Climate Change

Meeting Paris Agreement Pledges Likely To Keep Warming Increase Below 2 Degrees C

But only if politicians 30 years from now keep promises made by politicians today.


The "Keep 1.5 °C Alive!" rallying cry of climate change activists is a fantasy. But a new study in Nature calculates that it may be possible to keep average global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

Signatories to the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement are pledged to "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." In order to stay on track toward meeting the 1.5 C goal, the United Nations notes that carbon dioxide emissions must be cut by 45 percent by 2030. Cuts that deep imply global fossil fuel production falling by roughly 6 percent per year and emissions dropping 7.6 percent per year from 2020 to 2030.

Keeping in mind its vested interests, ExxonMobil projects that the global production and consumption of oil, natural gas, and coal in 2030 will be higher than now. An October 2021 United Nations report essentially concurs, warning that big energy producing countries currently "plan to produce around 110 percent more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with the 1.5°C limit."

It´s clear that the 1.5 C goal is unrealistic. So what about keeping the increase in average temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels? A new Nature study says it's possible, supposing that all of the countries that have made pledges to reach net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 keep their promises. As the U.N. notes, "net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests for instance."

"Warming can be kept just below 2 degrees Celsius if all conditional and unconditional pledges are implemented in full and on time," the researchers conclude. "Peak warming could be limited to 1.9–2.0 degrees Celsius." Instead of assuming deep emissions cuts by 2030, researchers in the recent study forecast that global greenhouse gas emissions will peak sometime during this decade. Of course, any expectation that politicians 30 years hence will keep promises made by politicians today is likely to be fantasy, too.

The new study bolsters the conclusions of another study by University of Colorado climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. and his colleagues published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Research Letters. "All of the plausible scenarios," explains Pielke in his Substack newsletter The Honest Broker, "envision less than 3 degrees Celsius total warming by 2100. In fact, the median projection is for 2100 warming of 2.2 degrees Celsius."

Pielke asked then, "Is the world ready for good news on climate?" The new Nature study adds to that good news.

NEXT: Tennessee May Allow Resentencing for Drug-Free School Zone Offenders After Reason Investigation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More testing needed!

    1. Funding... more FUNDING needed!

    2. More 'climate' modeling to fit the new project goals...

    3. Testing is vital, but it must be inclusive;

      Pielke should give sheep a chance :

  2. Its a tough field but tada you win the absolute dumbest article on Reason today.

    There is zero, zilch nada that any politician can do today, tomorrow or 30 years form now that will alter mother nature's course.

    1. Ron Bailey used to be pretty open minded about climate alarmunism, but he swallowed the hook, line, and sinker a year or two ago.

      It's almost surreal reading his climate warming articles now, like some 1950s dystopian science fiction taken as valid. Or in the Foundation trilogy, when the Mule first distorts the path to the future, and Hari Seldon's holograph pops up on the old schedule as if nothing had changed.

      1. Ron Bailey used to be pretty open minded about climate alarmunism, but he swallowed the hook, line, and sinker a year or two ago.

        He used to interact with the commentariat, as well, but hasn't since he changed his tune.

        1. Ewww, gross, can you blame him?

        2. He stopped as soon as he got called out for all of his links being only to his other articles

          1. He's gotten better on this, as only 2 of the links are to his one bs stories

        3. Neither have Pons & Fleischmann. Yet I'm pretty sure they know how to differentiate a constant and state the dimensions of units of energy. Bailey, not so much...

      2. "Hari Seldon's holograph pops up on the old schedule as if nothing had changed."

        Digression: When I recently changed jobs, the new company added me into their "Onboarding Pipeline" that gave me exactly this same sense. Because it was an automated onboarding process that was built before COVID and nobody bothered to update. Every day I would receive emails like "By now you have checked in with HR for your background check" "By now your monitor is at your desk, and you are ready to connect your laptop".

        It was the most chill first 2 weeks of a job ever because I literally sat in my house earning a paycheck while people ran around trying to find my gear.

