Climate Change

Climate Change: How Lucky Do You Feel?

Current evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century. This will have substantial impacts on human life.

|

"The age of climate panic is here," declared David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming (Tim Duggan Books), in a February 2019 New York Times op-ed. He's certainly right about the panic. University of Cumbria Professor of Sustainability Leadership Jem Bendell predicts that man-made climate change will result in a "collapse in society" in about 10 years. Novelist Jonathan Franzen has warned that it will soon produce "massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought."

Are they right?

My first article in Reason related to global warming appeared in 1992. It was a report on the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was negotiated. By signing the treaty, I noted, the "United States is officially buying into the notion that 'global warming' is a serious environmental problem" even as "more and more scientific evidence accumulates showing that the threat of global warming is overblown."

But in subsequent decades, as I continued to cover the science and policy of global warming, I began slowly—too slowly for some—to change my mind. In 2006, I wrote that "I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem."

I have spent the last several months revisiting the question, trying to figure out if the current level of "climate panic" is scientifically justified. The earth is indeed warming. Climate researchers uncontroversially agree that the average global surface temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius since the 19th century. About half of that increase has occurred during the last 30 years. As the planet has warmed, mountain glaciers around the world have been shrinking, Arctic sea ice has been declining, rainstorms have become somewhat fiercer, the area affected by extreme droughts has been expanding, the amount of heat being absorbed by the world's oceans has been increasing, and the global sea level has been rising.

Past those points of scientific consensus, intense disputes begin straightaway. Researchers disagree about how much of the warming can be attributed to increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They clash over which temperature records are more accurate with respect to how fast the earth is warming. They debate whether or not the sea level is rising at an accelerated rate that threatens to inundate many of the world's biggest cities. And they argue about whether the predictions generated by complicated climate computer models can be trusted enough to guide policy.

I have unhappily concluded, based on the balance of the evidence, that climate change is proceeding faster and is worse than I had earlier judged it to be. There are still big scientific uncertainties, such as just how sensitive the global climate is to a given increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. And the proper public policy remains far from clear. Still, most of the evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century—probably more than 2 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial level. Such a temperature increase will definitely have substantial impacts on human beings. (For a more detailed review of current climate science, visit reason.com/climatedata.)

A Global Commons Problem

Man-made climate change is a global open-access commons problem. Since no one owns the atmosphere, no one has the incentive to expend effort protecting it from plundering. The "tragedy of the commons" occurs because every individual has an incentive to use the unowned resource before someone else does. The result is overconsumption, underinvestment, and ultimately depletion of the resource. This is happening around the world as many fisheries are declining, tropical forests shrinking, water shortages spreading, and rivers and airsheds growing more polluted. In this case, the resource being depleted is a (more or less) stable global climate.

It's time for market-oriented folks to recognize these facts and figure out the best way to handle them. If we don't offer solutions to the public, the only ones on the table will be those proposed by people who misunderstand economic principles or are unfriendly to market capitalism.

In an October Yale Climate Connections podcast, the Case Western Reserve University law professor (and Volokh Conspiracy blogger) Jonathan Adler explained it well. "A lot of the expected and predictable consequences of climate change are things that we recognize to be violations of property rights and have recognized as violations of property rights for centuries," he said. "If we accept that climate change is a problem, [and] if we accept that it's causing the sorts of rights violations that libertarians normally think justify government intervention, that should shift our discussion from whether there's a case for government intervention to what type of intervention and how do we maximize the likelihood that that intervention produces the sorts of results that we're trying to get."

There are three ways to handle overexploitation in an open-access commons: privatize it, regulate it, or ignore it. All of those choices are inherently political decisions. "The science" does not tell us what must be done.

Most economists generally think of climate change resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases as a "negative externality." These occur when production and/or consumption of a good or service imposes uncompensated costs on third parties.

Nobelist Ronald Coase showed years ago that when there are well-defined property rights and minimal transaction costs, the party creating an externality and the party affected by the externality can negotiate with each other to bring about the socially optimal market quantity—in this case, a mutually agreeable level of emissions that takes into consideration the environmental harm being done without stopping economic growth and development. In addition, Coase found, it does not matter who holds the property rights, as long as someone does.

In the case of carbon dioxide emissions, the lack of assigned property rights in the atmosphere forestalls the sort of market transactions that balance costs with benefits. The price an individual pays for electricity for his home or gasoline for his car includes the monetary costs to extract, refine, and transport those fossil fuels—but it does not include the environmental costs of burning them. In a functioning market, users are obliged to internalize (i.e., pay for) the environmental costs they impose on others.

Option 1: Privatize It

Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) represents a kind of atmospheric privatization effort. Under the ETS, private companies are allocated tradable permits authorizing them to emit a ton of carbon dioxide for each allowance. Companies that can be productive while emitting less carbon sell their extra permits to other firms that find it more costly to make emissions cuts.

The aim of the ETS is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so the number of permits declines over time. Recent research suggests, however, that the ETS has so far been only modestly effective at encouraging emissions reductions. It seems European political authorities allocated so many permits that prices have remained too low to prompt much cutting by emitters.

Another way to try to put a price on the external costs of carbon dioxide emissions is to impose a carbon tax. In January 2019, nearly 3,600 economists endorsed the "Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends," which explicitly supported such a plan.

"A carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future," the group declared. It "will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development" while accelerating the spread "of carbon-efficient goods and services."

A huge plus for a carbon tax is that it would replace the current host of onerous and more costly top-down regulations and subsidies aimed at reducing emissions. Moreover, the revenue from the tax could "be returned directly to U.S. citizens," the economists wrote, "through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families would benefit by receiving more in 'carbon dividends' than they pay in increased energy prices."

Under the carbon dividend proposal, the tax would increase predictably over time. But economist Robert Litterman, the former head of risk management at Goldman Sachs, argues that the possibility of very unhappy surprises occurring as climate change proceeds over the course of the century constitutes an "undiversifiable risk" that should command a high risk premium. Consequently, Litterman's analysis suggests that an initially high (but revenue-neutral) carbon tax that declines as climate uncertainties are resolved would a better way to mitigate climate risk.

Option 2: Regulate It

In February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)  introduced a resolution urging Congress to adopt the Green New Deal (GND), a sweeping plan to totally remake the American economy to address the climate crisis. The GND sets the goal of "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" by 2030.

Three of the leading Democratic candidates for president—Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), and Kamala Harris (D–Calif.)—have endorsed the GND resolution, and each has proposed spending trillions of dollars over the next 10 years to implement comprehensive proposals addressing the problem of climate change. These include such steps as "dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources," building "'smart' power grids," overhauling the U.S. transportation system by subsidizing electric-powered vehicles and public transit systems, and "upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency."

One obvious problem with the GND is its assertion, without evidence, that tackling climate change requires, among other things, guaranteeing every American a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, retirement security, and the right to unionize, plus access to high-quality health care and affordable housing. But the effectiveness of even the climate-related aspects of the GND is dubious. For example, in a 2017 study, Swiss researchers calculated that a carbon tax rebated to taxpayers would cut the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions at about one-fifth the cost of the sort of top-down, command-and-control regulations and subsidies envisaged by the GND.

A more defensible suggestion would involve government support for new technologies that reduce emissions. "The paramount goal of climate policy should be to make the unsubsidized cost of clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels so that all countries deploy clean energy because it makes economic sense," the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation argued in a 2014 report. Instead of rushing to deploy current expensive and inefficient low-carbon energy production methods, the ITIF researchers recommended that governments spend $70 billion annually on research and development seeking technological breakthroughs aimed at achieving dramatic cost reductions for nuclear power, carbon capture, fuel cells, smart grid technologies, electric vehicles, solar photovoltaics, wind power, and other forms of energy efficiency.

A downside of such a tech-push strategy is that energy breakthroughs are often unpredictable and governments don't have a great track record of seeing into the future. They also may not materialize fast enough to ameliorate the problems caused by climate change.

Option 3: Ignore It

The basic premise of most climate agreements is that to prevent temperatures from increasing to possibly dangerous levels, all the countries of the world would have to agree to—and then abide by—a plan to dramatically cut their emissions. But this is probably both politically and economically unachievable. According to the nonprofit Climate Analytics group, if all countries meet all of their current pledges under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the average global temperature in the year 2100 would still increase by 3 degrees Celsius.

In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued Global Warming of 1.5 °C, a document that has come to be known as the Doomsday Report. It found that the world would have to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 50 percent by 2030 and entirely eliminate such emissions by 2050 in order to keep the global average temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.

What would be gained by making such steep immediate cuts in emissions? Citing the results of integrated assessment models that combine climate and econometric data, the report noted, "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%." Meanwhile, under a 1.5 degree scenario, GDP would be reduced by 0.3 percent, and under a 2 degree scenario it would be reduced by 0.5 percent.

Different models come up with different estimates, and the IPCC noted that 3.66 degrees of warming could possibly reduce global GDP by anywhere from 0.5 percent to 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 numbers concrete. Assuming no climate change and a 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 expected to peak at around 9 billion, so divvying up the total suggests that global average income would come to about $98,000 per person. Today, in comparison, that number is just $11,300.

Under the worst-case scenario, global GDP would be $810 trillion, and average income would be $90,000 per person. Folks two generations from now will be about eight times richer, giving them more wealth and better technologies with which to cope with the problems stemming from a much warmer planet.

Of course, any calculation projecting economic and climate outcomes nearly a century hence needs to be taken with a vat of salt. We can't be sure exactly what will happen—but there is a case for letting global warming run its course and letting markets figure out how to respond.

Continued economic growth and technological progress would surely help future generations to handle many—even most—of the problems caused by climate change. At the same time, the speed and severity at which the earth now appears to be warming make the wait-and-see approach increasingly risky.

Will climate change be apocalyptic? Probably not, but the possibility is not zero. So just how lucky do you feel? Frankly, after reviewing the scientific evidence, I'm not feeling nearly as lucky as I once did.


For more detailed climate change and temperature trend analysis, please visit reason.com/climatedata.

NEXT: Bill Barr is Wrong to Claim Courts Cannot Examine Government Motives

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. “Current evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century. This will have substantial impacts on human life.”

    So here’s a guy that went from a minor problem to a significant problem is less than 6 months ?

    What was the big report or whatever that changed his mind
    ?

    1. He had to reevaluate his wokeness and shame.

      1. “Past those points of scientific consensus,. . .”, when did science become a “majority rule proposition?

        Computer models have consistently been proven wrong over the decades. Heck, they can’t even “predict” climate in hindsight.

        Can someone tell me what the proper climate is at any given time in history?

        Oh, why are us human types being so mean to plants who thrive on CO2?

    2. I don’t understand how Reason has become befuddled by climate doomsayers. Theres so much involved in weather, With researchers referring to it as “the most chaotic nonlinear phenomenon we know” (or something to that effect). Excluding everything but carbon dioxide seems unscientific, especially of what we know of the earths historical weather record, that included two times in the past where weather was as hot or hotter than it is now (the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods). We’ve been warming at a steady pace ever since, specifically we’ve warmed .08 degrees since the mid 1800s. And that track is basically on par with observable warning now. The statements about significant warming are ALL based upon models. Modeling is NOT evidence. Will things be warmer in 100 years? Most likely. Will
      It be 3 degrees? Probably not. But the real issue is that the media, Reason included, are following a relatively unscientific prediction of weather 100 years from, based upon models that have never matched observed temps, that are weighted with CO2 as the catalyst, and CO2 is arguably a political choice as opposed to a purely scientific choice.

    3. 2019 – 2006 = 6 months to a right-wing magpie.

      What was the big report or whatever that changed his mind

      Fucked that up, too! Have a high school student read this and explain it for you. Have the kid click the link immediately above A Global Commons Problem

      Do you know what a links is?

      1. LTT:

        Fucked that up, too! Have a high school student read this and explain it for you. Have the kid click the link immediately above A Global Commons Problem

        Do you know what a links is?

        Lead exposure? Bi-polar? Need an anger management class?

        1. Need a brain?

          HE FUCKED IT UP.

          ARGUE THAT HE DID NOT — NO MORE INFANTILE AD HOMINEMS – STOP BEING A WHINY PUSSY.
          (DID YOU READ THE LINK?)

          DO YOU ALSO DEFEND THIS:

          2019 – 2006 = 6 months to a right-wing magpie.

          1. I don’t need a brain, but you need a psychologist, stat.

            NO MORE INFANTILE AD HOMINEMS – STOP BEING A WHINY PUSSY.

            LOL. Although you are psychotic, you would be a great comedian.

            1. CALLED OUT …. COLLAPSES LIKE A WET NOODLE.

              1. No, you got that backwards. I called you out, and you collapsed like a wet noodle.

                1. (yawn) Not just psychoi ,. a DUMB psycho

                  NO MORE INFANTILE AD HOMINEMS – STOP BEING A WHINY PUSSY.

                  CALLED OUT …. COLLAPSES LIKE A WET NOODLE.

                  No, you got that backwards. I called you out, and you collapsed like a wet noodle.

                  BWAAAAA HAAAAA
                  ANOTHER AD HOMINEM … MOAR WHINING LIKE A PUSSY!,

                  Now FIVE whiny pussy attacks, because he REFUSES TO READ THE FUCKING LINK THAT is a THUG.

                  WHAT KIND OF PSYCHO CHASES ME DOWN THE PAGE … SCREECHING PERSONAL ASSAULTS AND WHINING … WHY?

                  BECAUSE I AGAIN DARED TO PROVIDE A LINK TO .,.. PROOF.

                  Fucked that up, too! Have a high school student read this and explain it for you. Have the kid click the link immediately above A Global Commons Problem
                  Do you know what a link is?

                  1. You have all the social skills of a homeschooled teenage D&D addict. How did you ever get elected Dumbfuck, Hihn?

                    1. Self Defense

      2. I understand that f upped people like you who can only answer by being crude to others should not even deserve this reply

        1. Well-stated.

    4. In 2006, I wrote that “I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem.”

      What do you mean – “believe?”

      1. Have a 12-year-old explain it to you.
        Slowly.

        1. Maybe he’ll write an official religious text on his “belief” next.

          1. Another cowardly evasion.

            1. “Have a 12-year-old explain it to you.
              Slowly.”

              “Another cowardly evasion.”

              LOL!

              1. ANOTHER cowardly evasion!

                For any other illiterates and/or cowards.

                believe
                [bəˈlēv]
                VERB
                1) accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
                “the superintendent believed Lancaster’s story” ·

                2) be convinced by · trust · have confidence in · consider honest ·

                3) accept the statement of (someone) as true.
                “he didn’t believe her or didn’t want to know”

                RELIGIOUS belief is the 4th definition.
                Do you understand how a dictionary works?

                Do you “believe” 2 + 2 = 4?
                Is it because the Bible says so?

                LOL!

                SNEER!

                You may now return to kicking kittens.
                (smirk)

                1. Piss off, Hihn, you chakra-fondling Gaia cultist.

                2. When all else fails, go for Bold font!

                  1. When all else fails, go for Bold font!

                    I HAVE TO SHOUT THE DEFINITION TO SUCH IGNORANT PERSONS, YOU, HIM AND, FANCYLAD

                    THIS, TO YOU IS ALSO RIDICULE..

                    LOOK HOW FANCYLAD WHINED LIKE A PUSSY, IN GOBBLEDYGOOK BECAUSE I POSTED … A DICTIONARY DEFINITION! Nobody could INVENT anything that wacky!!

                    THIS may drive him INSANE: “2 + 3 = 5”
                    (lol)

            2. Cowardly evasion? You mean like this:

              “Have a 12-year-old explain it to you.
              Slowly.”

              1. That’s not an evasion. (lol)
                Are you equally ignorant of what “believe” means?
                https://reason.com/2019/12/01/climate-change-how-lucky-do-you-feel/#comment-8032280

                Are you as stupid on what THIS means?

                In 2006, I wrote that “I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem.”

                Are you CRAZY enough to “believe” that is a religious belief, of Ron’s?

                1. The point is, it is a belief not based on evidence, but rather faith. If we actually had evidence there would be no controversy in the scientific community. The only thing that is relatively agreed upon is that the climate has changed by roughly 0.8C over the last 150 years with a margin of error of 0.98C. The future is unknown. So yes, unless science has suddenly produced a 150 year weather predictor that has more than 50/50 reliability, it is entirely faith based to claim we are heading for some doomsday.

                  1. The point is, it is a belief not based on evidence, but rather faith

                    The point is, you’re full of shit .. which is why NOBODY ELSE made such a lie.

                    And you keep piling MORE bullshit,.

                    If we actually had evidence there would be no controversy in the scientific community.

                    HE REPORTED BOTH SIDES OF THAT

                    The future is unknown.

                    THAT’S WHAT HE SAID.

                    it is entirely faith based to claim we are heading for some doomsday.

                    WHICH IS WHY HE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM — YOU PATHETIC, PSYCHO LIAR,

                    YOU HAVE PROVEN WHAT INFORMED AND RATIONAL OBSERVERS HAVE LONG KNOWN … AS IN SO MANY ISSUES … BOTH EXTREMES ARE PROMOTING HYSTERIA … THE CHICKEN LITTLE EFFECT, BOTH SIDES.

                    JUST LIKE THE DOOMSDAY NUTJOBS … YOU MANDATE TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR OWN SEMI-LITERATE DIKTATS .,.. OR GO APE-SHIT … AND full-of-shit.

                    1. You keep that up Hihn and you’ll run out of boldface pixels!

                      Then what’ll you do, Mr. Smartypants? Huh?

                    2. Add me to your enemies list, you sick fuck.

                    3. Add me to your enemies list, you sick fuck.

                      THAT WAS AN UNPROVOKED ASSAULT — ON A LENGTHY THREAD THAT NEVER DEALS WITH YOU — BULLYING — BY A THUG WHO NEEDS RAGE THERAPY.

                      ***THERE IS NO ENEMIES LIST. LAST OF THE SHITHEADS HAS MANIPULATED YOU … AGAIN> .,. WHICH ALSO MAKES YOU A WILLING PATSY!!. (slang for a sucker)

                      There is a list of “sick fucks” .. like you ,,, who launch unprovoked assaults … as you did here. It hasn’t been updated in over a year.

                      ROGUE’S GALLERY – REASON THUGS

                      This was created because it’s easier for me to link … than constantly reposting the PROOF that these goobers’ non-stop assaults and aggression are …. bat-shit crazy … as they scurry around like cockroaches.

