Climate Change

Good News! No Need to Have a Mental Breakdown Over 'Climate Collapse'

The hot new Deep Adaptation report about near-term climate catastrophe is overblown.

|

ApocalypseClimateRona978Dreamstime
Rona978/Dreamstime

"What if I told you there was a paper on climate change that was so uniquely catastrophic, so perspective-altering, and so absolutely depressing that it's sent people to support groups and encouraged them to quit their jobs and move to the countryside?" asks reporter Zing Tsjeng over at Vice. She is citing Cumbria University Professor of Sustainability Leadership Jem Bendell's "Deep Adaptation" paper, which asserts that man-made climate change will result in "a near-term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers." How near-term? In about 10 years or so.

Bendell says that he came to his dire prediction while on a recent unpaid sabbatical during which he "reviewed the scientific literature from the past few years." He asserts that "the summary of science is the core of the paper as everything then flows from the conclusion of that analysis." As a consequence, he claims to have discerned from his reading of recent climate science the initiation of drastic non-linear effects that are quickly leading to "runaway climate change." Therefore, his review forced him to "establish the premise that it is time we consider the implications of it being too late to avert a global environmental catastrophe in the lifetimes of people alive today." Bendell seems now to be grappling with a kind of spiritual crisis as a result of his melancholy study.

How catastrophic? "When I say starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war, I mean in your own life," he writes. "With the power down, soon you wouldn't have water coming out of your tap. You will depend on your neighbours for food and some warmth. You will become malnourished. You won't know whether to stay or go. You will fear being violently killed before starving to death."

Bendell decries "professional environmentalists [for] their denial that our societies will collapse in the near-term" and invites readers "to consider the value of leaving mainstream views behind." But is Bendell's reading of the recent climate science accurate? My own review of the literature suggests that he has essentially constructed a "parade of horribles" argument that falls apart under a more dispassionate analysis. Bendell anticipates that some critics will reject his grim conclusions by resorting to what he calls unwarranted and psychologically protective "collapse-denial."

While trying to avoid the "collapse-denial" pitfall, a review of the most recent scientific literature suggests that while climate change will pose significant problems for humanity over the remainder of this century, near-term social collapse due to runaway climate change is unlikely.

Bendell does report the relatively uncontroversial data that average global surface temperatures have increased by 0.9°C since 1880 and that 17 of the 18 warmest years in that record have all occurred since 2001. The State of the Climate in 2017 report issued last year by the American Meteorological Society cites weather balloon and satellite datasets indicating that, since 1979, the increase of global average temperature in the lower troposphere is proceeding at the rate of between 0.13°C and 0.19°C per decade. According to NASA's Earth Observatory, the rate of temperature increase since 1975 as measured by thermometers at the surface is roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. The State of the Climate in 2017 report also notes that climate models assessed by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projected that the lower troposphere should be warming at the rate of 0.27°C per decade.

Reconciling the discrepancy between the rates of empirical and modeled temperature increase will depend on what equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) turns out to be. ECS is conventionally defined as how much warming can be expected to result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is still considerable debate among climate researchers about the magnitude of this figure.

A 2018 article in Climate Dynamics calculated a relatively low climate sensitivity of range of between 1.1°C and 4.05°C (median 1.87°C). Another 2018 study in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres estimated a higher ECS that is likely between 2.4°C and 4.6°C (median 3.3°C). The study noted that its analysis "provides no support for low values of ECS (below 2°C)" suggested by other analyses such as the one in Climate Dynamics. The higher that ECS is, the more likely the models' rate of increase is right and the worse the effects of climate change are liable to be.

Ice

Bendell is particularly concerned about the rate of warming in the Arctic. He correctly observes that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the global average. Between the 1920s and the 1940s, a large warming event occurred in the Arctic. Researchers have concluded that that increase was most likely the result of natural internal atmospheric variability. While early 20th century Arctic warming was comparable to the recent 30-year warming, the temperature levels during the past five years (2014–18) have exceeded all previous records since 1900.

As a result of warming temperatures, the extent of arctic sea ice has been falling since 1980 at the rate of 12.8 percent per decade. Some recent research suggests that Arctic warming is affecting weather patterns in the northern hemisphere such as polar vortex outbreaks in the mid-latitudes.

Bendell chiefly hangs his prognostication of "our near-term extinction" on the "permafrost carbon bomb" hypothesis. The idea is that lots of carbon is trapped in the Arctic permafrost and in subsea methane hydrates, and that warming will produce a feedback loop in which carbon will be exponentially released into the atmosphere. Adding Arctic carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is bad enough, but rising temperatures will purportedly cause the non-linear release of vast amounts of methane which has a global warming potential that is 28 to 36 times greater than carbon dioxide.

In support of this dire scenario, Bendell points to a 2013 report in Nature that conjectured that warming could lead to a burp of 50-gigatons of methane over less than 10 years out of the Arctic Ocean. The result would be an immediate increase of global temperatures by about 5°C at a cost to the global economy of $60 trillion. The size of the global economy was then about $70 trillion. Rather than merely cratering the global economy, such a methane burp might also result in our extinction.

So how worried should we be? Bendell handwaves aside numerous more current scientific reviews and studies that conclude that a permafrost carbon bomb is implausible. One comprehensive 2017 review of sources and sinks of methane reported that "atmospheric measurements at long-term monitoring stations show no significant increase of Arctic methane emissions. This suggests that at present, Arctic emission increases are negligible or small in absolute terms."

Bendell instead speculates that recent increases in atmospheric methane indicate that a nonlinear Arctic methane catastrophe that could result in "our near-term extinction" is in the offing. As evidence, he cites a recent experiment in which German researchers monitored chunks of melting permafrost for seven years and found that they did emit more than expected amounts of methane. Based on this experiment, the researchers calculate that "the permafrost soils of Northern Europe, Northern Asia and North America could produce up to 1 gigaton of methane and 37 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2100." That's 1 gigaton of methane over 80 years, not 50 gigatons in 10 years. And as it happens, human activity emitted 37 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2018, which means that Arctic permafrost thawing would add just a bit over 1 percent to annual carbon dioxide emissions between now and 2100.

In addition, a 2017 Nature Communications study traces the increases in atmospheric levels of methane that Bendell references not to permafrost, but instead to a combination of leaks from fossil fuel production and higher emissions from agriculture and wetlands. A 2019 Scientific Reports modeling study finds that abating man-made methane emissions would "limit methane-caused climate warming by 2100 even in the case of an uncontrolled natural Arctic methane emission feedback." It appears that "our near-term extinction" from a detonating permafrost carbon bomb is highly unlikely.

Other than the trends in the Arctic region, Bendell asserts that humanity is already seeing the impacts of global warming on storms, drought, and flood frequencies. Climate change is also set to dramatically reduce harvests resulting in global famines. He further asserts that half of the world's coral reefs have died in the past 30 years and that rising temperature is causing an exponential rise in mosquito and tickborne illnesses.

Weather

Let's take storms first. In a 2018 study, researchers associated with the Global Precipitation Climatology Project reported that global precipitation increased between 1979 and 2017 by 0.33 percent per decade, for an overall increase of about 1 percent. Interestingly another 2018 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) reported, "The take-home message from our study using the new 33+ years of high-resolution global precipitation dataset is that there seems not to be any detectable and significant positive trends in the amount of global precipitation due to the now well-established increasing global temperature. While there are regional trends, there is no evidence of increase in precipitation at the global scale in response to the observed global warming."

While the global trend toward more precipitation is small, meteorologists have found that there has been a significant increase in the frequency of more intense rainstorms. "On a global scale, the observational annual-maximum daily precipitation has increased by an average of 5.73 millimeters (0.23 inch) over the last 110 years, or 8.5 percent in relative terms," reported a 2015 study.

Tropical cyclones are the most damaging type of storms. Most climate models project that as temperatures rise there will be fewer but bigger hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones. The MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel reports a significant global increase since 1980 in all storms with maximum wind speeds above 175 kilometers per hour (109 miles per hour). Storms of 200 km/h (125 mph) and more have doubled in number, and those of 250 km/h (155 mph) and more have tripled. Climatologist Ryan Maue tracks global tropical cyclone activity and he also finds that while the number of cyclones has been declining since 1980, the trend toward bigger storms has been slightly increasing. While cyclones generate dangerous coastal storm surges, the good news is that global mortality from storm surges has been decreasing since the 1960s.

