Climate Change

Stop Using 'Too Hot' Climate Models, Says Nature Commentary

And avoid implausible, worst-case scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions too.


Too many climate researchers are making unrealistically dire projections about the future consequences of man-made climate change based on computer models that run way too hot, argues a new commentary in Nature.

The commentary's authors point out that the too-hot models reported in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) failed to reproduce historical climate trends, thus casting considerable doubt on their more catastrophic temperature increase projections. Consequently, the researchers note that the former practice of "simply taking an average" of all of the models together leads to higher projections of warming than is warranted.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) took this into account when evaluating model results and lowered projected temperatures by between 0.2 and 0.7 degrees Celsius for each greenhouse gas emissions scenarios used in its AR6 analyses. "Findings that show projected climate change will be 'worse than we thought' are often attributable to the hot models in CMIP6," observe the authors of the commentary. The authors urge other researchers to avoid the mistake of simply averaging climate model outputs as they seek to identify how climate change will affect future global and regional temperatures, precipitation, sea level, ecologies, and ocean heat content.

On top of the too-hot-model problem is the extensive and common use of the highly implausible, worst-case RCP/SSP5-8.5 greenhouse gas emissions scenario as the basis for making future climate projections. Among other problems with that scenario is that it assumes a sixfold rise in global coal consumption per capita by 2100. While coal use has experienced a post-pandemic rebound, most analyses expect a flattening of global consumption followed by a steep decline beginning later this decade.

This effects of this dubious combination—too-hot models and unrealistically high emissions scenarios—can be seen in the study "Avoiding ocean mass extinction from climate warming," published in Science last week. Based on that study, The New York Times warned, "Under the high emissions scenario that the scientists modeled, in which pollution from the burning of fossil fuels continues to climb, warming would trigger ocean species loss by 2300 that was on par with the five mass extinctions in Earth's past. The last of those wiped out the dinosaurs." 

The two Princeton University researchers behind the ocean study compared their projections to the Permian age extinction event that happened some 250 million years ago and killed off more than 80 percent of marine species.

As it happens, the researchers' projected mass marine extinction 300 years hence follows from their use of "intermodel averages" that the Nature commentary warns against along with the implausibly high RCP/SSP5-8.5 emissions scenario. In that scenario, average global temperatures would rise by about 5 degrees C by the end of this century and by 18 degrees C in 2300. Considering that the difference between now and the last ice age is 6 degree C, humanity would have bigger problems than marine extinctions were temperatures to warm up 18 degrees C.

To be fair, the two Princeton researchers did also sketch a scenario in which an increase global temperatures of around 2 degrees C above the preindustrial average resulted in the extinction of only about 4 percent of marine species due to climate change by the end of this century. The good news is that recent research suggests that, based on more probable greenhouse emissions trajectories, future man-made warming is likely to fit this scenario and rise by around 2 degrees C above the preindustrial average by the end of this century.

Interestingly, the accompanying commentary "A stark future for ocean life" in Science noted, "Fortunately, greenhouse gas emissions are not on track for the worst-case scenario given policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions and the slower-than-projected growth of global economies." Of course, focusing on the worst-case scenario inflated by climate model averaging and implausible emissions trajectories is precisely what garnered headlines warning that "Ocean animals face a mass extinction from climate change."

Let's hope that more climate change researchers will take the admonitions to eschew inflated model projections and implausible emissions scenarios to heart. Exaggerating the real problem of man-made climate change is not helpful for guiding the public and policy makers in their efforts to mitigate and adapt to rising global temperatures.

NEXT: The Satanic Temple: If Christians Can Raise Flag at Boston City Hall, We Can Raise Ours Too

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. Too many climate researchers are making unrealistically dire projections about the future consequences of man-made climate change based on computer models that run way too hot, argues a new commentary in Nature.

    *looks around*

    So yeah, we skeptics have been saying that since what, the early 90s and we were all booed off stage as "scientism deniers".

    1. That's what I was going to say. Every comparison between models and reality that I have seen make even the most optimistic models too warm.

      30+ years of this bullshit, and now someone dares "suggest" it? I wonder how long it will take to cancel this heretic.

      1. It's a published encyclical. This may be a sign that The Science is about to change. Back to Global Cooling, I guess.

        1. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it all seems to flow with the "Hey, we're not as unreasonable as we look" stuff that's coming out before the midterms.

          1. Yeah, they're just temporarily toning it down until midterms, and once they can get by those somewhat safely they'll turn the batshit crazy back up to eleven.

        2. They already switched to "climate extremism" awhile ago. Now you rest assured that the weather may be hot and it may be cold but whatever it is it will be "too much" of whichever and you should totally vote for these political candidates to prevent that.