                      The Authoritarian Right has always hated libertarians – fiscal responsibility and social tolerance for a half-century

                      Archive of my published writing on Taxes, Health Care and New Federalism (a link to ,… humiliation of the goobers)

                      The Sickest of the Sick Fucks … NOW say this is my “enemies” list, making me the aggressor … instead of them. Cyber-bullies be TOTAL psychos! Because my link to this page also exposes THAT mental affliction of theirs.

                      It also includes PROOF that the dipshits who call me a lefty .. like you have …. are TOTAL psychos ,,, SEE me on Taxes, Health Care and New Federalism. SEE my platform for privatizing health care … 2000 campaign for WA Insurance Commissioner on the actual Seattle Times website! (snort)

                      ***HYSTERICALLY, Last of the Shithheads recently linked to that page … WHICH PROVES HE”S FULL OF SHIT CALLING ME A LEFTY … ON THE SAME PAGE WHERE HE DOES CALL ME A LEFTY!!! ….***WHICh MEANS HE PROVED HIMSELF A LIAR!!!*** (omfg, orgasms with joy)

                      May I suggest therapy for your uncontrollable, raging hatred? Can your health care provide an ego replacement to replace the tiny ego you have now?.

                      ===

                      Okay, I’m done defending myself from your latest assault You may go back to torturing kittens .. and setting fire to gerbils.

                      But …you’ll probably make a total public ass of yourself .. at least twice more. GET THE THERAPY ….. BEFORE YOU HAVE CHILDREN (it CAN be hereditary)

                      xxx000

                  2. The point is, it is a belief not based on evidence, but rather faith

                    Too many sources for you?

                    HOW STUPID IS A CONSERVATARD?

                    If we actually had evidence there would be no controversy in the scientific community.

                    WE HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT TRUMP LIED … SHAMELESSLY … ON WHO INITIATED THE MASS ASSAULTS WITH SWINGING CLUBS, AND EVEN MURDER … IN CHARLOTTESVILLE .. TO DEFEND FUCKING NAZIS AND RACISTS.

                    *****ALLOW ME TO BLOW THE CRAP OUT IF YOUR FAKE BULLSHIT
                    **** …WILL HE DENY THIS PROOF ALSO???

                    Charlottesville!. When YOUR President LIED to defend YOUR favorite people: neo- nazis and white nationalists. ABSOLUTE PROOF!

                    LIE: In press conference, Trump says alt-left initiate he assaults, charging his alt-right base, swinging clubs.

                    The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie at press conference… as the snotty punk he is.

                    “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

                    Trump lied … shamelessly — to defend Nazi and racist assaults. SHOUTS DOWN news media – as he always does when guilty. Calls them LIARS. “I watched it all on television … SO DID YOU.”

                    BULLSHIT. Nobody watched it. NO news cameras at the assault. News reports broadcast what they called “personal videos” (cell phone videos). None recorded the actual assault.

                    That’s WHY the President’s “worst” act was saying “… good people on both sides.” USELESS, because that would include two good folks on one side, fifty on the other side.

                    Next, UNDENIABLE PROOF he’s a lying sack of shit

                    1. Part Two …. Steve SMACKDOWN

                      2) VIDEO PROOF: The initial assault.. (Private video found on an alternate news twitter feed)

                      *”Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
                      *Alt-Right Fascists/Racists charge en masse, swinging clubs.
                      * Fascists carrying police-style riot shields. The assholes CAME for violence.

                      SHAME ON EVERYONE who LIES about the truth, to defend a morally debased President, over country and honor.

                      NEXT: THE SMOKING GUN.

                    2. Part Three …. Steve SMACKDOWN
                      THE SMOKING GUN!

                      4 men found guilty in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’ (Trump’s own DOJ

                      Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization “Rise Above Movement.”

                      A fourth defendant, Cole Evan White, will be sentenced at a later date, the attorney’s office said.

                      “These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California,” U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

                      “They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies.”

                      This is now being converted to a Press Release, sent to all major media outlets, with all evidence … and to the House impeachment committees.

                      Watch this thread. I shall be punished for this. Trump’s not the only psycho on the alt-right.

                      ****WELL … WILL STEVE DENY THIS PROOF … TOO?
                      WHAT ABOUT HIS FELLOW TRUMPTARDS?
                      (smirk)

        2. Its really sad how the socialist government is brainwashing our youth into spouting religious rot…

          Once upon a time they use to learn things that were predictable, reliable and worth while; now it seems more than not its just who’s religion is “true” and labelled as “facts” of which no fact can be found.

      2. What do you mean – “believe?”

        He’s a science believer, like Tony. That makes them superior to those of us who demand data, access to computer model code, etc.

        1. He does have a quasi-religious bent. Note his absolute veneration for some out-of-context SCOTUS writings, as if they were the literal Word of God.

          1. IS FREDDY THE WACKIEST WINGER ON THE PAGE?</B?

            Note his absolute veneration for some out-of-context SCOTUS writings, as if they were the literal Word of God.

            THEY ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND!
            WHICH PISSES YOU OFF, AS AN TOTAL AUTHORITARIAN.

    5. Bailey jumped the shark – again…another Green Tale brought to us by Reason…The Alarmist Rag for Libertarians

    6. Literally every prediction of climate doom, and literally every other prediction of liberal doom–from nuclear war to peak oil to the population bomb to the coming ice age they are now trying to retcon as never a thing, even though there are literally thousands of professional papers on it, has failed to happen.

      It’s all statist bullshit.

      1. Literally every prediction of climate doom, and literally every other prediction of liberal doom–from nuclear war to peak oil to the population bomb to the coming ice age they are now trying to retcon as never a thing, even though there are literally thousands of professional papers on it, has failed to happen.

        THAT’S WHAT BAILEY SAID — ON CLIMATE CHANGE! bwaaa haaa

        WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU REPEAT YOUR ROBOTIC SLOGANS, WORD FOR WORD … EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONTEXT?

        “Oh look, something about climate! I’ll get my file of slogans to copy/paste. Doesn’t matter what the article says. My Masters tell me these are BIBLICAL TRUTHS!

        Like the bullshit that God intended sex to be ONLY for procreation? (which is WHY human females MUST be in heat, like dogs)

        Or that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman? (which is why marriage was not a sacrament until 1500 years after the death of ChristI

    7. What was the big report or whatever that changed his mind
      ?

      Reply
      Five successive IPCC reports piling on the data, and decades of an unambiguous global warming trend that has been happening scary fast at high latitudes- so much so that ice loss under the idnight sun has taken a bire out of the Earth’s albedo.

      I’ve watched Ron’s conversion by the evidence- not the models , which which have been much misrepresented by both sides in the Climate Wars, even though they have been getting sounder and solider as time progresses.

      Unfortunately, Madison Avenue, K Street , and the usual suspects on the left have continued to hype the hype as usual

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/11/k-street-creatives-ready-halftime-ads.html

      1. Nooo.
        There is neither historical nor theoretical evidence that CO2 at these levels, at this time, is in control of climate. And further, we are not in control of CO2.
        The natural experiment was conducted in 1929-1931, when human CO2 production went down by 30%, CO2 rise continued in languid fashion, and temp kept rising to 1941. At which point, during WWII and postwar reconstruction, temps went down – only slightly, but enough to generate the headlines “New Ice Age Coming” – see Time and Newsweek and ScienceNews in the early 70s.
        Arrhenius was observant, and honest, enough to note that the GHG effect of CO2 declines exponentially, with 50% of its effect in the first 20 ppm. We are in the fifth half-life of that decline, so the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%.

        1. NEVER a source for their babble.
          And we all know why@

          1. You could look it up.
            Incredulity is not refutation. It’s ignorance.

    8. What a load of horseshit.

      Reason is a Trojan Horse, classic Progressive manipulation: Create a website that will attract the rational/libertarian Right, be rational/libertarian for a couple years until the readers trust that the site and its writers represent the rational/libertarian perspective, then use the site and the writers to infect rational minds with progressive dogma dressed in libertarian clothes.

      Fuck you, Reason.

      If you believe in man-made global warming, good luck to you. You’re a sucker.

      In fact, I recommend that you sign up for my “How to not be a sucker” course! Just send $5,000 to me and I’ll teach you how to NEVER get ripped off or surreptitiously indoctrinated again!!

    9. The Navier-Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means no finite set of past data states can ever be sufficient to predict a distant future state with confidence. No quantifiable confidence can be placed in any prediction for a Navier-Stokes system. This has been known since Edward Lorenz published “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow ” in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences in 1963. Anyone who pretends to predict distant future states of a Navier-Stokes system is either incompetent, or a fraud, or perhaps both.

      1. The atmosphere is described by the Navier-Stokes differential equations.

    10. Even if we assume (never a really great idea!) that it is getting warmer…isn’t there a danger that being politically correct and blaming human activity may steer us away from some other factor that may actually be the cause of the alleged climate change?

      1. Great idea! Bailey said the same thing!

    11. Crud. Sorry, hpearce, I mistakenly clicked on the stupid flag-spam flag.

      Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to be wired to anything…

      1. It’s part of the fraud here.

  2. Of course, any calculation projecting economic and climate outcomes nearly a century hence needs to be taken with a vat of salt. We can’t be sure exactly what will happen—but there is a case for letting global warming run its course and letting markets figure out how to respond here.
    Perfect

    1. The climate will do what it was always going to do and we aren’t god got alter the outcome one way or the other. Not anytime soon anyway.

      1. I think AOC told Ronnie there would be no more weekly pegging until he got his mind right.

  3. Ronald, your article is a fact free, argument free opinion piece. You can’t even claim experience or credentials since you don’t have any in this area. In other words, your opinion is worthless.

    1. Bingo. Especially because if you did an actual review of the science, you’d see that the Earth has been warmer in the past, that 1 degree warmer can’t make anything worse, and there is little evidence that humans are actual causing the warming.

      The climate hysteria is a moral panic. It’s based on faith, not science. In fact the climate hysteria is based on a complete rejection of science. The models have never been wrong. The temperature data is constantly being manipulated to fit the desired result. There is no repeatable experiments – the biggest thing science demands.

      1. He didn’t even do an analysis as to why you might think the change in temperature is net negative, rather than net positive. He just assumes that if the temperature shifts, it’s bad.

      2. You guys sound like fools arguing that climate change is not happening. You are losing the argument right out of the gate. The climate IS changing, and it is proven. That’s not where the argument is. The real question is whether the climate change is catastrophic, or at least significant to require regulation. And the answer to that question is NO.

        1. Where did I argue that climate change is not happening? You’re confabulating as usual.

          Climate change is indeed happening. There is nothing we can do about it. And the consequences range from a few percent of world GDP loss (relative to a much larger GDP to begin with) among the climate alarmists (IPCC, Obama) to “probably a good thing” (sane people).

        2. So the climate isn’t static? Damn nigga that’s deep.

          Of course the fact that we’ve experienced no unadjusted warming since 20 years ago and the hysterical predictions of climate catastrophe are based on warming and not change would be rather inconvenient to your wikipedia-sourced IFLS worldview.

        3. The real question is whether the climate change is catastrophic, or at least significant to require regulation.

          The real question, Chip, is how a single degree rise, over a period of over two centuries, in a system with a basic margin of error of three degrees is even mentioned AT ALL.

          Climate change IS happening. It HAS to happen. We live on a planet with a very mobile atmosphere. The climate can do nothing BUT change.

          So why do you fuckers want to stop that?

          And the answer to that question is NO.

          1. “is how a single degree rise, over a period of over two centuries, in a system with a basic margin of error of three degrees is even mentioned AT ALL”

            This is an extremely important point that is constantly missed and it irks me since I studied econometrics. You can have a mathematically sound model with all the bells and whistles and statistical tests and the result can still be complete bogus if you sampled poorly, if you’re trying to quantify something unquantifiable, or if the thing you’re quantifying is so small that it is literally impossible to model (climate models).

            1. Maybe saying the same thing, but…or if the change you are quantifying is smaller than the margin of error, which they conveniently never show on their graphs. NYT is notorious for doing this with their “hottest year ever” annual stories. They don’t show the range of temps at each point, because that would make it obvious that there isn’t any difference.

              1. Exactly. What people don’t get is that data that falls within the margin of error could itself be nothing more than mathematical noise. That’s why it’s so important to pay attention to the stochastic error term, confidence intervals, and also the variety of tests used to make sure your math is sound, such as the White test for heteroskedasticity (varying variance, fucks up BLUE assumptions and modeling if you have significant figure here).

      3. I don’t think it’s moral panic. This is a very targeted attempt to be rid of fossil fuels, as well as elites establishing carbon exchanges (Al Gore). It’s activism and activists being used by a handful of wealthy. The woke European media is totally bought-in. You can’t watch 10 minutes of the BBC without a report about climate from the perspective of “isn’t it crazy that we have 12 years to change course and yet such-and-such doesn’t care!!?” This is much bigger and coordinated than simple moral panic.

      4. Mindless goobers, educated in nothing,repeat the brainwashing of their masters. How many of them are too fucking stupid to click the link for HOW Bailey reads the evolving science.

        https://reason.com/2019/11/21/what-climate-science-tells-us-about-temperature-trends/

        Because bellowing memorized phrases will replace any and all need to even have a mind at all. Convenient. because they don’t have one.

        1. “Because bellowing memorized phrases will replace any and all need to even have a mind at all”

          Like what you’re doing right now?

            1. Instead of letting us know you are smirking with (smirk) can you take a picture of you smirking and send it to us with a link?

              1. send it to us with a link?

                READ THE LINK I ALREADY GAVE YOU! (sneer)

    2. N: Did you have a chance to click on the much longer analysis of climate data and scientific literature at the end of the print article? See URL: https://reason.com/2019/11/21/what-climate-science-tells-us-about-temperature-trends/

      1. Yes. You talk at length about whether average global temperatures are even rising in the first place, extrapolate over a century, and then jump directly into:

        Will climate change be apocalyptic? Probably not, but the possibility is not zero. So just how lucky do you feel? Frankly, after reviewing recent scientific evidence, I’m not feeling nearly as lucky as I once did.

        This jumble of factoids and issues is supposed to connect past observations of warning with a “non-zero possibility of apocalyptic climate change” in the future. You skipped about a dozen different steps, results, and assumptions along the way.

        1. N: Evidence with citations please.

          1. You first Ron

            1. Ron’s has been published. Two separate pieces.
              (smirk)

          2. You make the logical leap from a global average temperature increase to the possibility of apocalyptic climate change, with no evidence or citations. You pepper your articles with details of your personal journey.

            I didn’t make any claims about the climate either way. What do you want me to provide evidence or citations for?

            1. JUST HOW STUPID IS THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT?

              CANNOT CALCULATE FOR C! … 1.5 x 100 = C
              THAT STUPID!

              You make the logical leap from a global average temperature increase to the possibility of apocalyptic climate change, with no evidence or citations.

              LIAR
              1) CLICK HIS LINK AND STOP SCREECHING!
              2) TEMPERATURES ARE RISING … NO DEBATE …
              3) FOR THE REST — MY 10-YEAR-OLD NEPHEW IS SMARTER THAN YOU! Elementary school math!!

              1.5 (degrees per year)
              x 100 (years)
              = 150 DEGREES WARMER!

              Progtards: 1.5 x 30 = 1,000,000
              Conservatards: 1.5 x 1,000,000 = 0

              NEXT ***ABSOLUTE*** CHICKEN-SHIT EVASION!

              I didn’t make any claims about the climate either way.

              (snort)
              You whined (like a pussy) saying his conclusions are wrong … BASED ON WHAT?

              What do you want me to provide evidence or citations for?

              YOUR CONCLUSIONS, SKIPPY.
              MAN UP TO THEM OR REMAIN A BLOWHARD.

              You pepper your articles with details of your personal journey.

              ARE YOU A LIAR OR ILLITERATE? BOTH???
              https://reason.com/2019/11/21/what-climate-science-tells-us-about-temperature-trends/

              This is called JOURNALISM (gasp). 1) Ron summarized history of the issue
              2) Summaized current knowledge of the issue (READ THE LINK).
              3) Stated that past hysteria has produced wildly inaccurate predictions.
              4) Summarized all current major proposals

              RON? .. His only conclusion is that the change is real … with sources given … NO conclusion on its pace or consequence.
              NONE AT ALL

              YOU? Total, absolute … opinion … based on what? Your bullying ass refuses to say. And the adults in the room know why you refuse

              Your “scientific method” is total, mindless, conformity to your tribal puppet masters … as useless as the left-wing drones.

              THAT IS WHY YOU REFUSE TO STATE YOUR BASIS … BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO BASIS! JUST BELLOWING …AND COWARDLY EVASION

              LEFT – RIGHT = ZERO
              NEITHER CAN SOLVE THIS SIMPLE EQUATION FOR C
              100 x 1.5 = C

              But, if history repeats, this will be followed by MORE bellowing, MORE rage … and MORE FAILURES to solve a simple, Jr. High equation. The Authoritarian Right has been burning books, censoring and shooting down differing views, for hundreds of years. Now, even the left does it.

              That’s why God invented libertarians!

              1. This person has psychological problems.

                And definitely that guy at the party that no one is going to talk to.

                Going on and on about the “authoritarian right” while embracing the authoritarian left in their quest for total dominance in the climate doomsday religion.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

                1. This person has psychological problems.

                  COWARDLY EVASION … SOLVE THE EQUATION (smirk)

                  going on and on about the “authoritarian right” while embracing the authoritarian lefT

                  CUT THE BULLSHIT, COWARD.

                  LEFT – RIGHT = ZERO
                  NEITHER CAN SOLVE THIS SIMPLE EQUATION FOR C
                  100 x 1.5 = C

                  THAT MEANS THE AUTHORITARIAN LEFT AND AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT ARE BOTH WRONG. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

                  AND YOU FAIL TO SOLVE A SIMPLE EQUATION (that exposes your fallacies).

                  while embracing the authoritarian left

                  I DENOUNCED BOTH … AS LIBERTARIANS HAVE BEEN DOING FOR OVER 50 YEARS.

                  ONLY AUTHORITARIANS EVADE THE ISSUES TO LAUNCH PERSONAL ASSAULTS, TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY SUBSTANCE … WHICH IS YOU … ON THE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE.

                  SOLVE THE EQUATION — It’s THAT easy to PROVE you wrong.
                  Be a MAN, not a PUSSY..

                  1. LOL

                    I’m going to have to print this out and frame it.

                  2. ONLY AUTHORITARIANS EVADE THE ISSUES TO LAUNCH PERSONAL ASSAULTS, …

                    Be a MAN, not a PUSSY..