        1. My first automated onboarding email usually reads:

          By now you've probably been fired for insubordination.

      3. What is the STDev Ronnie of the models? And the opportunity cost of not meeting this arbitrary 2 degrees? This so much bullshit at this point. The models have zero predictive power that can actually be tested. And Ronnie like all these Reason wokes doesn't have a hard science or engineering degree so it appears lacks the basic skills to question any of this crap.

        "Climate Change" is not a hard science. It isn't testable in the lab or the real world. It is not Newtonian Physics or Quantum is more of an art where you try and model extremely complex systems with some equations w/o understanding all the nonlinear forces and variables in involved.

        1. It's religious fundyism for those that reject Christianity

        2. It is closest to chemical engineering, where you try and adjust the parameter you can control to get the desired result.

          However, in many if not most reactor systems, there are too many small variables to truly model to the scale needed for tight control, and so you have to fill the gap with intuition, experience, and constant feedback.

          In a climate model, you have no feedback and the intuition and experience are completely missing. The world is also infinitely more complex than any chemical plant. The Unknown Unknowns are greater than your known inputs.

          The difference is that without feedback, many climate modelers have no ideal just off the wall they are. It's like talking to doctors who have never practiced on a patient or mechanics who have never opened a car's hood.

          1. I was a chemistry major but took a few chem e courses. You just wrote the best explanation I have ever read on this subject. Thank you

  3. In the end, it will depend more on technological advancement and the modernization of the 3rd world, rather than on the whims of politicians.

  4. The idea that government even knows the 'optimal' temperature for Earth is pretty out there.

    The idea that government can get and keep Earth at that temperature with enough money and power is straight-up insane.

    1. Exactly. Of course, all the scientist can be trusted. All of their computer modeling has been correct, EVERY TIME!!! They've never been caught manipulating the data and/or refusing to release the unmodified data sets. /sarcasm

      1. They don't want to release the data because it might contribute to climate change hesitancy. You understand!

      2. And these models are all wrong all the time.

        Run any of them out 100 years and temperature increases exponentially implying an unstable system.

        The models don't share the same values such as pollution or atmospheric reflectivity so those are used as knows to hind cast for their models every few years as "calibration."

        1. And so many of the models still hind cast badly so they have been "updating" historical measurements to go more in line with the model. Such as Australia.

        2. Additionally, they all contain the implicit assumption, a sort of deus ex humano machina, "We don't know, ergo AGW."

          It's like piling the family in the car to go somewhere, turning the ignition and, when the car won't start, saying "I don't know why the car won't start, but it's probably because there are too many passengers." Except, you know, the Earth is about a cintillion times more complicated than a car.

      3. Climate Change models are much like Keynsian economic models...both are not very accurate

        1. They both got proven compleatly and utterly wrong in the 70s yet progtards still cling to them?

      4. If you're interested, I'd suggest looking at the "How Not to Measure Temperature" blog series by Anthony Watts. It was ludicrously long, looking at individual weather stations and pointing out just how bad they were at their explicit purpose.

        One of the thing that struck me was the "homogenization" process, which takes the record of a single measurement station and adjusts its trend to that of the regional average. The adjusted trend is then used for regional averages and modelling.

        Of course, the entire point of this exercise is to find the trend in temperature, so in effect what this process did was keep the noise, delete the data, and replace it with what the data "should be".

    2. Exactly. Everyone is focused on changes from today, in terms of temperature and the impact on humans. But if Miami and similar cities eventually go underwater, what does that mean for the “health” of the earth? No one has attempted to explain why that’s bad.

    3. Hmm, if I owned Greenland I might sue if they keep temps from rising less than 15° C.

    4. And that the "optimum temperature" is colder than in Roman or Medieval times, and that all that extra plant food floating in the air is somehow evil and we should not let plants grow too much food for us.

  5. This article is such bullshit.

  6. What if all the bad people killed themselves now, and the unimportant serfs did the same in 10 years after making sure the elite care-takers are set for perpetual low-carbon luxury?

