Climate Change

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Wrong: There Is No Looming Climate Change 'Expiration Date'

No, our kids will not be doomed in 12 years if we don't adopt her Green New Deal.



"Climate change is different because we have an expiration date. And the IPCC report says that we've got 12 years to turn it around, " asserted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) during a recent MSNBC town hall. "So my concern is that we are going to be the frog in the pot of boiling water and we're going to debate and debate and debate and debate and then when we finally pass something it is a wimpy carbon tax and our kids are doomed."

The "IPCC" that the congresswoman mentioned is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the report is its Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC, issued last October. This document evidently alarmed Ocasio-Cortez into introducing her ambitious Green New Deal plan, which aims to beat that 12-year expiration date by "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" by 2030.

Does the report really conclude that "our kids are doomed" if such steep cuts are not mandated? Hardly.

The IPCC asked a group of climate scientists to evaluate how it might be possible to keep the global mean surface temperature from rising 1.5°C above the average temperature of the late 19th century. (This is a more stringent target than that set under the Paris Agreement on climate change, which aims to keep global average surface temperatures to below 2°C by 2100.) The report's authors calculated that in order to have a significant chance of remaining below the 1.5°C threshold, the world would have to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 50 percent by 2030 and entirely eliminate such emissions by 2050. So yes, the report says there's an expiration date if humanity decides to aim for that temperature target. But is it an expiration date for doom? Not so much.

According the report: "Under the no-policy baseline scenario, temperature rises by 3.66°C by 2100, resulting in a global gross domestic product (GDP) loss of 2.6%," as opposed to 0.3 percent under the 1.5°C scenario and 0.5 percent under the 2°C scenario. In the baseline 3.66°C projection, the estimate of future GDP losses ranged from a low of 0.5 percent to a high of 8.2 percent. In other words, if humanity does nothing whatsoever to abate greenhouse gas emissions, the worst-case scenario is that global GDP in 2100 would be 8.2 percent lower than it would otherwise be.

Let's make those GDP percentages concrete. Assuming no climate change and an global real growth rate of 3 percent per year for the next 81 years, today's $80 trillion economy would grow to just under $880 trillion by 2100. World population is likely to peak at around 9 billion, so divvying up that GDP suggests that global average income would come to about $98,000 per person. Under the worst-case scenario, global GDP would only be $810 trillion and average income would only be $90,000 per person. Doom?

It should be noted that if global average temperature can be held to below 1.5°C or 2°C, the worse-case projections for those thresholds suggest that global GDP would be $875 trillion or $870 trillion, respectively; per capita incomes would be $97,500 or $97,000. By the way, average global GDP is now $10,500 per person.

Two other recent reviews of climate change econometric projections basically confirm the IPCC report's findings in this area. A recent report by the highly respected independent think tank Resources for the Future finds that the best-performing combined climate and econometric models "imply global GDP losses of 1–2 percent by 2100." The authors note, "While these impacts may appear modest, even a 1 percent loss to global GDP is equal to $800 billion today and could be 5-12 times greater by 2100 assuming 2-3 percent annual economic growth." In other words: Due to climate change, global GDP in 2100 would be about $10 trillion lower than it would otherwise have been.

A 2018 review by the Sussex economist Richard Tol examined the 27 currently published estimates of the total economic impact of climate change. He concluded that "a global mean temperature increase of 2.5°C would make the average person feel as if she had lost 1.3 percent of her income." Certainly a loss, but not doom.

This is not to say that will not be significant changes for the worse in a hotter world. Coral reefs will likely be badly damaged by warmer seawater; storms may be worse; Arctic sea ice would disappear in the summers, possibly making northern hemisphere weather more erratic. And the summer temperatures in most American cities will resemble those that are currently several hundred miles further south and west of them.

The congresswoman is right that most carbon taxes that have so far been enacted around the world are "wimpy." Nevetheless, most economists favor carbon taxes as the way to steer the economy toward lower carbon energy sources and spur technological innovation. One Swiss study calculated that a carbon tax rebated to taxpayers would abate a given amount of carbon dioxide emissions at about one-fifth the cost of the command-and-control regulations and subsidies favored in Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal.

As I have reported earlier:

There is no denying that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity over the course of this century. In addition, the projections of the climate and econometric models could be way underestimated. Consequently, hedge fund manager Bob Litterman sensibly argues that climate change is an undiversifiable risk that would command a higher risk premium. Litterman likens climate change risk to the systemic risk that investors face in the stock market. It is hard to hedge when unknown unknowns can cause the prices of all assets to decline at once. While Litterman's analysis strongly suggests that some investments toward mitigating climate risk should be made, it is not unreasonable to question the expensive and rushed decarbonization schemes proposed in the IPCC report.

In any case, if the worst-case projections of the IPCC report are even approximately correct, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is wrong—our kids will not be doomed in 12 years, or even in 81.

NEXT: Prince Harry Blames Fortnite Addiction, Social Media for the World's Ills

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now do the one about how Hillary Clinton wasn't named after Sir Edmund Hilary.

    It's a sad state of affairs when it's felt necessary to spend more than 2 sentences explaining how a big pile of garbage is, in fact, a big pile of garbage and an air-headed sock puppet is an air-headed sock puppet .

    1. She's something else isn't she and the press love her and probably want to fuck her silly.

      1. "Our kids are doomed!"

