to see the extinction of elephants, rhinos, big cats, and especially many fish?

          2. The % of the planet in drought is not really relevant. It’s the % of land under cultivation in drought that causes problems.

          3. Oh look, a blog nobody’s heard of.

            And you genuinely believe that is more credible than the global scientific establishment.

            It is beyond belief, really.

            1. And you genuinely believe that is more credible than the global scientific establishment.

              Tony would have been full on board with the Eugenics global scientific establishment no doubt.

    2. I know we won’t destroy the planet but we may very well ruin the delicate climate balance required for human civilization.

      “Delicate climate balance”? Really? Do you know we are in a interglacial (Holocene) of the Pleistocene ice age? Did you know before the present interglacial the ice sheets extended down to NYC? Did you know we entered the Holocene interglacial a mere 10,000 years ago and that we are likely near the of this interglacial? Do you realize that once again the ice sheets will grow and there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it? The last thing we need to worry about is a few degrees of warming.

      1. I know all of those things. You haven’t answered my question. What if the pessimists are correct on this issues?

        1. “I know all of those things. You haven’t answered my question. What if the pessimists are correct on this issues?”

          OMG! What if they are right and the moon really is made of green cheese?! We are all fucking doomed!

  38. Glad this admin won’t be pushing the catastrophic AGW bullshit. The US will gladly step aside so the EU can “save the world”…

  39. I’m worried about climate change!

    I’m worried about how much this boondoggle will cost.

    I’m worried about standards of living being sacrificed to make some small group feel better about themselves.

    I’m worried I may have to start lowering our carbon footprint by sequestering some bodies in my back yard.

    1. What if the pessimists are correct?

      1. Funny how the Precautionary Principle never really applies to something that we know for certain could cause a global extinction: SMOD. We spend more on electricity to run failed global warming models than we do on cataloging dangerous potential ephemerides. And even less developing the technology to actually DO something about it.

        Getting back to climate: Wake me when we get back to the HCO temps instead of the slow ringdown to the next glaciation.

        1. How does it feel to have your knowledge of science completely tainted by lobbyist-influenced politics?

  40. ” Pre-industrial concentrations were about 280 parts per million”. BAILEY LIED! HIDE THE DECLINE!

  41. the dummies fail to mention a few key FACTS…. how’s this one for starter-offers? It is the world’s oceans regulate CO2 concentration in the air. Ocean CO2 concentrations are a leading factor….. not trailing as they maintain. And CO2 in the atmosphere has ranged from about 250 to well above 400.

    Most recent satellite surveys of arctic ice reveal it is at almost the highest levels ever known. They play games with those statistics…. selecting year ranges to “examine” that contain anomalies and extremes, so their predetermined point can be better floated. And their “data” on sea levels…… I’d certainly like to SEE them and compare myself. I’ve been going to some of the same beaches for decades, and see no detectable difference in sea levels…… at leas,t not a tend toward any single direction.

  42. “Game over” because it is, indeed, a game. A con game.

  43. It’s nice to see a so many people on a website named “Reason” criticize “the other side” engaging in tribalism, alarmism, strawmanning, and other greivances… and then go on to justify it by using all of the same tactics when it threatens something in their belief system. Real good going, guys (and girls). (Most of you, at least; there’s some diamonds in the rough in the comments here. Even if I disagree with some of their conclusions, I can at least respect how they got there.)

    Put on your big-boy pants and be thorough in what you believe in if you mean it: the reason Clinton lost was thoroughly alienating people who weren’t lockstep in line with her, and conflating any range in ideas and beliefs in the Other Side to being ignorant or stupid or hateful or corrupt or paid-off or whatever… so-to-say “othering”, endemic of tribalism. That’s an awful line of thinking (deplorable, one might say). So don’t go engaging it in yourself, just because you disagree with something that challenges your tribe. There are many stripes of environmentalists, and they’re not all hopeless ideologues or treehuggers. Beat science with more science, beat what you think is bad science with good science: you have no valid intellectual grounds to refute it unless you do. (Note: That only refers to the science in-of-itself, not implementation of policy. Which is where the discussion actually needs to happen, and where the popular discourse about the climate has its most issues.)

    1. “Beat science with more science, beat what you think is bad science with good science: you have no valid intellectual grounds to refute it unless you do.”

      ‘Climate change’ is a tautology. It is not falsifiable and therefore not a valid scientific hypothesis. Thus, I refute climate pseudoscience.

      The past 30 years of observations have falsified the predictions of Global Warming. Now that was a valid scientific hypothesis.

  44. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  45. “The American people are very engaged and committed to the fight against climate change”

    You cannot fight against climate change any more than you fight against the speed of light.

    Watch out speed of light! When the UN is done with climate change, they’re coming for you!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.