          1. My biggest problem with the whole climate change crowd is that back in the 70's, when they predicted global cooling, their proposed solution was precisely the same as that for global warming, cripple modern industry and energy production, which, purely coincidentally I'm sure, was exactly what the far left in the west was trying to achieve for decades.

            1. Their solution to everything is exactly the same: more taxes, more bureaucrats, and more power to those bureaucrats.

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

              Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all...Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.

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

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

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

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

              Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."

              Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."

              Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."

              David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

              Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."

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

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

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

            3. They didn't predict global cooling. But it's a common enough belief of denialists. I'll assume you're just ignorant, not lying.

          2. If the weather isn't precisely the same as the year 1907, it's wrong.

    2. "Shit, we've run this scam as long as we can and the rubes are starting to peel away! Quick, backpedal! Backpedal!"

  2. The climate people think global warming is worse than it is because they're running around like their hair is on fire and their asses are catching.

    1. While they buy coastal property

      1. To the concept of "revealed preferences" we need to add "revealed opinions."

    2. It really is interesting to see how these people react- These people who are just convinced that California is a scorched wasteland and positive that polar bears are drowning in the arctic are the same people who were absolutely positive that the morgues were full of healthy 30 year olds who failed to mask/vax and that kids around the world are permanently brain damaged by long covid.

      These people have no perspective. None.

      1. Perspective is a good word.

        I use that to describe the casual arrogance of youth. How a 19 year old (Me included at 19) can be so certain of things without really any valid doubt.

        For a kid, what is right now has been their whole life. For a 50 year old the winds have changed 10 times since they were a teenager. In theory, that can give you perspective, an understanding that things change, that things are not always what the current zeitgeist believes.

        Warmists, and other political dogmatics, really are like a high school kid condemning someone for doing what literally EVERYONE did in the mainstream 20 years ago, but doesn't conform to what's currently trendy amongst 15 year olds. No perspective.

        1. I'm not how much a lot of that is perspective as much as it is willful ignorance. The die hards have certainly heard the alternative, but absolutely refuse to listen to it. There is no way that the hardcore coof thespians didn't have at least one person in their life inform them that it's not that dangerous, and that their dirty t-shirt over the face wouldn't stop it.

          Same goes for all the climate alarmism. I don't think perspective plays into the fact that they completely ignore data that disagrees with the narrative.

          1. Of course you're right. The only difference is that 13 year olds have an excuse.

            But that's dogmatics in general. Literally, don't consider any other argument because whatever they believe is the truth. A lot of people in the world live willfully, as you say.

            You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.

  3. If they can't use the worst case and least likely scenarios how can they scare people into giving up the freedom and luxury for the "greater good"?

    1. COVID to the rescue!

      1. COVID is old news, they'll move onto bird flu.

        1. Bird flu is like last decade.

          1. We have a new strain in America, that's why poultry and eggs have risen so much, and have had the first confirmed human case. I am kinda surprised it hasn't been Frontline news.

            1. We got RvW; give CNN a week or so.

              1. The first case was in a prison. It's hard to sell the fact that its not a big deal or new when someone has it 2nd hand at best.

                1. Yeah, that was a little concerning. I would have expected it to be a poultry farmer, but did see it was in a prison. I haven't heard much about it since.

                  1. Poultry farms is one of the more inmate work program friendly industries.

                    1. True. But wasn't it in Colorado which isn't a poultry heavy state.

                2. The problem is that even if it is a major threat (and since bird flu historically has been difficult for humans to contract and is generally associated with people who live or work in close proximity to large numbers of birds, as this case doesn't appear to be) they blew their wad on COVID and people are less likely to listen now.

                  1. Which some of us were warning about in 2020.


              Is this at all plausible?

              A mind-boggling “discovery” that Russian forces in Ukraine stumbled upon is the use of numbered birds by the Pentagon-funded labs. This almost falls out of science fiction and Sir Alfred Hitchcock could have made an epic movie out of it where deception mixes with innocence and man’s cruelty to nature becomes unbearably grotesque. The project works like this:

              To begin with, the Pentagon accesses the scientific data available with environmental specialists and zoologists after studying the migration of birds and observing them throughout the seasons, relating to the path these birds take each year on their seasonal journey from one country to another and even from one continent to another.

              On the basis of this data, groups of migratory birds are caught, digitised and capsules of germs are attached to them that carry a chip to be controlled through computers. The birds are then released to the flock of the migratory birds in those target countries toward which the US intelligence has malevolent intentions.

              1. By a certain definition of plausible I suppose it's plausible, but would require a lot of fundamental research, a lot of which isn't quite mature enough.

