Climate Change

The Scariest Predictions in the New U.N. Climate Report Are Also the Most Unlikely

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change issues its Sixth Assessment Report on the global climate.

|

"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land," declares the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its new Sixth Assessment Report. "Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred." The climate scientists who assembled and curated the data inform us that the average temperature of the globe is now 1.1°C (about 2°F) higher than the average temperature of the 1850–1900 period.

The report also expresses high confidence that "global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years." In addition, the average temperature during the most recent decade exceeds the temperatures of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6,500 years ago. The one before that, about 125,000 years ago, reached essentially the same average temperature level as today.

The recent rise in temperatures is mainly due to increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from the pre-industrial level of around 280 parts per million (ppm) to more than 410 ppm.

As the new report notes, the evidence has significantly strengthened since 2013, when the IPCC's last assessment appeared, that human-induced climate change is largely responsible for observed changes in heat waves, heavy precipitation, droughts, tropical cyclones, and other forms of extreme weather. Global sea level has increased by about 8 inches since 1900. But it has been accelerating in recent years due to thermal expansion and melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising faster since 1900 than over any preceding century in at least the last 3,000 years.

How much hotter will it get in the future? The IPCC report outlines five different "shared socioeconomic pathways" (SSPs) that incorporate various assumptions about economic growth, population growth, and just how much greenhouse gas humanity will emit over the rest of the century. The good news is that the two worst-case SSPs are totally implausible, so humanity is probably not looking at temperature increases of 3.5 °C to 4.5 °C by 2101. (Keep in mind that the temperature difference from the depths of the last ice age to today is around 6°C—and that change took place over millennia, not a century.)

Why are they implausible? Consider that the worst-case pathway projects that humanity will, among other things, be burning about five times more coal and annually emitting three times more greenhouse gases than we do today. (Global coal production peaked in 2013, so that would be quite a reversal.) The second-most-dire pathway projects that humanity will annually emit more than double the amounts of greenhouses gases being emitted currently.

A much more plausible trajectory for future fossil fuel use and emissions has been devised by the International Energy Agency. It compared what would likely happen to global fuel use and emissions if countries continue to pursue their current energy policies versus their stated energy policies under the Paris climate change agreement.

Using those data, Breakthrough Institute climate and energy director Zeke Hausfather and CICERO Center for International Climate Research director Glen Peters published a Nature article last year highlighting the implausibility of the IPCC's scariest scenarios. Those SSPs "should be clearly labelled as unlikely worst cases rather than as business as usual," they concluded.

University of Colorado environmental researchers Roger Pielke Jr. and Matthew Burgess, along with the University of British Columbia's Justin Ritchie, analyzed the IPCC's emissions scenarios more recently. In a preprint of their results, they find that 71 percent of the most plausible emissions scenarios "project between 2°C and 3°C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2°C."

Those scenarios still indicate that the world is off track from limiting 21st century warming to the Paris climate change agreement's goal of around 1.5°C.

The table below shows projected mean global average temperatures under each of the IPCC's five scenarios. The intermediate pathway—the one dubbed SSP2-4.5—falls close to the range of those identified by Pielke and his colleagues.

In "How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality," a paper published last month in Issues in Science and Technology, Pielke and Ritchie persuasively argue that "the emissions scenarios of today's climate science are delivering distorted pictures that compromise both understanding and well-informed policymaking." They add, "Until the climate science community addresses this fundamental problem of scientific integrity, its potential to contribute to pragmatic solutions for the vexing, extraordinarily difficult challenge of climate change will be unnecessarily compromised."

Unabated man-made climate change would likely become a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century. But the more plausible emissions scenarios suggest it is eminently possible to grow the world's economy while keeping global temperatures below catastrophic thresholds, by gradually transitioning from fossil fuels.

NEXT: D.C. Gyms Want To Require Vaccination Instead of Masks. The City Said No.

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. Very informative……

    1. I smell a bot

      1. Castrol Braycote 296?

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inXSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

        2. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others.HKl This job is super easy and its earnings are great. Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily by just follow

          The given website………. VISIT HERE

      2. Bailey? No, NPC perhaps but not a bot.

    2. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Learn more about it here…

      This is what I do……………. VISIT HERE

    3. “As the new report notes, the evidence has significantly strengthened since 2013, when the IPCC’s last assessment appeared, that human-induced climate change is largely responsible for observed changes in heat waves, heavy precipitation, droughts, tropical cyclones, and other forms of extreme weather.”

      I wish someone, somewhere would do more than just make this assertion. What is this evidence? How does it work?

  2. ‘”the emissions scenarios of today’s climate science are delivering distorted pictures that compromise both understanding and well-informed policymaking.”‘

    Ya think?

    1. If our laws demanded that scientists actually use the scientific method there would be less misinformation but potentially more conflict.

      The earth is a closed system, like a Martian colony. There are only so many resources that must be used to everyone’s equal advantage.