        "Are you propositioning me?"

        1. THINK ABOUT IT?..
          Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

        2. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
          Check For info Here,

      2. "..the press love her and probably want to fuck her silly."

        Never could understand why men find stupid women even remotely sexy.

        1. Some men like the weak silent type. It's an old fashioned thing, but not my cup of tea.

          1. And... AOC is related to that type, how?

            1. It would play much more to her, um, strengths?

            2. Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver.

              1. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

        2. Some stupid women have terrific bodies and can fuck like a panther in heat. Not so great for conversation before or after. AOC sometimes even displays that upper inflection that is a hallmark of dumb bitches everywhere.

          But then she isn't really the one in charge. She is scripted by the Justice Democrats. Very easy to tell when she is on script or trying to ad lib.

      3. Well, she is attractive, but don't stick it in crazy. No good ever comes form that.

        1. Something ropey and gooey does though.

    2. "Hillary, why did you seek the Presidency?"

      "Because it's there."

      1. ^^this!

        1. Nonsense. She sought the Presidency because she lusts for power.

  2. We gonna die in 12 years !!!

    How can you laugh.

    Sell your car and walk for the sake of the childrens. !!!

    1. AOC can't walk anywhere though, have you TRIED walking all day in heels? Like OMG, you guys

      1. Not all day, no.

    2. "Now let's see what happens when you're driving with the 'other guy's' climate policy. You're driving along. You're driving along and all of the sudden the kids are yelling from the backseat, 'I got to go to the bathroom, daddy!', 'Not now, damn it!', natural disaster, eeeee, 'I can't stop!'. Help! There's a cliff! Aah! And your family's screaming [sets model globe on fire] 'Oh my god, we're burning alive!' 'No! I can't feel my legs!'. In comes the meat wagon. [weeooo weeooo] And the medic gets out and says, 'Oh, my god.'. New guy's in the corner puking his guts out. [awwwk awwwk]All because... you want to save a couple of extra pennies. To me, it doesn't..."

      1. Damn. Fubarred that link.

        1. Probably an interesting backstory to that switch...

      2. My parents preferred the older cars with the steel that provided better protection in the event of a crash.

        1. With no crumple zones the car will survive the crash better than your folks, who will absorb more of the inertia inside the vehicle.

  3. A warmer planet will mean better crop yields and more greenery overall. Not sure what the panic is all about.

    1. It's not that simple.

    2. It really is pretty simple. Our CO2 is adding about 150 megatons on green plant life to Earth each year. Higher CO2 concentrations are increasing crop yields and even shrinking the Sahara Desert. The least-benefited crops like corn and soy even get better yields. Everything from winter wheat to lemons to coffee are loving it, and becoming more drought resistant from not having to open leaf stoma so wide.

      1. There are potentially a lot of nonlinear effects that could arise: methane release from permafrost, methane release from ocean floor clathrates, disruption of the Atlantic oceanic circulation (already supposedly happening), weakening of polar vortex jet streams, disruption of moisture delivery patterns, etc. I am not saying any of these will happen, but we should keep these possibilities in mind. To not do that is sheer folly.

        1. "...I am not saying any of these will happen, but we should keep these possibilities in mind..."

          OK, I'm keeping them in mind. So is the 'problem' now solved? Sorry, that's a pile of bullshit.
          Either there is an identifiable problem with some realistic solution or there isn't. 'Keeping X in mind' is worthless.

          1. Well, if we admit that these are all potential problems, with some uncertainty as to whether they will happen and how bad the consequences would be, then we can try to mitigate that risk. Just ignoring things that aren't guaranteed to happen isn't the best approach. My house probably won't burn down this year, but I still have home-owners insurance. I probably won't get cancer this year, but I still have health insurance.

            Personally, I think we're better off using as much energy right now as we can to improve productivity and quality of life for everyone. But that doesn't mean I also believe that action will have no negative consequences.

            Also, if we admit that something is possible, but uncertain then we can also continue to study it so that we can change our minds about how to proceed if necessary.

          2. I hope you don't apply that kind of thinking to economic problems as well.

        2. Methane release from the oceans and permafrost have largely been overestimated according to most recent research. In fact, methane release from the oceans is likely not to occur at all.

          1. If it wasn't for methanogens (members of the archaea that excrete methane as part of their energy-generating metabolism) almost all degradation of organic matter would come to a screeching halt.

            1. Only anaerobic degradation. But what does that have to do with methane deposits?

              1. Nothing, just couldn't help mentioning methanogens (subject of my PhD thesis), bugs that produce evil methane that are, nevertheless, vital for the complete mineralization of organic matter.

            2. Really?

              Egypt's greenhouse gas footprint arases as much from methane from decaying biomass traped behind the Aswan Dam as from its use of fossil fuels.

        3. C and all: I report the latest research on climate change and methane (and lots of other findings) here. The latest research suggests that solidermedic76 is basically right.

          1. Has Ron been listening to Rush Limbaugh again?


          2. Which is a fundamental truth about all 'the world is coming to an end' scenarios. On examination, no matter how persuasive they look initially, they turn out to be overestimating some variable by an order of magnitude or so. Maybe someday one of them will prove out, but it hasn't happened yet.

            I will start to worry when somebody comes up with a panic, and the proposed solution doesn't greatly benefit THEM.