                    LOL!

                    1. GENIUS QUOTES PROOF THAT HE IS AUTHORITARIAN.

                      Now FOUR cowardly evasions
                      https://reason.com/2019/12/01/climate-change-how-lucky-do-you-feel/#comment-8032280

              2. The smelly, schizophrenic homeless guy has arrived and is muttering to himself that he is going to beat everybody up.

              3. “1.5 (degrees per year)”

                Umm what, lol? No wonder you are so riled up: you confused 1.5 degrees per *100* years with 1.5 degrees per year.
                Yeah, even I’d be concerned at 1.5 degrees per year, but you’d basically have to burn one continent per year to even try to raise the temperature that much.

              4. You are a moron. You proved it with your “take 1.5 x 100 = C and solve for C” insanity.

                The rate of the change is around 0.8 degrees per century, not per year!!!!

                The equation you are looking for is 0.8 x 1.5 (centuries). Solving that gives you 1.2 degrees by 2100. If the rate of increase of the increase in temperatures goes up you could get more warning by 2100. But the rate of increase of the increase is stalled right now. So my equation is correct when looking at current trends. Note that is still 1.2 degrees warming, but it’s not the 4-5 the IPCC was warning about 3 reports ago.

                You see CO2 can only warm so far, in fact it’s a nonlinear increase (I.e. the next doubling of CO2 concentration will not double its impact, the impact will be far less).

                In fact it’s likely that the CO2 warming causing other warming forcings hasn’t show up for 20 years now.

                So if I had to bet on year 2100 temps I’d bet about 1.5 degrees warmer (or less) and no chance of catastrophe.

          3. Rob: Wei Zhang gave you some of that below, and you brushed him off. Any reason we shouldn’t expect you to do the same again?

            1. Have somebody read that for you.

              1. Have someone read that for you.

          4. Tell you what, Ronnie, you get a single one RIGHT, and I’ll give it some thought: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

            Literally every single prediction of AGW, ice age (which they now try to deny they predicted), population bomb, peak oil, pollution, everything, turned out to be unsubstantiated bullshit.

            I do disaster prep for a living, for various clients including government agencies. The climate is waaay down the list below volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes and nearby supernovae. WEATHER is a concern–hurricanes, ice storms, etc, which despite numerous claims, show ZERO statistical coincidence with alleged warming.

            That’s before we get into the fact that the average temperature of the Earth the last 300 million years is about 5c WARMER than now. And that we’re finding Viking-era farms melting out of Greenland glaciers, that were obviously not under the ice during the MWP.

            YOU provide ANY evidence that the “predictions” have any credibility, and we’ll talk.

        2. Forget it, Ron. These semi-literate magpies are pissed … PISSED … that you mentioned AOC … without sneering, jeering, farting and shaking your fists at the sky.

          Trumptards on another hissy fit. Their fucking fucking fascist mentality cannot comprehend that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will cost them …. nothing

          Here like so many issues today, both extremes are manipulated into bat-shit crazy hysteria, like …. well … abortion.

          The Authoritarian Right – The Authoritarian Left = Zero
          (The goobers can’t even understand the simplest of equations)

          Ignore the commentariat, Ron. All they ever have is “I AM TRUMPTARD HEAR ME ROAR BELLOW.”

          1. This has nothing to do with a Trump you senile democrat. Mow please, libertarians are talking here, and we’re very busy. Go play with your soiled diapers elsewhere.

            1. This has nothing to do with a Trump

              (snort) I NEVER MENTIONED HIM, CHUMP!

              “TRUMPTARD” is a retarded FOLLOWER of Trump, with a certain mentality. I’ll add boldface for all the other Trumptards here.

              Trumptards on another hissy fit. Their fucking fascist mentality cannot comprehend

              that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will cost them …. nothing

              (yawn)

              1. Psychotically disabled person says “trumptard” and then acts like he never referenced Trump.

                that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will cost them …. nothing

                If it has zero impact, then we don’t need it. I would recommend you get one of those high school kids you keep talking about and have them read you the definition of “tax.”

                1. (My tone and boldface in self-defense of unprovoked assault … and multiple, non-stop, fuckups … by a SEVERE Trumptard)

                  I NEVER MENTIONED (Trump) CHUMP!
                  “TRUMPTARD” is a retarded FOLLOWER of Trump, with a certain mentality. I’ll add boldface for all the other Trumptards here.

                  Psychotically disabled person says “trumptard” and then acts like he never referenced Trump

                  BOLDFACE ,… AND THE TRUMPTARD STILL CONFUSES:
                  a) Trump
                  b) A Trump follower

                  *** THAT’S LIKE CONFUSING CHRISTIANS WITH JESUS CHRIST! …. and THAT defines Trumptards!
                  (and progtards)

                  EVEN CRAZIER!

                  Trumptards on another hissy fit. Their fucking fascist mentality cannot comprehend … that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will cost them …. nothing

                  I would recommend you get one of those high school kids you keep talking about and have them read you the definition of “tax”

                  “REVENUE NEUTRAL”, TRUMPTARD!.

                  If it has zero impact, then we don’t need it

                  REVENUE NEUTRAL DOES NOT MEAN ZERO IMPACT

                  THANKS FOR ILLUSTRATING MY POINT!

                  “TRUMPTARD” is a retarded FOLLOWER of Trump, with a certain mentality.

                  1. BOLDFACE ,… AND THE TRUMPTARD STILL CONFUSES:
                    a) Trump
                    b) A Trump follower

                    I wonder what these have in common? LOL!

                    …that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will cost them …. nothing

                    “REVENUE NEUTRAL”, TRUMPTARD!.

                    LOL!

                    REVENUE NEUTRAL DOES NOT MEAN ZERO IMPACT

                    THANKS FOR ILLUSTRATING MY POINT!

                    Then why promote it as revenue neutral? LOL!

                    1. BECAUSE IT IS REVENUE NEUTRAL.

                  2. BOLDFACE ,… AND THE TRUMPTARD STILL CONFUSES:
                    a) Trump
                    b) A Trump follower

                    I wonder what these have in common? LOL!

                    …that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will cost them …. nothing

                    “REVENUE NEUTRAL”, TRUMPTARD!.

                    LOL!

                    REVENUE NEUTRAL DOES NOT MEAN ZERO IMPACT

                    THANKS FOR ILLUSTRATING MY POINT!

                    Then why promote it as revenue neutral? LOL!

                    1. BOLDFACE ,… AND THE TRUMPTARD STILL CONFUSES:
                      a) Trump
                      b) A Trump follower

                      I wonder what these have in common? LOL!

                      ONE MORE TIME

                      *** THAT’S LIKE CONFUSING CHRISTIANS WITH JESUS CHRIST!

                      DUMBING IT DOWN

                      ALL CHRISTIANS ARE NOT JESUS CHRIST … WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

                      Even crazier

                      REVENUE NEUTRAL DOES NOT MEAN ZERO IMPACT
                      THANKS FOR ILLUSTRATING MY POINT!

                      Then why promote it as revenue neutral? LOL!

                      BECAUSE IT’S REVENUE NEUTRAL! (snort)

                      YOU REPEATED FUCKUP IS ASS-uming THAT REVENUE NEUTRAL MEANS “NO IMPACT”

                      THE IMPACT IS ON THE USE OF CARBON FUELS!!!
                      THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND SAYS THAT DEMAND DECREASES WHEN THE PRICE INCREASES.

                      PERHAPS THIS IS YOUR FUCKUP
                      1) You pay $15 extra for carbon fuel
                      2) You get a $15 rebate on, say, your income taxes.
                      3) Rightwing dumbfucks … grunt ,,, fart … and say, “If it costs me nothing to continue using the same amount of carbon … (lol)”

                      Libertarians — as young as 12 — respond, “SWITCH FROM THE CARBON AND POCKET THE $15.”

                      ….. CARBON USAGE DECREASES …. BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO CAN COPE WITH THE MATH OF THAT 12-YEAR-OLD … which is NOT my crazed stalker

                      But …. keep making a public ass of yourself … by getting dumber and dumber, and laughing like a hyena … as you stalk me down the page … or …. do you feel manly NOW?.

              2. Dude, go jerk off to Trump somewhere else. The adults are talking here.

                1. Adults talk like that 12-year-old bully on the school bus?

          2. Look at this brainless moron bellowing memorized phrases.

            1. <b?Which one's Trumptard?

          3. Hihn Kissing Ron’s Ass – Memorized Phrases = Zero

              1. Flat Earther Hihn – Links To His Own Meth Fueled Posts = Zero

                1. Readers are urged to
                  1) Click the link
                  2) Think for yourself (ignore the authoritarian right)

              2. Hinh psychotic rage posts – doomsday climate religion = Zero

          4. Forget it, Ron. These semi-literate magpies are pissed … PISSED

            You are the one cussing and typing in all caps.

            1. (sneer)
              That’s RIDICULE.. (so is this)

              1. Keep sneering while I laugh.

                1. KEEP LAUGHING LIKE A HYENA … KEEP MAKING A PUBLIC ASS OF YOURSELF
                  https://reason.com/2019/12/01/climate-change-how-lucky-do-you-feel/#comment-8032338

                  AND KEEP STALKING ME .. AS REVENGE FOR HUMILIATING YOU.
                  (The goon will laugh again … click that link and join the ridicule)

                  1. Do you really think you’re impressing people?

  4. What if we convince every country in the world to take 2% (or whatever I’m just making that up) from military spending and redirect it to funding a global moon landing like science project to capture and store greenhouse gases? That would kill two birds with one stone and put humanity on a more united and saner path.

    1. I’m all for cutting military budgets but it won’t do any good at all if redirected to climate. Bjorn Lomborg has done some excellent work on the best use of limited funding at the “Copenhagen Consensus”. Cost/benefit analysis on climate mitigation policies typically scores terribly vs other uses of funds. https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

    2. Physics gets in your way on that. CO2 sequestration is a well proven technology using basic chemical engineering operations. However, you cannot get around the fact that there’s nothing to do with the CO2, and that separating and compressing it will take a lot of energy (plus, there are serious questions about the viability of long term storage). Every power plant is currently required to evaluate the practicality of CO2 sequestration as part of the permitting process. To my knowledge, not one has been required to implement it because the economics are so ludicrous.

      If you want, we could put that research into Fusion or Nuclear power. However, fusion has the same problem that it just might not be possible.

      1. Nah, fusion is clearly possible, Bikini Island proved that. It’s steady state fusion that doesn’t look feasible. You could always just build a really large plant powered by fusion bombs.

        But even if you can make it work, fusion is uneconomic relative to fission. It’s just to difficult to pull off, too finicky.

        1. I remain optimistic about steady-state fusion. I don’t think the sun is gonna go out anytime soon. Seriously, though, just read any of the press releases from people working on this. We just, like, need stronger magnets, man.

          1. Stronger magnets and nature not coming up with new instabilities, you mean?

            No, even if you get the stronger magnets, fusion isn’t going to be economical, because the equipment is going to be just so finicky. Ultra pure vacuums, first walls that don’t out-gas under horrific neutron fluxes, superconductors near million degree plasmas, recirculating huge energy flows to keep everything going.

            The Victorians could have built fission reactors if they’d known the physics, fission is that easy. Not fusion, that’s hard.

            1. neutron fluxes??? million degree plasmas??? Now yer just makin’ shit up.

      2. Nuclear power already works quite well, regulators just need to get out of the way.

        1. Thorium!

          1. Thorium is nice, but Uranium is more than sufficient.

          2. I know there are experiments under way with thorium reactors, but is that technology ready for prime time, large scale use?

            1. You don’t need Thorium. The technology to have nearly waste free nuclear power plants based on Uranium has been around for decades.

              1. Awright, time to hit you with the “citation needed”. Please don’t link some bullshit about Sodium-cooled fast reactors. Those were tried and failed miserably.

        2. I think NIMBY is a bigger problem for nuclear power than regulations.

      3. What if we built a pipeline network to outer space? Is that possible?

        1. Physically possible. Logistically absurd, but physically.

          However, if you want to steadily murder the biosphere by the same method as Space Balls, then that’s the method to do it. Below about 190 ppm CO2, our current plant life starts to die off. If humans hadn’t come along and started burning fossil fuels, Earth would have been in trouble in 50-60 million years. Plus, you have a loss of finite resources. The Faded Sun Trilogy explored the effects of multi-eon abuse of fusion power with a similar result (near-complete loss of the world’s water)

          1. “Below about 190 ppm CO2, our current plant life starts to die off.”

            Objectively, it’s already suffering badly from CO2 deficiency, which is why greenhouses routinely supplement it.

            1. For marijuana cultivation, CO2 concentration is routinely increased to upwards of 1500 ppm during the light portion of the day.

              1. ImanAxzolm
                Your “source” is … not very reliable … lotsa sexy LOOKING charts … no sources .. on a nobody’s blog … for those who WANT to beleeb.

                The HYSTERIA is that CO2 concentration of 400 ppm is so low that it will soon not support human life.

                “If we reduce CO2, all human life on earth will perish!”
                -Chicken Little

                This is the right-wing version of left-wing hysteria. The further opposite we are, the easier for the elites to manipulate us, for their power, not ours,

                Let’s do some real research.; HELP ME, GOOGLE!
                https://earthsky.org/earth.atmispheric-CO2-record-high
                1) Todays 400 ppm CO2 is the highest it’s been in 61 years of MEASURED data.; ASSUMED the highest in 800,000 years (Smithsonian)
                2) It was about 300 ppm in 1960. All human life perished …
                but nobody told us we’re all dead. Damn. 🙂

                (Second link requires a part 2)

                1. Part 2

                  THIS LINK is to the results of a Google search for “CO2 concentration 2019” (no quotes)

                  Pick a source, a real source, out of 30 million or so. Perhaps explore some suggested link.. I clicked for he health hazards over 1,000 ppm.

                  Sadly, many folks — prayerfully not you — will conclude “I don’t want this to be true, so NASA and Smithsonian are phony sources.”

                  Explore as many sources as you need, to make whatever informed judgment you reach. You and I may disagree. But we’ll both be more informed voters. That’s a win, eh?

                  Thank YOU for motivating my own exploration here!
                  ,

        2. What if we built a pipeline network to outer space? Is that possible?

          It would be a lot cheaper just to convert the C02 back into solid carbon. It came from solid carbon anyways. And this is actively done right now with vegetation. Trees suck out C02 and it is stored as organic material (wood).

          1. Petroleum is a sold! Who knew!!

    3. There is no workable solution that can require us to ‘do something’. Our failure is that we (current generation) do not have the slightest clue what to actually do. That’s not going to change and we are going to spend the rest of our lives arguing about what may or may not even happen. Even if we were to do something, there is no means of holding those actions accountable – and without accountability there can be no management.

      There is a possibility of a solution that requires us simply to restrain ourselves – monetize that restraint – and set it aside as an actual economic asset for a future generation to actually figure out what works better than we can. But it is far easier to write that out as a sentence than to turn it into a reality.

      1. “We” already know what to do: remove regulations holding back nuclear.

        1. No – YOU have a preexisting agenda and like all conservatives YOU will pretend that furthering that agenda will solve every problem.

          I’m sure you actually believe it workable – a massively centralized energy production/distribution option – where the US also becomes the uberpoliceman of the world to ensure that only ‘friendly’ govts/peoples do the ‘approved’ thing re nuclear.

          To everyone else who is rational that is one fucking weird combo of central planning, imperialism, and the dumbest sort of stupidity.

          1. Why not have private nuclear reactors? Molten salt reactors are very unlikely to have an explosion or a positive feedback reaction.

            1. I’m pretty certain that if the US can’t handle the thought of Iran or North Korea doing their own thang re nukes, the thought of ISIS doing same is not ‘acceptable’ either.

              1. Iran, North Korea, and ISIS simply aren’t factors in carbon emissions. They can burn cow dung for all we care.

                1. Iran is the 8th largest carbon emitter. Just behind Germany/SKorea and just ahead of Saudi/Canada.

                  1. FFS, look at the numbers. Iran is 1.81% of total world emissions, North Korea is 0.10%. They are irrelevant to the total.

              2. If you think you can get weapons-grade materials from Thorium-driven molten-salt reactors, you just disqualified yourself from the debate based on your ignorance.

          2. Not to mention the little REALITY that nuclear is not remotely an option that helps future generations since they are – AGAIN – left only with the debt of that energy source. A big pile of toxic waste. They get absolutely none of the benefits of current generation. No one on this planet has solved that waste problem.

            1. Bill Gates has a new model that actually uses the waste to power new reactors. He was going to build the first one in China but Trump’s new policies nixed that.

              1. No, China’s bad behavior nixed that. You sound like someone who blames the rape victim, saying they ‘asking for it’.

            2. Modern nuclear reactors leave very little nuclear waste, so there is no “waste problem”.

              1. Amazing. You type words and actual problems simply disappear.

                1. No, I’m simply stating well-known facts. Go look them up.

                  1. Link to them.

                    1. Thorium nuclear waste only stays radioactive for 500 years, instead of 10,000, and there is 1,000 to 10,000 times less of it to start with…The fact that thorium reactors could not produce fuel for nuclear weapons meant the better reactor fuel got short shrift, yet today we would love to be able to clearly differentiate a country’s nuclear reactors from its weapons program.”

                    2. Thanks, but non-responsive to NOYB2’s assertion.

                    3. Oh, Hihn, we have these things called “search engines” and “Wikipedia” these days, where you can find out about such things.

                    4. WATCH NOYB2′ LATEST MASSIVE FUCKUP!

                      Oh, Hihn, we have these things called “search engines” and “Wikipedia” these days, where you can find out about such things.

                      CALLED OUT AS A BULLSHITTER … HAS NO SOURCE … MASSIVE FAIL.!

                      An arrogant prick!

                      No, I’m simply stating well-known facts. Go look them up.

                      Translation: “I don’ need no fucking sources … you MUST believe me … unless YOU can prove ME wrong.”

                      More proof: the AUTHORITARIAN Right … in all its dictatorial splendor.
                      (sneer)

                  2. NOYB2 is absolutely correct. These aren’t the reactors from the 1950’s.

                    1. COWARDLY DIVERSION!
                      WHY DOES HE REFUSE TO PROVIDE A SOURCE?
                      WHY DOES THE ONLY SOURCE PROVIDED …. FAIL?
                      https://reason.com/2019/12/01/climate-change-how-lucky-do-you-feel/#comment-8032557

            3. “big like of toxic waste”

              Modern science has it down to a thimblefull, lying dumbass.