      Try telling the worlds elite that all their shekels can’t buy more than anyone else can.

      1. Yes and no. In some very important ways, no.

        For matter, the earth is a (mostly) closed system. There’s only so much accessible lithium in the earth’s crust and once it’s used up, that’s all folks. For energy, it is not a closed system. There’s this huge ball of incandescent gas in the sky that keeps adding energy on a daily basis. More importantly, human ingenuity is a vast resource that is virtually unlimited and which has time and again defeated the Malthusian arguments.

        1. Human ingenuity doesn’t replace planning and regulation, it augments it.

          To let “the market decide” our actions and hope for ingenuity is reckless.

          Our raw materials are finite. Our renewable resources require planning and regulation. They can be contaminated to no longer support life.

          Past experience suggests boundless resources, like the Buffalo.

  3. High-End Global Warming Scenarios in New U.N. Climate Change Report Are Exceedingly Implausible

    AOC SAVED US!!!

    1. 8.5 is basically only use coal for energy and the population doubles.

      Same crazy shit from the grifter class.

  4. “the emissions scenarios of today’s climate science are delivering distorted pictures that compromise both understanding and well-informed policymaking.”

    Which is probably the whole point.

    1. Though it pains me to say it, it we followed France’s lead and when heavy with state of the art nuclear, we could greatly reduce CO2 emissions while still maintaining our standard of living / freedom. But that doesn’t sit well with the misanthropic environmentalists and control-freek politicians.

      1. Rush Limbaugh described environmentalists as watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

        1. That’s why the founder of green peace left. They stopped caring about the environment and went full on Marxist

          1. I was trying to find that awhile back and couldn’t find anything. Do you remember his name?

        2. Rush also found “very convincing” the hypotesis that palaeoclimate data from “Miocene, Palaeocene and Plasticine” times proved anthopocene global warming was a hoax.

          Maybe you should pay moe attention to his souces and less to Ron Bailey’s

          https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/08/climate-change-always-look-on-flat-side.html

        3. Rush Limbaugh CORRECTLY described environmentalists as watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

          FTFY

      2. So true. If we had transitioned to nuclear powered generation in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, like the electric utility industry wanted to, we wouldn’t be talking about GHG today.
        As I remind all of my hysterical environmentalist friends, the blame for the transition to nuclear generation not being accomplished can be placed squarely on the hysterical environmental movement and their clueless allies in the media.
        Btw, I worked in the electric utility industry for 35 years so I know enough to know the Three Mile Island “disaster” is a media generated myth. There was no “disaster” because the facility did exactly what it was designed to do when the reactor overheated. The truth is the reactor shut down as design and zero radiation was released because of it. TMI might have been a financial disaster for the investors and, to a lesser extent, the ratepayers. But it was in no way a nuclear disaster. Much like today, the media’s agenda takes precedence over actual journalism.

        1. Of course Global Warming scaremongering began as a ploy to sell nuclear power, so…um good job there, guys.

        2. I remember looking into the 3 mile isle meltdown years ago, and what did I learn?
          It proved the safety of nuclear power in the US. Everything did what it was supposed to do and prevented catastrophic meltdown.
          It should be an example of exactly why nuclear power is safe, but it’s been propagandized to be a symbol of the opposite.

        3. On top of that, the push by the *same* hysterics in the 80s to clean up air pollution (caused by their insistence that we not go nuclear) reduced the aerosols and particulates from coal power which were blocking a lot of the sun’s energy. This more transparent atmosphere not only stopped the cooling of the Earth, but contributed directly to the temperatures rising “faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years”.

        4. Most of my family is from the area and TMI was all bark, no bite. Everyone freaked out, but just like you said, it wasn’t a nuclear disaster. My dad still remembers being given a geiger counter despite the absence of a radiation leak.

  5. If it fits the narrative it’s climate change, otherwise it’s just weather.

    1. Case in point I can’t tell you how many shrieking articles I’ve seen about the heat wave in WA-OR, but I haven’t seen a single mention of record lows in the CA Bay Area this summer. Coldest summer in 56 years. We’ve cracked 80 maybe five times, lows in the 50s.

  6. Don’t worry, the Top Men will handle this with the ease they handled covid.

    1. Well, I can rest easy now.

    2. Does that mean eternal mask mandates ’til the next ice age?

  7. IPCC International Panel on Climate Change] 8/3/2021:

    1. There is nothing we can do to change it, and will last “for centuries no matter what we do” and it will be warmer over the next decade. Heat waves, drought, flooding more and worse.

    2. No catastrophic ice sheet collapses or major slow downs in ocean currents this century.

    IOW, the world is not coming to an end, and it is beyond our capacity to alter it any way.

    1. That won’t stop politicians from telling us what kind of cars we can buy, how much energy our appliances may use, what kind of light bulbs we can buy….

      1. Or spending 2 trillion bucks we don’t have to “fight climate change”, with no way to refund the money to taxpayers once it proves to have had no effect on the climate.