        4. That list makes it look like it is that simple. I don't really think a smattering of absolute worst case scenarios changes anything at all.

        5. Potentially, bad things could happen.

          But actually--not 'potentially', ACTUALLY, good things ARE happening.

          Things that are completely in line with what we know as facts about a warmer planet, greener, more biodiversity, more fresh water.

          But, potentially if we can thicken the atmosphere far beyond what it's been before, then all kinds of horrible things might happen.

          Do any of you ever listen to yourselves?

      2. Methane


    3. Not so Bucko. CO2 fertilization is a narrow range of co2 increase. Business as usual doesn't cut it in fertilization.

  4. Sad fact for the GND; another name for CO2 is plant food.
    Get rid of CO2 emissions, and plants die by the thousands.
    BTW, lots of the crazies that think global climate warming change is a real threat eat plants - - - - - -
    So everybody exhale twice as much as you inhale.

    1. But but but...
      This goes completely against my empty whim for self-importance!

    2. Interesting thing for CO2 levels we are closer to not enough CO2 than we are too much

    3. Get rid of CO2 emissions, and plants die by the thousands.

      That is totally wrong. Plants after awhile in increased co2 do poorly.

    4. The plant eating humans still consume fewer plants than meat eating humans. Do I really need to explain it, or are you just funnin' us?

      1. The K Street cannibals have a different take:

  5. She's got two problems.

    1. She never reads past the 'executive summary'.

    2. She doesn't seem to read English well enough to understand what that summary says. That's not to say she doesn't read English and she speaks it just fine - but those are different skills.

    Oh, and apparently her staff of Millennials doesn't know what Google is or how to check her speeches for obvious inaccuracies - something absolutely vital when they're going to be poured over by hundreds of thousands of middle-aged white dudes who *do* know how to Google.

    1. 3. She's used to yacking at drunk guys in a taco bar hoping to get laid by the waitress who is obviously great at making bad decisions. How likely are they to argue back coherently, even if they could?

      MAWA: Make Alexandria Waitress Again

    2. They, like, had to enact a constitutional amendment to keep Roosevelt from being elected again.

      1. Yea they were afraid he would become a zombie and try to run for office again. Can't have zombies for president, or would that be racist against dead people

        1. I'm not aware of any requirement in the Constitution that the President be living.

          1. We amended the constitution in the 1960's to say the president needs to have brain waves, if I recall correctly.

  6. F. U. C. K. I. N. G. I. D. I. O. T. !!!

  7. Good article Ronald

  8. She's wrong about the frog in the pot of water as well. I tried it with a friend as a teenager - what boy could resist. The frog jumps out when it gets uncomfortable. Only tried it twice, but that was 100%.

    1. It's been tested over and over, even in laboratories. Great metaphor, factually wrong.

    2. She's wrong about the frog in the pot of water as well. I tried it with a friend as a teenager - what boy could resist. The frog jumps out when it gets uncomfortable. Only tried it twice, but that was 100%.

      Technically, she says frog in boiling water. Not that I've run lots of experiments but the rate approaches 100% based on the size of the pot.

      I have no data with regard to debate frogs.

      1. During one lab session in college, my professor had to make the frog hot ...

    3. People are also wrong about herding cats. It's rather easy if you have some tuna.

      1. Your going to loose your guild card if you keep giving up trade secrets.

      2. So how do you herd Libertarians? Pot?

        1. Asssex.

        2. Artisanal Mexican food.

        3. Artisanal Mexican food.

        4. roll a gun in the constitution to look like a blunt and scare them using Mao's picture

        5. A debate about parliamentary procedure!

          We cannot decide how to herd Libertarians until we decide how we decide to herd Libertarians.

        6. So how do you herd Libertarians? Pot?

          A H&R comment section.

      3. A push atop the electric can opener works, as well as opening the meat drawer.

      4. "Herding" implies driving, from behind and the sides. Tuna is leading them. Not the same. The phrase stands as valid.

        1. I bet if you had a well trained pack of heelers you could herd cats fairly easily.

          1. You'd need more herders than herdees.

      5. Strangely, I have a girl cat who doesn't like fish. Bird is a different story.

    4. Another one is that it is actually pretty hard to get a turkey to quit smoking cigarettes.

    5. And I once walked into a room and completely didn't notice the elephant standing there.

    6. I tried it with a friend as a teenager

      Your poor friend! I hope he's OK now.

      1. Yeah, the princess kissed him. His name is Charles now.

  9. a carbon tax rebated to taxpayers

    Heh. Why should we believe it will actually be rebated to us?

    1. Not only that, why is the ONLY solution having the world's worst and largest polluter that produces the most CO2 on the planet - the US government (US DoD, specifically) take MORE money from taxpayers?!

      1. It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

        (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

        Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history."

      2. Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: "We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

        Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

        Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

      3. At least a few of them are honest enough to admit more personal reasons...

        Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' ? and readers' ? attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

        Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."

        1. Good citations, mpercy.

          Note that the rhetoric used is to justify economic manipulation via environmentalism, and vice versa.
          But the endgame that the aim toward which they progress is, and has always been, the accumulation of power for a techno-eugenic ruling caste under global socialism.
          Nazism was always the most honest version of progressivism. Lesson learned: deception is critical to achieving those aims, and that national socialism isn't ambitious enough.