    1. With no one to serve them? Surely you jest!

  7. Weren’t we all supposed to be underwater twenty years ago?

  8. 'Pielke asked then, "Is the world ready for good news on climate?" The new Nature study adds to that good news.'

    WTF is Pielke thinking? How can we possibly use good news to scare and polarize people, and justify totalitarian policies?

    1. Pielke is one of the good guys who has consistently argued against alarmism and presented mostly good research. The biggest thing is that he's always argued that the modeled sensitivity is too high and that the negative predictions from higher temperatures are exaggerated.

  9. In the headline baily shows he is retarded. This is based off of the claims made in the Paris agreement, of which all of their data is pulled out of their asses

  10. Ya, cant say I give a fuck.

    When the leftists that want me to give up flying, driving a gas car, and having a comfortable house with AC from coal electric, while they continue to do all those things PLUS fly on private jets....

    Ill take them seriously if they abstain first. And they have to stop buying property on the coast, as sea level. Definitely have to stop taking private jets.

    And if its an "end of the world" scenario, like they constantly say it is, they have to consider nuclear. If it really was the end of the world, the potential for another Chernobyl (which is of course an extreme outlier) is nothing compared to the climate apocalypse they claim is coming.

    Of course we all know what this is. Just like masks and COVID restrictions, this is to further solidify the serf vs elite classes. The elites want to enjoy all of the sweet "climate destroying" toys and have the serfs live in a 500 sq foot box with no AC and eat fake meat cloned in a lab. Or bug protein.

    Sorry, I just dont buy it. Every indicator says they know themselves they are fucking lying.

  11. They are voluntary goals, not binding promises, and only the beginnings of planning for a future we will share with the rest of the globe. Weak, yes, but that's how you get the entire world - except jerk-off Trump's America - moving in at least the same direction. As the situation worsens - it has and will, see below - the framework exists for communication and agreement.

    "Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–100%) say humans are causing climate change.[5][4] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6]...

    .....No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[31] which in 2007[32] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[33] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions....

    ....This is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it. The California Governor's Office website lists nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.[55]...."

    Go to link for listing of all National Academies of Science and all relevant Associations of Scientists and their statements on Climate Change ("It's happening due to human industry"). If you think this is a conspiracy, then everyone is in on it.

    1. Oooh yeah. Wikipedia.

      1. With references and links to sources dummy. That's what those funny numbers are.

        1. Blow it out your ass.

          1. Thanks for the insightful comment Don't.

            Suck my dick

        2. You haven't actually read any of those reference or sources, have you Joe?

          1. No, he has not.

            1. Here, let's look together dummies:


              As noted, "American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society..."

              1. You think an organization's description of it self is even vaguely credible? Just how gullible are you? Would you be interested in a bridge I have for sale? Right in Brooklyn!

                AAAS will accept anyone for membership as long as they have a valid credit card (by which I mean, one that processes their fees, not that it matches the name of the person applying for membership). No scientific credentials needed. In court filings, they concede that they are a political lobbying organization. They do not publish, vet or for the most part even understand the articles about climate modeling.

                Stop trying pointless appeals to authority. Pull out your old statistics books and start reading the underlying studies.

                1. Rossami, the description is a fact and is not a quote from the Association.

                  Now, why don't you quote us the scientific associations and National Academies who don't agree that anthropogenic climate change is not happening? Good luck.

              2. HA HA

    2. Hey guys, remember when that guy...what's his name...Joe Friday! Remember when he was on here arrogantly claiming that he had the science on his side about COVID? Remember? The vaccines were going to stop the spread, keep people from catching the virus, and end the pandemic? Remember how people were idiots and science deniers if they didn't believe his version of the science?

      Well, Joe didn't learn his lesson. Nope, he is back to arrogantly insist that THESE scientists with their political axes to grind are the smart ones, and he is ever so smart for parroting their stats.

      Does anyone think Joe has an ounce of self reflection over that nonsense?