        1. I’ll accept the public suicides of all the people who promoted and voted it. That would be a step in the right direction.

          1. Were do we go to get tickets? This I want to see!

    2. IOW, the world is not coming to an end, and it is beyond our capacity to alter it any way.

      But we’re mostly responsible for it.

      Climate Evangelist: “Mankind is mostly responsible for AGW!”
      Joe: “OK, so there’s nothing we can do about it.”
      Climate Evangelist: “Whaddya mean? I said *we* were responsible for it.”
      Joe: “You also said the riots were mostly peaceful and that I didn’t build that.”

      1. The ‘A’ in AGW stands for Anthropogenic, a word scientists and other elites use which means caused by humans.

    3. The political class is playing a dangerous hand with their AGW power grab. They know there’s nothing we can do because the climate isn’t as simple as “turn off emissions and everything goes back to normal.” As they continue to impose restrictions in the name of science, two things will occur.

      1. some people will see that continued power grabs that don’t do anything are just using AGW as an excuse for authoritarian rule
      2. everyone else will double down with the church of science and become even more authoritarian and violent because you’re literally killing the planet

      I like to focus on new ideologies, not because they are well reasoned or worth adopting, but that they are indicative of society. It should not surprise anyone that an ideology as whacked out as accelerationism developed in the late 20th century and has picked up steam in the 21st.

  8. Of course it will not; they like having to degree of control, with more to come.

  9. “…the data inform us that the average temperature of the globe is now 1.1°C (about 2°F) higher than the average temperature of the 1850–1900 period.”

    And look what has happened since then. Human society has collapsed. Oh wait.

    1. And 1850-1900 includes the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, which cooled global temperatures for years.

      1. And I’m sure the calibration of thermometers was just as precise as the ones on our satellites.

      2. And just a few years after the little ice age

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

        1. “The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[2] It was not a true ice age of global extent. The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[3] The time period has been conventionally defined as extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[4][5][6] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[7] to about 1850.[8][9][10]”

          The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[6] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered that the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[11]

          Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact[12])”

        2. And just a few years after the little ice age

          Yeah, but if they started their graphs somewhere other than the coldest point in the last few centuries, it wouldn’t look as scary…

  10. …global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years.

    Jesus.

    1. Jesus.

      Cool.

    2. Theodoric, Barber of York, was viewing satellite data of Siberia in between leechings and drilling holes in little girls heads to let the demons and other I’ll humours escape

      1. Seriously… Have we even hit 50 years of reliable data yet?

    3. How did the Hockey Stick make a comeback? That stuff was truly bogus from grafting measured temps straight onto the end of the proxy time series to inverting a proxy’s (varves) temperature relationship to running noise through the algorithm then seeing the same shape emerge.

      Demonstrably the worst public science since Lysenkoism. Well maybe Ancel Key’s fat jihad was close to as bad…

      1. How did the Hockey Stick make a comeback?

        Data “adjustments” have replaced the use of proxy data. Weirdly, all of the adjustments from the raw instrumental records are making recent years appear warmer and earlier years appear colder. Up until just a few years ago, it was widely accepted that the mid 1930s was the hottest recorded period in US history (with the possible exception of the 1998 El Nino spike).

  11. Crap now that people have stopped buying into their wu flu bs they are back to climate alarmism

  12. Somebody should clue Barry. He foolishly popped for a cool $11.75M for a spread that is predicted to be underwater in a decade. As much as I chortle about this global warming horse shit I hope it’s true, only for his sake.

    1. And he’ll be laughing all the way to the bank with a federal flood insurance check paid for by you and I.

      1. Not I! (Not me either, but definitely not I.)

  13. The report omits the fact that global warming may be good.

    A Truly Catastrophic Climate Change
©

    The green Antarctic forest teemed with life,
    Diverse as any forest ever seen.
    From pole to pole, the planet Earth was rife
    With lifeforms both terrestrial and marine.

    No polar deserts. No bare tundra there.
    No grinding glaciers marching from the pole.
    A Green-House-Earth with climate not severe
    Until azolla’s curse took full control.

    The Arctic sea’s azolla bloom did strip
    Most carbon from our planet’s atmosphere.
    And made the whole Earth’s climate do a flip
    Into the Ice-House-Earth we live with here.

    Before new ice sheets make our planet worse,
    What can we do that will reverse this curse?

    1. Truly doggerelstrophic.

    2. Agreed.
      Cooling is a far, far greater threat than warming.

  14. LIFE CHANGING OPPORTUNITY BE an Internet HOME-BASED real Earner.I am just working on facebook haa only 3 to 4 hours a Day and earning $47786 a month easily, that is handsome earning to meet my extra expenses and that is really life changing opportunity. Let me give you a little insight into what I do….. http://Www.SmartPay1.com

  15. lmao…. And only 10-Years ago the temperature raised 1.8C. What they blissfully ignore is the climate is now cooling. But political propaganda changing cliche terms “global warming” to “climate change” are right on track.