Storm surges from cyclones will likely become more damaging as water from melting glaciers and ice caps on land drains into the oceans and increase average sea level. A 2018 BAMS article notes that sea level rise is accelerating at 0.084 millimeters per year. On top of the current rate of 3 millimeters per year, this implies an average rise of about 20 inches by 2100. Between 1880 and 2015, sea level rose by almost 9 inches.

Using a worst-case climate scenario in which no efforts were made to reduce future warming, a 2018 study in Earth's Future projected that sea level would rise by 2 and half feet by 2100. The researchers estimated that that increase would globally expand the area of land located in the 1-in-100 year coastal flood plain from its current area of about 210,000 square miles, to 290,000 square miles in 2100. The percent of the global population threatened by coastal flooding would rise (in the worst case scenario) from 3.6 percent now to about 5.4 percent by 2100.

A 2018 study in Global Environmental Change, this one also evaluating the economic effects of projected sea level increases ranging from 1 to 6 feet by 2100, concluded that it would be cost effective to invest in the protection of just 13 percent of the global coastline, thus safeguarding 90 percent of the global coastal floodplain population and 96 percent of assets in the global coastal floodplain. If these projections are approximately correct, addressing sea level rise will be costly, but it does not portend near-term societal collapse.

One might expect that more intense rainstorms should result in more flooding, but a 2017 study investigating maximum streamflow trends around the globe in the Journal of Hydrology found that there were more streamflow measuring "stations with significant decreasing trends than significant increasing trends across all the datasets analysed, indicating that limited evidence exists for the hypothesis that flood hazard is increasing."

Another 2018 study in Water Resource Research reported that "flood magnitudes are decreasing despite widespread claims by the climate community that if precipitation extremes increase, floods must also." The explanations for declining flood magnitudes include the possibility that soils now tend to be drier and so absorb more water, and that intense rainstorms–while more frequent–are geographically smaller, thus inundating less area. On the other hand, the Dartmouth Flood Observatory reports that the annual number of large floods increased from about 50 in the mid-1980s to around 200 in the early 2000s, and have fallen a bit since.

The opposite of flooding is drought. Is man-made global warming having an effect on the global prevalence of drought? A 2012 study in Nature concluded that "there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years." A 2014 study in Nature Climate Change, however, suggested that "increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense." A 2015 study in Earth and Space Science found that the percent of global land area subject to drought has not changed since 1901, even though global evaporation rates and temperatures have increased. The authors suggest that increased precipitation may have counteracted a global trend toward more drought.

Whatever the trend in floods, droughts, and storms, the fact is that the global death rate due to natural disasters has fallen steeply over the past century, from about 24 per 100,000 annually in the 1920s to below 1 per year in the 2010s. This is remarkable considering that world population has quadrupled over that period, and it obviously cuts against Bendell's dismal prognostications that humanity will be unable to successfully adapt to climate change.

Famine

Bendell asserts that "we are already in the midst of dramatic changes that will impact massively and negatively on agriculture within the next twenty years." These impacts are supposedly already inducing the "sense of near-term disruption to our ability to feed ourselves and our families." When contemplating Bendell's prophecies of imminent agricultural collapse, everyone should keep in mind that cereal and livestock production have both nearly quadrupled since 1961 even as average global temperatures have risen.

In support of his claims that global famine triggered by climate change looms, Bendell references a couple of modeling studies that condescendingly suggest that farmers will essentially do nothing to adapt to climate change. But that's not correct. For example, farmers in the U.S. and Canada are now taking advantage of the fact that the cornbelt is shifting northward due to warming temperatures.

Oddly, as evidence of impending famine, Bendell cites a 2015 Environmental Research Letter socioeconomic modeling study that actually finds that without climate change grain yields in 2050 would be between 65 and 55 percent higher than they were in 2005. With climate change, depending on the scenario, yields would be only be 45 to 60 percent greater. This is well within a 2017 BioScience study's projection of a global food demand increase by 2050 that ranges between 25 to 70 percent above current global production.

In any case, many researchers find that agriculture can continue to produce more food while simultaneously adapting to future climate change. For example, a 2017 policy report for the European Commission found that "the impact of climate change on agricultural production in 2050 is negative but relatively small at the aggregated global level." Remarkably, that study reported that efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector by, for example, increasing the prices of fuel and fertilizer, would have a bigger negative impact on agricultural production than would climate change.

Oceans

Coral reefs occupy less than one quarter of one percent of our oceans, but they're home to an estimated 25 percent of all marine species. Bendell correctly observes that coral bleaching due to rising average temperatures in the tropical oceans is increasing. When water temperatures get too hot, corals expel their symbiotic algae and that deprives them of nourishment. The BAMS State of the Climate 2017 report noted that mass coral bleaching has historically occurred when ocean temperatures rose during El Niño events in 1983, 1998, and 2010. However, an unprecedented 36-month ocean heatwave in 2014 to 2017 affected 75 percent of Earth's tropical reefs, and at nearly 30 percent of reefs, it reached mortality level. Mass bleaching used to occur once every 25–30 years in the 1980s, but now mass bleaching returns about every six years and is expected to further accelerate.

Clearly reefs are suffering from the heat, but some recent research hints that they are adapting to cope with rising temperatures. A 2019 global analysis of coral bleaching over the past two decades in Nature Communications reports that "in the last decade, the onset of coral bleaching has occurred at significantly higher sea surface temperatures (?0.5?°C) than in the previous decade." The researchers suggest that individuals of various coral species that are especially liable to bleach when temperatures warm "may have declined and/or adapted such that the remaining coral populations now have a higher thermal threshold for bleaching." In other words, corals appear to be evolving to withstand higher temperatures.

Disease

"In some regions we are witnessing an exponential rise in the spread of mosquito and tick-borne viruses as temperatures become more conducive to them," writes Bendell. He cites a 2018 European Commission report evaluating the impact of climate change on the rates of viral disease chiefly spread by mosquitoes. All things being equal, the report notes that the range of two disease carrying mosquito species—Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus—are likely to expand as the global temperatures rise. These two especially vexatious species transmit Zika, dengue, and Chikungunya viruses. Climate change will eventually enable these species to expand their ranges, concurred a 2019 modeling study in Nature Microbiology, but "in the next 5 to 15 years, the models predict that spread of both species will be driven by human movement, rather than environmental changes."

While certainly burdensome, the mortality rates for Zika, dengue, and chikungunya are low. So even implausibly assuming that no progress at all is made in controlling these pests and the diseases they transmit, their spread does not threaten near-term human extinction.

Fortunately, progress is being made on vaccines for each of these (and many other) vector-borne illnesses. In addition, biotechnologists are developing techniques that can either prevent mosquitoes from carrying pathogens or eliminate the pests from the landscape altogether. Similar biotech interventions are being developed to control diseases spread by other vectors as well. As a result, the role of climate change will decreasingly figure as a factor in determining human exposure to vector-borne illnesses.

Apocalypse

Bendell acknowledges that some researchers have suggested developing geoengineering as an emergency backup plan for cooling down the planet in case global warming runs faster than current projections suggest. But he dismisses it as a potential way to ameliorate climate change because he thinks that its unpredictability will prevent its deployment. This objection will not hold if most people think that rapidly rising temperatures is about to cause global social collapse. As it happens, a 2019 Nature Climate Change study, "Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards," by Harvard engineer Peter Irvine and colleagues, finds that spreading sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reduce average temperatures by about half the amount temperatures would increase if atmospheric carbon doubled would not likely destabilize current weather patterns.

"It would not be unusual to feel a bit affronted, disturbed, or saddened by the information and arguments I have just shared," observes Bendell in his discussion of "systems of denial." Such climate collapse denialism, he argues, is rooted in mixture of wishful thinking, paternalistic efforts to protect the public from despairing, and the refusal to accept our powerlessness to stop climate doom. Collapse denialism is further buttressed by the norms of scientific understatement, the natural psychological resistance to thinking about death, and the institutional positive problem-solving emphases of non-profit, private, and governmental organizations.