      If there is one thing that the Branch Covidians like Joe did, it was put the nail in the coffin for the public trusting all these Experts. The time has now come to stop measuring whose scientific paper is bigger than everyone else's. The time has come to discuss the moral case for demanding that millions of people pay more for energy so that the Earth doesn't change in climate a small amount despite the fact that it will always change even larger amounts due to other external causes.

      1. Joe, JFree, Raspberries et al went all in on "the experts are right, you guys shouldnt be allowed to participate in society for questioning the experts"

        They were so terribly wrong on COVID, I certainly wouldn't trust anything on climate change being that the models are significantly worse than the terrible covid ones.

        1. It was well beyond not participate. It was supporting denial of basic medical care, denial of basic housing, denial of legal aid. Outcast, unclean, unpersoned. Freedom of expression is wonderful in many ways. In this case, it allows people to display just how small-minded, intolerant, and hypocritical they are in their pursuit of a totalitarian state controlled by their in-group.

      2. Overt, you stupid fuck, no one - including me - ever claimed vaccines would "end the pandemic". Scientists and doctors did claim correctly that they would slow the spread, make those who received them less likely to catch Covid, and if we did catch it, less likely to end up in the hospital or dead. That has been proven correct you cretin, as proven by THE FACT, that in red and blue states both, new cases of Covid, hospitalizations, and deaths are led by the unvaccinated.

        Civilization is based on the division of labor and science is based on specialization and expert knowledge. Now go back to your stinking cave and eat more bats.


          "Since natural immunity is highly questionable, the best, easiest, cheapest, and safest way to that future is for something like 80%+ to get vaccinated. "

          Here is one of many places where Joe Friday insisted that if we could just get to 80% vaccination rate, we'd get a safe future, even though countries like Israel with an 80 - 90% vaccination rate continued to have outbreaks. He was one of the many insisting first that vaccination prevented you from getting sick, and then insisting that vaccination prevented you from infecting others. These assertions were all wrong.

          Joe also didn't understand how historical mortality statistics or Vaccine efficacy worked. And was constantly transferring nonsense like "20% of people who catch covid are going back to the doctor with serious complications". As all of his inaccuracies were corrected, and as each of his cherry picked studies were shown to be aberrations, he merely moved onto the next self assured, arrogant assertion.

          He insisted that everyone has always been mandated to have vaccines, and when I showed him that it is very rare to have legally mandated vaccines (because nearly every state has allowed people to opt out), he shifted without every admitting his error.

          But this shouldn't be a surprise. Joe does this just like every lefty scientist. The IPCC predictions were most dire back in the 90s, and every subsequent IPCC report has reduced the expected warming. That is not to say that AGW isn't a thing- but it is to say that the catastrophic warming that inspired "An Inconvenient Truth", "The Day After Tomorrow" and pretty much every doom scenario since was wrong. The trend with AGW research over the last decades was to point out that the climate's sensitivity to C02 is lower than originally postulated. But does Joe, or any of those alarmists, show any contrition for their wailing and gnashing of teeth in the 90s? In the early 2000s? In the 2010s? No.

          1. Plus, vaccines are totally safe and have absolutely no downsides.

          2. Overt, you twit, you left out the sentence I wrote preceding the accurate one I wrote and stand behind:

            "Mickey, we may never completely "get out" of the pandemic, but it is possible it will become a rarity if enough become immune to not create plentiful hosts for new variants. ..."

            As I just stated above, no one promised vaccines would end the pandemic, including me and the link you provided proves that. Thanks!

            As to the religious exceptions allowed in some states, and used by practically no one, to mandates for vaccines to attend public schools, you may flatter yourself by thinking that insignificant number means there is no mandate and that the overwhelming majority of Americans in red and blue states comply with those mandates, but you are an idiot for thinking that. Thanks for bringing it up again so I could flatten you again.

    3. Lol. He used a discredited analysis from a social scientist reading abstracts to get this consensus data. The analysis understood so badly dozens of climate papers in the study have had scientists say that isn't what their paper is claiming. Lol.