    Never-mind that history of “global warming” before the industrial revolution even existed. Never-mind that history that there was “global cooling” during WWII when more CO2 was being dumped than ever before. Never-mind, Never-mind, Never-mind, Never-mind…

    The Cherry-Picking by the IPCC couldn’t be more obvious if they tried to be. The *real* reason the IPCC exists?

    How will the overlords get the people’s support and the almighty *POWER* to act like Gov-Gods without making up some story about them being able to change the weather and that the weather will kill them all. Ironically; every policy towards these ends *are* killing them all.

    1. The problem is right there in the name. Inter GOVERNMENTAL. MORE Power. MORE Money. MORE MORE MORE.

  16. My 2 biggest issues concerning the earth’s past and current average temperatures are:
    1) How is it even possible to determine the earth’s average temperature? Getting an accurate reading seems to be impossible to me. Putting thermometers around the globe doesn’t seem to be a fool proof method where you can have confidence in the average temperature calculations being 100% accurate.
    2) Since the climate models predicting future temperatures have mostly proven to be inaccurate (ie, Al Gore’s doomsday predictions in his idiotic book haven’t materialized) can we really rely on these same models’ to tell us what past temperatures were? Their track record doesn’t give me much confidence in them.
    Also, media headlines claiming “highest recorded temperatures” are beyond foolish since the thermometer wasn’t even invented until the early-mid 1800’s.
    Truth is when dinosaurs roamed the earth they flourished, and grew to be so large, in part because the earth’s tropical environment created an abundance of vegetation and also meant dinosaurs never suffered harsh winters like the wildlife in Yellowstone NP does today. So I’m not convinced the doom and gloom predictions should be taken seriously. Think about it, if there’s less ice in the polar bears’ environment then they won’t have to stand over a hole in the ice all day waiting for a seal to appear. Doesn’t that mean they have a better chance of surviving the winter if seals are easier to hunt?
    I’m all ears as to what I’m missing here.

    1. What you do is start at the end of the Little Ice Age (1850), so that all that “has risen since” looks ultra dramatic.

      kind of like looking at the surge in the Dow since November 2008

      1. Great. Now I’m worried about Anthropogenic Dow Change. The government must have more Power and Money to fix it!

    2. They also “adjusted” temp data from the 30s because the 1930 were hotter than this decade, but that doesn’t fit the narrative.

    3. You’re not missing anything. The effect of 1000 ppm CO2 and global temperatures as during the Eocene maximum would generally be beneficial in the long run: more plant life, more arable land, more rain, more habitable land.

      About 1000 ppm is pretty much the maximum we can reach with fossil fuel emissions, and the effects are rapidly diminishing anyway. Most likely, CO2 will stabilize before that even if we actively tried to get it higher.

      1. More atmospheric CO2 means bigger plants. Bigger plants means more captured carbon. More captured carbon means less in the air. Almost like it regulates itself.

        1. Amazing!

        2. Inside the lefty-imbeciles mind, “Whoops; you misspelled political ‘Bigger Plans'”… 🙂

    4. “1) How is it even possible to determine the earth’s average temperature?”

      We have satellites orbiting the earth. They can photograph the surface of the earth. The photographs reveal the surface temperature when calibrated with measurements taken by people on the surface. This is truly amazing technology and can be used for many purposes.

      “can we really rely on these same models’ to tell us what past temperatures were? ”

      Until we invent a time machine we have to rely on proxy measurements like tree rings and so on. A proxy is an indirect measure. A proxy was recently used to measure China’s economic growth, the official figures for which researchers deemed of questionable value. Again they used satellite photos, this time measuring changes night time luminosity over time as a proxy for economic growth. They came up with figures about half the Chinese claims.

      1. Photograph the surface of the Earth? Are you fucking kidding?

        LOL…that is pretty stupid.

        1. I thought it was clever.

    5. Warmer is better, and we’re pretty much at the Sun’s whims, the energy output of which determines about 99.9% of the earth’s climate

      1. The earth’s atmosphere determines the earth’s climate. We wouldn’t have a climate without an atmosphere.

        1. The earth’s atmosphere determines the earth’s climate. We wouldn’t have a climate without an atmosphere.

          You don’t need an atmosphere to have a climate.

          Atmospheric conditions are PART of a climate.

          The moon has a climate. It is warmer is some places, and cooler in others.

          The moon’s climate, like our own, is derived from the actions of the sun.

          1. Some parts of the sun are hotter than others. There’s more to climate than some parts being hotter than others. There is no rainfall or wind on the moon for example. Now, Titan, largest and most famous of the moons of Saturn, has both an atmosphere and a climate. It’s not water based, but based on methane, the gas we emit when we fart. Scientists and other elites call it CH4. Titan has methane rain, methane snow, methane rivers and methane lakes. I rank it highly among my favorite atmospheres in the solar systems.