Bendell suggests that many people accept much of the data about climate change that he reports, but choose to interpret them in a way that makes them 'safer' to their personal psychologies. This, he asserts, amounts to a form of "interpretative denial." On the other hand, Bendell admits he has "chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction." Thus it would seem that his predictions of imminent civilizational collapse are the consequence of a form of "interpretative confirmation."

Recall that Bendell asserts that "the summary of science is the core of the paper as everything then flows from the conclusion of that analysis." If his reading of current climate science is faulty or biased, then, so too, are his arguments. My reading of the recent scientific literature finds that while man-made climate change is a significant and growing problem, it does not portend, as argued by Bendell, imminent massive social collapse and the possibility of near-term human extinction.

That being the case, I must conclude, that as well-meaning as he may be, Bendell is engaging in "apocalypse abuse." Like earlier practitioners of that suspect craft, Bendell operates chiefly by extrapolating only the most horrendous trends, while systematically ignoring any ameliorating or optimistic ones, offering worst-case scenarios in the guise of balanced presentations.

Bendell writes that the impending end of the world has caused him to reevaluate his work choices. He muses that "in order to let oneself evolve in response to the climate tragedy one may have to quit a job—and even a career." Way back in 1971, overpopulation doomster Paul Ehrlich similarly told Look magazine, "When you reach a point where you realize further efforts will be futile, you may as well look after yourself and your friends and enjoy what little time you have left. That point for me is 1972." Forty-eight years later, Ehrlich is still predicting an imminent ecological apocalypse and I suspect that Bendell will be doing the same thing in the year 2065.

In his paper Bendell does lamely observe, "We do not know if the power of human ingenuity will help sufficiently to change the environmental trajectory we are on." Maybe not, but it's a far better bet than is his concocted case for collapse fatalism.

NEXT: Democratic Dystopias

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. Professor of Sustainability Leadership

    Before I bother reading further, I need to know what this is?

    1. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

      CLICK HERE?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

      1. That’s about as legit as “Professor of Sustainability Leadership”.

    2. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    3. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    4. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    5. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    6. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    7. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    8. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    9. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    10. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    11. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    12. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    13. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    14. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    15. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    16. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    17. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    18. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

    19. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

      1. I think I get your point.

      2. Holy squirrels, nonhihnextraTJohnGaIttt

      3. That’s way more than half, Johnny.

  2. Professor of Sustainability Leadership

    Lol!

    He teaches in the Business school.

    1. “Professor of Sustainability Leadership”

      It certainly sounds like political advocacy masquerading as scholarship.

      How do you teach people about project planning, risk analysis, and finance, and then teach them to forget what they know about that stuff when it comes to “sustainability”?

      1. It certainly sounds like political advocacy masquerading as scholarship.

        Not unlike everything published by this magazine.

        1. Magazines are supposed to produce scientific reports?

          1. This is this magazine’s science reporter. He’s spent his career cherry picking the most optimistic of data and reporting on it, though even that never led him to the denialism of most of his readership, and he mercifully seems to have stopped doing that, though not to appease me, I’m sure. I think my point is that, while perhaps the biggest pessimist isn’t the most likely to be correct, he’s more likely to be correct than the biggest optimist, which would be Bailey.

            1. He’s a true believer just like you. The only difference is that he prefers his technocratic, aka classically progressive, solutions like geoengineering and nules to your modern day death cult, aka progressivism.

              1. So massive public works programs and limited-liability nuke plants… the libertarian dream! I guess I’m a libertarian!

                1. As usual, your syllogisms fail.

                  1. Tony does have an inferior mind, which is further hobbled by various personality disorders. That must greatly limit his cognitive functions, which is demonstrated daily in the comments section here.

                2. limited-liability nuke plants…

                  Yes. Their liability *should* be limited back from the half-life of any fallout that they have a vanishingly slim chance of releasing considering that most of the places where runaway fission reaction was deliberately generated has been completely remediated in less that 1000th of the radioactively induced refractory period that fear mongers and anti-risk zealots tout.

                  You can sift through a scrap heap and find all manner of devices that are 70, 80, 90 yrs. and older. Some still in working condition. To hold those manufacturers guilty of damage done by those devices today would be absurd. To hold them responsible for the damage 70, 80, or 90+yrs. ago would be every inch of the term retarded.

                  1. And with enough gamma exposure we can ALL be Incredible Hulks. Or at least Credible Hulks.

              2. N: If by “technocratic” you mean enabling markets to take into account the damage caused unabated emissions of greenhouse gases, you’re right. And yes, among other things, I would very much like to level the energy playing field by reforming regulations so that new safe nuclear power plants can compete fairly with other sources of carbon-free energy.

                1. Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, decisions and policy need to be based on hard fact.

                  There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand at

                  hseneker.blogspot.com

                  The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

                2. No by technocratic I mean your dedication to geoengineering and mandated vaccination, all in the name of “liberty” (scare quotes are fun). And your fetsh for thorium actually gets in the way of a Gen IV MSR.

                  Finally, your market price signal doesn’t say what you think. It’s perfectly rational for a market to respond or predict the regulatory environment as much as any underlying facts. Speaking of which,
                  ” find that market expectations as measured by futures prices when weather outcomes are unknown have been trending at the same rate as temperature forecasts in the CMIP5 archive.” Those would be The same CMIP5 results which have grossly overstated actual warming.

                  Just sayin.

                  1. NAS: It just makes sense to do research on an emergency backup plan to cool the earth just in case the CIMP5 projections turn out to be way too low. We differ on how to fairly allocate risk and responsibility in the medical commons. My actual thoughts on new nuclear is let a 1,000 flowers bloom. The weather futures market is not anticipating regulation, but trends in phenomena like heat waves and rainstorms. In any case, the futures markets are tracking the CIMP5 projections for the contiguous U.S. not the global climate. And finally, as noted in my article, whether or not CIMP5 projections turn out to be eventually to right will depend upon what equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be.

                3. New. Oder. Joe plants are a good idea. Along with more oil extraction, fracking, clean coal, etc..

                  One day, even solar and wind power will be ready for prime time.

                4. “enabling markets”

                  Now that’s a euphemism.

                  Who knew that ‘enabling’ was such an easy end around of the NAP???

            2. T: I thoroughly understand the problem of confirmation bias, and recognize that, try as I might, my prior intellectual commitments likely still color my analyses. That being said, I do not “cherry pick” data. In the context of this article it is after all Bendell who is advocating that his readers “consider the value of leaving mainstream views behind.” And who also says that he has, “chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction.” You might consider checking out the numerous studies that I reference in the article, before slinging lazy accusations of “cherry picking” around.

              1. Sorry for being a little skeeved by all the Spencer and Christie stuff.

                It’s both flattering and a little awkward that you respond to me directly, but we must acknowledge that you and I agree more on the facts than you and pretty much everyone else do. I’d understand if you felt there was no point in bothering with them.

                1. T: If Christy’s work is good enough for the American Meteorological Association’s annual State of the Climate reports, it’s good enough for me (and you). See section on Tropospheric Temperature on beginning on page S16 of current report.

              2. Ron, this article is a good step. Next you will hopefully reach the logical conclusion that the current climate models,like past climate models, are crap and they don’t really know what they’re doing. Then maybe you will denounce all of it as the leftist pseudo science that it is.

                I have high hopes for you guys in this regard.

                1. L: Be assured that I keep fairly close eye on the climate science literature.

            3. You mean like how the climate “scientists” cherry pick data from only a select portion of our planets history? And now were realizing that time period had a lot more atmospheric moisture and cloud coverage than previously thought. Meaning it was a period of cooler, cloudier, temperature. So now when we compare today’s temps to those of roughly 15-10k years ago the discrepancy looks much larger and warmer than it would if we took a broader, more realistic, sample of past climate data.

              You mean cherry pick like that?

            4. he’s more likely to be correct than the biggest optimist, which would be Bailey.

              If you think Bailey’s the biggest optimist, you haven’t been paying attention.

              1. The biggest optimist among people who don’t think Glenn Beck is the world’s premier climate expert.

            5. “Climate Change” is like “nuclear winter.” Massively overhyped, badly researched, used as a political club to beat on oversensitive faggots in an attempt to gain political leverage.

              How are you doing today, oversensitive faggot?