              1. Source, not infantile screeching.

                  1. Thanks for a source ,.,, WHICH IS FUCKING USELESS TO HIS PSYCHO BULLSHIT.

                    big like of toxic waste”

                    Modern science has it down to a thimblefull, lying dumbass.

                    Are you people ALL psycho liars.

                    THESE ARE THE FIVE FACTS AT YOUR “SOURCE”

                    1. COMMERCIAL USED NUCLEAR FUEL IS A SOLID

                    2. THE U.S. GENERATES ABOUT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF USED FUEL EACH YEAR

                    3. USED FUEL IS STORED AT MORE THAN 70 SITES IN 34 U.S. STATES

                    4. USED FUEL IS SAFELY TRANSPORTED ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

                    5. USED FUEL CAN BE RECYCLED

                    Oh, it’s you. 🙂 🙂

                1. “Infantile screeching” is what you engage in. And apparently, you’re unable to use a search engine.

                  1. “Infantile screeching” is what you engage

                    You just made an ass of yourself AGAIN.
                    I got the source … BEFORE you made an ass of yourself.

                    And apparently, you’re unable to use a search engine.

                    Like all self-righteous assholes, your arrogance DEMANDS that your babbling be accepted as absolute truth … “I don’t need no fucking source. I AM GOD.”

                    When widely publicized research concludes that global warming will start accelerating in 10-15 years.

            4. Everyone who can count to eleven without pulling off a boot is laughing at you.

          3. No – YOU have a preexisting agenda and like all conservatives YOU will pretend that furthering that agenda will solve every problem.

            I’m not a conservative and I don’t have a “pre-existing agenda”. I used to be opposed to nuclear. I changed my mind after looking into the facts.

            To everyone else who is rational

            Well, that obviously doesn’t include you. You already have your mind made up and you are blind partisan.

            1. I’m not partisan at all. I have no problem with nuclear energy. I have a problem with seeing it as some ‘solution’ to climate change. It isn’t.

              1. I have a problem with seeing it as some ‘solution’ to climate change. It isn’t.

                The world could easily get most of its energy from Uranium-based nuclear fission for thousands of years. Yet, for some reason, you deny that it is a “solution to climate change” based on what?

                1. I’m not willing to trade the certain calamity of high-level nuclear waste and nuclear weapons proliferation for the uncertain calamity of catastrophic climate change.

              2. I agree. Mostly because there is no real solution to climate change.

                That is, unless you’re like Tony and are prepared to cut the entire human population in half.

              3. AGW is bullshit, so no solution needed.

                1. That may be so, but just to be safe, we need to give the government a lot more money and control so they can save us.

          4. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not the same thing, you fucking halfwit.

          5. Thanks for demonstrating that you know nothing of nuclear power processes, but flip out at the mention of the word.

            I hope when you’re starving and freezing you’ll have a re-assessment.

          6. You need to drink some more box-wine and pet your vegan cats.

      2. Jfree

        I do not think that our generation has no clue. We have lots of clues. There may be no grand solution possible it is a matter of many small innovations in ways no central planning could account for.

        Look around at how much more efficient and better your stuff is. We have found and use cleaner energy than a generation ago.

        There are two keys I think.

        Raise global wealth. To afford and develop new technologies you need to think on that level because it is a global issue. Libertarians have long preached free trade which means free movement of goods, services, and people.

        Government should not engage in wasteful products and planning. It can support the market to help innovators to develop and produce new and better technology. Because many of these will fail I think a limited amount of support is warranted.

        1. the problem is twofold:

          re the market solving the problem. If that is being advocated for Hayekian reasons, I agree completely. If it is being advocated for neoclassical/marginalist reasons, I disagree. Cuz that latter is exactly what has caused the problem to begin with. The certainty that land is meaningless in economics.

          re govt action. If you’re just making some point about socialism or AOC or GND, I agree but I find that whole line of argument tiresome outdated and lazy. If you’re saying govt can have no role whatsoever, well I find the anarchist crap as tiresome oudated and lazy as the socialist crap. And the Constitution in fact does provide a strong rationale for govt ‘interest’ in the Preamble – secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity

          In both the Hayekian and Constitutional arguments, there is a strong implication that the solution lies in self-restraint by us (either because we cannot hope to have the knowledge that future generations will have or because there is a direct conflict between our liberty and our posterity’s liberty) – not action by us.

        2. “Raise global wealth”
          YES. And the thing most effective in doing so? Getting out the fucking way of markets etc.

    4. Or just build nuke plants. But that’s a proven solution to the “problem”.

      Can’t have that though. If you believe in cagw and don’t promote nukes now then you’re either stupid or evil.

    5. A moon base you say?

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EzsVdZ2Bea8

      Im totally down with that. Purple wigs and all.

  5. Man-made climate change is a global open-access commons problem. Since no one owns the atmosphere, no one has the incentive to expend effort protecting it from plundering.

    This is far far deeper – and hence far less ‘fixable’ – than a ‘tragedy of the commons’ problem. Which BTW is completely misunderstood by propertarians who fail to read either Hardin or Coase.

    This is about the failure of economics itself in incorporating ‘land’ into the neoclassical/marginalist model. And about the failure of law itself to understand the three elements of ‘property’ – usus, fructus, abusus

    Even if the atmosphere were to be privatized – and some utopia was imagined where we would all pay to breathe – it doesn’t fix the damn problem AT ALL. Because economics does not deal with generational impact when it comes to land. Interest rates are the only way economics deals with time – and that is a cost of CAPITAL not a cost of LAND. Even when it comes to intergenerational capital – we fucking suck at paying our own costs.

    The next generation does not vote in the political realm and does not carry any weight in the market – and until a way can be figured out that it can do both – esp re land which is precisely what will be abusus’ed when land turns into legal property, then there is NO SOLUTION. Things will only get worse because intergenerational theft pays.

    1. The next generation does not vote in the political realm and does not carry any weight in the market

      So you are saying that “only people who vote in the political realm carry weight in the market”? That’s utterly imbecilic. In fact, the only people carrying weight in a free market are market participants.

      1. No I am saying that LAW is ultimately the outcome of the weight of people voting. Since ‘the future generation’ has no weight in that, it will always lose whenever any legal structure is created.

        And it is a fucking truism that the market system only works for those who have the money/assets to carry weight in the pricing system. Since ‘the future’ also has no assets to drive the pricing system, the only thing ‘the future’ is left with in the market system is the debts of ‘the current’. Because theft pays.

        1. And it is a fucking truism that the market system only works for those who have the money/assets to carry weight in the pricing system.

          Ah, I see: you falsely believe that because only “those who have the money/assets to carry weight in the pricing system”, the interests of future generations have zero impact on current prices. Sorry, that doesn’t follow.

          1. It’s Jfree, he’s not very bright.

    2. “Even if the atmosphere were to be privatized”

      You don’t need to privatize the atmosphere to apply libertarian legal principles to commons, all that needs to be done is to show causality between one party’s actions and the damaging of another’s property right… If that chain of causality goes throw a commons, so be it.
      IOW: if you can show that your land was swallowed up by seawater caused by rising temperatures caused by some factory’s release of CO2, then a libertarian court should award restitution from the factory to you.
      Of course, in practice this will end up pretty fuzzy and class actiony etc, but that’s implementation, not concept. It can be done.

      1. It’s not just implementation – which is itself difficult as hell as you admit.

        The legal notion of property encompasses three things – usus (the ability to use the object), fructus (the ability to get the fruits of that object), abusus (the ability to destroy or alienate the object). We don’t today even understand those three as separate things – esp re land. But they are all necessarily combined in legal ‘property’.

        But eg Jefferson understood the difference (esp re land which was what he mostly did as a young lawyer). His letter to Madison during the Constitutional ConventionThe question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; & that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, & reverts to the society.

        Usufruct is only TWO of those elements. Change that sentence to ‘as property’ and it fits into neoclassical/marginalist and modern legal thinking – but it also then includes the notion that the living can destroy (abusus) the Earth and thus ‘steal it’ from the following generation. Once abusus’d, it belongs to the dead when they die. This IMO is at the heart of almost all the intergenerational problems we can’t get a handle on today – from climate to public debt (which is merely a form of public mortgage – which is itself a concept which has changed from its etymology of ‘dead hand’ which Jefferson understood).

        This letter is exactly the time when the federal govt assumed direct control over all the state/colonial claims to land west of the 1763 settlement line. And is a major underlying reason for the first ‘partisan’ conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson. But no one really knew HOW to implement that into land law re those territories then either – and it wasn’t a practical issue anyway until industrialization made ‘abusus’ an actual possibility – and we simply stopped thinking about the issue in that way until long after we no longer even understood it.

        So now we are left with a conceptual problem. With no massive ‘frontier’ out there anymore to easily defer any Lockean proviso thinking. Sorry for the verbiage here

  6. Unfortunately, Ronald Bailey has had too much Klimate Kool-aide for Thanksgiving. Climate is not like mathematics where concepts can be proven. Instead, most science (medicine, atmospheric, etc) functions like a court of law…Innocent until guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Temperatures are clearly “guilty” of rising. Greenhouse gases are “guilty” of causing warming. Both are misdemeanors, too small to notice. Beyond that, the Climate Crimes would mostly get thrown out of court for a complete lack of evidence.

    What we are suffering through now is a non-scientific political parade of public opinion where everything climate is pronounced “guilty” without evidence nor trial. My moral imperative as an atmospheric scientist is to hold people to the actual science and call-out the insane exaggerations.

    Mr. Bailey’s assertions, unfortunately, take the word of these Kangeroo Kourts.

    Here are a couple of issues with Mr. Bailey’s convictions…
    “1 degree Celsius since the 19th century”

    …That is roughly accurate but the human portion is unknown. The strong warming 1908-1944 was clearly mostly natural yet gets lumped in with the anthropogenic portion. And also keep in mind that only 1% of the earth was represented by thermometers in 1900.

    “As the planet has warmed, mountain glaciers around the world have been shrinking”

    Yes, this is true and also why New York City is no longer under a mile of ice. The anthropogenic portion is tiny vs the natural variability and I’m not sure how this is a bad thing.

    “Rainstorms have become somewhat fiercer”

    Some evidence, but no conviction on this one. The difference is small, not conclusive, and may be partially related to changes in rain gauge quality.

    “the area affected by extreme droughts has been expanding”

    Not guilty. If anything, the evidence points the other direction.

    ” the global sea level has been rising”

    The sea has risen 13,000cm in the past 15,000 years, sometimes 10 feet in a century . Humans have thrived. Current research suggests that if if humans never walked the earth, then the seas would be about two inches lower. You cannot possibly even notice the human portion. This is not exact, but the actual answer almost certainly falls between 0 and 4 inches.

    So on sea level, the score for 15,000 years is:

    Natural 13,000cm
    Humans 5cm.

    While “all scientists agree” that the earth has warmed and that humans play a role, there is widespread scientific skepticism. Most of my peers just roll their eyes at the nonsense. My peers that claim impending climate doom are still flying airplanes and driving cars and generally won’t discuss the topic with me. Deep down, they know the skeptics have science on their side.

    1. WZ: With respect all of your assertions are discussed in the longer analysis with links to the relevant scientific literature. Please check at URL: https://reason.com/2019/11/21/what-climate-science-tells-us-about-temperature-trends/

      1. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

        Ron, for whom the journalism undergrad was a terminal degree, to an actual climate scientist: “Have you seen the article I wrote relying entirely in IPCC scaremonger horse shit?”

        Check and mate Ron, bravo.

      2. Almost none of his assertions are discussed in your “analysis”. You fail to address his assertions because you obviously don’t understand the scientific issues involved or their implications.

        In any case, let’s stipulate that climate change is real and that humans contribute to it substantially, so what? Neither this article or your other article even connects the dot from that to action or “apocalypse” (as you like to call it). And, again, you can’t connect the dots because you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t even think like a scientist.

      3. Ron,

        The problem with your side is, there are just too many with psychopathy. They are total psychotic climate activists that literally worship the planet and they have spouted so much nonsense that none of you are believable anymore. Sure, I could invest lots of my time reading all your links and then get to pointing out all the holes in them that I have done with so many other people’s links they have provided. But i’m simply tired of it. And you know what’s better? Just calling you guys coo-coo and moving on. You guys have simply cried wolf too many times, and now your quest for confirmation bias has reached such a fervor, that it appears religious to the rest of us. And that has become grounds for your dismissal.

        Lastly, your option 1 and option 2 are the same. They are both government regulation. In option 3 you state:

        “The basic premise of most climate agreements is that to prevent temperatures from increasing to possibly dangerous levels, all the countries of the world would have to agree to—and then abide by—a plan to dramatically cut their emissions. But this is probably both politically and economically unachievable. According to the nonprofit Climate Analytics group, if all countries meet all of their current pledges under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the average global temperature in the year 2100 would still increase by 3 degrees Celsius.”

        Will there still be any oil left in 2100? After all the oil is gone, we’ll have to get out the loin cloths anyways right?

        and

        “In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued Global Warming of 1.5 °C, a document that has come to be known as the Doomsday Report. It found that the world would have to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 50 percent by 2030 and entirely eliminate such emissions by 2050 in order to keep the global average temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.”

        Eliminate all emissions by 2050??? Why eliminate them all? In the 1920s and 1930s Texas to North Dakota was a desert. With increasing C02 output the world has adapted by increasing vegetation. C02 is literally plant food. Increasing C02 levels increases vegetation growth. It increases the rate of vegetation growth. There is zero reason to eliminate all C02 emissions.

        It’s this kind of crap that makes people like me want to immediately drop you in the dismissal bucket.

        1. The problem is that Ron has a side to begin with. He is a journalist with no domain expertise and no scientific training. He should stick to the facts and search for balance in his reporting. Instead, he provides opinions and his personal evaluations. If I want uninformed opinions, I’ll ask my hairdresser or barista.

      4. 1.5C will put us close to the Medieval Warm Period, and the late Roman era warm period.

        Both resulted in bumper crops, great advancement of civilization, and zero relevant sea level rise or ill effects.

        We need to come up with a term for the worship of scientists, regardless of their credibility. “Scientology” is already taken, but it would fit.

        “I’m a scientist!” is an argument from authority, and that’s all they seem to do. Their “consensus” rules out thousands of other scientists who dissent? Why? Because they’re “Deniers.” Even though they’ve got actual science, and the “believers”* have failed literally every prediction.

        *And one doesn’t “believe” in science. Science is factual, regardless of what one believes. And Climatards have failed to produce a SINGLE 20, or even 10 year prediction that bore out.

        And a journalist shouting, “But they’re scientists!” carries even less weight.

        Especially when you’re trying to persuade people with actual professional knowledge of the subject.

        You might want to offer your articles to Slate. They’re a lot less picky on facts.

  7. I’ve read the reports.
    Every attempt to fight climate change is useless unless we get China involved. They have promised nothing.

    Every mechanism we have for reducing CO2 output is a marginal reduction with sharp limitations. Hydro power is the only real CO2-free option with dispatchability. Solar and Wind are useless beyond a certain point because there is just not enough storage for when the wind stops (and there aren’t enough rare metals in the world to balance that out). Until we develop better nuclear or fusion power, this is not going to change.

    Thankfully, if you actually look at the predictions and the raw evidence, it’s going to be significantly lower than everyone’s claiming. The effects will be rather small. 1-3C rise in temperature. This will have minor effects on weather, but overall not too much. Slight increases in planetary rainfall. Slightly higher permafrost/glacier lines. However, the ice caps are created by geography and prevailing winds. Those aren’t going to disappear. The temperature rise is within daily variations, so its hardly going to make animals have to flee. Rainfall is also caused primarily by geography, so I do not see any new deserts forming. Storm analysis has shown hurricanes aren’t rising in intensity or number, and I see no reason to think that will change.

    There is no crisis to panic over.

    1. Excellent assessment Mr. Ben of Houston.

    2. “Rainfall is also caused primarily by geography, so I do not see any new deserts forming.“

      What changes in geography caused the Sahara desert? There is fossil and archeological evidence that it was much wetter and populated with humans just a few thousand years ago.

      “However, the ice caps are created by geography and prevailing winds. Those aren’t going to disappear.

      I don’t think the concern is the presence of the ice caps but rather the enormous amount of water locked in them.

      You’re making the same mistake that the alarmists do. And that’s to attempt to make predictions in something you can’t possibly understand. But at least they are right to be concerned. Dumping 200 million years worth of captured carbon into the atmosphere in a couple of centuries should alarm a reasonable person.

      1. The Sahara grassland was an artifact of the ice age. Melting glaciers kept it quite wet for millennia.

        The reason the Sahara exists the trade winds go from east to west. This is interrupted by the mountains of Ethiopia (which are quite recent geologically). The Sahara now sits in their rain shadow, just like the middle east is in the rain shadow of the Himalayas. Since there is no prevailing wind that brings

        Unless the earth stops turning, the trade winds aren’t going to change. Until the mountains crumble, there isn’t going to be a meaningful amount of rain in the Sahara. This isn’t complicated. It’s junior high level geography I’m remembering from decades ago.

        You are correct that there is a lot we don’t know. However, there are some things that are well understood.

        1. I apologize for the poor editing. In my defense, I was upset. What I meant to say was “Since there is no prevailing wind that brings moisture from an ocean”. There are also no mountains in Southern Africa that would divert water north via rivers, With the grand exception of the Nile.

    3. Desertification is generally a result of clearing land of vegetation, animals grazing, irrigation and its resultant salinization, etc.

      CO2? Not so much.

      Yes we can manage things better, but the climate extremists would have us off ourselves to “save” the planet.

      1. Literally. And there have even been recent suggestions that we turn to cannibalism to combat ‘climate change’.

        These Keile are crooks and kooks. Certainly in no way credible.

      2. Yet they never volunteer to start the project with themselves….

        Rather begs the question of their sincerity and/or selfishness.

    4. Top soil erosion deserves a lot more attention, and while I know some would argue that climate change has little or nothing to do with it (which I believe would be the wrong conclusion), there’s no denying that top soil erosion has been happening – and continues to happen.

  8. They just know they need to garner the control over the population before we enter the next ice age.

    We are at a plant starvation level of CO2 and rather than a 400ppm quantity we need to go back to at least 4000ppm where plant and animal life prospered in the world. If CO2 actually has any “greenhouse” effect when measured in parts per million more humans on earth would benefit from additional warmth.

  9. Is this more or less reliable than the surmounted evidence that conclusively proved global warming would kill the whole planet by the year 2000/2003/2007/2012/2013/2016/2020?