      4. The United States is not the world's largest polluter. Nt the good vernment, not the aggregate of the entire country. The largest polluters are China and India. This is true of CO2, soot, release of toxins, and trash in the oceans. The Great Pacific Trash Vortex is a lie anyway, but even if it were true, multiple studies have shown that some 90% of floating waste in the ocean is from Asia.

        The next time you hear somebody say the US is the biggest polluter, you have grounds to vomit on their shoes.

  10. And the summer temperatures in most American cities will resemble those that are currently several hundred miles further south and west of them

    That actually sounds like a boon for Tucson.

    1. I know Phoenix could use the cooler weather.

      1. Honestly, a slightly cooler Arizona would be Arizona without the only significant hurdle with living there.

        1. June/July is when I escape Tucson for time up in Greer. 8500' elevation does wonders for summer temps.

          1. Yeah, this time of year and Winter is downright nice. 60 degree days, with clear skies is a nice standard of life.

            1. Just spent my first winter in Tucson and totally agree. Will be coming back next year.

          2. Family owned a cabin in Greer from the 50s to the mid 90s. Went back last summer... what a crowded mini cabin clusterfuck.

          3. This is a good time to buy land in Orange County, NY.

    2. Hermosillo, Sonora. I can live with that. It's not that different than Tucson.

      1. Except tucsonans generally respect traffic signals. Hermosillo is every hombre for themself.

    3. So Seattle will have the climate of San Francisco? It'll be like Baltimore in Boston?

      How will those people ever be able to figure out how to live with those absolutely massive temperature shifts?

      She is the Democrat's Dan Quayle.

      1. Dan Quayle was a whole lot smarter than AOC.

  11. Uhm, just so everyone knows, 12 years is a very short timeline. People have been talking about this 12 year timeline for eight months. When you throw out timelines that short, accuracy is important. It's no longer 12 years, it's like 11 years and four months. Possibly less, because I'm not sure when the original report was released.

    1. 12 years. You would think long bond investors would be adjusting. You would think banks start calling in some loans.

      Looks at bond yields.

      Yup. She's an imbecile.

      1. You would think we'd be condemning beachfront buildings, or at least not issuing permits for new ones within the expected increased sea-level flood zone.

    2. I think 2030 is the year in question. I don't know if it's Jan 1 or Dec 31, though. Regardless, yes, they'll need to start saying 11 years pretty soon or else lose all that credibility they never had.

    3. They've been using the 10 to 15 year timeline since the early 80s. Weve never had an apocalypse.

      1. I have a good friend that pus yellow sticky notes on his wall whenever someone in the media or politics makes a grand prediction within an alarming time horizon. It's amazing how full of shit you realize people are when you start putting yellow sticky notes with dates on them all over a wall.

      2. I have a good friend that pus yellow sticky notes on his wall whenever someone in the media or politics makes a grand prediction within an alarming time horizon. It's amazing how full of shit you realize people are when you start putting yellow sticky notes with dates on them all over a wall.

      3. I have a good friend that pus yellow sticky notes on his wall whenever someone in the media or politics makes a grand prediction within an alarming time horizon. It's amazing how full of shit you realize people are when you start putting yellow sticky notes with dates on them all over a wall.

      4. I have a good friend that pus yellow sticky notes on his wall whenever someone in the media or politics makes a grand prediction within an alarming time horizon. It's amazing how full of shit you realize people are when you start putting yellow sticky notes with dates on them all over a wall.

      5. I have a good friend that pus yellow sticky notes on his wall whenever someone in the media or politics makes a grand prediction within an alarming time horizon. It's amazing how full of shit you realize people are when you start putting yellow sticky notes with dates on them all over a wall.

      6. I have a good friend that puts yellow sticky notes on his wall whenever someone in the media or politics makes a grand prediction within an alarmingly short time horizon. It's amazing how full of shit you realize people are when you start putting yellow sticky notes with dates on them all over a wall.

        1. Are you sure?

          1. Orange you glad I didn't say "banana"?

  12. No caption contest for the photo?

    1. "Rick, behind you!"

    2. "Want to hear the most annoying noise in the world? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

    3. "Carmine, you can take your thumb out of my ass anytime now"

      1. Oh, well, great minds...

    4. "HEY! You're supposed to take my temperature orally!"

    5. "The bridge is oooouuuuuuuttttttt!!!!"

  13. I am sooo tired of hearing how climate warming will damage corals.

    They've been around for hundreds of millions of years.

    They survived the dinosaur-killing asteroid.

    They survived the 4-500 foot sea level rise just 10-15000 years ago.

    1. The K-T extinction devastated reefs. As did the end-Permian extinction, which was driven by high CO2 levels. There is a 10 million reef gap in the fossil record after the Permian ended.

      1. Who cares? Nobody I know eats coral.

        1. That's a shitty criterion for whether something is worth saving. Nobody eats butterflies either.

          1. Moths, on the other hand ...

      2. The K-T extinction devastated reefs.

        He said corals, not reefs. Events that irrevocably damage cities don't destroy humans or even necessarily significantly slight humanity as a whole.

        They did survive the K-T as evidenced by reefs both before and after. They did survive the end-Permian as evidenced by reefs both older and younger. The absence of reefs isn't necessarily the absence of coral any more than the absence of grasses is the absence of ungulate mammals.