            6. Here we see a Tony in the wild. Watch as he completely shuns a fellow traveler because his solutions plumage isn’t the right shade of blue. Sadly this majestic creature will have to continue its search for a tribe. Tune in next time to Wild Progressive.

      2. Sustainability is as much a part of contemporary corporate culture as is diversity.

      3. So I wonder how he and the Professor of Human Adaptation get along?

        We sure don’t hear any of these global warming fanatics talking about adapting to a changing climate, something humans have been doing successfully over 100,000 years, including during the Little Ice Age (lots of people died) and the Medieval Warm Period (good times).

  3. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  4. Pessimists to the left of me, optimists to the right, here I am, stuck in a bunker with spam.

    1. You should probably let her go, btw.

      1. But then who would be the outlet for his secret heterosexual urges?

    2. Damn Straight

      Click Live With a Purpose

    3. “Good News! No Need to Have a Mental Breakdown Over ‘Climate Collapse'”

      Shitbag hardest hit!

  5. He sounds like the David Koresh of climate “science”.

  6. Yeah he’s probably engaging in apocalypse abuse. OTOH, I think there are good reasons to think that many of the effects of climate change will not be linear and marginal. They will be non-linear, self-reinforcing (not self-correcting), and discontinuous.

    And that is a real problem for humans since most of us prefer to simply panic in those latter situations – so we will avoid that panic by simply assuming linearity and marginal change and thus make decisions on the basis of delusion/error.

    1. The chief reason for believing that they won’t be non-linear and self reinforcing, is simply that this planet is billions of years old, and still doesn’t look like Venus or Mars. In that time it’s been struck by asteroids, had multiple super-volcanoes errupt and cover whole continents with ash, you name it. And somehow it’s bounced back.

      This suggests there are some pretty major negative feedbacks in place.

      Don’t get me wrong, during that time it froze over more than once, and has been hotter, too, but we’d have been fine even during the hottest periods. The cold was nasty, though.

      1. Oh – I’m pretty sure those self-correcting mechanisms would ultimately manifest.

        But the human species is only 300,000 years old – and our entire existence outside of Africa is 60,000 years – and 70-80% of our food energy comes from 5 species of annual grass seed in a narrow-range climate that has favored grasslands. And we are a very slow evolving species compared to say antibiotic-resistant bacteria or roundup-resistant weeds which we have pretended to conquer. Our timeframe ain’t geologic or even evolutionary timeframe.

        There is zero reason to assume we will be part of that self-correction – unless you assume those effects are linear and marginal.

        1. Biologically we’re not evolving very fast. Culturally? Lightning fast.

          Sure, if the weather changes radically in just a decade, a fair number of people will die before we adapt. OTOH, if the weather actually changed that fast, instead of slower than every freaking model, you’d have support for some pretty radical geoengineering projects.

          1. But IF the change is non-linear, it will usually go slower than a linear change in the early stages (which can explain both crappy models now and denialism) – and that creates cultural resistance to both change itself AND resistance to the need to understand potential change.

            It’s only in the second stage where the non-linear moves a lot faster than the linear. If you already have cultural resistance in place and if that second stage is when the ‘fast-evolving’ threats begin to be favored biologically, then you will no longer have any ‘big ideas/projects’. Because ‘big’ or geoengineering anything requires some ability/willingness to communicate/coordinate across those cultural barriers – and that capability would have already devolved into tribalism/resistance in the first stage. The latter phenomenon IMO is why ‘Golden Ages’ go quickly into ‘Dark Ages’ without much gracefulness or second wind.

            IOW – I don’t think the next decade or two will actually show much effect on climate itself. But it WILL utterly obliterate the ability/willingness of either side now to communicate/cooperate/listen to the other in future. When the climate changes actually start in earnest, it will merely become an excuse for both sides to kill each other instead.

            1. That’s right: If you predict that the world will end in 10 years, and 11 years from now nothing much has happened, it obliterates the willingness of people to listen to you, and rightfully so.

              When the climate changes actually begin is the earliest anything will ever get done about them, because it’s the earliest any sensible person would believe the predictions at this point.

            2. On the contrary, JFree, almost all observed effects of anything in nature are self-correcting. That’s one of the main consequences of nature, or equilibrium in general.

              Tipping points do exist, but most are hypothetical at best and extremely controversial. The only one that is not contested is the ice-age tipping point, where excessive snow cover reflects so much sunlight as to maintain an ice age. There may be a similar point for arctic sea ice (though it is more dependent on wind patterns than anything else, and due to the months of darkness, its heavily insulated from albedo effects, and even twice the normal warming is still far below freezing (Even 5C, far more than most people think possible, won’t meaningfully affect a system at -40C). Antarctica also has the circumpolar current, which means destruction of the ice sheet is more or less impossible with this current continental arrangement.

              In short, tipping points are the exception, not the rule.

              The only absolute certainty with climate change is that it will result in net increase in rainfall.

              1. Even 5C, far more than most people think possible, won’t meaningfully affect a system at -40C

                Actually the changes at the poles is what makes me think the changes aren’t gonna be linear. Adding x degrees to everywhere is just an example of applying a linear assumption – and is clearly false even at this stage of whatever will happen. Autumn/winter temps at Longyearbyen in Norway are already rising very fast – and not from -40C either. A change from -1C to 1C creates a potentially huge discontinuity.

                It will likely take centuries yet for any changes at Antarctica to manifest the way they almost certainly will in the Arctic in a couple decades. And will look very different when they do cuz one is ocean surrounded by continent and the other is continent surrounded by ocean.

              2. Oh – and the problem of thinking of any change as purely nature-caused (and thus self-correcting) is that atmospheric CO2 itself is pretty obviously anthropogenic not natural. And when it comes to anthropogenic, we’re damn good at making sure things become tipping points and get out of control and into extinction. And ‘economics’ (which CAN be a basis for self-correction) won’t be a solution until/unless land/resources are put back into economics (no signs of that happening – and already resistance to it).

                1. What % of the atmosphere is CO2 today?
                  What was it 200 years ago?

                  The climate totalitarians are laughable

                  1. The FACT is that CO2 levels are increasing and O2 levels are decreasing – in persistent lockstep – which means the cause of both is open combustion of hydrocarbons. And hell, both are so consistent that one can even measure the global mix of different hydrocarbons over time via the chemical reactions involved.

                    THAT is anthropogenic. I don’t give a rat’s fuck about arguing with you about what the CONSEQUENCE of that may be.

                    1. Level are changing relative to what and when?

                      My blood sugar was 70 this morning, does that mean I can’t be a diabetic?

                    2. If you can’t just admit that those CO2 and O2 levels are changing because of us, then it doesn’t matter what I say or what evidence you see because you are in your own delusional world where facts themselves don’t matter.

  7. That’s a cheap strawman in the headline. Nobody is advocating having a “mental breakdown.” We’re simply advocating voting Democrat so they can save the planet from becoming literally uninhabitable for human life.

    1. Electing people who are mental is a mental breakdown.

      1. Yes. Not a personal mental breakdown, a collective mentally-induced breaking down of society.

    2. I was worried for a second, but you still got it

  8. He’s different in one respect from AOC ,I’d like to bang her.

    1. Eyes and teeth is all I see.

      And a couple of big ones if you can get past those….

      1. Do it doggie style.

        1. Duct tape and blindfold.

        2. Standing doggy, nice and rough. You know damn well she sinto rough sex. And I would bet good money in Vegas that she lezes out after a bottle of wine or some shots.

    2. AOC is far from an attractive woman. Her face (and her general demeanor) simply cries out to be punched. And this has nothing to do with her views.

      1. Below the neck, she is quite attractive. Above the neck … I learned my lesson about sticking it in crazy over 40 years ago, but some men haven’t learned that.

  9. “Therefore, his review forced him to “establish the premise that it is time we consider the implications of it being too late to avert a global environmental catastrophe in the lifetimes of people alive today.”

    One of the obvious implications of the pessimists, those who claim that we’ve already gone beyond the tipping point, is that we shouldn’t bother making sacrifices for climate change.

    If the alternatives are between sacrificing our standard of living and suffering the worst effects of climate change, on the one hand, and not sacrificing our standard of living and suffering the worst effects of climate change, anyway, on the other, then the real alternatives are between sacrificing our standard of living and not sacrificing our standard of living.

    Not sacrificing our standard of living wins, hands down.