                1. For example migration patterns, and why birds can follow them. We have a basic understanding but it's far from complete. For example I'll use the mourning dove below. The mourning dove won't migrate over large bodies of water, but migrates to Northern Mexico. Eastern flyways doves will follow the Atlantic seaboard and then the gulf course and finally down through central Texas. The central migration also migrated through central Texas. The two migration routes converge in this area at the same time and form larger flocks to continue the migration. In the spring the reverse this migration. Despite this, the vast majority of birds will migrate back to the original starting point, often returning to the same tree or near the same tree the nested in the previous year. We do not quite understand how this mixing of flyways doesn't result in more migrational errors, i.e. Eastern doves migrating to the central US. We see similar things with sea fowl that nest in Siberia and Alaska, but come winter along both the Eastern and Western Pacific. Or terns and puffins in Greenland that may migrate to Scotland or the eastern seaboard. Eagles sparrows etc also all show similar converging migrations, and then highly accurate sorting back to the original point in the reverse migration. Geese are another great example. We know it's has something to do with the reading of the magnetic fields utilizing heavy deposits of iron in their frontal cranium, but how exactly those work is still poorly misunderstood.

                  1. "We know it's has something to do with the reading of the magnetic fields utilizing heavy deposits of iron in their frontal cranium"

                    I suppose also the birds exploit energy flows in the atmosphere, air currents, when they can. We do the same when we surf or place wind turbines to generate electricity, which leads to unfortunate killing of birds. Speaking of exploiting energy flows, I remember reading of pigeons who 'ride the subway' to the beach rather than flying there.

    2. "If they can't use the worst case and least likely scenarios how can they scare people into giving up the freedom and luxury for the "greater good"?"

      It's been obvious since at least 2000 when New York remained habitable regardless of Mann's lies, that this issue has been co-opted by watermelons, and anyone who hasn't noticed is not worth consideration from adults.
      To use an example which is blatantly obvious, not one of the watermelons considers nuclear energy as an acceptable alternative, regardless of its sterling safety record (yes, including even 'collectively engineered' fuck ups like Chernobyl).
      Similarly, one of our resident lying piles of lefty shit claimed yesterday that an overthrow of RvW would "make women slaves!!!".
      Wanna know why Trump, Johnson, Le Pen and others on the right are popular? Count the number of daily lies from the shitpiles on the left, multiply by the number of voters who are insulted by such blatant propaganda.

      1. It wasn't lies that got me to vote Trump. It was the Democrats' rhetoric, from Hillary (Deplorables) on down. And I mean ALL the way down. Regular people, mostly on the facebook but in other places, started proclaiming that not supporting progressive causes was entirely due to racism. They were spouting off that if you don't vote for Hillary you aren't my friend, so I started unfriending them.

        Then the media all, in lockstep, started calling Trump and all republicans Racist, Homophobic, Transphobic, Mysoginsitic... all using the exact same list. Very obviously the list generated by Clinton's campaign. Mara Liason did an interview on NPR when Trump was winning super tuesday primaries where they discussed how Republicans only vote for racist reasons, which is why Trump was being a racist. Seriously.

        I'm not a Republican, but I'm a middle class, hard working, white man. It is obvious I'm the demon in their rhetoric. I won't vote for anyone who deems me something as vile as a bigot, without even knowing me. I'm a good man. Most of my friends are good people. So the logic is "Fuck you, I'm voting Trump, because I'm pretty sure you actually hate me. "

        1. Yep. Quite a common reaction to this crap from the Democrats. I feel the same way.

        2. "Fuck you, I'm voting Trump, because I'm pretty sure you actually hate me. "

          You might enjoy season 10 of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry goes to the trouble of opening his own coffee shop, a 'spite store,' to spite a coffee shop owner whose service was thought to be unsatisfying.

        3. "Don't give money or votes to people who hate you and want you dead" is pretty much my baseline when I can manage it. I mean, obviously I still pay taxes.

  4. Anyone looking to justify their skepticism regarding guidance from the COVID/public health "experts" need only to point to the last several decades of documented failure demonstrated by the climate "experts" regarding "climate change"; two areas of public discourse hopelessly corrupted by political motives.

  5. Let's hope that more climate change researchers will take the admonitions to eschew inflated model projections and implausible emissions scenarios to heart.

    At least until Greta Thunberg or one of her acolytes shows up at their house with a machete.

    1. how DARE you!

    2. "At least until Greta Thunberg or one of her acolytes shows up at their house with a machete."

      And gets shot?

      (sarc generates sarc0

      1. Burned at the stake would generate more greenhouse gasses, and therefore be more appropriate.

        1. I'm going to withhold judgment on that one. If, in ten years, she is still yelling "how dare you" as a fully formed adult like she was as a petulant, immature teenager, then yes, we can talk.

    3. My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" from Greta and her ilk seem to be based on climate science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.

      For example, let's look at the IPCC report on climate change...Let's doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things...It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.

      But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it.

      The report also said climate change had the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," [the report] said.

      But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."

      1. They don't want a solution and would outlaw one if it were invented, because if the problem got solved they couldn't use it as a bludgeon anymore.