        1. As a phylum they survived, duh. Many species and groups died out.

          1. Oh well. What is with this weird fetishization of a static living environment?

            1. Do you care if elephants go extinct?

              1. Do you care if elephants go extinct?

                You realize how many megafauna have gone extinct in the last several million years?

                Global warming is also not going to kill elephants, either. Poachers looking for ivory and various body parts for shamanistic magic cures will do that before global warming ever does.

              2. Do you care if elephants go extinct?

                They almost certainly contributed to the extinction of animals like the Giant Tapir. If there extinction allows the tapir to proliferate, why *should* I care?

          2. As a phylum they survived, duh. Many species and groups died out.

            So, you don't care that they came back, you only care that they died, multiple times, as the result of climatic events that had nothing to do with mankind? Seems like an exceedingly narrow point you have there, whatever it is.

            I'd wonder how you get up in the morning with the full knowledge that eons worth of species, genus, families, orders, and classes have gone extinct, but you don't seem to know the difference, or don't care, between a class, a phylum, and an are just agitating and emoting rather than bringing anything useful to the table.

      3. If they had just a carbon tax at the end of the Permian Age, start of the Triassic Age ...

      4. As did the end-Permian extinction, which was driven by high CO2 levels.

        That is not a fact. What is a fact is we don't really know.

      5. They came back, so there must have been some that survived. Is there any gap for 10-15000 years ago?

      6. What's hilarious is that a trial just ended in Australia over you alarmists firing a coral researcher for daring to state that coral are not fragile and are in fact expanding in the oceans around Australia despite the alarmist idiocy.

    2. Corals have gone through die offs in the past. How long will we be without them if we take it the max on co2 pollution?

  14. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Wrong: There Is No Looming Climate Change 'Expiration Date'


  15. If we don't do what A?C says, in 12 years we'll be dancing in the ruins.

    1. Shit, if we don't listen to her then every place in the world will be like Death Valley nights.

  16. Why do they always use the less accurate Celsius? Let me see real American numbers!

    1. All temperature plots should be in the unadulterated Kelvin scale. Stop suppressing the (absolute) zero!

      1. Absolute 0 doesn't exist.
        It is, literally, nonexistence.
        Aka, nonsense.

  17. So, Pennsylvania will have the climate of North Carolina? The horror?

    1. And San Diego will be under hundreds of feet of water.

      1. Best place for it,

      2. actually 20 feet at the most per warmers, my calc's give 7 feet but it ignores land mass rises and ocean sinkage, but maybe you were being sarcastic

        1. NOAA estimates global sea level rise of about 1/8" per year. So in 12 years global sea levels will be about an inch....ONE INCH! Although NOAA also states some areas may experience less.

          1. an inch higher

    2. Have you been in NC during the summer?

      1. Have you been in Pennsylvania during the same period?

  18. "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Wrong"

    Yes. We know.

  19. Great essay.

    Reason magazine is lucky to have Ron, one of the best science writers there is.

  20. Hey Ron, does Reason ever try and get you booked onto any of the cable news outlets, it would be great to get this information out to a wider audience...e.g. Tucker Carlson Tonight etc.

    1. tucker could use guidance thats for sure

  21. If you watch the 1956 Japanese language version of RODAN (with English subtitles for the Japanese-impaired), you will learn that coal mining and global warming will unleash prehistoric dragonfly larvae and pteranodans.

    1. (The American-dubbed version blamed atom bombs but the original version mentioned global warming.)

    2. Pterondons might be a good thing.
      Man may benefit from the presence of a natural predator.

  22. These estimates are also complete guesses, as they assume static technology, industry, trends, economies of scale, etc. Climate Science is dogma, and does not take into account exponential technology most surely solving any "carbon problems" down the road should their be material incentive to do so.

    1. What is dogmatic is your refusal to really understand the science.

      1. What science, renewable guy? Real scientists follow the Scientific Method. The IPCC is run by anti-science, anti-human cretins who REFUSE to follow the precepts of the Scientific Method. They do so of course to try and hide the fact that their "studies" are frauds. Climategate was just the tip of the iceberg, as anyone who knows about short-centered principal components, Yamal, Upside-down Tijlander, Hide-the-Decline, 28Gate, Gleickgate, Glaciergate, etc, etc knows. And anyone with a smattering of history and engineering recognizes that the core hypothesis of CAGW - that because of water vapor, the Earth's climate is dynamically unstable to temperature perturbations - is utter drivel.

  23. The core issue for me is that the Climate Change predictions have been flat wrong so often, and the advocates of drastic measures have been caught lying so often, that my gut reaction to every new revelation is "bullsh*t!". They may be right. We may see the seas rise. But too many of their prescriptions are nonsense (a grid run on solar and wind simply will not work, and battery powered cars are toys) that I can't help but feel that this is one more bunch of religious fanatics who want to tell me how to live.

    Not only no, but HELL NO!

    There are a lot of 'environmental' issues that hit me like this. There may be a real concern, but the actions proposed often look like they will do little or nothing to help, while damaging society seriously.

  24. "The congresswoman is right that most carbon taxes that have so far been enacted around the world are "wimpy."

    Wait. You're advocating for this, Ron?