    1. Nobody’s asking you. It’s a stupid Republican talking point. Do better. Be best, in fact.

      1. That we’re already past the tipping point on climate change isn’t a Republican talking point. A Republican talking point on the subject might come closer to simple denialism.

        Regardless, sacrificing our standard of living in order to avert a crisis that’s already past the tipping point and can’t be averted by our sacrifices would still be irrational–even if it were a Republican talking point.

      2. “Nobody’s asking you.” There, in one pithy package, is the Tony Theory Of Government. Your “betters” issue orders; you shut up and obey.

        1. There are worse options, especially if you’re a moron.

          1. Authoritarian government never solved any problem except how to slaughter whatever people were within its reach. I don’t see anything worse than that.

            1. China never solved any problem? Even Nazi Germany solved a couple of things they perceived as problems.

              Not that anyone is advocating authoritarianism, here or anywhere else–except for the attendees of Trump rallies.

              1. Not that anyone is advocating authoritarianism

                Ha, I knew you’d say that, and it’s bullshit. That’s exactly what you’re advocating. You want to turn the entire country into Animal Farm, and you plan to be one of the pigs.

                Ayn Rand was a whackjob in many ways, but she got some things right. She was spot on in the observation that when someone calls for you to sacrifice, that person plans to be the one collecting the sacrifice. You have no intention of giving anything up for your supposed apocalypse; you just expect everybody else to.

                1. My ideal outcome is nobody has to give up anything, leaving aside the lives, species, and coral reefs already lost. Despite what decades of corporate propaganda might have convinced you of, electricity is electricity. We just need to get it from sources that aren’t destroying the habitat of the human species. That is totally noncontroversial everywhere on the globe except within the Republican party, and it wouldn’t be controversial at all if your precious market forces hadn’t spent all this time raping science for profit (none of which went to you, in case you hadn’t noticed).

                  You have no intention of understanding that the very thing so-called environmentalism is trying to prevent is a reduction in the standard of living for humans. You aren’t even making an argument. Maybe one day you’ll figure out why.

                  1. I understand perfectly well. You’re trying to conflate authoritarianism and environmentalism and convince me they’re the same thing, that the only solution to the problem of the environment is to put the government totally in charge of our lives.

                    They’re not the same thing. Haven’t you noticed yet that the cleanest most environmentally friendly countries are also the most prosperous? That’s because their inhabitants don’t have to chop down all the trees to keep from freezing to death, they don’t have to use slash-and-burn agriculture to feed themselves, they have better ways of dealing with human waste than simply tossing it into the nearest river, etc. etc.

                    And how did they get there? Yes, via that thing you hate so much: freedom.

                    Have you looked at the environmental track record of your precious authoritarian countries? Sure, they talk a good game. And we have jack shit to show for it.

                  2. Unsurprisingly we get tony advocating for fascism. But tossing in the orwellian “we won’t reduce your standard of living by making you reduce your standard of living” is a nice touch.

                    The obligatory “i fucking love science” is too boilerplate though.

                    1. put the government totally in charge of our lives.
                      tony advocating for fascism.

                      This debate seems to be heading in a fruitful direction.

                    2. Given that you’re involved, are you surprised?

              2. Even Nazi Germany solved a couple of things they perceived as problems.

                They would have killed you, pinhead. You should try being a bit more selective in your boot-licking.

                Or, just fuck off to Iran and hop off a building.

                -jcr

          2. Tony|3.29.19 @ 8:52AM|#
            “There are worse options, especially if you’re a moron.”

            As you constantly prove
            Shitbag, there is one reason and one reason only that you claim to be concerned regarding the environment: It give you a stick and a release from guilt to beat on those more intelligent than you, which is just about every one here.
            The term “watermelon” was invented for you; you are the worst sort of scumbag lefty hoping this ’cause’ finally gives you a chance to feel vindicated in your pathetic ‘gimme momma!’ ideology.

      3. Do better. Be best, in fact.

        Maintaining or even enhancing the current standard of living, with or without green energy, is literally the best outcome. Sacrificing the current standard of living now is explicitly choosing to be less than you possibly could be. Specifically choosing to do worse.

        1. The status quo literally has the word “change” in it. You’re ignoring the entire goddamn subject.

    2. This business about standard of living. Just how arrogant on its face. Assume the global environment is in peril. “Just don’t ask ME to do anything about it. ME having to give up a single cent for the cause is the real crime.”

      But again nobody is asking you to. You’re probably not rich enough to matter. Which brings us to the real Republican chew toy. Not one cent of raised taxes to deal with a massive problem. That would be oppression.

      And then on to the real point of this horseshit. “Standard of living!” This is an off-switch for the brain. You think, stupidly, that it gives you an excuse to pretend that no problem exists, because evil libtards socialism AOC blah blah. That’s what’s really going on here, even if we ignore the inherent cuntiness of declaring that you shouldn’t have to give up a single cent or moment of time to society, even if you would benefit.

      1. “Assume the global environment is in peril”

        No. Go play chicken little somewhere else.

        1. Sometimes the sky really is falling.

          It’s no Hillary Clinton sending emails from a private account, though.

          1. Man, you get to be the boy who cried wolf and chicken little in the same thread.

            Which would be fine if you weren’t also the guy who wants to point guns at people who won’t change their lives to assuage you.

            None of it really matters though because you’re an admitted liar.

            1. I’m the boy who cried troll.

              Troll! We have a troll here!

        2. Aww, I was hoping you were banned

        3. Aww, I was hoping you were banned

      2. I suggest you go around and tell everyone who will listen about your theory–the one about how their standard of living doesn’t matter, certainly not in the face of climate change.

        Actually, the Democrats recently weighed in on that theory themselves. Your theory is so embarrassing, not a single Democrat would vote for it in the Senate. They all just voted “present”.

        http://www.rollcall.com/news/c…..resolution

        1. I don’t know why I have to state the obvious, but the entire point of actually dealing with climate change is to maintain as much of our standard of living as we possibly can.

          What’s the functional goal of denying scientific fact, again?

          1. “I don’t know why I have to state the obvious, but the entire point of actually dealing with climate change is to maintain as much of our standard of living as we possibly can”

            That right there is why people laugh at you.

            “What’s the functional goal of denying scientific fact, again?”

            No one knows why you do that.

          2. And how much of our standard of living do you want the government to confiscate in order to protect our standard of living?

            “What’s the functional goal of denying scientific fact, again?”

            The fact is that if climate change is already past the tipping point and our sacrifices won’t avert the damage, then that argues against us making sacrifices.

            I haven’t denied any facts, but you seem to be denying that one.

            1. Sure, if there’s nothing we can do, let’s get the party started. Fuck some goats. Fuck your grandmother. What is the point of this nihilistic rumination when everyone knows full well your political inclination?

              1. The things I’m saying would still be true even if I were a Republican.

                As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly authoritarian and socialist, it’s only natural for libertarian capitalists to become more Republican. That being said, I believe climate change is a serious risk, and I’m also a rabid capitalist. I believe in open borders and free trade. I also consider myself an environmentalist. Is that Republican?

                I believe that capitalism is the ultimate solution to whatever problems there are associated with climate change, and that the higher our standard of living becomes through capitalism, the more effective sacrifices people will make willingly because they care about the environment. I also believe that anybody who would rather not save the world from climate change–if the solutions are voluntary and capitalist–has no business calling himself an environmentalist.

                I also think that you’re someone who doesn’t care whether you’re rational or right or wrong about this or any other topic. What you’re doing is mostly just emoting in defense of a cause you don’t really understand–certainly not if the cause you think you’re defending is environmentalism. If you stayed up all night trying to think of new and better ways to hurt environmentalism, you could hardly come up with anything better than going around telling people that their standard of living doesn’t matter in the name of saving the climate. You’re an embarrassment to environmentalism.

                1. Fair enough. All you need to read up on is the problem of externalities. I’ll wait.

                  All done? Good.

                  As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly authoritarian and socialist

                  Socialist in name, perhaps, to my chagrin. Their fist-shaking at the Trump administration’s many corruptions and vulgarities hardly amount to an authoritarianism takeover.

                  You’re an embarrassment to environmentalism.