            1. But how do they do this, you might well ask. The average temperature on Titan’s surface is 90 degrees K. Which is the melting point of methane. Methane boils at 111 degrees K so all phases exist on the surface. There are methane clouds in the sky and scientists predict thunder storms as well, though none have been observed.

              Although it moves in latitude, the maximum measured temperature on Titan remains around -292 degrees Fahrenheit, with a minimum temperature at the winter pole only 6 degrees Fahrenheit colder. This is a much smaller contrast than exists between Earth’s warmest and coldest temperatures, which can vary by more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit.

  17. Unabated man-made climate change would likely become a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century

    It would be a far lesser problem than unabated technocracy, however.

  18. The IPCC needs to be careful on the scaring people part. They need to keep milking the 5-star hotels, first class flights, and limos at the conferences.

  19. the problem is runners..runners put out too much CO2 we need a tax on runners…AOC

    1. Give her a break. She was almost raped on January 6th.

      1. Before or after she died?

  20. Wait a minute!
    I thought plants need CO2 to survive. Are these clowns advocating for the destruction of plants? We would all have to eat meat!
    Or maybe it is the same old bullshit they have been peddling since 1969. At that time Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) said CO2 would rise by 25% by the year 2000. That would raise the sea level by 10 feet, and sink NY & DC.
    Sadly, he was totally wrong, both are still with us.
    Any plan to address ‘whatever the crisis is named this week’ that does not start by requiring Communist China and India to shut down their coal power plants is pure politics.

    1. “Any plan to address ‘whatever the crisis is named this week’ that does not start by requiring Communist China and India to shut down their coal power plants is pure politics.”

      All plans to address climate change are pure politics. My guess is that you aren’t familiar with UNICEF’s ideas about dealing with climate change.

    2. Soylent Green is the food of the future.

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

  22. If CO2 is the issue why should anyone get to produce consume more than anyone else?

    The earth is a closed system like a Martian colony. Our resources are finite and by what inalienable right does anyone get more of them than anyone else?

    There lies the logical conclusion of this discussion.

    1. The world has never equally distributed resources or consumption. Your comment is pure foolishness.

      1. Nobody’s been to Mars either.

        However, history is full of fuckwits like you.

        1. When you resort to personal attacks and insults, it only servces to prove you’re intellectually feeble. Have a nice day. Keep on Truckin’

          1. If the shoe fits, wear it. You deserve it.

            Your fuckwit perspective “it’s never been done before. It must be foolishness “

            Like I said, history is full of fuckwits like you.

            1. And the world has more than a fair share of angry, abrasive and wrong-minded pissants like you. You’ve been muted because you have nothing valid or interesting to say.

              1. You have chosen the bigotry button because you can’t refute what you deny.

    2. No, the earth is not a closed system

      No, the amount of resources is not fixed. In fact, it largely depends on human ingenuity, not physical constraints

      You think and reason like a socialist.

      1. Socialists think and reason? Never seen one do either before.

      2. Science defines earth as a closed system. You’re simply wrong.

        Cite provided

        http://www.reference.com/science/earth-considered-closed-system-6a9d5fa963c1f0e4

        1. From your ‘cite’ —

          Earth is also considered to be more of an approximation of a closed system because some matter does enter from space.

          Always better to read things before trying to throw them i peoples faces.

          That way, they don’t end up all over yours.

          1. Yeah except a few pounds of space dust doesn’t make it an open system.

            For all practical intents and purposes earth is a closed system.

            You can read, but can you comprehend?

            1. You’re wrong shithead. Azathoth!! read your bullshit cite and it ended up saying the opposite of what you were claiming. Now you’re arguing against your own stupid cite because you couldn’t comprehend what it said. Fucking sad little idiot. Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up about the climate. You’re not an expert or educated in it. If anybody wanted to read emotional hot takes on Climate Change they’d go to Twitter to see all the Twitter Accredited I Fucking Love Science Experts, lol.

              1. Do you have a point fuckwit?

                1. You can read, but can you comprehend? Fucking moron.

                  1. No I can’t comprehend your retarded ranting.

                    The earth is a closed system. Do you deny that?

                    I’ll repeat the first paragraph from my cite, just for you.

                    “ Earth is considered a closed system because though heat enters, its mass remains essentially constant.”

                    If you can refute that, fill your boots fuckwit.

                    1. “Earth is also considered to be more of an approximation of a closed system because some matter does enter from space.”

                      It’s not a closed system you stupid fucking jackass, per your self defeating cite. Please proceed, governor.

                    2. Yes the earth is an approximation of a closed system.

                      It is also considered to be a closed system because only an irrelevant amount of space dust lands on earth.

                      My point is that earths resources are part of a closed system.

                      Aside from scientifically irrelevant space dust what’s your point?

                      Are you suggesting that irrelevant space dust is a factor in earths resources?

                    3. “… the earth is an approximation of a closed system.”