  25. Who predicts things better? Psychics or climate change prognosticators?

    1. Climate change prognosticators have a record for accuracy rivalled only by 7th Day Adventists

  26. Why did Ron use a picture of Mr. Ed for this article?

  27. In regards to the Alt text: Your right unless the person speaking is John Carmack.

  28. AOC may have slept her way to a degree in economics, but she certainly has no facility with arithmetic...

  29. C'mon, those GDP projections are absolutely certainly wild-ass guesses. Why do we take that sort of voodoo long-term prognosticating seriously?

  30. *If* global warming, climate change or whatever it is called is *really* going to be that devastating and millions are going to die or become impoverished, then what the hangup over nuclear generation of electricity. Let's millions die if we don't do something. Nuclear power plants have killed zero people in the U.S. and it's been around a lot of people for a long time when you consider existing power plants and nuclear ships and submarines.

    Don't do something = catastrophy.
    Solution = cover the earth with solar panels and windmills, kill nature in the process.

    1. That's how you know they aren't actually serious. It's like the gun control lobby trying to ban rifles but ignoring the war on drugs.

  31. "Law of Doomsaying: Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong."
    ~~ Gregg Easterbrook

  32. Oh, the data doesn't actually matter. All the kids believe it because it's been hammered into them at school. By kids I mean the tens of millions pumped out in the last couple of decades. It's their default worldview. Further, they have no intellectual basis upon which to question it because indoctrination is never about discussing a theory; it's about force-feeding a political position.

    And they will increasingly vote the Ocasio-Cortez's of the world into power. And that'll be it: welcome to the New Green Deal. It's a lock.

    But that's OK because the part of the world that doesn't fall for it will prosper. That's how civilisations fall and others grow.

  33. Yeah about that "man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity ".

    The reference he uses makes the entirely unsupported claim that the rising temps are due to large positive feedback mechanisms from the CO2. Nobody -- nobody -- has shown any such positive feedback mechanisms involving CO2 and temperatures, and this reference states that their discovery of such a mechanism is derived from " an insight from dynamical systems theory". IOW, they made it up. No positive feedback, no affect from CO2, and definitely no tipping point into runaway heating.

    Seriously - how can a science journalist buy into this stuff?

    1. I would actually go a step further. There seems to be negative feedback with CO2 emissions. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The correlation with global mean temperature, to the extent we can define that, is weak, especially since 1998. Only an activist, not a scientist, would put out extrapolation models on something as poorly understood as climate.

  34. Well duh! There is zero evidence for any tipping point or catastrophe. In fact the evidence disproves it. CO2 in the past has been up to 11 times higher than today in the Ordovician period. If CO2 was capable of causing a runaway positive feedback climate catastrophe it would've already happened well before humans came on the scene.
    AOC is entirely politically driven and the whole CAGW hypothesis is a tool of the Deep State central banking elite to control every aspect of our economy and lives. They ultimately want a world government and climate governance based on Carbon is a stepping stone towards that.

    1. What part of Eocene Thermal Maximum don't you understand ?

  35. Seriously - how can a science journalist buy into this stuff?

    The vast majority of "science journalist" have no science background. Ron is not an exception.


    Remaining carbon budgets in gigatonnes CO2 (GtCO2) from various studies that limit warming to a 66% chance of staying below 1.5C

    With only one earth to live on, its better to assume the worst and hope for the best. Different studies come up with different times left to get to zero. The longest study gives us 20 years and some studies seem to show its already too late.

    1. If it's too late, I'm sure you'll wish to avoid the APOCALYPSE.
      Suicide would work.

    2. Utter drivel. It is far past time you catastrophe-mongers start relying on honest science instead the lies of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Keith Briffa, and the rest of the anti-science cretins in the IPCC.

  37. Heh, I wonder if Ron cribbed from me: I've been making the argument that we'll still be much richer in 2100 than now ever since the IPCC report came out and people were saying it was the most pressing issue of our time etc... My numbers were slightly different than Ron's but the same basic calculation.

    1. O: Since I am on my mobile I cannot link to it, but I have been writing about this since 2000 in the context of "inter generational equity". Just FYI. Enjoy your weekend.

      1. I didn't *really* think you'd cribbed from me, since where would you have seen me (though I think I mentioned it in these comments once). Mostly I was just pleased to see that you'd made a similar calculation, since I keep putting that calculation in front of people and getting neither pushback nor an "aha!" moment and it really puzzles me. Where is the "existential threat" that has people so frightened??

        Don't think I've read your stuff on "inter generational equity" though it sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find it or if you get a chance link it here. Cheers!

        1. Ah, that wasn't hard to find

          Yeah just in the preview I see exactly what we're talking about here... very cool. My first thought when I even looked up the term "inter generational equity" was: so how much do future people owe us for having made the capital investments that will lead to the leading such richer lives than we do???

  38. What does she mean by "we"? If the sea slowly rises by a few inches, it will mostly affect people living near the ocean. I've been fighting like hell for over a decade for the right to build homes on higher ground, such as my own county and the New Jersey Highlands. The nation as a whole does not have a moral obligation to spare Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's constituents the choice between becoming my new neighbors or figuring out how to think globally and act locally as they stop the oceans from rising.

    Hint: Her city was once called "New Amsterdam".