                  Your fallacy, and it is total, is the assumption that taking no action means all our standards of living remain the same. No wonder you think it’s a sucker’s deal. It’s a central fallacy of all the bullshit that goes on here. We can’t use government to do anything, because government is bad mkay, even if government is the only tool available, even if the problem was government-created in the first place. The status quo is neither libertarian nor ideal nor static.

                  My refrain is that insisting on the status quo is the most radical political move possible–and the biggest threat to our precious standard of living.

                  1. The government arbitrarily raising the cost of a commodity and declaring that that accounts for externalities does not. The externality is still unaccounted for as the additional cost has no real connection to any externalities.

                    It is not a useful concept to set policy by.

                    1. The word “arbitrarily” is doing a lot of work in your post.

                      Surely the cost of climate change is not zero.

                    2. The word “surely” is doing a lot of work in your post.

                    3. The word “poopy” is doing a lot of work in your vocabulary.

                    4. The “cost” of climate change not only could be zero, it could be negative.

                2. This.

                  If climate change is a real issue then the only chance we have of ever addressing it is once the mass of population in the arc roughly from India to China have achieved a standard of living that will allow them to care about something other than their dismal state of existence.

                  Environmental concerns are only concerns of the already wealthy.

                  Statism, and it’s resulting economic paralysis, is the greatest threat to the environment extant.

          3. The point is power. It is to justify having a government with Total War authority to micromanage everything as the self styled experts see fit without the messiness of actually fighting a war.

            1. There’s something to that about the people who are manipulating the weak minded, certainly. I don’t blame the manipulators so much–but there’s something seriously wrong with people allowing themselves to be manipulated this way.

              They can get people like Tony to vote for anything–up to and including sacrificing his own standard of living–without even justifying that the sacrifice will do any good at all. In fact, if you ask Tony if he knows whether his sacrifice will improve things, he gets offended.

            2. Everyone hide under their bed, the alarmists are coming!

              1. Don’t you have a corner to go stand on with your sandwich board?

          4. I don’t know why I have to state the obvious, but the entire point of actually dealing with climate change is to maintain as much of our standard of living as we possibly can.

            Tony|3.29.19 @ 8:38AM|#

            Nobody’s asking you. It’s a stupid Republican talking point.

            You’re not gay because you enjoy sleeping with other men. You just really enjoy fucking yourself. So, by all means, go fuck yourself.

      3. I’ll start giving up stuff when the self-righteous students give up traveling on spring break, advocate that no one needs to drive until age 18, and stop burning electricity through constant texting, internet surfing and watching inane youtubes.

        1. It is not more ethically laudable that you do none of these things while also ignoring the problem.

          1. No that’s wrong. At least he isn’t being a hypocrite, which is more ethically laudable.

            1. So it’s okay to eat babies as long as you’re ignorant of the social taboos against it. At least you’re not a hypocrite! Let me guess, Trump U grad?

              1. You’re the idiot who set up the conditional statement and then decided to be absurd when you realized it made you look stupid.

                “So it’s okay to eat babies as long as you’re ignorant of the social taboos against it”

                That right there is another reason people laugh at you.

                1. Your idiotic “eat baby” reply doesn’t even make sense.

                  One group is adovcating crisis and telling others to do the work while doing nothing of their own.

                  The other group is not adovcating crisis and not telling others to do work.

                  You have to be a gibbering retard to think “BUT WHAT ABOUT EATING BABIES HERP DERP” isn’t the reply of a person with far. too many chromosomes

                  1. Person A: believes there’s a problem, does nothing about it.
                    Person B: believes there’s no problem, does nothing about it.

                    (There is a problem.)

                    Why is Person B more morally laudable again?

                    1. Because person A is a hypocrite.

                      How fucking stupid are you?

                    2. But person B is a moron. Stupidity is more consequential than hypocrisy, which is merely something you tut-tut at.

                    3. And that reply is another reason people laugh at you.

                    4. What a stunning argument.

                    5. It’s easy when all I have to do is point out facts.

                    6. It’s more like,

                      Person A: Claims there’s a problem, does nothing about it.
                      Person B: Claims there’s no problem, does nothing about it.

                      (Is there a problem?)

                      Person A, based on what they’re doing, is a liar about believing there’s a problem.
                      Person B’s actions and expressed beliefs at least agree with each other.

                    7. There is a problem. It’s not debatable, even if you want it to be. Again, ignorance is more harmful than hypocrisy.

                      And a person believing in scientific fact while driving an SUV isn’t a hypocrite. He’s simply a victim of his economic circumstances.

                    8. No there isn’t. But given ypir adoration of fascism and authoritarian government in general, I’m not surprised you demamd all dissent be stifled.

                      No one’s “economic circumstances” require that they drive an SUV or fly on private jets or yacht or have a hpise which consumes 10 times the average energy of typical american house or buy oceanfront property.

                    9. Again, let’s do a little moral math problem:

                      Person A flies a private jet and believes in fixing climate change.
                      Person B flies a private jet and doesn’t believe in fixing climate change.

                      You’d have me believe that Person A is worse for being a hypocrite, even though he probably works actively for the cause, while Person B, to you, would have to be someone who’s to be praised for living the capitalist dream.

                    10. Person A flies a private jet and believes in making everyone except a special few live without modern transportation, heating, or electricity and “justifies” it by claiming it will fix climate change.

                  2. Tony isn’t an honest debater or really very intelligent. It’s why you get responses about eating babies. He doesn’t understand the criticism you are leveling against him.

                    1. He also doesn’t appear to know what hypocrite means despite being one.

                      And stupidly thinks calling for government action while doing nothing yourself is “doing nothing.”

              2. Tony, you are stupid and weak. So stop trying to act like you are the intelligent one on a conversation. You are not. You’re just embarrassing yourself.

        2. The problem is that they really will advocate for things that they would never actually do.

          Markets solve a fundamental problem that representative democracy creates. It costs almost nothing to vote for one candidate over another–and there aren’t any price signals attached.

          To act in a market, you have to actually forgo one thing for another, so people vote for things that they would never buy in a market if they had to pay the market price.

          Venezuela is full of people who voted for things with enthusiasm that they actually hate in reality.

          1. Here’s a price signal: vote Republican and the planet dies.

            We’ll leave aside the problem that 95% of the planet had no say at all in your purchase.

            1. Yep this big fucking ball of rock and all the life on it will just die off and disintegrate.

              This is what HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES.

            2. I don’t understand why everyone is so upset about this – we had a good run and there’s nothing we can do about this problem (its already past the point of no return), so lets just enjoy what we have while it lasts.

            3. Because SCIENZ! You’re a death cultists. How many more times do ehrlich and holdren and their proteges have to be wrong before you start accepting reality?

              1. What reality would that be? That pumping 40 billion tons of extra CO2 per year into the atmosphere has no effect on the environment?

                1. It most certainly does habe an impact. The planet is 8% greaner than it would have been and that has translated directly into higher ceop yields and food availability.

                  All of this death is creating a lot of life.

              1. So give the market a lollipop for being so clever. We didn’t need price signals to know Hitler was a threat. Some things we just need to observe, right?

  10. “…he claims to have discerned from his reading of recent climate science”

    AKA pulled it outa his ass

  11. spreading sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reduce average temperatures by about half the amount temperatures would increase if atmospheric carbon doubled would not likely destabilize current weather patterns.

    So aren’t we obligated to TRY that?! Who cares if the SAVED PLANET smells like rotten eggs?!

    1. The only reason they propose dumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere is that that’s what volcanoes dump into the upper atmosphere, and THEY cool things down.

      It’s like thinking that, if you need a knife, your only option in flint, because you stumbled across a sharp fragment of it one day.

  12. Head to the hills. Run for your lives.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..e-modeling

  13. There is no spoon.

    1. No one needs more than one type of utensil.

  14. He sounds like a disaffected, half-educated rube from an area that’s been bypassed economically (Cumbria is the border area between England and Scotland where sheep outnumber people). He also reads source material uncritically and believes it all literally. Carry on, clinger, while the rest of us enjoy new cultural opportunities in slightly warmer and more comfortable cold climes!

    (I’m channeling the Rev today.)