                      The must truthful you’re been all day. So I have a few questions for you. How many scientific papers have you published, in what journals have they been published in and how many citations of your work have your peers in the scientific community attributed to you? I’ll answer this for you because you certainly can’t help but kick own goals against yourself. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Nobody is coming to the comment section of Reason.com to search for authoritative and academic information on the climate from some random poster. So why are you such an arrogant and smug prick about your pedestrian knowledge of climate science?

                    4. Cite where I claimed any expertise at anything. Crickets.

                      I have a background in science so I can understand it. I find logic both interesting and that I have some aptitude for it.

                      Why are you lying about what I say?

                      If you want to rationally disagree with what I say refute it with logic and science.

                      I recognize that reality/truth is defined through the correct application of both logic and science.

                      It is logical that this recognition is a prerequisite for rational behaviour.

                      The science is that earth is considered a closed system even though a little irrelevant space dust makes it an approximation.

                      For the purpose of argument about resources, it is a closed system.

                      If the proper application of logic and science someday demonstrate that in order to maintain our inalienable rights we all need to change our behaviour and expectations then rationally I must accept it and comply.

                      To deny this because it represents some bogeyman called socialism is just plain irrational.

                      If I come across as arrogant it’s only because I have come to this logical conclusion without you.

                      I’m human. I can be wrong.

                      I welcome the logic and science that demonstrates I’m wrong because when I accept the truth that has been demonstrated, I am better for it.

                      This is how I demonstrate the spirit of truth.

                2. Did you have a ‘point’ other than to make pathetic excuses to *STEAL* resources from those who’ve *earned* them?

                  It’s humorous to listen to people speak about resources falling from the sky *freely* and at the exact same time speak about ‘limited’ resources. But just like compulsive criminals in prison their position sways any which way so long as they can enslave, steal and dictate someone else and never ever ever question their own actions that got them there.

                  1. You can’t steal what you can’t own.

                    1. Well good; since no-one ‘owns’ it then no-one gets to dictate it.
                      Settled.

                    2. If only that were the case.

                      Have you already forgotten that you advocate the private ownership of all earths resources?

                      What kind of libertarian are you?

        2. Lol, fucking illiterate dumbass.

        3. Earth loses 50000 tons of mass every year; not exactly a “closed system” even in terms of matter. On the other hand, we can easily bring additional matter to earth with current technology if we desire, it simply isn’t worth it economically right now.

          But your main error is relating the amount of matter on earth to the amount of resources available to humans. The amount of resources available to humans depends primarily on human ingenuity, not the amount of matter on earth.

      3. Odd that you would hang your argument on human ingenuity while disregarding logic and science.

        Should science determine that humanity must take a specific course of action to survive, would you reject that as your bogeyman “socialism”?

        I’d hate to see you in charge of a Mars colony.

        1. The good thing about nature is that being super-stupid is a good way for one to kill themselves. Not really anyone’s fault but their own.

          Socialism on the other hand is a good way to kill everyone with ‘in charge’ stupidity of which all the fault lies ‘in charge’ which is really *forced* enslavement.

          So how about you keep your ‘logic and science’ to yourself to prevent it from killing anyone but yourself… Eh?

          1. Not a fan of logic or science eh?

            1. Not a fan of tyrants dictated ‘logic and science’. I’m a big fan of *learned* by reality ‘logic and science’ (i.e. human evolution). The fact you think you can speak for everyone’s reality is what make’s you the stupid tyrant trying to dictate your branded ‘logic and science’ onto everyone.

              1. You’re no fan of logic and science.

                As soon as someone shoves it in your face you reject it.

                Suck it up princess.

                1. You’re no fan of logic and science.

                  Well, you certainly are a fan of logic and science, you are simply incapable of actually applying them.

                  Your error isn’t primarily in considering earth a closed system, but in assuming that a closed system has a fixed amount of “resources” in any meaningful economic sense.

                  In fact, the unequal distribution of resources among humans and human societies is primarily the result of the fact that some individuals and societies are much more effective of extracting and utilizing resources.

                  1. I never assumed that the amount of resources were fixed. Cite where I did. That was your assumption alone.

                    Resources are either renewable or non renewable and may be contaminated to no longer support life.

                    It is a complicated system that requires science and logic to understand and plan to manage.

                    Merely suggesting that the “market will decide” our behaviour is ignorant, reckless and doesn’t address the issue.

                    1. I never assumed that the amount of resources were fixed. Cite where I did. That was your assumption alone.

                      You said it right here: Our resources are finite and by what inalienable right does anyone get more of them than anyone else? “Finite” means “bounded from above”, i.e. either “fixed” or “decreasing”, and you proceed to reason about cutting up such “finite” pie.

                      Merely suggesting that the “market will decide” our behaviour is ignorant, reckless and doesn’t address the issue.

                      I didn’t say anything about issues or markets deciding. I pointed out that your reasoning about “finite resources” is bullshit. It’s the way socialists and fascists think about the economy. But that’s not surprising because that’s your ideology.