    1. Hint: the Hudson Canyon extends 200 miles southeast from New York harbor to where you can now sail a supertanker over what used to be sea level -

      What could possibly go wrong with building a dike with two rivers running through it from Newport to Newport News ?

      1. That still isn't remotely close to an existential threat. It's an engineering problem, like billions of others.

  39. According the report: "Under the no-policy baseline scenario, temperature rises by 3.66?C by 2100, resulting in a global gross domestic product (GDP) loss of 2.6%," as opposed to 0.3 percent under the 1.5?C scenario and 0.5 percent under the 2?C scenario. In the baseline 3.66?C projection, the estimate of future GDP losses ranged from a low of 0.5 percent to a high of 8.2 percent. In other words, if humanity does nothing whatsoever to abate greenhouse gas emissions, the worst-case scenario is that global GDP in 2100 would be 8.2 percent lower than it would otherwise be.

    In all fairness, her reading skills can be inferred by the fact that she is "an educator, organizer, and third generation Bronxite."

  40. AGW is bullshit. The world has been ending in a decade since 1989. This is like "Peak Oil" and the inevitable nuclear war of the 1960s. Remember the Doomsday Clock? We were two minutes from extinction for 50 years.

    Find another bridge to sell.

  41. I would take her seriously. I have been watching her closely.

    Alexandria has issued a warning to the planet earth.

    If we do not do as she says she will reveal her true identity.

    Alexandria Ta-ra Xia. Warrior princess of the planet Calgon. Unleashing her superwowers she will summon the forces of the earth gods to destroy the vile human species who have not heeded her warnings.

    Actually I kinda like her I have no idea why.

    1. Because you're insane? NTTAWWT.

      1. At the end she and Wonder Woman who fights to save humanity battle it out on the plains of L'Oreal. Wonder Woman prevails. They become friends, kiss and make up.

        That might be crazy but I am going with it.

        1. "Did somebody say L'Oreal?" -- Joe Biden

        2. The story of Gilgamesh would never work with chicks

    2. she has some kind of Internet voodoo. you can't look away.

  42. Every Cassandra should be required to shut the fuck up the day after the Doomsday they predicted fails to materialize.

    1. Move along , Trojans, Nothing to see here but a big dumb wooden horse.

  43. Once again my friends, I'm trying to be reasonable here. right?
    It is good that people are trying to create action on important issues. Good for her for stirring the pot. Obviously we can't fork over all of our funds to the new green deal, so what should we do to start?

    1. Cut spending until we balance the budget.

    2. So energy efficiency is profit.

      Every single thing I own and use is far better than in the past.

      My cars, and I drive a V8 Dodge charger, it still has more Hp and better efficiency than the older ones. light bulbs are all LED, appliances, everything to batteries are way better.

      So sources are also market driven.

      If you could make a lower cost better solar or other source you could make a fortune.

      There is little need for government in what is more a commodity driven market. Trump just talks drivel when he talks about coal jobs.

  44. Anyone who quotes the IPCC needs to be given about as much seriousness as the infamous hockey stick graph. What a load of stinking garbage the '97 report was

  45. People have been moving to warmer climates by choice for decades. Now the climate is moving toward them. It'll save people money.

  46. So I'm not the only one who's read "Empty Planet"

    I can understand why people wouldn't want to read it, it contradicts the overpopulation narrative that people cling to so they can portray themselves as victims of a doomed world that needs to be saved. If the world population peaks at 9 billion and then declines, who needs liberal policies? Who needs liberals?

    Where's the justification in sacrificing our rights to save the world, if the world doesn't need saving?

    1. Malthus was disproven long ago.

      It is not what the current greenies are arguing.

  47. Google pay me $280 to 390$ each hour for internet working from home.i have made $35K on this month on line do business from home.i'm a ordinary understudy and that i paintings 2 to 5 hours in keeping with day in my greater time efficiently from home..every body can perform this interest and win extra dollars on-line in low renovation via truly take after this connection and take after subtle factors...

    HER E>>>>>>> >

  48. Whatever government tells us or gets involved in is either 100% wrong or ends in 100% failure but they know how to conjure up a way to tax it all. Throw money at it and it will run away they tell us and we vote for these idiots. The most vocal citizens are the ones who have no clue but the squeaky wheel gets the grease- actually it should be replaced.

  49. I think we should kick this can down the road. If we consider leaders from 1919 were to be told that man-made climate change would be occurring over the next 100 years they would have two options: reduce all use of carbon resulting 100 years of stagnation or allow it to continue as expected and face an unknown future. Now we jump back to 2019 and we can easily observe that stagnation would have been awful (technologies that would have been discovered were not because resources were not allowed to be used that would have been required) and that advances in science and engineering has put us in a better position to address these issues. Now let's jump forward to 2119 and look back and consider the same options from 1919. If we choose stagnation then we would be looking at over population and a world where most have moved back into greater poverty due to the world wide depression that continues to that day. If we choose the unknown future, we see that various scientific discoveries, engineering marvels, and increased wealth has resulted in a cleaner world that has normalized and where humans have greater control over weather and nature in general. Of course we will still have the mainstream media so... fear.

  50. "World population is likely to peak at around 9 billion" - why? The only thing more infinite that the universe is human stupidity, so there's likely to never be a stabilization point prior to the die-off. Neither will those concentrating wealth ever stop doing so absent being lynched.