  10. Warm is good. Russia, China, Canada, US, Argentina, Chile will benefit from warming. In many areas the temperature varies by 20 C every day. Plants and animals adjust, and a change in the average would be unnoticed. The Navier-Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear , chaotic with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that distant future states cannot be predicted with confidence from any finite set of past data. This has been known since Edward Lorenz published Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow in The Journal of Atmospheric Sciences in 1963. Anyone who attempts to predict distant future states for a Navier-Stokes system from past data is either incompetent, or a fraud, or perhaps both.

    1. In fact, not only is warmer better, the warming primarily occurs at high latitudes, so its effect is going to be to make temperatures across the globe generally more moderate and warmer.

      We know the climate state of high atmospheric carbon dioxide because it has existed in the past: it means a warmer, wetter, more temperate planet with a lot more arable land. It’s the kind of planet where mammals thrived and humans evolved.

      The bad kind of climate is the current one: harsh and cold, with massive polar ice caps. Though, to be fair: it’s the challenge of that harsh climate that probably forced humans to evolve our brains.

      1. “Though, to be fair: it’s the challenge of that harsh climate that probably forced humans to evolve our brains.”

        Was the climate harsh in Mesopotamia?

        1. Australopithecus branched off from chimps around 4 million years ago, just around the time where global temperatures first dropped to current levels, cold temperatures not seen since the Permian.

          Glaciation cycles started seriously around 1-2 million years ago, just about when Homo erectus appeared.

          By the time Mesopotamian cultures appeared around 10000 BC, Homo sapiens had already been around for hundreds of thousands of years and lived through several glaciation cycles.

          Since the Mesopotamian cultures, global climate has been unusually stable and warm compared to the past two million years.

  11. What if we anchored a steel rope to an asteroid and used gravity to power stuff?

    1. Whoa, hold your horses. Lunar space elevator first.

    2. The orbit would degrade until it collided, and the energy to push it out and prevent the collision would be equal to what you pulled out of the system, idealistically.

    3. What if we anchored a steel rope to the UN building and flung it out into the cold of space? Much more effective, I’d say!

  12. Option 3 is clearly the most “Reason”able of the options presented. One response to the “Do You Feel Lucky” question might be that virtually all historical predictions regarding climate change thus far have been wrong. So, yes, I’m feeling pretty lucky. Even the IPCC has been revising downward its end-of-century temperature increase. I spent my entire career in science and know of no other scientific debate split clearly along political battle lines. That is just wrong.

  13. receiving more in ‘carbon dividends’ than they pay in increased energy prices.
    LOL. Like that would ever happen.

    1. Hey, carbon serfdom is the libertaian solution!

  14. The global temperature records show a tendency to peak every one hundred thousand years and then drop roughly four degrees Celsius over the next ten to twenty thousand years. The temperature has been near a peak for the last ten thousand years; if we are warming things it is potentially preventing cooling associated with Milankovic cycles (Earth’s various orbital wobbles). Or, the temperature has peaked and the glaciers are coming. Increasing the planet’s albedo with light colored roofing or other methods might control temperature rise if deemed necessary.

  15. Nice commentary. But why not take the next, what would seem to be logical, step. Human economies, market based or not, have never viewed earths resources as anything other than free to use. Capitalism and modern economic thought has codified this process into what you are now calling a global commons issue. True. While market based approaches make sense and in fact can work to solve a “commons issue” the essential issue is that growth, not sustainability, is baked into the prevailing economic models. That growth is based on the need to service population increases. That growth is also predicated on resource extraction continuing unabated, something that you point out is already seen as problematic with widespread resource depletion. The essential issue then is how to make the transition from growth economics to sustainable economics using the power of market based approaches. A regulatory framework that favors resource conservation over consumption is necessary. And that favoring would use market approaches to devise the solutions. And we already have some of that in the “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” mantra of recycling. Metal and glass recycling work fairly well. But the market for plastic recycled goods is poor. Why? A lot of reasons, but a big one is that most landfilled items are not meant to be reused and owing to technical difficulties recycling is difficult. Solving those technical difficulties is largely a market problem. It costs less money to harvest virgin material than it does to recycle. From an economic growth model, such an outcome is preferred. From a sustainability point of view, it is a disaster of the commons.

    1. True. While market based approaches make sense and in fact can work to solve a “commons issue” the essential issue is that growth, not sustainability, is baked into the prevailing economic models.

      “Growth” is baked into the policies of failing progressive welfare states and democratic socialist states. I don’t know what else you think it’s “baked into”, but it is certainly not part of free markets. Free markets happen to produce economic growth when possible, but that’s all.

      From a sustainability point of view, it is a disaster of the commons.

      Sustainability is how societies and species become extinct, because environments inevitably change radically sooner or later. The societies and species that survive are those that can adapt to changing conditions. Sustainability is deadly; only fools with a death wish want it.

  16. Good god, anybody who claims man made global warming is science fact clearly doesn’t understand science. It is a theory, without much behind it and a ton of evidence that any warming is natural.
    Without a “control” earth that lacks human CO2 emissions it is pretty much impossible to know how much human CO2 emissions contribute to warming or climate change. The closest thing we do have is what we know of earth’s climate history. That clearly shows much larger temperature swings well before human CO2 emissions. In the past several millenia alone we’ve had the little ice age, medieval warm period and the roman warm period and all those were obviously naturally caused. We’ve had much larger natural climate swings if you look at much longer time spans and actually analyze the whole data.
    We’ve also had much much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere before with the same or lower temperatures than today. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is practically non existent despite global warming zealots pretending CO2 trace gas (currently at 0.04%) is by far the most important factor in temperature.
    Scientific fact backed by empirical evidence: the earth’s climate has never been anything but unstable and historically CO2 is not the primary driver of temperature. Looking only at the past few decades or even the last century is completely anecdotal, it’s analyzing a tiny tiny portion of the dataset that just happens to fit the global warming zealot’s preconceived conclusion.
    Global warming hysteria is entirely based on predictions, not empirical evidence. If you wanna look at empirical evidence (as you should), look at the track record of global warming predictions made by scientists so far. If you do, you’d realize their accuracy track record has been worthless and hence there is no reason to believe any of the predictions they are making now as they will surely turn out to be way overblown if not outright false too. Anybody who claims they can predict the weather accurately beyond a week or 2 let alone decades out is a charlatan. The earth’s climate is one of the most complex, chaotic and unpredictable natural systems, anybody who claims otherwise has another motive at hand and is clearly biased or not a competent scientist.

    1. Your assertion that you can not draw a conclusion without a control is incorrect. A control is one method to determine effect but it is not the only method. While models can not be checked in total they can be check relative to the assumptions within the model and the quality of the input data (emission inventory). Models are subjected testing to determine the results within a know error. Your assertion that the climate has changed is also true and that change has not been without its effects including extinctions. Life will go one in the face of climate change but humans may not continue. Or more likely our life as we know it will not go on. The question is will we change voluntarily or only as change is forced upon us.

      1. Unless you want to count the past pre industrial climate, yes you do need a control. It’s fine to count the past as a control since it is a vastly huge dataset with large variations in both CO2 and temperature. It’s absolutely not fine to draw any conclusion from the past 100 years since a century is a blink of an eye over the earth’s history. Not to mention that the warming in the past 100 years is not statistically significant or unprecedented in the least .
        It is all models, no empirical evidence. Models only have any value after they have a long track record of making accurate predictions. And all man made climate change models and predictions so far have been horribly horribly wrong.
        What is known is that climate fluctuations as seen in the past century are not uncommon and happen naturally all the time so there is no reason to suspect human CO2 emissions this time. Again via empirical evidence, it is also known that there isn’t a strong direct correlation between temperature and CO2 and it isn’t the sole weather driver as global warming zealots make it out to be. What we also know is that despite a modest temperature rise over the past century ecosystems that aren’t converted to farms, housing or the like are doing just fine, natural disasters are not getting worse nor more frequent and the human race as a whole is flourishing with the highest global standards of living and health outcomes ever.
        Bottom line is there is no reason to suspect rising CO2 will greatly alter the weather and that a degree or 2 warmer will not cause the world to end even if CO2 will cause significant warming. If you look at the players involved in this garbage it’s perfectly clear they have a lot to gain whether it’s power hungry politicians, green energy companies or global warming researchers whose funding depends on keeping the panic going. It’s absolutely nothing but politically and financially motivated pseudo science.

  17. Science and logic demonstrates the truth that will set you free.

    There is division because we know that the corrupt will use our fear to their advantage.

    What to do?

    Develop scientific peer reviewed models that predict specific events based on our use of resources.

    With those models determine a normal carbon footprint for each human that will yield a predictable and acceptable result.

    Then only the greedy will complain and argue to use resources at a scientifically irresponsible rate.

    1. Except how can you prove a model?
      You test it.
      But we have only one Earth.

      That’s the problem. In a numerical methods test, rule 1 is that you never trust a model until it’s proven because of rule 2. Rule 2 is that you are never as smart as you think you are. Rule 3 is that there are always “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, so even if your model is perfect, something unaccounted for can and will break your nicely arranged plan.

      So what you are describing is impossible both on a theoretical and practical matter.

      1. Knowing everything is impossible, but science and logic will always demonstrate the closest truth that we will ever be capable of.

        That’s the truth, get over it.

        1. It’s all the fault of the Joooossssssss, isn’t it Rob?

            1. Doesn’t it suck getting called out on your bullshit and having absolutely no retort Rob, you miserable lying piece of shit racist?

            2. “Troll”

              Pointing out that you’re a anti-semite scumbag does snot require a troll, scumbag.

              1. All you’ve accomplished is demonstrating that you are both a troll and a bigot.

    2. Develop scientific peer reviewed models that predict specific events based on our use of resources.

      This has literally never once been done in the entire history of climate modeling. But doesn’t it feel to good to appeal to authority in the manner of a half-retarded child calling into the Psychic Connection 1-800 number using his mommy’s credit card?

        1. The way people use those models is that they stick in a large number of parameters and then fit those parameters against actual measurements; when the predictions don’t work out, they just fit again and again.

          On top of the problem with how these models are fitted, the theoretical assumptions going into those models are incomplete, and some of the assumptions are just bogus.

        2. Have you seen the spaghetti plots of all the climate models against predictions?

          They have enough tuned parameters to fit a herd of elephants, and they barely resemble the actual change in temperature.

    3. Rob, if we snitch out our neighbors for thoughtcrime, do we get extra carbon rations for the month?

  18. You should review Tony Heller’s many Youtube reports revealing statistical fraud by NASA, NOAA, and other principles in AGW research.

  19. Geeze, people.

    It was cold in the Little Ice Age, just not really Ice Age cold. Look up the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum. The Thames River would reliably freeze over enough for Londoners to have a winter “frost festival” on the ice.

    Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick has erased the LIA from the hive mind, but it did happen, and in the last 20 or so years physicists have come up with a good explanation of what was happening: fewer sunspots are correlated with less solar wind and less of a solar magnetic field. Those sweep galactic cosmic rays away from the Earth, and when there are more GCR hitting our atmosphere, more cloud condensation nuclei are formed and there are more clouds holding more moisture.

    Conversely, when there are lots of sunspots, fewer GCR crash into the atmosphere and fewer clouds are created. And when there are fewer clouds, less sunlight is reflected back into space and it’s hotter.

    In the early 1930’s, there was a big upturn in sunspots and it didn’t reverse until about 2006. Now there are solar physicists using words like Maunder Minimum to describe what is happening Right Now, with a plausible paper published last Summer in Nature Scientific Reports forcasting a grand solar minimum lasting until 2055.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3
    Read papers by folks like Shaviv, Veizer, Svensmark, Kirkby, Lindzen, Zharkova, just to start. Laugh at the Gavin Schmidts, the Michael Manns and the James Hansens who will mostly be remembered for scaring impressionable and overlyindulged Swedish schoolgirls half to death.

  20. I have not converted to this religion. But I think Bailey’s discussion is not about whether anything bad is going to happen; but rather about what our choices are in the event that CAGW turns out to be a bad thing. Given that, I see that he has listed 3 choices; but he really only listed 2, and his 3rd is not very far removed from them; and in my opinion there is yet another choice that is not among them.

    His options #1 and #2 both depend on government mandates to manipulate behavior. Therefore they are 2 strategies for regulation, plain and simple. Let’s not pretend that either a tax or a tradable “credit” is any sort of market solution. Neither would exist if government did not invent it. This is the same as that unicorn we call “intellectual property” but that’s a discussion for another day.

    His option 3, “ignore” the problem is not the same as what Bailey has described, which is really to trust future generations to adapt to it. With a GDP impact as small as implied by the models (cough-cough), the sensible approach does seem to be adaptation.

    But here there are 2 choices: one that depends on government spending, which is what we are doing now (and what Bailey actually seems to be suggesting); and the other that trusts the future ingenuity of markets to develop their own solutions. This LATTER choice would be “ignoring the problem” and it is distinctly different from massive spending of taxpayer money to subsidize offshore wind farms and other Solyndra-like debacles. These are, like their regulatory brethren in choices 1 & 2, in the end political decisions that will inevitably distort the economy.

    So, in conclusion, I ask: why is each choice governmental in essence? What happened to liberty?

    1. Liberty goes out the window with the Warmista religion. Either by design or a fortuitous condidence, the only way to get humanity to put up with less food and less comfort is coersion.

    2. The climate change/global warming science is irrefutable according to to the climate change/global warming industry. Who are we to question?

    3. “What happened to liberty?”
      Liberty depends on having institutions to enforce property rights. If the government allows me to trash my neighbors’ stuff, there is less liberty, not more.

      1. CO2 isn’t “trashing” your neighbors’ stuff though.

        1. To be fair, that’s for a court to decide. He is welcome to take you to court and claim property rights damage by your actions via the commons of the climate, and if he can come up with a convincing case, then good on him.
          A libertarian legal system is based on torts, and there’s no reason that goes out the window with respect to climate.
          In practice, it is going to be tough and will look class actiony at best.

  21. The debate over CC is like an airplane flying at 30,000 feet. For example, it’s easy to support a proposal to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by a certain date. Why is it easy? Because it’s not clear at all how that would affect anyone personally.
    Eventually though the debate will have to come down to earth and get more specific. A carbon tax collected at the pump would do just that and, in a democracy generate a lot of resistance.
    If you look at the couple of carbon tax proposals introduced in Congress this year, all of them propose collection ‘upstream’ i.e. at the oil companies. They do this because they know that people would rebel if the cost were shoved in their faces.

    1. “They do this because they know that people would rebel if the cost were shoved in their faces.”
      I think the same thing is true for income taxes. If everyone had to receive their pay in a stack of cash and then give some of it to the clerk of Treasury window, people would demand cuts.

  22. “fisheries are declining, tropical forests shrinking, water shortages spreading, and rivers and airsheds growing more polluted.”

    Overfishing, sucking too much out of aquifers, chemical runoff: none of these has anything to do with CO2. Or temperature.

    Get your ducks in a better row, scaremonger.

    1. B: Those are merely examples of what happens in an open access commons. Scaremonger? May I direct your attention to my book, The End of Doom?

      1. “Nothing to worry about everybody, supranational global governance is going to save us!”

        You’re actually worse than a scaremonger, you’re a fraudulent lying sack of shit.

      2. In a better world, climate change deniers wouldn’t need to be warned about the dangers of confirmation bias, but if we aren’t confirming their preexisting biases, plenty of them seem to assume we’re being dishonest or irrational.

        1. I don’t think anybody that posts here is denying climate change. Most of us just don’t agree that humans are causing it or that there is anything we can really do about it.

          I think all of us can agree that the government is not the panacea that we’re looking for.

          1. Of course climate changes. The earth’s overall climate has evolved significantly over billions of years. The real issue is AGW, which is bullshit and based on bad math and Marxist manipulations.

          2. I think there are plenty of people here denying the existence of AGW, and in the face of being forced to sacrifice their standard of living, I think denial is a predictable reaction to forced sacrifice.

            1. AGW =/= Climate Change

              But I see your point, and I think it’s more than natural when the people demanding sacrifice aren’t prepared to sacrifice themselves.

              1. It’s beyond that. The people demanding sacrifice are not even clear about what that sacrifice will ‘save.’

                The planet will survive most anything right up until the Sun’s heat death.

                If it is humanity we are saving then we need to be very clear about what it is about humanity that has value greater than what is being called to sacrifice.

                Otherwise it’s just another religion.

      3. You give the standard, incorrect progressive analysis of these problems in terms of “open access commons”.

        Fisheries and water mismanagement are the result of government policies that prevent both market forces from operating and self-regulation.

        And pollution is the result of government giving certain companies license to pollute without those being harmed by the pollution being able to recover damages from polluters.

  23. Thanks for this article. I like how it breaks down the options into three courses of action. It seems clear #1 is the answer. I don’t see the issue with #1, since we already tax income. What’s wrong if we tax work and investment less and instead tax carbon emissions, which are probably costly to many people across generations? We should be cautious, as you point out in option #3, that we don’t want to forgo more value than we save. And we don’t have solid numbers for how costly global warming will be, although we know it will be costly.

    Claims that, contrary to the evidence, there is zero cost in freeing carbon and emitting it into the atmosphere hardly merit a response.

    1. What’s wrong is that the earth is a closed system and NOBODY deserves to pollute it more than another no matter how much they pay.

      Pollution hurts everyone and I don’t accept your pittance in exchange for my right to the pursuit of happiness.

      1. I don’t accept your desire to exterminate the Jooooossssss in another holocaust in your pursuit of happiness.

        1. You’re an irrelevant troll, bigot.

          1. You’re a subhuman piece of shit, kill yourself.

          2. “You’re an irrelevant troll, bigot”

            You, you scumbag anti-semite call someone else a “bigot”.
            Add abysmally stoooopid to your qualities.

          3. Pollution hurts everyone and I don’t accept your pittance in exchange for my right to the pursuit of happiness.

            One persons “pollution” is another person’s fertilizer. And your “pursuit of happiness” doesn’t mean you are entitled to demands of those around you.

      2. the earth is a closed system

        AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        1. Excellent call out! The earth separated from the sun would be close enough to a closed system to call it that, but of course, it would just be a useless rock at that point. *Everything* on the earth is ultimately powered by the sun, and even though this is obvious, its importance is vastly underappreciated.
          When my 12 year daughter – taught, unfortunately, in our publik skools – tells me not to waste water, I ask her “did the water get destroyed?” She hems and haws and says “that’s not what I meant”, and I say, well, “what did you mean then?” Because short of a nuclear reactor, I literally *can’t* destroy water. I can however chemically change it by introducing some other contaminants. But the water isn’t *destroyed*, it is simply temporarily transformed, a transformation I can reverse with energy. And if only there was an effectively infinite energy source pouring energy into the earth… Oh yeah.