                    2. Our raw materials are finite, some of our resources are renewable as long as they are properly managed and regulated.

                      For all intents and purposes today the earth is considered a closed system.

                      Thank you for your question that helped me clarify my points.

                      I’m not interested in splitting hairs. If you comprehend my point and disagree I welcome a reasoned argument whose natural conclusion is an agreement on truth demonstrated by logic and science.

                      That goes for every statement I make here in public.

                    3. E = mc^2….
                      It’s strange to hear someone preaches logic and science who cannot grasp one of simplest concepts proven back in 1800s.

                    4. Do you just bleat out whatever pops into your head? You must’ve thought you hit the lottery with that gem?

                      Human life does not enter that equation.

  23. The biggest thing to note is that the problem will really occur at the end of the century. This means people will put if off till they can no longer. It is the nature of humanity, live for today and address problems in crisis. True for the pandemic, true for debt, and true for climate change.

    1. A ‘Power-Mad’ statement I’m sure was made over a century ago.
      If liberal dinosaurs existed I’m sure they pitched the same B.S. too.

    2. “at the end of the century” Ooooo, scary. So has the climate timed itself up with the way we’re counting years and centuries?

  24. Forgive me if I don’t panic. If you printed out all the dire warnings that never came true, you could wallpaper the Superdome. Is this the IPCC that was at the heart of the East Anglia scandal where data that ran counter to the global warming mantra was deleted, ignored or expunged and contrarian scientists cancelled for not toeing the party line? I don’t lend much credence to their Chicken Little ‘the sky is falling’ pronouncements. There have been at least seven ice ages. That means it got cold and the it got warm and then it got cold again, etc. IPCC report states it was warmer 125,000 years ago than today. Who knew mammoths and giant sloths drove SUVs? All because we are alive to see it this time, does not make it more significant.

    1. “There have been at least seven ice ages. ”

      That last ice age really devastated the economy.

    2. Technically, we have been in one continuous ice age for 7 million years, but every 100000 years we experience a warming period of about 20000 years.

      Roughly: Ice age = there are polar ice caps

      But, yeah, prolonging the warming period or even ending the ice age would be a good thing.

    3. InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. GOVERNMENTAL. That’s all you need to know. It’s a POWER and MONEY Grab.

  25. UN panel lies in order to advance socialism! Hold the presses!

    1. Privatizing the earth’s atmosphere is a non-starter. So, socialism it is. Even our corporate overlords will admit this when in their cups.

      1. Did ‘socialism’ create the earth’s atmosphere???
        Then I don’t know why they think they own it.

        1. Dear Slaves,

          You’re “renting” [OUR] atmosphere so please pay your rental bill to [OUR] foundation.

          1. No such thing as a free lunch.

            1. What “lunch”? Lunch infers someone actually created it.

              1. You don’t get something for nothing. You don’t emit CO2 into the atmosphere without consequences. It’s not a difficult concept.

                1. What consequences??? I’ve not seen any consequences.. If you’ve seen any maybe it’s time to sue your neighbors (at least keep it local). What’s not a difficult concept is watching someone *makeup* make believe scenario’s just to cash in on someone else’s enslavement.

                  1. ” If you’ve seen any maybe it’s time to sue your neighbors (at least keep it local). ”

                    Appealing to our esteemed personages in black robes. Typical Statist response. I asked for a capitalist solution and all you offer is courts, lawyers and fomenting conflict between neighbors. All the lawyers and judges together aren’t going to pull our chestnuts from the fire of anthropogenic global warming.

                    ” I’ve not seen any consequences.. ”

                    Today’s your lucky day. He has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

                    1. lol… I asked for a capitalist solution (demanded by law).

                      Sounds exactly like this current ‘private’ social media being dictated by Democratic politicians and pretending it’s about private property rights. The right to be dictated. The asking of law…. lol… UR funny.

                    2. I asked for a solution that a capitalist would offer, but all I get is incoherent posturing and partisan tripe. You’re lucky I don’t sue.

                    3. I asked for a solution that a capitalist would offer, but all I get is incoherent posturing and partisan tripe. You’re lucky I don’t sue.

                      As soon as you manage to state consequences coherently, people can respond to you about solutions.

                  2. “As soon as you manage to state consequences coherently”

                    Warmer oceans and atmosphere. You really need me to tell you this? It’s been public knowledge for years now.

                2. You don’t emit CO2 into the atmosphere without consequences.

                  Luckily, mostly beneficial consequences, and consequences that appear slowly enough so that humanity can easily adapt.