      1. The analysis understood so badly dozens of climate papers

        Even if it hadn't, its basic structure is fallacious.

        Take an example like:

        99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change

        What's behind a statement like this is one paper that says "deforestation," one that says "fossil fuels," one that says "plankton," etc., and the conclusion is "100% say it's human caused!"

        1. Assertions such as the '99% of scientific papers agree' are the mainstay of the quasi-religion's conventional 'wisdom.' Too few question their veracity, and they are endlessly circulated. The faithful accept as a matter of course, and attack any who do not. Those who question often lack the time, courage, or platform to effectively debunk the falsehoods, fallacies, and junk science.

      2. Link Jesse

    4. Big Joe...I was a research scientist out of school in the mid 80's and the Fed's were pushing Star Wars in terms of grant dollars. Man on man did you see all the "establishment" jump on board and just a few who said it was bs. Scientists are very political..they chase the money just like anyone else.

      1. Sure Bill, it's just a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists who we all know are as money grubbing as finance majors and MBA students. No character, principles, respect for knowledge and doing a good job exists with this group. Most will end selling used cars.

    5. Except Trump? The US is the only country to reduce CO2, Duke to fracking methane, moron.

      1. Fracking took off under Obama, But Sky, not Trump, and the benefits will be of limited duration with new problems to the environment.

        Our future is not in fossil fuels, though it is an extremely handy and accessible source of transportable energy which if we gave a fuck at all about our grandkids, we would start hording now. It will not last forever or even very long if you consider humans time on earth so far.

    6. Joe. The issue with these statistics is that they take a general statement, get widespread agreement on that, and then use it to claim agreement.

      Remember the "97% of climate scientists agree on climate change" during the Obama administration? Did you know what the questions were? There were two questions (paraphrased). "The world has warmed in the past 100 years. Humans can affect climate."

      Of these, both are objectively true. However, there was no question on the effects, the magnitude, or the effectiveness of any counter-actions. It's a literal bait-and-switch.

      When you scale down IPCC models to predict what will happen to any location, the dozen or so models will more often than not directly contradict. When you look at the potential effects of climate change, you will find that only negative changes are published, or any changes at all are considered negative, despite no one on Earth believing that the world has ever been in homeostasis.

      Then, you look at the counter-actions, and you find even less benefit. The vast majority of the counter actions are purely on paper reductions, emission shifting, or efficiency increases that would have happened anyway.

      Yes, I am being a bit one-sided, but you are posting pure propaganda. If you want to see how any contrary opinion is silenced, I would suggest you read the introduction to "Think Like a Freak", which demonstrated the response to the Superfreakonomics chapter on climate change, which was objectively true and didn't question climate modeling at all, merely pointed out that the actions on reducing emissions were wholly ineffective and suggested geoengineering. If you silence everyone who disagrees with you, you should not be surprised when you only hear agreement.

      1. Ben, then I suppose you think all the National Academies of Sciences in the world as well as all relevant scientific associations in the world are not as smart as you and have missed your supposed detection of underlying misstatements and misdirection in the research results. There are none that disagree with the established fact that human behavior in the last century has resulted in CO2 accumulation causing changes to the climate. We're not talking about the Greater Dallas Womens Gardening Club here or the World's Wrestling Federation.

        1. Joe. The National Academy of Sciences doesn't speak for anyone outside of academia, and typically doesn't speak for even most of them. I would refer you to the motto of the Royal Academy.

          Nullius in Verba. On the word of no one.

          I have sufficient expertise to look at the climate models and say I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw the server (see my comment above). I have sufficient literacy to look at conclusions and be thoroughly unimpressed by predictions of doom. And finally, I have been party to attempts at CO2 reduction, and they always slam into brick walls with pathetic reductions measuring in single digit percentages no matter what kind of money we throw at the problem.

  12. Too bad they picked 2C as the magic number; it looks too much like 2 weeks to flatten the curve.
    I call bullshit.