          1. My point was: the whole concept of “finite resources” is a broken concept! It implies that there is a finite set of something, and that usage of that something *destroys* that something. In that model, sure, *eventually* any use of that something will end up with zero.
            But that is not what happens. The earth is a giant set of chemical reactions, which neither create nor destroy any element, it just attaches them together in different formats, and every one of those is reversible with sufficient energy and engineering. You *cannot destroy a resource*, you can only change its form, and as long as we are an open system – absorbing energy from the sun – we can change it back. [Energy is perhaps the only real “finite” resource, since only so much comes into the earth.]

      3. I think that giant fusion reactor in the sky somewhat implodes your idea that the earth is a closed system. Then there’s all those giant rocks floating about the solar system similar to the one that took out the dinosaurs. Oh, and comets that might only visit the solar system temporarily and possibly a whole bunch of other things we may or may not have discovered yet.

          1. As a fucking ignoramus, it is no surprise you don’t read your own link:
            “…Earth is also considered to be more of an approximation of a closed system because some matter does enter from space…”

            1. Oh yeah, a few pounds of space dust.

              Not even enough for your cats litter box.

              1. Yeah, like that little bit of spacedust that caused a global extinction event.

              2. That would be a very big cat.
                Estimates vary of how much cosmic dust and meteorites enter Earth’s atmosphere each day, but range anywhere from 5 to 300 metric tons, with estimates made from satellite data and extrapolations of meteorite falls.

              3. Rob Misek
                December.1.2019 at 6:47 pm
                “Oh yeah, a few pounds of space dust.
                Not even enough for your cats litter box.”

                Shove them goalposts, scumbag.

              4. One of us is dim. Either you’re claiming the sun is constant, it’s not, or you’re claiming that extraterrestrial influences like comets don’t count.

                Sorry cousin, if some extraterrestrial event completely annihilates many species on the entire planet in a brief period then I tend to laugh at the “closed system” hypothesis. The mere arrogance to assume that what has happened before won’t happen again is clear proof of the hubris I decry in a lower post.

                The ultimate question we all face is; whom do you trust to change the climate? Bureaucrats trying to get re-elected, corporations doing their thing, or what? You’re stuck between ignorance and special interest. I’ll tell you what will happen in the end, you’ll fight to keep what you have and if you have nothing you’ll fight to take what doesn’t belong to you. Kill or be killed, such is the human condition regardless of state interference.

                Next question?

                1. If we were going to wait for an asteroid to solve our problems we wouldn’t be discussing our environment at all.

                  1. Rob, you’re a vicious nazi bigot. Literally. Maybe you should just go back to carving swastikas in your forehead. You’re better at that than puking up your bullshit here.

                    1. All you’ve demonstrated is that you’re a troll and a bigot.

          2. You’re free to explain all of that to the dinosaurs. The rest of us will giggle on the sidelines.

          3. Earth is a closed system for matter and an open system for energy. Everyday the earth absorbs energy and the cold side radiates it. Also, because of the magnetic poles, the earth doesn’t lose much of it’s atmosphere. However, Venus is not a closed system. It doesn’t have magnetic poles and is constantly losing it’s atmosphere due to solar winds. Eventually it will have no atmosphere left.

            Pollution hurts everyone and I don’t accept your pittance in exchange for my right to the pursuit of happiness.

            The problem with this statement is, others believe differently from you. One man’s pollution is another man’s fertilizer. And if you go full tyrant in your own perceived self righteous glory, you might get shot and die, like so many tyrants of the past.

            https://theonlyfloridaman.com/index.php/2019/05/11/japanese-politician-publicly-assassinated-video/

            1. Science and logic demonstrate truth and justice. Beliefs don’t.

              Too much fertilizer kills.

              Your greed kills.

      4. CO2 isn’t pollution.

      5. The earth is not a closed system, pollution isn’t global or uniform, and the correct tradeoff between pollution and production is, of course, to be made by how much people pay.

        1. That’s the primary problem with libertarian principles.

          You don’t get to violate my rights then just throw some money at me as compensation.

          They are MY rights and they are worth ONLY what I say. They are priceless.

          1. You don’t get to violate my rights then just throw some money at me as compensation

            Why not? Your non-libertarian system does it all the time. Socialist countries do it all the time. That is their methodology. State abuse your rights? Payout time, after you play the court game and run the gauntlet designed to limit your probability of a payout.

            They are MY rights and they are worth ONLY what I say. They are priceless.

            No. You don’t have an individual right to C02 levels in the atmosphere. Negative.

            1. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

              Your greed threatens that.

            2. Why not?

              Because then you’d have to accept $.02 for your life.

          2. “You don’t get to violate my rights”
            No system in the world could possibly prevent any rights from being damaged (not ‘violated’), at the least because of accidents. Or do you propose a system in which no one ever accidentally crashes their car into someone else’s?

            1. Greedily polluting and wasting earths resources isn’t accidental any more than robbing a bank is.

          3. “You don’t get to violate my rights then just throw some money at me as compensation. They are MY rights and they are worth ONLY what I say. They are priceless.”

            Immediately contact Chairman Xi and inform him of your ukase. Stamp your foot for emphasis.

            1. So that’s what having tights means to you eh?

              1. “So that’s what having tights means to you eh?”

                Civil rights exist only in the context of a constitution or common law. We and China have neither in common. Natural (e.g., God-given) rights exist only within the context of a common belief system, which again we and communist China do not share.
                So when you wrote, “They are MY rights and they are worth ONLY what I say,” your assertion is not, as a matter of fact, true, in a global context. And CO2 emissions are a global issue.
                It’s not even true within the U.S., as your rights are what the supreme court says they are, not what you assert them to be.

                1. That’s what our founders intended, SCOTUS … which PISSES of authoritarians both left and right, which derives from their contempt for consent of the governed and will of the people (also both left and right).,

                  As libertarians have noted for over 50 years. and virtually self-evident: In all of human history, governments have had only two purposes, overall. To defend individual liberty. Or to impose one set of values by force.

                  Today’s authoritarians, both left and right, are the modern moral equivalents of Genghis Khan … but more self-righteous

    2. We won’t tax income or investments less, we’ll just add carbon to the long list of taxes we already pay.

      1. Learn what “revenue neutral” means.
        And “hysteria.”

    3. Thanks for this article. I like how it breaks down the options into three courses of action. It seems clear #1 is the answer. I don’t see the issue with #1, since we already tax income.

      Tax is a necessary evil. But an evil nonetheless, and that is because tax is theft. So the proper thing is to have the least amount of tax as possible, not the most. So it’s not clear to me that #1 is the answer, and if you put to the people right now in the US, they wouldn’t vote for it. The more you tax the people, the more % the governance is socialist in nature and the more % you are a slave. Yes. That is correct. A slave. A slave is not entitled to his own work or the sweat on his brow. A slave works according to his ability for his master. His master takes everything. And the slave is provided by his master his “needs”. So in slavery, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. And this is done by force. They don’t get to voluntarily partake. And this is the same with tax. If you pay 100% tax, you are 100% a slave. If you pay 50% tax, you are 50% a slave.

      So although you think increased slavery by means of a additional tax sounds great, to me and many others, it does not.

      1. “Tax is a necessary evil”

        Whenever I hear someone refer to “necessary” or “need”, I put my hand on my wallet, because I know it’s a pretense for reaching in to take my money.

        “Necessary” and “need” are just sophistry designed to smuggle a subjective desire in as some some sort of objectively derived notion. The subjective *cannot* be turned into the objective; the is/aught divide cannot be breached. Need and necessity are common attempts to ignore this, but they are always based on an implicit subjective preference.

  24. Who here just scrolled to the bottom and entered their preconceived comment without even reading the article? Most I bet.

  25. “It’s time for market-oriented folks to recognize these facts and figure out the best way to handle them. If we don’t offer solutions to the public, the only ones on the table will be those proposed by people who misunderstand economic principles or are unfriendly to market capitalism.”

    I have long argued that the best things we can possibly do about climate change are the things we should be doing anyway–regardless of whether climate change is real or a big problem.

    I maintain that some of the biggest problems we have in our society are because of socialism. Perhaps the most socialist policy of the United States of America is the income tax. “From each according to their ability [to pay’]” is half the formula of socialism, and we should get rid of the income tax. I can go on and on about how fundamentally unfair and stupid the income tax is, but that probably isn’t necessary on a libertarian website. Suffice it to say, getting rid of the income tax would be the biggest blow against socialism and for capitalism we could possibly land! There are far more libertarian and capitalist ways to tax people, and we should transition to those forms of taxation–regardless of whether climate change is real or whether climate change is a big problem.

    I maintain that the most libertarian and capitalist form of taxation is the sales tax. It gets away from the concept is that the purpose of taxation is redistribute wealth to people who don’t do anything of value. It isn’t justified by the absurd belief that I owe the government money–because I earned it. The sales tax, moreover, wouldn’t require individual Americans to self-report their income every year down to the penny for fear of criminal prosecution. Moreover, the sales tax allows consumers to figure in the cost of taxes every time they buy something–which subjects taxation to the discipline of market forces. If you decide sales taxes are too high to justify making a particular purchase as a consumer, then the government gets nothing.

    The problem with a replacing an authoritarian and socialist tax on earned income with a libertarian and capitalist tax on consumer purchases is that there’s no reason to believe that the left will allow libertarian capitalists to disrupt their socialist tax system. At least there wasn’t one until now . . .

    Any leftist who opposes getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax on carbon intensive activity has no business condemning the rest of us for being insufficiently panicked about climate change. If you’re not willing to get rid of the income tax–not even to save the world from frying–then you’re not an environmentalist. You’re a socialist hack. I see nothing wrong with making a grand bargain with the real environmentalists on the left who really are willing to abandon socialism if it means saving the planet from global warming. The only, Only, ONLY way they’ll get the rest of us to sign off on a carbon tax like that is if they’re willing to eliminate the most socialist taxes of all–the income tax, the tax on corporate profits, and the capital gains tax–and slash spending dramatically. That being said, we should make that deal–if the real deal environmentalists on the left will join us–and by “we”, I mean libertarian capitalists.

    Anyone who opposes destroying socialism in this country if doing so requires us to support a sales tax on carbon has no business calling themselves libertarian capitalists.

    1. If such a bargain were able to be achieved, what do you think the sales tax rate would have to be so the fed.gov was able to perform it’s constitutional functions (let alone the extra things “we” demand of it)?

      Bear in mind, most cities in Texas already have around 8% sales tax.

      1. “If such a bargain were able to be achieved, what do you think the sales tax rate would have to be so the fed.gov was able to perform it’s constitutional functions (let alone the extra things “we” demand of it)?

        Bear in mind, most cities in Texas already have around 8% sales tax.”

        If the sales tax on carbon intensive activity were high enough to replace all the revenue we lost from the end of the income tax, the tax on corporate profits, etc., the cost of carbon intensive activity would rise so dramatically, there would be big time political repercussions.

        On the other hand, that burden would be offset by people not having to pay income taxes and corporations not needing to charge so much to cover corporate taxes. The fact is that if you’re in a 20% tax bracket, your employer is paying you 20% of your income–just so you can pay income taxes. If you had all that extra money to spend on carbon intensive activity (or their substitutes), it would mitigate the impact.

        Meanwhile, as businesses and consumers substituted away from carbon intensive activity, their tax burden would drop.

        Meanwhile, I’ve read people argue that the Green New Deal may cost us upwards of $700 billion a year. While I’m talking about cutting costs to taxpayers considerably and, effectively, raising the costs to consumers of carbon intensive activity, there is also an advantage in consumers being free to substitute away from carbon intensive activity if they want–which is far better than the case of the income tax. The substitutes for the income tax are prison and inactivity.

    2. In case you don’t get this later, I’ll remind you that to many, *any* tax is non-libertarian.

  26. You cant fight climate change but we can adapt by moving cities which if they truly believed in their pronouncements they would start moving them now. Which shows they aren’t about mitigating but controlling how we live through it since the supposed disasters will give them more authority

    1. You don’t need to “move cities”; climate change is slow enough that normal real estate market mechanisms and human migration will take care of it.

      That is, as sea levels rise, threatened real estate will become less valuable and less desirable and people buy and move elsewhere.

  27. SL: I believe I address the projections/empirical evidence in the longer online article – what do you think I missed?

  28. You know Ronald, I haven’t posted here in years.

    You understate the effort you put into casting doubt on science around this issue, well past the 2006 year as you cite today. You constantly cited articles and “studies” that suggested there wasn’t a problem. You even gave tacit approval to stolen emails that proved nothing. Whenever you mentioned any data that made you think there was something to the concern about climate, it was at best an “oh by the way” comment. At best.

    You did your best to allow these readers to live in the fantasy that it was all at first a hoax, and then overstated. And you’re the supposed libertarian science writer.

    Shame on you.

    1. You know Ronald, I haven’t posted here in years.

      Did you forget that you outed this sock about 36,000 times Shreek? Kill yourself ASAP, buddy.

      1. Ah, thanks! The REASON why I left…the well thought out positions of libertarians! Enjoy your life!

        1. >”Wah Ronald Bailey badman because his conversion to my deathcult came 20 years after our apocalypse date”

          >”looolz thought out positioniz”

          Hopefully, you embarrassed yourself enough to stay away for another 6 years.

        2. So leave again asshole.

    2. “You know Ronald, I haven’t posted here in years.”
      I was hoping you had died.

  29. You are not going to fix the problem with taxes. A more direct approach is required.

    Cheese and volcanos. Should be self evident.

    We have too much cheese which we then subsidize. Cheese has a very high carbon footprint due to the large volume of cow farts required to produce it. So cheese figures prominently in the problem end of the equation.

    Volcanos are the solution. A good volcanic eruption can cool the planet for decades. We are due for a good volcano.

    Take the excess cheese and compress it into a big solid chunk. Find a volcano somewhere hopefully off the coast of China since we don’t like them anyway. Plug up the volcano with the cheese. Pressure will build up then BOOM.

    Three problems solved in one fell swoop.

    1. Can we pick a volcano and throw all the orogtards in? That should mightily anger the volcano gods into a massive eruption.

  30. Oh look, Reason supports supranational global governance. What a gigantic mothafuckin surprise!

  31. Reducing carbon emissions requires all nations on earth to play. If, for example, the U.S. completely eliminated emissions tomorrow (aside from the economic and social disruption and death) China alone, at it’s current rate of emissions increase, would make up for the reduction in carbon emissions in about 10 years – and it’d be within the Paris Accords doing so. This doesn’t include India, or the other “developing” nations, that are doubling their emissions every decade, many using coal plants built for them by China.

    I’d add a #4 to the plans to deal with global warming. Get ready for it. Stop government insurance of homes in flood-prone areas. Build dikes around existing cities, or encourage people and businesses to move inland. Stuff like that.

    1. “I’d add a #4 to the plans to deal with global warming. Get ready for it. Stop government insurance of homes in flood-prone areas. Build dikes around existing cities, or encourage people and businesses to move inland. Stuff like that.”

      Hear hear.

  32. Climates, just like everything else, change and the big issues seem to be why is it changing the way it is and how to fix it. Keep in mind, fixing it also means intentionally trying to change the climate or at least stop it from changing even though it would change normally in a largely undetermined way.

    In my opinion and even if I thought the computer models were perfect, purposefully trying to induce climate change in the “most appropriate” way is fraught with peril since it requires a heaping helping of hubris to think we actually know what we’re doing and can properly temper any response dynamically in any adequate timescale. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe we have the technological skill to bend the global climate to our will but am hesitant to think it can’t and won’t be weaponized.

    To me the perception of change is more dangerous than change as people become increasingly militant about “doing something” and the potential backdraft from some less developed societies as they perceive salvation as the destruction of more industrialized societies. Ultimately, I am confident we will be the architects of our own extinction but the question is will it be because we “did something” or because we didn’t.

  33. The idea that renewables have an appreciable effect is fools gold. The answer has always been right in front of our faces but demonized by boomers and subsequent generations…..its nuclear power, some prominent environmentalists have come to realize this fact https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1f4BKsFrCA

  34. Libertarians are particularly prone to denying climate change. Why? Because it destroys their entire belief system.

    Libertarians believe that people left to associate without interference will eventually come to the best solution to solve problems the best they can be solved. People will make choices and decisions based on their needs and external realities to solve these problems.

    But this basic philosophy is lacking when dealing with external realities whose repercussions are delayed before people can recognize them as a threat. When pollution is dumped in a river, the danger becomes apparent to everyone within a time frame in which allows people to react to resolve the problem.

    But the problem of climate change is not like this, the repercussions will not become apparent to everyone until long after action can be taken to resolve the problem, it will be too late. To the minds of many libertarians, this problem seems perfectly crafted to demolish their worldview so to preserve their worldview so they invent a multitude of nefarious conspiracy theories. But do they ever consider they might be wrong? What if nature actually works this way when it is subjected to the forces humanity is subjecting it to?

    Libertarians need to understand their philosophy works very well for many things, but not all things and that’s OK. Climate change is real, it’s happening now and we must take collective action to address it now.

    1. “…we must take collective action to address it now.”
      Lefty assertions =/= argument or evidence.

      1. The scientific community has provided the evidence, the purpose of my comment was not to review that evidence.

        The purpose of my comment was to discuss how climate change is a problem which reveals a flaw in libertarian philosophy, i.e. it is a problem which cannot be resolved by the basic mechanisms of libertarian philosophy.

        1. Regulations and attempts to reach international consensus have also failed to make meaningful changes.

          Market forces and profits are likely to have the greatest impact. Can’t wait for the new electric Mustang to come out for example. Ford is coming out with an EV I actually want to drive. Central planning could never achieve that. Sure the subsidy kicked in by government will help drive sales but eventually those expire and should not be needed.

          You can make a fortune if you invent a battery that is 10% more efficient. LED bulbs are way better than the old ones. Loads of other examples. People did those things.

          I would not be opposed to a carbon tax which would help drive innovation. You are correct that the atmosphere cannot be addressed by property rights alone but in the end it cannot be addressed by proclamations, worthless treaties and regulation alone either.

        2. Just to add I don’t think we disagree about this but it is like the problem some fundamentalists have in interpreting the Bible.