                  1. How do you define slowly? Compared to changes in geological epochs, the changes are faster rather than slower.

                    1. You’re being obtuse on purpose. It’s to try to sound important when you have no point to make…because it’s obvious in this case what was meant by slowly. Slowly, as in slowly in humanity’s terms, so 100 years slowly as that would allow humanity’s easy adaptation to the changes.

                      sarc
                      Or maybe he was talking about everything that happened since we think time started 14.5 billion years ago? If so, he’s sooooo stooopid, isn’t he? Hahahahah
                      /sarc

        2. I’ve been reading Reason for a few years now. Not once have I come across a capitalist, free market, feudalistic, libertarian or reactionary solution to CO2 emissions. Typically all we get is denial, or in the case of this article, minimization. So, socialism it is, by default and intellectual bankruptcy.

          1. To take it to heart you need to realize that neither capitalism nor socialism is the panacea.

            They are low brow tribalist camps to allow the elite to divide and conquer the gullible masses.

            When we establish inalienable rights and consider issues independently, science and logic demonstrate the truth that we all share.

            When truth conflicts with any other thing we do, the other things, not truth, are wrong.

            1. Well speaking of ‘truth’, ‘logic’ and science…. For how many years has the IPCC predicted a catastrophic or end of the world and for some ‘strange’ ?non-science? reason the earth just keeps spinning, the rain keeps falling, and people are still alive… Heck; it was just a few years ago record setting low temperatures hit the U.S. not seen since the 60s.

              If you’re going ‘share’ what you deem logic and science at least pretend it has something to do with reality.

              1. ” For how many years has the IPCC predicted a catastrophic or end of the world ”

                They’ve never predicted the end of the world. Instead of proposing solutions that are attractive to capitalists and reactionaries, you make up fantastic stories. You and your intellectual bankruptcy are the reason socialism will prevail.

              2. Before you criticize logic and science you should understand what they are: Thats on you, take some classes, whatever.

                Others who just don’t possess the minimum intelligence requirements to understand need to be able to trust the experts. There must be penalties for experts who corrupt their profession.

                Otherwise, you may as well be a dog barking.

                Several times here I’ve presented you with logic and science that you just flat out deny but can’t refute with logic or science. Woof woof.

                1. What’s funny is I’d place bets I’m far more commie-educated than yourself on the subject as well as living closer to the reality of it everyday.

                  But don’t let that get in your political catastrophic-al conspiracy theories.

                2. Others who just don’t possess the minimum intelligence requirements to understand need to be able to trust the experts. There must be penalties for experts who corrupt their profession.

                  You’re a fascist to your very core, aren’t you.

                  1. Now your new irrational bogeyman is fascism. Oooh scaredy-bigot.

                    What you can’t recognize while hiding in bigotry is that truth/reality is fascist.

                    You can’t rationally escape the laws of science and logic.

                    I embrace this reality and use it to develop a better understanding.

                    You don’t.

      2. Privatizing the earth’s atmosphere is a non-starter.

        Why would the earth’s atmosphere need to be “privatized”? You’re spouting nonsense now.

        1. Converted into private property so that businesses and entrepreneurs can buy and sell in the free market. Same with land, water, physical resources, ideas, inventions, intellectual works, manufactured goods, debt and everything else capitalists trade in.

  26. It’s funny, Ronald, when you cite what the IPCC had to say way back in 2013. Let’s see what you said back then about their report when it said the earth was only going to heat up faster.

    “Most temperature records show that since 1998 the models and the observed average global temperature trend have parted ways. The temperatures in the models continue to rise, while the real climate has refused to warm up much during the past 15 years.”

    The models were all wrong. Nope…they had the basic trajectory right. And of course you then went on to quote climate “experts” Christy and Curry about how the supposed hiatus was the sign of things to come. And they’ve been wrong since day one.

    Oops!

    And now you say that IPCC had it right back then. And now you’re left with gee, let’s debate exactly how bad it will be when every projection is bad.

    1. So let’s look at one of the reasons why some of those worst scenarios just might come about.

      Increased permafrost melting and the release of copious amounts of methane. From a study this month from National Academy of Sciences on recent releases of methane from Siberia:

      “In 2020, temperatures in the basin rose nearly 11 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, causing the limestone to release ancient methane deposits that had been trapped inside. The data caught Fritzheim and other researchers by surprise, who anticipated finding gas in other locations.”

      https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-siberia-thawing-permafrost-releases-more-methane-180978381/

      Oh, and that is exactly what the IPCC mentions as an area of great concern. I guess you’re confident that it won’t happen. Just like in 2013 when you were confident that the warming hiatus was the trend worth noting.

      1. Free Methane???? That’s almost as good as free gas!

        What do you mean there isn’t enough to matter. If it’s such a “great concern” surely it could power a few cars. Quick run your powerless solar panels out there and plug all those holes spewing great resources.

      2. Oh, and that is exactly what the IPCC mentions as an area of great concern. I guess you’re confident that it won’t happen.

        It may well happen, but if it does, it is (1) unavoidable, and (2) probably not particularly harmful.

  27. 20 years ago Al Gore promised me the oceans were rising. I wanted to retire to the beach but was sure he was right and the beach would come to me. Damn liar.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.