  6. "models reported in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) failed to reproduce historical climate trends"

    If logic (as part of science) controlled, that would be the end of it and these models should never leave the computer of whoever is trying to create them. Your model can't reproduce actual data we already know about? OK then go back and keep trying. Why use or publish something that is obviously incorrect? (I know why. I am just saying, per logic and science, why use it?)

    1. "All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Box

      1. True - but models that can't approximate reality aren't even useful.

        1. Are you sure about that? These unrealistic models sure seem to be useful to climate activists.

  7. They literally have never been correct

  8. As always, garbage in, garbage out.

  9. Gee, who could have possibly known the "science" is a house of cards?

  10. I have a semi-related question. A lot of these doomsday prediction blather on about species lost. Some seem to me to be comparing species lost today with species present in the fossil record millions of years ago. How much of this is from assuming that the fossil record is a reliable count of past species?

    For instance, how many of the distinctions between different field mice, salamanders, butterflies, dinky fish, and so on would even be visible as modern skeletons, let alone as 50 million year old fossils?

    1. Over 99.9% of all life that existed on the planet (that we know of) has gone extinct.

      A few more salamanders and butterflies won't be missed in the grand scheme of things. Heck, neither will we for that matter.

    2. Species go extinct and others move into their niche. It's called evolution. I was discussing this with my daughter the other night about efforts to de-extinct species using cloning technology. I used the passenger pigeon as an example. Mourning Doves have filled the niche once inhabited by passenger pigeons (both are actually pigeons, we don't have true native doves in the Americas). The mourning dove is already under pressure (but mainly holding its own) against the invasive Eurasian Collared Dove. There really isn't room in the environment for the passenger pigeon anymore. It doesn't make sense except as a feel good measure to reintroduce the passenger pigeon. But some people are proposing spending millions to do just that. Why?

      1. Yes, yes, all that is well-known. I asked a specific question:

        Can mere skeletons or fossils distinguish among the various species of field mice, salamanders, dinky fish, butterflies, etc?

        1. I've often wondered this myself. When they discover a new dinosaur was it really new, did they discover a juvenile and call it a new species, and just how many bones are we talking about here.
          I think the study of fossils is as much an art as a science.

          1. The bruhah over whether the Brontosaurus or the Triceratops being actual dinosaurs is actually exactly this in action.

            Because genetic material is rarely if ever available, most "species" classifications are based on bones, and often the bones are mis-classified as being part of a different species or the same. This is constantly changing information as new data (fossils) are discovered.

            1. I believe there is also debate about the different species of rex dinosaurs also.

              1. I was listening to something on the radio the other day about the discovery of some fossilized river monster. They were talking about "fleshing" it out by adding muscles to "connection points." Then again I don't think they much of a skeleton. Just a few bones.

                To be honest I think most of those paleontologists are well paid bullshitters.

                1. It's easy enough to deduct muscle formation from bone morphology with species that have modern relatives. I'm not certain that birds are close enough to dinosaurs to make those deductions.

                  1. I mean when they come up with entire skeletons from a half a dozen bones.

                    1. Yeah fleshing out dinosaurs is pretty much guesswork. I love when they can deduct the entire structure from a partial jaw bone or such (see it with early hominids also). I do question those. And like I said, I don't think birds and dinosaurs are close enough to use bird muscle morphology to deduct T-Rex muscle morphology with much confidence. I think if you actually talked to the actual paleontologists they would probably agree that there is a huge margin of error for their models.

                    2. It's not like comparing a gray wolf to a dire wolf. First we have complete fossils for the dire wolf and possibly even a few partial carcasses (I'd have to look that up to be sure) and gray wolves are much closer to dire wolves than chickens are to T-Rex.

        2. Depends on the morphology and the possibility of recovering DNA (so the latter would depend on the age of the fossil, as DNA degrades over time, e.g. Jurassic Park might be good for a movie but is practically impossible).

          1. We did get DNA from a 1.6 million year old mammoth tooth and a whole genome from a 780,000-year-old horse leg bone.

            66 million years to the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary is probably a tad too far though.

            1. Yeah. It depends on the local environmental conditions. Even 1.6 million years is a stretch but most mammoth bones (as opposed to fossils, which almost all organic material has been replaced by minerals) have been unearthed in the artic, and sybaritic regions, especially around the permafrost area, which preserved them much better than say in the Sonoran desert.

              1. Yes. That mammoth tooth spent most of that time in the permafrost.

      2. Mourning Doves have filled the niche once inhabited by passenger pigeons (both are actually pigeons, we don't have true native doves in the Americas).

        I'm not sure if I agree with that. Mourning doves are found in pairs while the passenger pigeon was found in flocks numbering in the billions. Not million. Billions. Everywhere they landed looked different by the time they left. Like warm blooded locusts.

        There really isn't room in the environment for the passenger pigeon anymore.