          “It doesn’t say anything here about dinosaurs roaming around millions of years before there were humans so it never happened”

          The wise cleric answers “we do not know the will of G-d. We know that we were created with these brains and gifts for a reason. We are supposed to learn about the universe and world around us. We found that indeed these things are true. The earth is millions of years old. Humans and other things evolved. Go back and read genesis again with these new understandings. It is not that Genesis is wrong it is that you are reading it incorrectly.”

          1. That is how I have approached my faith since tenth grade biology.

        3. “…The purpose of my comment was to discuss how climate change is a problem which reveals a flaw in libertarian philosophy,…”

          Which you attempted and failed to do by using a non-sequitur.

          1. No, I think I did it very well. You deny AGW because it threatens your libertarian belief system.

            You just latched onto that last line of mine to find a way to reject the rest of my comment.

        4. The purpose of my comment was to discuss how climate change is a problem which reveals a flaw in libertarian philosophy, i.e. it is a problem which cannot be resolved by the basic mechanisms of libertarian philosophy.

          In other words, tyrants are the answer, yeah? Reign in that freedom. Put a thumb down on those disagreeing with climate change. Do what I “believe” or else. That’s is your winning philosophy?

          1. See, you prove my point.

            Whether the science is true or not is irrelevant to you, you see it as a threat to your freedom so you deny it’s real.

            1. Science is information. Science informs decisions. Science does not make decisions for you.

              Your concept of science is as bad as your notions of a winning argument.

        5. The ‘scientific community’ is corrupt, has bad climate models, consistently wrong, and largely a tool for globalist progressives.

    2. Libertarians are particularly prone to denying climate change. Why? Because it destroys their entire belief system.

      Wrong.

      Libertarians believe that people left to associate without interference will eventually come to the best solution to solve problems the best they can be solved. People will make choices and decisions based on their needs and external realities to solve these problems.

      That’s right. Because persuasion works better than tyrant domination. When tyrants start making climate religion demands, free market people will start getting out the ammunition. And so people left to associate without forceful interference will eventually come to the best solution to solve problems the best they can be solved. And they do this through persuasion and propagation of facts and with a free market. Otherwise, people will get out the ammunition, and that isn’t going to help anyone.

      But this basic philosophy is lacking when dealing with external realities whose repercussions are delayed before people can recognize them as a threat.

      No it isn’t.

      When pollution is dumped in a river, the danger becomes apparent to everyone within a time frame in which allows people to react to resolve the problem. But the problem of climate change is not like this, the repercussions will not become apparent to everyone until long after action can be taken to resolve the problem, it will be too late.

      This has literally nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarians do not recognize problems at any slower or faster a rate than socialists, communists, democrats, or like right wing religious facsists like islam.

      To the minds of many libertarians, this problem seems perfectly crafted to demolish their worldview so to preserve their worldview so they invent a multitude of nefarious conspiracy theories.

      Uh… no. Maybe that is what you are hoping for, projecting for. But no.

      But do they ever consider they might be wrong? What if nature actually works this way when it is subjected to the forces humanity is subjecting it to?

      I’m sure they have. Have you?

      Libertarians need to understand their philosophy works very well for many things, but not all things and that’s OK. Climate change is real, it’s happening now and we must take collective action to address it now.

      ??? What is “collective action????”

      Does that mean, you, voting on the basis of your quasi climate religion, put forth government force to make others who don’t want to participate in your climate religion do as you demand? That’s what your suggestion looked like.

      I think you should re-think your idea here with labels like “libertarian” removed. With labels removed, all it is, is a group of people that “believe” something, trying to dominate and force people who don’t believe into doing their liking, and they do it with government force. And government force means prisons and bullets.

      1. Science is not religion.

        Religion is based on faith, science is based on observable reality.

        1. Your science is shit Gene. Your religion’s climate models are so bad that it makes your version of climate science about as legitimate as phrenology.

        2. Models are not observable reality. Basing decision upon them is indeed a form of faith.

      2. Apparently you libertarians do recognize problems slower than others. Libertarians deny climate change more than any other group.

        It’s your libertarian belief system that causes you to be slow to recognize certain kinds of problems. Pollution is a problem you are slow to react to. Dealing with pollution gets in the way of you doing what you want to do, it causes you to fear government action, so you deny the problem exists until the evidence is an inch from your face. You are the last ones to acknowledge these kinds of problems.

    3. “Libertarians are particularly prone to denying climate change. Why? Because it destroys their entire belief system.”

      The left is using the threat of climate change as a means to justify using the government to force the unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living over their objections and against their will, and denying the science is a perfectly valid strategy to avoid forced sacrifice.

      If you want to see people deny the existence of gravity, use it as an excuse to justify forcing people to sacrifice their standard of living, and people will deny its existence–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, and the people who are trying to use gravity as an excuse for government sponsored forced sacrifice will be just as much to blame as those who deny the existence of gravity.

      Even if denying the existence of climate change were dumb, denying that the Green New Deal will be devastating to the average person’s standard of living is dumber than creationism.

      1. You guys keep proving my point, luv it.

        Your denial has nothing to do with the science, it’s all about your libertarian belief system.

        1. Your climate ideas have nothing to do with science, it’s all about your progressive belief system.

  35. Ron, you left out option #4; do pretty much what we are doing now, which is not ignoring it.
    Pretty sure the US remains the only country to beat the Paris goals, and has done so without being a party to the agreement.
    If those goals are to do what they propose to do, we are doing just fine without a gov’t-mandated ‘carbon market’ and without turning the economy over to the government. And without “ignoring it”.
    Which brings up one other issue I did not see addressed in the article:
    Outside of AOC’s idiotic assumption that the entire US energy supply can be ‘sustainable’, no where do I see any concrete ‘benefits’ on that side of the ledger.
    ‘Gee it’s gonna get this hot if this trend continues’, but nothing about what amount of CO2 reduction (if that’s possible) will accomplish.
    Are we supposed to do 1, 2, or 3 because we’ll feel better? What do we get for what it costs?

    1. Exactly. Wait for more information is what i’m doing. The climate change advocates are turning into psychotic climate tyrants over currently, nothing to panic over at the moment, using evidence that is in the least, flimsy. Yes, the C02 levels are increasing. Yes, maybe, the temperature is rising. Although this is debatable. We are talking about a fraction of a degree, and the measurements and methodology affect accuracy. Everything else (storms, drought, rain, etc etc, is speculation).

  36. Gotta go with Option 3. I just have a hunch. I feel really, really lucky about this one.

    IG! NORE! IG! NORE! IG! NORE!

  37. Let us consider some basic counter-arguments. What if there is not climate change emergency. Look carefully at the charts. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/01/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency-2/

  38. Ron, you and Patrick Michaels (Cato) remain my touchstone on climate and society. I don’t have the time to fully verse myself in the literature, and sort the hype from the science, so this article gives me some reason to start to wonder about my point of view.

    I’ve not read the snarky comments (I assume) above. But I will say: please keep on reading, thinking and writing your digests on climate change. I find them reasoned and apolitical (though many might claim they otherwise). They carry great weight with me, and would justify my annual contribution to Reason even if there were nothing else of value.

    Thank you.

    1. If you get your science info from Reason, you’re getting short changed.

      Go read some books on climate change; there are plenty of books that make the case for and against its existence, for and against its dangers, and for and against government intervention to fix it.

      1. Keep one thing in mind — There is NO university in the West that offers a degree in ‘Climate Science’. Period. So anyone that says they have one is an absolute fraud.

  39. At the end of the day, the gigantic irony concerning the debate climate change is the only reason it exists is because there is no viable solution to the claimed problem. If there was a viable solution, there would be no debate.

    1. This is the gist of my question to RB above: What are we to accomplish by what action?
      For all of the Scandinavian whiny teenagers, the watermelons claiming the government must run the economy, the vegans pissing and moaning about eating cows, not a one of them has proposed anything which they can show will solve the supposed problem.
      NOT A ONE.
      And we still see projected temp increases and not a one of them has been anywhere close to the measured data.

      1. Well GeneS above suggested “collective action.”

        And I guess that means get out your loin cloths, because its time to shut down oil production with laws and tyrants.

        1. His ‘collective action’ will be any Marxist idea that pops into their heads at any time. That’s the whole point of all this crap.

  40. Alert alert alert! !!

    Get Free Netflix Premium Account And Password At – https://www.netflixtrick.com

    Visit Now ????

  41. Temperatures have gone up 1c in the last 140 years, and human life span has doubled in the same time, while the world extreme poverty rate has declined from 80% to 10% and a large part of that is due to fossil fuels.

    Temperatures right now are about what they were in the medieval warming period and the Holocene optimal. From 7000-2000 years ago sea levels were rising at 4x the current rate at 12-15mm/yr, and before that sea levels were rising even faster, 10,000 years ago Great Britain was part of Europe and the Black Sea was a valley.

    It’s profoundly unscientific to look at the climate we have had for the last one hundred years or so and say any changes will be catastrophic, even when the changes just revert to what humans experienced in the recent past and thrived.

    The truth is almost all the changes we have had in last 100 years have beneficial. My own view is that the ideal co2 level is 500-700ppm, and 280ppm is too close to the 180ppm that is the minimum needed for photosynthesis.

    1. Temperatures have gone up 1c in the last 140 years, and human life span has doubled in the same time, while the world extreme poverty rate has declined from 80% to 10% and a large part of that is due to fossil fuels.

      In 1920’s and 30’s, Texas to North Dakota was a desert. Now it’s a lush forest in Texas and Oklahoma, and grass land in Kansas and Nebraska. Thanks climate change.

  42. There was a time when I might have listened to a carefully reasoned argument for Climate Change being something we should worry about, and possibly cased by man. That was some years back. Since then the advocates of the Climate Change cult have made so many wrong predictions and been caught in so many lies that I just can’t take it seriously. It doesn’t help one bit that the vast majority of ideas I see the cult pushing simply will not work.

    Climate Change the phenomenon may exist. Climate Change the emergency is pigswill, and I ain’t buying.

    1. When you start to see stuff like GND and Greta, you need to really be skeptical and ask ‘cui bono’?

      It’s almost as if we, in our hubris, use climate change to get Mother Nature’s attention as we wave our hands furiously desperately trying to get her attention.

      I’m just worried about the (really) bad policies that will come out of all this. What if we’re wrong? Which, when you look at the annals and catalogue of history, happens a lot.

  43. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website  ……..  Read More

  44. One thing I must say today is the way of presenting what you know can be learnt with this amazing article.

    Checkout my site too https://www.arieznaija.com

  45. “Under the worst-case scenario, global GDP would be $810 trillion, and average income would be $90,000 per person” … $8000 lower per year than a no climate change scenario.

    That’s just the worst-case *climate change* scenario. Worst case actual scenario is the world economy is throttled to socialist stagnation by the Globalists. That’s the scenario to worry about.

  46. SociXtreme Review – App Delivers Profit-Ready Social Campaigns For Massive Traffic, Leads & Sales
    SociXtreme is a revolutionary cloud-based app that allows you to tap into massive viral traffic from Facebook, Instagram And Twitter.
    Read full REVIEW and get BONUS:
    https://williamreview.com/socixtreme-review/

  47. Are you looking for Unmatched Legitimate Paper Writing Services? You don’t need to fail your Custom Paper Writing Assignments when you can utilize the best Dissertation Help Services or Online Superior Papers Writing from the help of the online paper writers.
    https://superiorwriters247.com/cheap-paper-writing/

  48. Ethanol or I call it yellow gas and yellow diesel and we all can see it as yellowish smog over every city in America. Thank you DIm/Obama/Soro for making it worst, poorer health so we die sooner all to what end? Power Control. All lies. Nice brain washing job.

  49. The simple truth is that the climate has always been changing. It has changed long before we were here and will continue to change long after we are gone. This is not the issue. Anthropogenic climate change is the issue. Does the relatively small addition of greenhouse gasses by people even move the needle? Who can tell?

    The simple truth is that science is really good at predicting some things, but not so good at others. When the variables are many instead of a few and they are non linear and dependent upon one another, science has a difficult time finding a clear (mathematical) model that offers the prospect of good predictive value. I would contend that one could no more predict what the climate will be like in 100 years than one could predict at what level the Dow will close next Wednesday.

    The track record of the climate models has been abysmal. Many of the models were adapted from macroeconomics, where they worked no better. According to Al Gore, and other “experts,” we should no longer have ice caps and warm tropical waters should be washing over the top of Telegraph Hill as I write this, but no such thing has even remotely happened. The assertion the author of the article makes is extremely deceptive.

    Again, it’s not that the climate is changing; the climate has and always will change. The question is, when compared to the massive luminous flux of the sun, can anthropogenic climate change be proven, even though the man-made contribution to climate change is comparatively nill. This very uninformed article is well below the level of commentary I have come to expect from Reason. This deliberate AGW (Anthropogenic Global Waming) propaganda piece shocks and saddens me.

    1. “Anthropogenic climate change is the issue.”
      An issue, sure. There are many others, the most important of which is, so what? What does anyone get to *do* even if that is the case?
      Oh wait, perhaps more important is: to what extent should we be alarmed by this? Is this an exit-event type situation? Should we be panicking? I don’t really give a shit if it is anthropogenic except for the possibility that causality can be determined and used to drive restitution in the case of damaged property rights. What I can’t countenance is retarding the very economic progress that makes society more than adaptable enough to adjust to a gradual change over hundreds of years. I was just reminded recently that, despite the Neanderthal’s physical superiority, they died out and Homo Sapiens survived the ice ages because they were more *adaptable*. *Things are going to change*. If it’s not the climate, it will be an asteroid hurtling towards earth, or a mega-caldera erupts, or a new deadly virus is unleashed, etc, etc. We need to have the technological and economic strength to adapt to these challenges and weather them. Frankly, the idea that 1 or 2 degrees is some sort of an existential threat is childish. Yeah, there will be some disruption, but society is *always* under disruption from any number of factors, and it soldiers on stronger and better.
      Bailey has lost the plot.

  50. For better or worse, climate alarmists have gotten themselves into a serious boy-who-cried-wolf situation.

  51. I’m seeing people up-thread going after Bailey’s libertarian and capitalist orthodoxy–especially in regards to Bailey’s use of the tragedy of the commons to describe global warming and climate change. That’s way off.

    Adam Smith described the same sort of thing–and used it as an example of a legitimate use of government. His example used a man walking from his front door, across his own front yard, towards the sidewalk on the street, when a cinder from his neighbor’s chimney unceremoniously landed on his shirt. The question was, “Who should pay the cleaning bill?”.

    On the one hand, a cinder from his neighbor’s chimney landed on his shirt when he was on his own property–and how can it be fair, in a just society, that he has to pay to clean his own shirt through no fault of his own? On the other hand, what sort of monstrous society wouldn’t let people burn wood in their own homes to keep themselves warm in the winter–for fear that some cinders will float from the chimney onto other people’s property?

    Smith had it that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights–like our right not to have our property ruined by others and our right to do things as basic as keeping our homes warm in the winter. If Bailey is arguing more or less the same thing, here, then he’s no less of a libertarian or a capitalist than Adam Smith.

    Meanwhile, here’s Hayek:

    “Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.”

    —-The Road to Serfdom

    If Ron Bailey isn’t a libertarian capitalist because of what he’s written in this article, then Adam Smith and F A Hayek weren’t libertarian capitalists either.

    1. It’s not just this article, Ken.

      The writers at Reason are showing a decidedly anti-liberty face lo these past few years, from support for star chambers and creating a society of censorship, to an acceptance of state backed pronouncements of Doom, be they economic or environmental.

      Ron suggest reading his book, The End of Doom, while penning an article that suggests that Domm is afoot.

      So yes, his bonafides are in question.

    2. Neither Smith nor Hayek were libertarians.

      They were classical liberals. Hayek was quite comfortable with a welfare state, he just thought it could be limited.

  52. I think you’re being too charitable in considering the GND as an option and writing as if it’s about the environment.

    The GND is/was a Trojan Horse to usurp capitalism and replace it with their socialist dreams.

  53. I’d be very careful with being ‘sure’ about earth’s climate.

    Leave aside we’re still ‘technically’ in a little ice age (as I’ve read), humans barely know how the human body functions or can understand political outcomes but in the last 50 years or so we’ve become so self-assured and convinced (based on a lot of bad data and science) that we know the earth’s climate direction and foolishly predict it 50 years into the future?

    G.T.F.O.H.

  54. Climate is a cottage industry and is highly political.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXVZP8k2KU

  55. “. . . but there is a case for letting global warming run its course and letting markets figure out how to respond.”

    Sure there is, especially if you have not even glanced at the unavoidable environmental-biological costs associated with rising temperatures, and I do not mean economic costs resulting from environmental effects but actual damage to food production and ecological systems. Today, farmers across the world are being directly adversely affected by rising tepmeratures, and that rise so far is not what we would see in the future if “global warming runs its course.” Dozens of questions about agriculture have to be addressed, such as “What happens if the world’s pollinators die off at higher rates than are anticipated today?” Where do you address that and other critical problems based on biological constraints? After all, we can’t eat economic solutions.

    1. Yes, huge crop yields are a BAD thing.

      Extended growing seasons and an overall milding of the climate is just horrendous.

      But you’re right–we can’t eat economic solutions.

      Fortunately, climate change has made it possible to just eat all the food that’s being produced.

    2. Farm yields are at an all time HIGH!! More CO2 means more green growth.
      Why do you believe something that is so easy to see is not true??
      Not a single alarmist statement you made is true!

  56. Calamities with a small but non-zero chance of impacting huge swaths of humanity are innumerable. If we spend even a small portion of global gdp “insuring” against each, we’d quickly find ourselves back in the stone age…. coincidentally, exactly where the environmental movement wants us.

  57. “I have unhappily concluded, based on the balance of the evidence, that climate change is proceeding faster and is worse than I had earlier judged it to be. There are still big scientific uncertainties, such as just how sensitive the global climate is to a given increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. And the proper public policy remains far from clear. Still, most of the evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century—probably more than 2 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial level. Such a temperature increase will definitely have substantial impacts on human beings.”

    I have also taken this journey, Ron. I am a scientist, taught by Nobel Prize winners. I can read the actual data. I am nowhere near your conclusion. The uncertainties are vast, the models that project catastrophe are biased from the get-go as models must be, and the science is absolutely NOT near a consensus. You are not convincing.

    1. He’s not trying to convince. He is engaging in tribal signaling.

  58. Actually, all indicators of a changing climate show no trends. No increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados (were in a tornado drought after leaving an 11-year hurricane drought), etc…

    There are no signals in the weather, and intensity and strength haven’t changed. That’s an alarmist talking point. Antarctica is gaining ice, Earth is getting greener, the Arctic sea ice is back to 2012 levels, and crop yields worldwide have never been higher. We produce enough food to feed 10 billion people.