    1. The world fertility rate has dropped from 5.0 to 2.5 from 1950 to 2015. Replacement is 2.1, it's pretty obvious we are headed for the peak, then a decline.

  51. Ronald Bailey is a sucker for bad arguments. And now he thinks he can predict climate change. Climate change is what has always happened, and always will. The factors driving climate change are infinitely complex, cannot be defined, cannot be measured in any meaningful way, and cannot be controlled.

    The idea behind "climate change" is that humans are hurting the environment and must be controlled. Just find the right experts to tell you how, and choose the right politicians and dictators to direct our lives. What a sucker's game! Climate change will happen and humans will have to adapt to survive and to thrive. No need for government interference, which will only hinder success and impoverish and enslave us.

    "Climate change" won't happen in our lifetimes, government policies will affect our freedoms but not control the environment, and anyone who thinks they can predict or direct climate futures will be proven wrong. The world is complex and no one should be put in charge of coping with change.

  52. The truth is the doubling of CO2 by the industrial revolution could very well have saved the planet from a massive extinction event. Plants have been sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere for about 2 billion years and that already caused one great die off when global O2 levels exploded from nothing to 20% of the atmosphere, so it's not unprecedented that plants can change the atmosphere drastically enough to affect all life on the planet.

    CO2 reached dangerous lows going from 0.2% of the atmosphere 200 million years ago to 0.028%, that's an 86% reduction in CO2. Plant life needs a minimum of .018% of CO2 in the atmosphere for photosynthesis, so we were only 0.01% or 100ppm away from an environmental calamity. It certainly wouldn't be the first time some life form caused itself to die off because it consumed all of its available food supply, but if plant life goes, all of us go with them

    Thank God, humanity discovered where the plants hid a lot of that carbon in coal and oil and converted it to life sustaining CO2 in order to keep the planet healthy and reduce our margin of error for CO2 starvation.

    1. Go to the head of the Darwin Award line.

      If you think a factor of 7 change from 2000 to 280 ppm CO2 over 200,000,000 years is dangerous, what about the factor of ~2 experienced in the last 2 centuries?

      It's gonzo to elide Archaen life-- what there was of it -- with what's around today-- eukaryotes, including you, arose from the great die off that attended the dawn of photosynthesis, and the attendent switch to the oxygen rich atmosphere that hosted the evolution of animals in general- again yourself included.

      >99% of the carbon on Earth resides in carbonate rocks or dissolved in the ocean, not fossil fuel deposits and your punch line is simply daft.

      When, not if, plants go , the carbon in them rapidly oxidises to CO2 in a biogeochemical cycle so stable that it barely hiccuped when flowering plants, trees and grasses evolved just 60 million years ago.

      If you want to spout junk science from Junk Science, go back to Climate Depot or Watts Up With That.

      1. Yeah so what does happen when geologic processes, plants, and ocean CO2 absorption drops CO2 below 200ppm?

        I'd say 400ppm is the minimum margin of safety we need, it's certainly well below the long term average. I'm not going to worry about a degree or 2 of warming when we are in an ice age, just because we happen to be in one of the interglacial periods.

  53. When Al Gore and Leo Douchcaprio give up their mansions, and private planes, I'll listen to global cooling....warming....change theories.

  54. Yeah, yeah, AOC! Just go put on a coconut bra and sit down over there under the umbrella. Somebody will be right along soon to bring you a brain tonic.

    1. You asked for a brain tonic? Stop trying to out yada yada AOC and take a swig of this:

  55. I came here to read the comments from Tony. I am so disappoint. Me go away with sadz.

  56. In those calculations did anyone consider the value of the increased crops due to higher CO2? Did anyone consider the drop in extreme weather related deaths. A warmer world would have fewer deaths from cold which kill more people than heat?

    Did anyone consider the drop in productivity due to the loss of the most efficient and reliable forms of energy?

    I haven't read these reports and probably won't (I have a life) so Ron...were any of these questions addressed?


    Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness


  59. I call her AOC=Always Obnoxious Cucaracha.

  60. Common sense tells you that no one (and I mean NO ONE) can project what the world will be like in 80 years.

    Consider our world 80 years ago: In 1939, Adolf Hitler was making noises toward Poland, aircraft carriers carried propeller-driven planes, the capital ship of all navies except the Japanese was the battleship, transistors had not been invented yet, and what computers that existed had to use vacuum tubes, the structure of DNA was unknown, penicillin still was in the developmental stage, and DDT had yet to win the Nobel Prize, let alone be banned. Commercial television was a pipe dream. And America laughed its butt off at Amos 'n Andy. Man on the moon? Science fiction! Atom bombs? What's "atomic"? And, as for blitzkrieg, recall the German army did that with an infantry still moved primarily by HORSES! Interstate highways? That was called "Route 66." The money still was made of silver (gold having been stolen by the fascists, foreign and domestic). And American concentration camps for "Japs" still was three years in the future.

    In short, all of these climate alarmists need to be told to take their projections and toss them where they belong. One cannot be an expert in this area who has not read Karl Popper, and it's obvious that none of these people have done that at all. They are, in a quieter way, what AOC makes no pretense about being: Loud, obnoxious, arrogant, ignorant fools.

  61. It's hard to believe that someone as intelligent, rational and well-informed as "Chiquita Khruschev" could be so wrong.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.