        I've been keeping up on this a bit since I find it interesting. Actually I believe there is a good argument for reviving the passenger pigeon, specifically the health of forests. Humans have gotten good at preventing forest disturbances, which is exactly what forests need. So we're fucking it all up. Those birds could possibly help bring back some balance.

        Or they could destroy crops.

        1. One of the big reasons for their dying off was the destruction of the hardwood forests in the mid-west, not sure that has been reversed enough to support them. As for Doves vs Passenger Pigeons, passenger pigeons also nested as pairs, but in closer proximity, the flocked up for migrations, as do Mourning Doves, visit South Central Texas during September when the two migratory pathways (Eastern and Central) converge. They may not have the turn the sky black size flocks like the passenger pigeons did, but I often saw flocks numbering in the thousands when I was stationed there. Some I would guess were over 10,000 birds.

          1. One of the big reasons for their dying off was the destruction of the hardwood forests in the mid-west, not sure that has been reversed enough to support them

            Here I thought they were systematically exterminated in the age of commercial hunting that almost resulted in the extinction of many other species including white tailed deer.

            1. That didn't help, but destruction of the forests was a bigger issue. It's like the American Bison. We've been told all our lives that bison hunting killed off the buffalo, but when they reanalyzed the data from records of hides taken starting in the 1820s they found little evidence that hunting exceeded replacement levels. In fact, recent science would argue that bison populations at the beginning of the 19th century were probably overpopulated. The introduction (or if you like the reintroduction) of horses and the introduction of cattle lead to habitat competition and cattle diseases now are suspected as the main culprit.

              As for the overpopulation at the beginning of the 19th century, that is widely attributed to the mass die off of Amerindians from European diseases, that began showing up in the Central US around the 18th century. As humans were always the number one predator of bison, this led to an imbalance between prey and predators. Overpopulation also made the buffalo more susceptible to disease and habitat loss. By the 1840s (before most commercial buffalo hunting was established, and most commercial buffalo hunters at the time were Amerindians who used traditional methods and whose excess hunting for hides for trade goods wasn't enough to reduce the numbers dramatically) buffalo herds in Texas and New Mexico were already dieing off, and as white settlers really hadn't yet infringed upon the areas that were the heartland of the bison range in those states, something else was responsible.

              As with bison, commercial hunting was probably the nail in the coffin for the passenger pigeon, but their numbers had already been in steep decline according to settlers records before the hay day of commercial hunting in the late 19th century. The settling of the old northwest, their prime nesting area, is more closely correlated with the onset of their population decline.

              1. So the stories of how the Great White Hunter ruined everything were a bunch of bull. Hm. Let me show you my surprised face. =-o

                1. No, the better answer is that human migration, notably European colonization and subsequent Amerindian migration, ruined everything. If by ruined you mean changed things, as any new species moving into an area changes things. We just happen to migrate further and faster than most, and bring with us species that have adapted to live near us, some intentionally (domestic cattle, horses and pigs) some unintentionally (rock pigeons, rats, earthworms). The books 1491 and 1493 have great discussions about this, as does the books Comanche Empire and Lakota America.

                  1. I never knew that about earthworms. Interesting.

                    1. Yeah they aren't native to the Americas. Not even the Canadian Nightcrawler.

                    2. There were and are some specious of native worms but not the ones most people are familiar with.

        2. Destruction of crops would be a big worry, the same with the Bison. 10,000 bison moving across a field would definitely destroy the field, and it takes a very stout fence to keep bison out (and even then if they are determined enough, they can often destroy those fences as well). Montana just had to cull thousands of buffalo from Yellowstone (the herd was overpopulated on the park and they migrate off the park in the winter, and hunting alone wasn't reducing the numbers enough).

          1. From what I've read the passenger pigeons really liked trees. Like acorn nuts and other hardwoods. That doesn't mean they couldn't develop a taste for corn or wheat.

            1. It's quite possible. Another rule of evolution that many people forget is that specialist species tend to be more likely to go extinct than generalists. If you look at the endangered species list, you will find the majority of species are specialists. Specialism is a great survival strategy when whatever specific item is available in abundance but not great for adapting to disruptions. Humans are generalists, that's why we have been so successful, mourning doves are generalists, and successfully survived the same pressures that killed off their relatives the passenger pigeons (which were more specialized). It really irks me that more biologists don't mention this whenever they try to save a specialists species (not saying preserving some habitat isn't necessary, just that specialists species are harder to save).

              1. Near where I live there are some blueberry plains. Wide spaces with the tiny wild blueberries you usually find in the freezer with a Wyman's label. Anyway, to keep the blueberry plants healthy they'd to periodic burns. These are bushes that are low to the ground, so they'd burn off grass and saplings and such.
                Well, someone found some endangered black snake, so the feds stepped in and said "NO MORE BURNING!"
                Nobody has seen the snake since, but that hasn't gotten the feds to give in. And without regular burns, grasses and trees are taking over the blueberry plains.