  15. There are 8 billion humans now, shouldn’t we welcome a nice extinction event? No humans, no problems.

  16. OK, it’s as simple as this: If one side is right, 10 years from now the globe will look pretty much like it did 10 years ago, and the hysteria mongers will be saying, “This time the Earth really IS doomed in 10 years, you should totally believe us this time!” and being ignored. Like they’re being ignored today because they were telling us 10 years ago that the world was doomed.

    If the other side is right, in a few years Antarctica is going to be surrounded by a waterfall, and people in Wisconsin will be planting citrus trees, and nobody will be doubting them anymore, and suddenly we’ll be putting into execution every geoengineering plan anybody has come up with.

    What’s totally off the table is taking these predictions seriously before they start to be proven true, because it’s not the first time, or even the second time, these jokers have predicted an imminent disaster.

    1. “These jokers.”

      Name them. Stop collectivizing. You might as well be saying “libtards.” That’s what you’re pretty much saying, though, isn’t it? Rush Limbaugh is more of an expert on science than all of academia, to you, isn’t that right?

      The problem is the frog in the boiling pot. The disaster is not only imminent, it’s happening now. It’s just not happening at the speed of Nascar, so you don’t understand it.

      1. Collectivizing is more your thing, along with 5 year plans.

        What disaster? You didn’t read any of bailey’s links. Food per capita up. Famine banished except when your authoritarian governments get involved. Deaths due to natural disaster down dramatically. ACE flat to declining. Oh, and cold still kills far more ppl on the planet than heat.

        1. I got a promotion this year. Doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening.

          1. Yeah, but until heat kills as many people as cold, why should we believe there’s a problem with it getting warmer?

            1. The problem isn’t your neighborhood getting warmer, it’s the oceans getting warmer.

      2. T: BB has a point. Remember urgent and certain predictions of massive famines caused by overpopulation, vast cancer epidemics due to synthetic chemicals, running out non-renewal resources, death from eating biotech crops, etc. Environmentalism is an ideology. It is not unreasonable to be at least initially skeptical that pretty much the same set of folks who were wrong about earlier apocalypses are now using climate change as an excuse to impose their long-desired social and economic policies on the world. Given the track record of ideological environmentalism’s earlier apocalyptic predictions, I resisted for perhaps too long in concluding that man-made climate change could become a significant problem. But I followed the evidence – I have been reporting on climate change for nearly three decades now – and changed my mind more than a decade ago.

        1. Well obviously, if I were to list my fears, the large-scale attempts of democratic governments to clean up the environment rank significantly lower than doing nothing about climate change, but I don’t automatically fear government action (except perhaps for the local constabulary).

          I think what should worry libertarians with respect to validating their worldview is the fact that certain People’s Republics like China and California are doing better work than more ostensibly market-focused jurisdictions.

          1. You’re holding up China as a paragon of environmentalism? Really?

            Next you’ll be telling us that Mao Zedong’s plan to have all the sparrows killed was a big success and a big win for the environment.

            1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0150-4

              They ratified Paris, which TrumpMerica withdrew from, alone in the world.

              1. “They ratified Paris, which TrumpMerica withdrew from, alone in the world.”

                So on top of being a watermelon, he’s a sucker for eviro-ganda and hates when Trump does well.

              2. Ooh, they ratified a treaty! How special!

                Meanwhile they continue to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other nation on Earth.

                1. Well they have more than a billion people trying to enter the modern world. They are both the biggest problem and one of the biggest solutions. What’s your point?

              3. They ratified the Paris Accords, what does that tell you? Lol

                1. They must be among the most beautiful, highly cultured, and enchanting Accords on earth?

        2. Oh, it “could” become a significant problem. I’m just saying that after all the crying wolf, nobody’s going to do squat until a wolf actually shows up, nor should they.

          If you’re following this, you know as well as I do that the actual climate has been running at the bottom of the confidence interval of the models all along. After a while, you have to ask why all the models are still predicting more warming than is actually showing up in measurements.

          And you probably know, too, that all the warming shows up in the measurements after they’ve been adjusted, not in the numbers actually read off the thermometers. That’s pretty suspicious, right there, though the adjustments *could* be honest.

          Forget people running the economy into the ground to decarbonize in a hurry, if this is a real threat we’ll wait until the threat actually becomes a present day problem, and then go with geoengineering. That’s just reality.

          1. BB: Just saying from the article: Reconciling the discrepancy between the rates of empirical and modeled temperature increase will depend on what equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) turns out to be. ECS is conventionally defined as how much warming can be expected to result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is still considerable debate among climate researchers about the magnitude of this figure.

            A 2018 article in Climate Dynamics calculated a relatively low climate sensitivity of range of between 1.1?C and 4.05?C (median 1.87?C). Another 2018 study in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres estimated a higher ECS that is likely between 2.4?C and 4.6?C (median 3.3?C). The study noted that its analysis “provides no support for low values of ECS (below 2?C)” suggested by other analyses such as the one in Climate Dynamics. The higher that ECS is, the more likely the models’ rate of increase is right and the worse the effects of climate change are liable to be.

            1. So the people predicting a lot of warming are predicting a lot of warming. But, again, how have their predictions stacked up against reality?

              1. Poorly.

                But, if you wrap them in enough hysteria…..who knows?

                The trick is to beat this into kids heads right from pre-school, even before, have the infant and toddler programs and toys steeped in it.

                Have it be the accepted norm in all media–pretty soon, anyone who points out that NO predictions have EVER come true will look crazy.

                The religious doomsday cultists who keep pushing the end of the world back and back and back never had it so good.

        3. The models are something but they’re definitely not evidence. Given your penchant for new technology to solve every problem, confirmation bias is a very real possibility.

          1. NAS: Liberty + technology.

            1. You missed the mandated qualifier.

              Interestingly enough you seized on the two controversial studies minimizing the impact of sodium on hupertension in spite of the overwhelming literature saying the opposite.

        4. This is just sad–

          But I followed the evidence – I have been reporting on climate change for nearly three decades now – and changed my mind more than a decade ago.

          There is no straight evidence. None.

          Every bit of evidence for this ‘problem’ relies on unfounded assumption, poor understanding of statistical modeling, corrupted readings—and this is being nice. There seems to be a LOT more evidence that ALL of this is deliberate misinformation in service to the standard leftist revolutionary boilerplate.

          Class warfare isn’t sustainable
          Race warfare isn’t sustainable

          Maybe environmentalist warfare will be sustainable.

          Maybe this will convince everyone to turn all control over to the central planners.

  17. “Professor of Sustainability Leadership at Cumbria University Jem Bendell”

    None of that can be real

  18. I can only deal with one apocalypse a day, and Kamala and Bernie got here first.

  19. Bendell is a liar and he knows it.

  20. He’s spending his time in exotic “Karma Yoga” resorts doing “deep adaptation” retreats. This is not the behavior of someone who really believes we’re going to be in the zombie apocalypse in less than ten years.

    1. In the spirit of collaboration and community-building, you will be asked to contribute about 4 ? 6 hours/week to some center tasks like food preparation or joining the washing up team.

      Afternoons are leisure time ? to enjoy marvellous beaches, to dive into a wild untouched nature with great hiking paths and waterfalls?.. or just hang out in a hammock to rest?.

      No bullshit hassles from the man here.

      1. Deep Adaptation Retreat; aka Jamestown II

  21. Folks, engaging Tony regarding this is not worth an electron. ‘Watermelon’ was invented for scumbags like this; it is his religion, and his last hope to be able to pitch his ‘gimmie, momma! I want!’ ideology.
    Take this away, and he’ll be left with zero justification for his whining; not gonna happen, regardless of evidence.

    1. Correct, why anyone bothers engages this fool is a total fucking mystery.

    2. I give even odds that you get a government check of some sort or another.

      1. “I give even odds that you get a government check of some sort or another.”

        Reckon he’s drunk already? Otherwise, why would a sentient being make that comment?

  22. So, time for carbon-neutral, net-zero suicide centers, for those who want to spare themselves from climapocalypse?

  23. Ten years??? TEN!?!?!?!?!!?
    Last month AOC said we had twelve years!!!
    We lost two years in a month!!!
    OH MY GOD!!!
    By August we will be down to zero years ?.
    zero ?
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

    1. Right!

      So damn urgent that it was wrong to have a Senate vote on the solution!

  24. Phew!

    I was having a mental breakdown over the world ending in 12 years.