    These aren’t made up phony-baloney statistics. This is what the data says. From orgs like EPA, NASA, NOAA, and other science groups. Try as you might, the apocalypse isn’t coming or even close.

    The Earth left a well-documented Little Ice Age lasting 300 years back in 1850. We’ve warmed up a little more than 1 deg C. That equates to about .13 deg C per decade. This is also what the satellites show (remember, NASA called them the gold standard in measuring temperatures until they stopped showing what they wanted).

    But honest scientists who aren’t reliant on grants and funds and awards are still plugging along and producing non-alarmist reports that never make the news (they don’t report all the planes that land safely, remember?).

    But since you appear to get your news from the big 3 networks (or worse, CNN), I’m not surprised you would claim “climate change is proceeding faster and is worse” than you previously judged. Prior to the climate change fever, we used to call it weather.

    The Midwest floods happened before and will happen again. They aren’t growing in frequency in the US or worldwide. The permanent California drought was officially over (until the next one because that’s what the geological record shows for that state). Remember the proclamations about the end of snow by the NYTimes? Kind of silly in retrospect.

    The polar vortex (aka polar jetstream) that dips into the US was once called an Arctic blast. Now it’s blamed on global warming because, well, you can get Michael Mann or Kevin Trenberth to say anything that furthers their alarmist grant-driven agenda. Mann isn’t even a climatologist. He’s a geologist but there’s no money in that. So he switched studies.

    I would leave the climate reporting in more capable, less alarmist hands, like those of John Stossel.

  59. I live in central Minnesota. Our last three winters have been colder and far more snowy than the previous three. The past two summers have had significantly fewer days above 90 degrees than the previous two. I am deliberately looking at the data to see whether, using the data the way the experts do, I can discern a trend toward a colder period. Gee, it workks!

  60. The best part of the article is the analysis of the GDP and therefore the irrelevance of climate change to the future prosperity of the planet’s inhabitants.
    As usual in the article there was no mention of the actual amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Yes, it is now 410 PARTS PER MILLION, up from 380 twenty or thirty years ago. It is a trace gas that doesn’t have the heft to influence the world’s temperature. There are many other factors, primarily the sun, that do affect the the climate.
    I have a book, “Ice Age 2025”, by Dr. Joel Glass, that predicts a really cool spell is coming based on the current lack of sun spots that has always preceded the cooling of the planet. That sounds better to me than the 100 IPCC computer projections that have shown much higher temperatures than we have experienced. So, I agree, ignore it.

    Thanks, Vegasdick

    1. Exactly, sir. The cold will rule the day over the coming decade.

  61. “Current evidence” points to a significantly warmer world at the end of the century (80 years from now). Its not evidence, it’s a forecast. Based on models. That botched doomsday forecasts for the end of the last century. Same models that can’t accurately re-run observations of climatic history. Which is conclusive evidence that they are h o r s e s h i t.

  62. Pure nonsense. There is and never will be any man caused climate change, ever. There is no honest and factual system that can predict the future climate in a hundred years. The weather man with all his scientific data cannot predict the weather a week ahead with any certainty except to say it might be cold, warm, rain or snow or some other guess. Global warming freaks are outright agenda following clowns with no basis for their outrageous claims. I am and always will be a climate denier, with great happiness.

  63. Everyone should move 100 miles to the north to get away from the heat.

  64. BAILEY HAS NO BUSINESS BEING REASONS SCIENCE GUY AS HE IS NOT INTO SCIENCE.
    REASON CONTINUES TO DENIGRATE ITSELF WITH THIS KIND OF LEFTIST , NON SCIENCE CLAP TRAP.
    THIS PIECE IS 100% NONSENSE, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, WHICH NO ACTUAL LIBERTARIAN DOES.
    I HOPE REASON WAKES UP BEFORE IT DESTROYS ITSELF.
    For the first time I am questioning my support of Reason magazine.

    1. This is not the first time a reader has called his own commonsense into question

  65. I’ll believe that they really believe there is a threat when they start pushing for more nuclear power. And when people like the Obamas stop buying properties at the ocean’s edge.

  66. GDP and individual income projections don’t mean much without Cost of Living projections.

  67. “There are three ways to handle overexploitation in an open-access commons: privatize it, regulate it, or ignore it.”

    One’s failure to think of more than 3 options does not mean they do not exist. I really wonder sometimes about Ron’s and Reason’s “libertarian” credentials when you seem to understand so little about how a libertarian society would work.
    A libertarian society is based on *property rights*. Yes, damage to a commons can result in damage to individual property rights: that’s called a *tort*. No libertarian society “regulates” anything; if you feel your property rights have been damaged, you take the damaging party to court with the intent of being paid restitution. The libertarian legal system *already handles* any damage caused by man made climate warming. All that is needed is to show causality. The climate does not need to be privatized, it is a means by which one party might be damaging others property rights. This achieves what Bailey wants: there is an incentive for not damaging the commons, and reckless behavior is paid for. But there’s no need to start invoking vague notions like “regulation”, *particularly* a priori. This cannot be stressed enough: as soon as you open up apriori “regulation”, basically *anything* goes, and there is all the risk in the world that they very technological advance that makes society so adaptable to changing conditions – and conditions are going to change, man-made or not – may be destroyed by these apriori regulations. The whole point of a property rights legal system is that you are only held liable *for things you damage*, not for things that others imagine you *might* damage at some point in the future.
    Reason has become absolutely retarded on fundamental libertarian concepts.

  68. I do not know what the author is smoking, but So. CA just got snow in Nov.

    Thing is I am studying science that is taking about a Solar Minimum. NASA is predicting the coldest Sun cycle in 200 years just a head of us. And for those who follow “science” in the NYT – this means Earth is about to cool.

    The next major “climate change per “Geologic Time” (the end of the InterGlacial period) is an Ice Age. The continuation of the one we have been in for over 2.5 million years. But who’es counting.

    1. That’s the key. The main driver in c,image change is solar activity, not human contribution to greenhouse gases.

      But that can’t be used to push communism on the masses so they make up AGW bulkshit.

  69. ‘”The science” does not tell us what must be done.’

    But the Progressive Environmentalist Alarmist (non-scientist) Left believes that it does, and that it must involve both the destruction of free market capitalism, and by proxy democracy and individual freedoms. Only a massive, centralized, totalitarian state can enact what they want, and we all know from history how that ends every time.

  70. I think you focus too much on the question of how much warming we can expect, too little on the question of the net effects. Thus, for example, you talk about more rapid sea level rise inundating major cities. But the high end of the high emissions scenario on the fifth IPCC report, for the end of the century, was only about a meter. What major cities get inundated at that?

    Further, like many people, you mostly ignore positive effects. The same doubling of CO2 concentration that is supposed to drive the warming also increases the yield of most crops by about 30% (less for maize and sugar cane), and reduces water requirements. Some land will be lost through sea level rise, but very little–one meter of SLR produces, on average, a shift of the coastline by about 100 meters. But the same warming pushes temperature contours towards the pole, increasing the amount of usable land by two or three orders of magnitude more than SLR reduces (my estimate—I haven’t seen a careful calculation.

    Warming results in more deaths from hot summers, fewer from cold winters. An old Lancet article estimated global mortality from cold to be nearly twenty times as large as from heat. And the interaction between CO2 and water vapor implies that warming will be greater in winter than in summer, greater in cold climates than in hot.

    There are other negative effects I haven’t considered, and I don’t want to overstate my case. But I do not think it is clear that the net externality from warming is positive, although many people, apparently including you, take it for granted that it is.

  71. Listen up ECO-SCAM SCUM….. You had your chance — You stated your theories; the world bought it. Your theories and models FAILED…

    What do they claim theories that prove not to be true by the test of time???????

    Oh yeah ——– ITS just a bunch of B#LL- SH#T!!!!!!!

    1. ^”What do they call”

    2. AND in other Reason news — Mortality rate is down..

      I guess all that subsidized clean air wasn’t as “healthy” as they thought it was.

  72. What a waste of time!

    Without a global government, you can’t do that. Does Reason publish articles advocating a global government?

    If so… then it isn’t Libertarian.

    The author is weak on the science, by the way. Yes, the earth is warming. NO – science does *not* work by concensus. And, maybe the author should have pondered the half of the putative warming that took place before the big increase in CO2. Maybe the author should have looked at the corruption that is ripe in climate science – after all, climate science is a big government operation, and suffers from the maladies that creates – and worse.

    1. “maybe the author should have pondered the half of the putative warming that took place before the big increase in CO2.”

      In 1945, Greenhouse gas forcing was just 9% of what it is now. Yet the warming 1908-1945 was just as strong and long as the warming 1982-2019.

      That doesn’t mean that CO2 isn’t warming the earth but it does clearly mean that natural variability plays a significant role and not nearly all the warming can be blamed on CO2.

      BTW, adjustments to past temperature records have consistently cooled the 1930s and 1940s. The “revised” records remarkably eradicated some of that inconvenient early 20th century warming and virtually eliminated that pesky and inconvenient cooling from 1945-1978 when CO2 really kicked in. The new revised temp records are a much better fit to the carbon dioxide record.

      Very suspicious historical revisionism says this meteorological statistician.

  73. The best we can do is to prepare.
    Prepare not only for rising sea levels, increased agriculture production, fewer deaths in winter, but also for the next glaciation for which we’re overdue. And which the sun cycle seems to be predicting.
    How do y’all in the NE like your winter?

  74. There is little “reason” in this article as the author has just bought hook line and sinker a theory which aligns with our “woke” world and tries to justify all sorts of liberty wrecking “solutions.”

    First we need to understand this whole “climate” science is not on the same level of say quantum mechanics or even newtonian mechanics. The top of the pyramid of science is physics and the way a theory becomes adopted is through testing. You can’t do this in climate science..it is more akin to biology where you create a theory and in this case a very complex computer model and then make forecasts..which then if not close to reality you then have to start to manipulate your variables. And make excuses why this or that is just “noise” and your theory and model really do work.

    The problem is we are not dealing with a closed system in statistical thermodynamic parlance and we don’t really understand the interplay between the variables. Climate is by definition dependent on nonlinear functions which can’t be tested in a lab. So you fall back on all sort of theories (some testable by themselves) and then create assumptions of how they interplay with simulation modeling. Sorry but it really isn’t hard science. And no where (I did go in your climate data site) is there something every scientist looks for in test results..standard deviation of the forecasts.

    Sorry but the author needs to take a few physics courses and then ask some tough questions before just accepting what some folks with vested interests (more govt grant funding or the financial bankster types who will enrich themselves from carbon credits or what now) say is gospel.

    For the record after I finished with a hard science degree (yes I had to take quantum mechanics, nuclear chemistry and statistical thermodynamics) I worked in nuclear fusion/laser research…so while not a climate researcher I have some experience in modeling complex systems…

    I’ve always thought no one should be spouting off on public policy (usually more govt and less liberty) if they can’t pass differential equations.

    What a load of crap from Reason

    1. Well stated, Titus PUllo. My career has been in forecasting. It started with basic weather forecasting using pattern recognition but I have evolved into complex model design and verification on a wide variety of applications. Climate forecasts are no different than weather…the skill wanders fairly quickly and asymptotically toward zero.

      Climate models simply have no skill on multi-decade time scale. Well-founded assumptions that greenhouse gases will make it warmer have proven correct, but that’s not ‘model skill’ per se. That is more like guessing that a sunny day will get warm or the top of a mountain is colder. The evolution of the climate system is not actually forecast with skill, just a constant added to the non-linear chaos and noise.

      Regional scale climate forecasts have proven completely skill-less.

      Climate scientists generally have zero skill or training in actual real-world forecasting. Yet, for some reason, people are quick to believe their wildest forecasts which then get exaggerated by media and politicians into end-of-the-world nonsense.

      So far, most forecasts from 15-30 years ago have a hot bias of about 2 to 1. Oddly, the newest models are running basically the same assumptions and will almost certainly run the same hot bias. Verification specialists just roll their eyes and divide by two…then laugh at the lack of “crisis”.

  75. It is so refreshing to see the author admit that there are disputed points. Don’t expect my support for policies pushed by those who admit no doubts or differences of interpretation or who think the path to all wind and solar is straightforward.
    Second, the big problems are obviously China and India. Before I agree to big changes in the US, show me your plan for dealing with them.
    Third, show me a plan that includes significant nuclear and you might get me on board without getting China and India on board.

    1. Last year, global energy demand increased by 390mtoe. Wind and solar added 70mtoe. So wind and solar are not “saving the world”. They aren’t even remotely keeping up with demand much less replacing it.

      The other 320mtoe energy shortfall seems to have been easily met, mostly by fossil fuels, without the billions in subsidies or favored policies and Herculean effort that added just 70motoe of wind and solar.

  76. I think the expected future growth rates of 3% are far too optimistic. Not disputing that many countries and people will catch up to the technological frontier but the frontier will be moving much more slowly in future. The Solow Swan model on total factor productivity improvements being the crucial component of economic growth demonstrates the power of innovation. Robert Gordon’s work on diminishing marginal returns to research shows that total factor productivity improvements for countries at the technological frontier have declined and are continuing to decline. Recent economic performances indicate that real GDP per capita will be lucky to reach 0.5% and it will continue to decline.

  77. There is nothing that humans can do to change the climate. To think otherwise is pure hubris. If one is concerned about the changing climate then focus on the practical, engineering solutions to make our lives comfortable in whichever case(s) we may actually experience, be it cooling or warming…

  78. MMGW is still a hoax

  79. Option #4: Prepare for it

    Even the most optimistic projections suggest that if we do everything we think would work, it will only have a neglible effect on the increase in temperature. Accept that change happens.

    Do things like ending government regulation and disaster aid spending when people choose to live close to the ocean or on islands just barely above sea level. Imagine if there were humans during the ice age who built ocean front houses. Is it rational to protect them with 400 foot tall walls?

  80. Welp. I’m done. I am canceling my subscription to Reason Magazine. I keep listening to “journalists” a term I use loosely, because it’s mostly just regurgitating others talking points, tell me that they have interpreted the data and I should just believe what they say because, of course. I am stupid and must be told what (and how preferably) to think. Now I have been growing cannabis for thirty year years, 3-0 going on thirty one. And I have been reassured continuously about atmospheric increases of co2, now up to 400 parts per million. Well I actually monitor the atmospheric co2 because I supplement my garden to 1200 parts per million to increase size and quicken maturity, and the CO2 monitor I use has not gone up even one part per million in thirty years even though climate change charlatans are TRYING to tell me it has gone up one hundred PPM. That is a lie. When is the last time one of these journalists even LOOKED at a co2 monitor much less one every day for thirty years. But they will assure us they have read the data and my substandard intellect needs to just shut up and obey. Nice message from faux libertarians.

  81. What happened to make you (Reason) insane? NO EVIDENCE.

  82. The author “hides the ball”. He starts out arguing that warming will continue for another century–highly controversial–but the rest of his article proceeds as if he has thus proven that the warming is MANMADE. He has done no such thing. He hid that ball.

    He then argues that a variety of climate and weather events are increasing–storms, drought, glacier melting and such. Never mind that there is zero statistical evidence that such increases are occurring. Sure, they are reported as if Armageddon is upon us, but actually they are all within normal ranges. He then proceeds as if he has demonstrated that the increases are serious problems for human society that justify spending trillions of dollars on prevention, ignoring the fact that “climate change prevention” is itself a totally unproven human capability. Another ball hidden.

    The author ignores that humans can easily adapt to the weather events he lists, and do so at a tiny fraction of the cost of the Green Agenda. Really, how many people will die from a reduction of polar bear numbers, or a sea level seven inches higher a century from now, or a glacier that shrank back?

    The UN Climate Agenda and the US Green Agenda would cost us 80 trillion dollars over the remainder of this century. Can the author not think of any better way to spend that kind of money to actually make human life better?

    1. Many commenters here are more interesting and convincing than the guy getting paid to type this agenda-driven foolishness. If I were so gullible or had figured out how to tap into the ‘dollars-for-planetary-salvation’ money stream, I’d be out buying a Prius right now.

  83. Well at least he believes in markets. So, consider this. If the climate is changing the way “they” say then sea levels are surely rising, which means that many coastal communities around the world will be under water in a few years. So, the market says that the price of ocean front property should be dropping. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe it is.

  84. Ronald Bailey wants to join the controllers and empower the politicians to deprive us of more of our freedoms, based on his fear of climate change.
    Step back, Mr. Bailey, and let those free men and women who are not afraid to face change, make it easier for all of us to cope with change, however it develops.

  85. Why should we think that we’re exempted from something that has occurred continuously since the forming of this planet? Are we so advanced or egotistical as to think we have control over the planet’s climate… AND THE SUN?
    Who are the real “climate deniers”?

    1. YOU THINK THE SUN HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS?

      Do you SERIOUSLY believe we cannot control CO2 levels in the atmosphere …. BY ADDING LESS OF IT?
      https://earthsky.org/earth.atmispheric-CO2-record-high
      1) Todays 400 ppm CO2 is the highest it’s been in 61 years of MEASURED data.; ASSUMED the highest in 800,000 years (Smithsonian)
      2) It was about 300 ppm in 1960. Do the math,

      (Second link requires a part 2)

      1. Part 2

        THIS LINK is to the results of a Google search for “CO2 concentration 2019” (no quotes)

        Pick a source, a real source, out of 30 million or so. Perhaps explore some suggested link.. I clicked for he health hazards over 1,000 ppm.

        Sadly, many folks — prayerfully not you — will conclude “I don’t want this to be true, so NASA and Smithsonian are phony sources.”

        Explore as many sources as you need, to make whatever informed judgment you reach. You and I may disagree. But we’ll both be more informed voters. That’s a win, eh?

        Thank YOU for motivating my own exploration here!

  86. NATO Laughingstock: Trump Says He’s A Climate Change Expert Because He Likes Crystal Clear Water

    Donald Trump wasted no time in making himself the laughingstock of the NATO Summit in London on Tuesday by claiming that climate change is something he thinks about “all the time.”

    In an attempt to prove the laughable idea that he’s concerned about environmental issues, Trump said, “I believe very strongly in very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air. That’s a big part of climate change.”

    (Actual video of Trump’s climate change ignorance onsite)

    Not as bad as the when the entire UN General Assembly laughed at him, publicly!

Please to post comments