                That shit just pisses me off. I complained and was chastised by some arrogant federal piece of shit who basically told me not to believe my lying eyes.

                1. Look at the sage grouse. Research shows that sage grouse do need patches of sage, but huge areas of uninterrupted sage actually leads to lower chick survival. It's because the chicks are entirely insectivores and the parents need open areas (and the chicks once they are old enough) to hunt their primary prey, grasshoppers and crickets. Managed grazing has actually been shown to improve sage grouse chick survival, as it interrupts sage from overtaking the landscape, and improves grass health. But under Obama they wanted to severely limit grazing in sage grouse habitat, despite the science saying exactly the opposite. Trump's administration overturned that decision, and implemented a policy on federal land that kept cows out during the egg laying season, and then allowed managed grazing after this, in other words following the science. The enviro-nuts sued and last I heard the policy was under review again and they had suspended the Trump administrations policy, despite the fact that it followed the science.

                  Forests grouse are another one, we've seen steed declines in forest grouse, especially ruffed and spruce grouse, They started declining when Clinton banned almost all logging on federal land. Why? Because they need edge habitat, they don't do well in uninterrupted forests. So, because of their decline, the environmentalists are proposing even more logging restrictions.

                  1. Don't allow grazing. Don't allow burning. Don't allow logging.

                    Seems like there's a common theme going on here.

                    Feds/environmentalists don't allow natural things to happen, and then nature suffers.

                    1. Yeah, cattle have filled the same niche that the herds of buffalo and plains elk once filled. Managed correctly (which I argue any good rancher will do, because it's cheaper in the long term) they benefit the grasslands and forests. Like one of our guests speakers in my 400 level beef management science class said, "a rancher isn't in the business of raising cattle, we are in the business of raising grass".

                    2. Burning is an interesting one. On the Southern plains states, ranchers routinely use fire as part of their range management tool kit, but we don't on the northern plains. We actually discussed this at a professional conference I attended. There really isn't any reason we don't, no scientific reason, it's more like tradition. Controlled fire very well could benefit our rangelands but we simply don't use it much. And the plains tribes used fire a lot in this area with great success. It's just one of those regional peculiarities. It may be due to the fact that we deal with devastating grass fires and associate all fire with those summer and early fall fires, but managed fires are usually done in late winter or early spring and would be far less devastating.

                  2. An example of revealed opinions. Their stated desire to save these species is just a pretext for their true desire, to limit human development by any means.

                    1. That's exactly what it is. We had a discussion about this with a speaker who works on behalf of the timber industry on dealing with activists at a grazing seminar I attended once. His hypothesis is that people drive through the west (or other rural areas) and expect it to look like what they imagine it should look like. They have no connection to the land and don't understand the science they just think it should be all trees (not understanding that dense forests are unhealthy, especially in the dry west, that forests evolved to be much lower density in the Rockies (most of which get less than 20 inches of rain unlike the forests if the east that get over 35 inches) or all overgrown grasslands with no cattle and fences (not understanding that those overgrown grasslands are actually unhealthy as grasses and forbes evolved alongside grazing and grazers and actually need them to be healthy). So they believe the best thing is to remove all human impact from these areas to fit their desired outcome. They also believe the myth that the Amerindians lived with the environment and didn't alter it. This despite a plethora of historical and archeological records showing that Amerindians drastically managed their forests and grasslands using primarily fire (but other techniques) to manage their habitats. And that much of the Americas were pretty heavily populated in 1492. And considering we now mostly agree Amerindian ancestors have been living in the Americas since at least 20,000 years (some evidence suggest as long as 50,000 years) that the species of today (both flora and fauna) evolved and adapted alongside human management. I suggest anyone interested in these topics reads the excellent (if a bit dated, much of the archeological data the author refers to was cutting edge but is now well established and accepted) books 1491 and 1493.

                    2. If it's closer to 50,000 years, that's about the same time frame that homo Sapiens entered Europe for reference.

                  3. The enviro-nuts sued and last I heard the policy was under review again and they had suspended the Trump administrations policy, despite the fact that it followed the science.

                    That policy was scientifically incorrect because Orange Man Bad.

    3. Hey Bernie, how many species of field mice do we really need?

  11. This just in:
    Nantucket OKs women going topless on the beach.

    I guess New England warmed up enough to avoid headlights being on during the day.

    1. still masked though.

      1. The mask will hide the flaws.

  12. A lot of people seem to think that climate models are magic or something. These are probably the same people who think "digital enhancement" of a photograph is a real thing.

    Fact is, computer programs do what the programmers tell them to do. I know that seems stupid-obvious, but so many people don't understand this.

    So if a computer modeler wants "proof" that the world is about to end, that's what their computer model is going to predict.