  25. The statement “a review of the most recent scientific literature suggests that while climate change will pose significant problems for humanity over the remainder of this century, near-term social collapse due to runaway climate change is unlikely” illustrates how conservatives, libertarians, and other rational people should respond every time a climate alarmist on the left claims that global warming poses an existential threat to life on Earth. It does not, and not even the IPCC claims that it does. Instead of attacking climate science, skeptics should concentrate on attacking the outrageously out-of-proportion “solutions” that alarmists propose for inconvenient environmental changes that our civilization can cope with if we do not destroy the global economy in a futile attempt to prevent them.

  26. Time to change my investments in climate catastrophe for some in climate well being.

  27. Maybe the warming will kill the left half of our culture. They’ve been demanding that we reduce the population for years anyway.

  28. If only R Bailey would learn the word HOAX and and use it more often his writing on this subject would improve greatly.

    You can’t be the science guy if you keep repeating the garbage that the IPCC puts out with out laughing

  29. “HIDE THE DECLINE”- The six million dollar Mikey Mann.

  30. I heard the same Chicken Little ” The sky is falling” bullshit in the seventies.
    First was “We are entering a new Ice Age, and we’ll all be as frozen as a Woolly Mammoth in a Siberian bog before the year 1980 rolls around
    And at the same time was hearing that the planet would be uninhabitable due to the hole in the ozone layer.
    This sounds like everything old is new again.

  31. Juding by the number of Republicans , Democrats, and Reason commenters they leave brain dead, existental climate hype and gonzo climate denial rank among the most lethal narrative arcs of the culture wars.

    https://tinyurl.com/y24hcxa4

  32. Ronald Bailey:

    It is a pleasure to read someone who appears to consider the facts (such as they appear to be) and concedes what the other side gets right. Your continued reasoned approach to matters others generously call “science” (not just on “climate” matters} is both refreshing and thought provoking.

    Please keep up your good work.

  33. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??.
    VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> http://www.AproCoin.Com

  34. Some photonics questions
    What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
    What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
    What is the overlap?
    What does it mean?

    It means that water vapor is by far the predominant “greenhouse gas”. If that is the case on a planet 70% covered by water, then variations in CO2 are not causing warming. Worse. Variations in greenhouse gasses are not causing climate change.

    Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change. The link leads to a review of the paper.
    According to the paper’s findings climate changes are due to other physical phenomena ? not carbon dioxide ? and such changes have always taken place and will continue to do so despite the recent claims at the UN’s Paris climate summit (COP21) to ‘limit’ global warming to two degrees.

    1. Ron,

      How you like that evidence? Read the paper linked. It is on photonics.

      1. And just to be sure you don’t miss it:

        Photonics paper

        It explains the mistake the climate guys have been making for decades. You see. The people doing the climate catastrophe studies are not well versed in physics. And especially they don’t understand photonics. Which understanding is critical to their theories.

        Wot a surprise.

  35. I guess Bendell should be seen as an ally of sorts, since his prediction basically says it is probably futile to do anything about climate change, which fits well with those who say don’t do anything because there is no problem.

  36. “Arctic permafrost thawing would add just a bit over 1 percent to annual carbon dioxide emissions between now and 2100.” But that extra 1% being methane means it is equivalent to an extra 28% to 36% of carbon dioxide.

    1. And there is 100 times as much water vapor (WV) in the atmosphere as CO2. So adding methane decreases the effect of WV from 100 times CO2 to only 73 times CO2. Down in the noise level.

      So originally we could say CO2 has 1% of the effect of WV. With methane we are up to 1.36% Worst case.

      What we need is to cool the planet to get below 32?F Get the water out of the atmosphere.

      And learn to grow crops under a mile of ice.

  37. And BTW Ron,

    The sign of clouds in the equations used in climate models is in doubt. Let alone the magnitude.

    And clouds are a big deal. They form a “blanket” at night and reflect solar energy during the day (as well as being a blanket).

    So tell me about the error bands. When the sign of a significant term is unknown.

    1. Nobody disputes that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. The problem is that this makes the warming caused by extra CO2 even worse, since more heat means more water vapor (the effect is roughly to double the warming).

      1. If water vapor is already dominant how can adding a little CO2 make any difference?

        1. WV and CO2 absorb/radiate in the same bands except for 15um where there is very little energy.

        2. How is physics. That it does make a difference is fact. And water vapor makes it worse, as I explained. You’re not arguing what you think you’re arguing.

          1. No, you’re stating that water vapor makes it worse, but that’s the assumption, not a conclusion.

            Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. And clouds can either retain heat at night, or reflect it during the day. Now demonstrate your straightforward calculation proving the former dominates.

            You must be able to do that, you’re so confident about this.

            1. Why do you grasp at straws? That’s the real question.

              Here’s a good rundown of the issue.

  38. I hope all you non-scientists realize that the error bars on these impressive numbers being quoted are larger than the numbers themselves. Consider the sample size of catastrophic events, or the number of hurricanes per year. Then think about how well your average politician did in high school algebra or statistics, and vote accordingly.

  39. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  40. There really hasn’t been any warming in the satellite data. Since CO2 has been increasing, this means that there is a fundamental error in the warmists theories https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/27/climate-in -case-you-were-wondering/ . (you’ll have to remove the space in the URL, since this comment system rejects “words” over 50 characters)

  41. The more I read on the subject, the more I’m convinced that a sizeable portion of the catastrophic AGW crowd consists of crackpots, the gullible, the ignorant and the mendacious…

    1. Are you reading credible scientific sources?

      1. Translation: by “credible” the questioner means “subsidized by government through taxation”. Bought minds can be relied on to believe what they are paid to invent.

        1. Pretty sure “credible” to bleevers like Tony = the ones already shown to be wrong.

        2. Now you’re getting it.

          Only the studies bought by oil companies can be trusted, I suppose.

          Except even the oil companies agree with me and not you, just like every other person and organization on the planet besides a smattering of yahoo idiots on the internet and in the US Congress.

  42. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  43. Thermometers are the godless deniers of all these Millerite prophesies! Unaltered data shows no discernible increase in temperature over the last 100 years. Such graphs are published at realclimatescience.com and promptly ignored like Petr Beckmann’s articles on nuclear safety. Nor is there any change in the rate of sea level rise compared to the previous century or two. But the subsidized fabrication of imaginary hobgoblins is running in high gear as always.

  44. Phew! I tried to read the whole thing but got so bored. Had to take a few minutes to stoke the coal stove as it’s getting a little chilly.

  45. Mass bleaching used to occur once every 25?30 years in the 1980s

    I can’t parse this sentence: maybe it was intended as before the 1980s?

  46. I found your account very even handed. Well done.

  47. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started ========>>>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  48. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  49. Didn’t we only have 10 years 10 years ago?

    1. We had about 10 years in 1989. Then another 10 or so in the 90s. Now my congresswoman has given us another 12 years.

      I see a trend of people getting it wrong.

  50. “I I first became aware of it during the physical act of love. Yes a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly: loss of essence. Women… women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.”

    – General Jack D. Ripper

  51. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….

    Click this link

    =====>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  52. There’s nothing in that paper resembling a case for why the apocalypse is imminent. It consists entirely of “look how depressing it will be after it happens!”

    1. The closest thing is the assertion that Arctic warming will release methane from methane hydrates on the ocean floor. The problem with that assertion is that even as the surface water warms the lower depths stay pretty much the same temperature. There is more methane in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico than in the Arctic, and its been staying put pretty well.

      Also find it pretty ironic that this Professor of Sustainability Leadership is essentially saying there is no way to be sustainable anymore

  53. Good because there are a dozen other things to have a mental breakdown over.

    So one less thing.

  54. Always the doom and gloom. What about the areas that will be warmer and capable of growing more crops. What about places receiving more fresh water.
    If you think this is catastrophic there should be great deals on beach front property but that unfortunately does not appear to be the case.

    1. what about the coral reef off Italy where there wasn’t one before??

      what about all the same doom and gloom predictions from the 70s??

  55. “Bendell chiefly hangs his prognostication of “our near-term extinction” on the “permafrost carbon bomb” hypothesis.”

    read that book. “Mother of Storms” by John Barnes. good yarn. fiction book, much like Prof. Bendell’s ravings …

  56. Finally got around to reading this.

    Good job, Ron.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.