    1. If the bullshit science behind COVID-- a reasonably narrow, well defined, easily identified problem with clear borders, ways to measure it and clear end goal in mind-- didn't wake anyone up to the utter bullshit that is the Climate Change Industry, then there's no hope for you or anyone that looks like you.

      1. Remember Diane, in red and blue states both, new cases of Covid, hospitalizations, and deaths are led by the unvaccinated.

        You and your luddite buddies here were wrong and part of a movement which resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and who knows how many people with chronic conditions affecting their lungs, heart, and brain.

        Fuck you dumb imbeciles.

      2. a reasonably narrow, well defined, easily identified problem with clear borders, ways to measure it and clear end goal in mind

        I'd agree to 'relatively narrow'. And the rest is exceedingly presumptuous given 'with asymptomatic COVID' vs. 'of symptomatic COVID'.

    2. Call away. Those parasitical con artists have had ALL their prophesies falsified since Al first Gored credulity and Sagan Bugbeared nuclear winters. Funding is wanting for an experiment to see how many times a minute a scientist impersonator will press a bar that causes government money to be released until it lines the bottom of his padded cell.

      1. Sure Hank, it's all a conspiracy, and all those nerds who went into the sciences instead of Finance and Law School were just lock step money grubbers all along.

        Cripes what a fool. This is what happens when you see everything through ideological filters - you end up blind.

  13. Meeting Paris Agreement Pledges Likely To Keep Warming Increase Below 2 C

    "Likely"? Seriously?


    What the actual fuck, Ron? What study could possibly, ever, EVER make such a claim?

    It's like no one in the entire climate science field has even the most rudimentary understanding of basic probability and statistics.

    Likely. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick.

    1. ^ agreed.

      And to add to this, people keep citing the Paris Climate bullshit as if it isnt just ridiculous fairy tale thinking based on inaccurate models.

      And more importantly, lets all stop fucking pretending. Any nation that aggressively pursues this will absolutely lose. They will see their productivity and GDP plummet into a crater in the earth while China and India, who have a fuckton of people and do not intend, EVER, to play by these rules, rake in the rewards. It is economic suicide. And it essentially guarantees anyone who doesnt play ball gets the largest benefit.

      It's that game where you have 3 choices, go for a sword (attack) go for the shield (prepare to defend attack), or go for the money bag and sneak away. But instead, it would be allowing China to have both the sword and the money bag, and instead of grabbing the shield, we just grab a gun and shoot ourselves in the foot.

    2. I'd recommend Beckmann's "ELEMENTS OF APPLIED PROBABILITY THEORY", Hartcourt, Brace, 1968. (Reason was just getting started back then.)

  14. I used to buy what the environmentalists were selling. How could I not be, when I'd been indoctrinated (I do not use that term flippantly) since elementary school? Now I don't know if it's cynicism or skepticism, but the older I get, the less convinced I become.

    It occurs to me that "climate" is not only fantastically complex (as evidenced by the fact that the meteorologists here in Denver are constantly off the mark), but that it moves at a pace closer to that of geologic time — indeed, climate and geology are inextricably linked. Humans have existed for less than a tick of the second hand on the planet's clock.

    I just ran across a statement made by the Geological Society of London back in 2010 ( that mentions a number of times the Earth's climate has changed dramatically (e.g. "Greenland ice cores record that during the last glacial stage (100,000 – 11,500 years ago) the temperature there alternately warmed and cooled several times by more than 10°C). Obviously fossil fuel emissions were not the culprit during that period, yet climate change still occurred. That was just one example — and it was a shift 5x greater than the 2°C agonized over in this article!

    Do I think fossil fuel emissions have increased average global temperature? Sure. Some. Do I think it justifies the Chicken Little response we've seen from environmentalists? Pfft. No. I think climate change has happened, is happening and will continue to happen — in both directions — whether humans are here or not. As a species, the collective self-importance we display is pretty remarkable.

    1. The climate has changed so susdenly and drastically that a wooly mammoth eating blooming flowers could suddenly be frozen solid for tens of thousands of years.