    I mean, duh.

    1. Confirmation bias is a real issue in the environmental sciences, probably related to the people most likely to enter into those fields. They have a mission and that's why they choose those fields. It's also amazing how loose some of the disciplines educational requirements are. My ex brother in law (thank God my sister in law dumped that loser) was an environmental scientist with a bachelor's degree and worked in an environmental testing lab. He didn't have organic chemistry and had only minimal chemistry period. His biology requirements were also extremely light. Lighter than the requirements to get a BS in animal science with a focus on beef or dairy management.

      1. The only person I knew who studied environmental science worked as a waiter because he couldn't find a job in his field without a Masters.

        1. It's a pretty soft science with a lot of non-science requirements. I was amazed by some of the requirements (seemed more appropriate for an humanities major than a science major).

          1. From what I've seen it's more like theology than science. Accept and believe. Meanwhile I'm using calculus to derive physics equations.

            1. I can't say I've really used calculus much since college, but if I were more on the research side of the house I would (or more likely work with a mathematician to aid me, much like I can do the basics of statistics, for modeling really complex statistics I consult with a statician).

              1. I had a lot of statistics but I'm definitely not a statitician by any stretch of the imagination. I have enough knowledge to understand what they are talking about, and to identify errors, and to conduct most common procedures but I know my limits.

              2. I was using present tense to describe what I vs they were doing while in college. They accept(ed) and believe(d) while I derive(d). Sorry if I didn't communicate effectively. I too haven't used calculus since college.

                1. Gotcha.

                2. I was going to remark that I don't use much ochem either, but then I got to thinking about it (and biochem) and realized I do use it more than I realize, it's just not consciously using it.

                3. I think that a lot of those math classes (I got a math minor by default with my major) are to teach problem solving in general. Not many people will find a practical application for linear algebra.

                  1. Yeah, ochem is kinda like that. It was really foundational for upper level biochem

                  2. Linear algebra is probably the most used bit of college math in programming and engineering, though. I guess that's still "not many people".

                    1. Linear algebra I have used since college fairly regularly. I've used algebra, geometry, and trig a lot. I've used calculus precisely twice, I think, since I graduated.

      2. Really?

        I'm an engineer with biology minor and had Ochem very early in my college career -- I also did AP bio so I was a little ahead, but it was definitely required even for basic science majors.

        Doesn't surprise me that much, but that is surprising. We did lots of chemistry. At very least it teaches both laboratory skills and logic beyond that actual chemistry part of chemistry.

        1. I have a master's in animal science (a biological discipline that focuses on domesticated species). Even for a management tract you had to have at least one semester of carbon chemistry and if you were on the science/prevent tract (which I was on) you had to have ochem and 100 and 300 level microbiology. Had to take 500 level micro/biochem for my master's. He didn't take a single micro course either. And he would lecture me on stuff pertaining to these subjects while I was acting 500 levels of these courses. I also had to take 300 and 500 level animal anatomy and physiology (and mammals have extremely conserved anatomy) and 300 and 500 level reproduction courses (mammals reproduction are pretty conserved also, the trick to both was learning the basics and then learning the exceptions such as short day breeders vs long day breeders vs indeterminate breeders). I also took a 400 level developmental biology class (one of the most interesting classes I ever took), a 400 level pathophysiology and immunology class, a 400 animal health class, etc. The funniest thing he told me was when I was explaining my research project that involved ensiling alfalfa and he told me in his opinion cows should only eat grass (his parents have had horses his whole life and he didn't know what alfalfa was).

          Another interesting class I took were two range science classes, the first was a 500 level class on comparative physiology of the herbivore and adaptive grazing techniques. The other range science class I took was a 400 level integrated range science class (I took those last two my last year of my master's program and took them mainly as credit fillers for my GI bill requirements). I told my wife that it's a good thing I didn't take range science classes as an undergrad or I might have changed my major once again (changed from straight biology major into animal science).

          1. When I worked in restaurants I worked with many college students and graduates. Some would come and some would go. That environmental studies guy came and stayed. As did the four year English and psychology majors. What I noticed were the ones who didn't stay. They were the STEM people. That was before I had even heard the term. Mister political science wanted to be a manager. Engineering major left. As did the math major.

            I decided I didn't want to say, so I got a STEM degree and left.

            You would have left as well. Leaving behind that environmental science guy scratching his head and wondering why.

            1. Since I don't want to move for a new job I'm probably going back to nursing but using my degree still on ranching. If I didn't mind moving again I could get a much better paying job than the one I currently have in the private sector (like almost double if I moved to the Midwest and became a dairy consultant) but I like my area and I love ranching and nursing will actually give me more time to dedicate to ranching (3 day work week rather than five day plus travel that my current job requires).

  13. We have 8 years left to turn things around, right?

    If we don't, then there is no hope for us, correct?