    2. Johnny Von Neumann tried to believe weather could be predicted using computers, and ended up disproving the notion, albeit with not very accessible math. His was the team that modeled thermonuclear reactions, invented the Monte Carlo method and developed brute-force computational methods at Princeton and Los Alamos. But the one law we still see demonstrated is that there is a sucker born every ten seconds (thanks to population growth since P.T. Barnum's day).

  15. So Ron, did you lefties get China and India to sign on to this accord with meaningful cuts to their economies or are you lying again for your watermelon fellow travellers?

  16. Politicians can't keep the promises they made yesterday much less expect politicians 30 years from now to keep the promises they make today.

    1. They STILL haven't implemented REAL ID to fly domestically, and it's been 2 decades!

    2. Remember cold fusion? Remember Chariots of the Gods? Fusion hoax hustlers Pons & Fleischmann are still convinced they fused atoms in a beaker. Von Danniken was interviewed by Playboy magazine (while in prison for fraud) and to this day belches belief that ancient maps are perfectly accurate and flying saucers had trouble finding a parking place in Mazatlán centuries ago. Climate hysteria is WAY older than either of these pathetic mental cases, and just as delusional.

  17. The case for man made climate change is the same as the case for me single handedly changing the S&P when I make a large purchase.

    Does it move. Sure, when I buy a good bit it does kind of move. But its a drop in the ocean in the context of the overall market, which is what's actually going to cause the real swings.

  18. None of this is real. It's averages divided by averages, based on assumptions, layered on top of estimates, inter-threaded with ballpark guesses built on averages of averages, then averaged, then estimated, re-estimated, guessed, guesses averaged, averages guessed, guesses estimated, average guesses estimated, most of which were modeled.

    Literally all of it is bullshit.

    If you were surprised by the CDC continuously tempering its science based around political reality, what the flying fuck do you think is happening with a multi-trillion dollar industry that is vying for the control of every aspect of human behavior and action?

  19. I can remember when Nature was a scientific journal. I also recall when Reason had advisors, like Petr Beckmann, able to spot fraudulent doctored data. Perhaps Bailey should get a copy of Scarne on Dice (or Cards) for street savvy on how easy it is for operators and magicians to con "science" dilettantes. Tony Heller, a non-libertarian engineer, provides graphic, verifiable proof that bureaucrats lie about climate the same way they lie about marijuana or rights.

  20. Keep it simple stupid.

    Simply building things to last will eliminate the waste of mining, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, disposing, polluting landfills and recycling cheap and disposable products, a practice driven solely by the profit motive.

    Regulate products to last 30 years for example.

    1. Yes, everything needs to be made out of stainless steel.

      1. Just think, instead of polluting landfills and recycling cheap and disposable products we could be polluting and recycling them with expensive, indisposable products!

    2. And just ignore the energy inputs it would take to make everything last 30 years, let alone the possible other second order effects of such a stupid regulatory mandate.

  21. Well sh*t; why not just sign an agreement to run leaded gas on bare engines and pump-up dirty manufacturing like nobodies business... After all it was during WWII the climate dropped 5-degrees Celsius...

    Oh how about just ignoring the B.S. propaganda and story telling????

    Significant problems have been identified in numerous recent peer review studies (most
    recent here) for the global data bases (GISS, GHCN, CRU) which may result that they
    may have overestimated the warming the last century by 30-50%. These issues include
    station dropout, missing data, siting issues and insufficient or even no adjustment for
    urbanization. This makes them unusable or even unreliable for trend analysis.

    1. As-if the "end of the world / dust-bowl " prediction in 1979 by the "experts" in 30-years hasn't blown the B.S. out of the water...

      I mean for F'sake; Just a couple years ago the nation set the coldest temperatures not seen since 1960s...

      How "sheeple" can people be??

  22. Zero point energy...aka vacuum energy is the future...I just need a few billion in tax dollars to prove it..

  23. How is this when China, Russia, North Korea and many other countries are not agreeing to this

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.