  14. “Pre-Industrial Age” also = “End of Little Ice Age”.

    It’s why you always see 1850 as the beginning point for all “climate charts”.

    The same way you see the end of the Great Recession as the beginning point for all Lefty economic analysis, or post 9/11 showing the overwhelming majority of terrorism supposedly coming from the “Far Right” (Ft Hood and San Joaquin being ‘workplace violence’)

    1. You often see 1885. Apparently, a little something happened a couple of years before that, but we should just ignore that.

  15. I wonder why worst-case scenarios are only done with climate science.

    Why is this not done with string theory, the Goldbach Conjecture, or the perfect cuboid problem?

    1. No money in it.

  16. We've had what, 25 years, 30 years of failed climate predictions? I remember back in the 90s they liked to use 'ten years out' predictions. Ten years comes along faster than you think. Then they started boosting it to 20 years. Then 20 years came and went and a bunch of those dire predictions never materialized. Now they're using the 50 year cycle.

    1. Yeah, a lot of us who are older than 40 remember all the dire predictions (overpopulation, global cooling, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, etc) that they predicted. Some of those arguably decreased due to changes in production (arguably acid rain and ozone layer, but I've read recently that some of that was also due to natural cycles). It's the young that don't have enough life experience that are most vulnerable to these tactics and the activists know it, it's no surprise that studies have shown environmental activists and animal rights activists use almost the same recruiting tactics as cults and target much the same demographics.

      1. Just global warming itself (which morphed to "climate change") has been a dizzying nebula of bullshit predictions which utterly failed to materialize, and no one in the media sat around wringing their hands about "dangerous misinformation".

        1. Forest and grass fires are a perfect example of how they use any disaster to blame on climate change. Most of the west is in a three year drought (it's part of a normal cycle, we have these extended droughts every 30-40 years, we actually were overdue one as we've had an extended wet trend since 1988 or so, we had these extended droughts in 1900, 1930, 1950, 1980). All climate change forecasts actually predict that the intermountain west and plains will get wetter and warmer as the climate warms. But the fires the last couple of years are the result of "climate change" as are the droughts (which actually have been shown to follow similar patterns dating back to the end of the last ice age from archeological and fossil data, and it was actually drier during the little ice age than today). They don't blame the fires on the main culprit, overcrowded forests and associated disease and insect infestations (pine bark beetles being the main culprit). If they thinned the forests to reduce tree deaths from disease and insects, returning them to a more "natural" state, the fires would be far less drastic. Talk to almost any forester or range scientist and they'll tell you the number one thing contributing to the fires in the west are lack of logging and grazing which has increased overcrowding, disease, insects and thus plant death and more fuel. We didn't have these same fires during the 1980s (we did have fires but they were less destructive for the most part) because we were logging and grazing more.

          I put the word natural in quotation marks because for the past 20,000 years Amerindians were using fire and other tools to manage forests and range, unlike the myth that Amerindians lived in harmony and didn't alter their environments.

          1. " we had these extended droughts in 1900, 1930, 1950, 1980)."

            And each was accompanied by increased government involvement in water management and each had some influence on migration and the movement of populations, sometimes profound.

            Climate change shifts the normal, bell curve of drought conditions to the right, making what was once something rare and severe become less rare but equally severe, and the droughts at the extreme right hand of the curve are rare, but their severity is unprecedented. California's last drought was the longest on record and was responsible for much disruption, as were the floods that came with the end of drought. Among the casualties of the rain was 1,000 year-old Pioneer Cabin Tree.

            1. For some areas. Other areas, the central US and intermountain west are predicted to get more moisture on average. Look back and previous climate patterns, these areas are dry in cool climates and wet in warm climate periods.

        2. Look at pictures taken in the late 19th century while Idaho and Montana were just starting to be settled, there were much fewer trees back then. Much less dense forests, and the grasslands were also much less dense.

      2. Remember Sting having the press junket with the Amazonian Indian? That was over 30 years ago

    2. You see 100 years a lot too now. Predictions of what is going to happen when everyone alive today is dead are especially safe. And dumb. We have no idea what else is going to change in 100 years. And 100 years is plenty of time to gradually adapt to a changing coastline or whatever anyway.

  17. Among other problems with that scenario is that it assumes a sixfold rise in global coal consumption per capita by 2100.

    Probably need more coal to power all of those electric vehicles we have to start using in 2035.

    1. They pull less juice than all those mandated electric stoves in California.

    2. They're intentionally trying to break the world so they can rebuild it in the image they want.

      That's why they mandate electric cars and ban nuclear power. This retarded order of operations and intentional outlawing of mature technologies for fragile ones that actually cause a larger volume and more toxic pollution in the name of environmentalism is intentional.

  18. "The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) took this into account when evaluating model results and lowered projected temperatures by between 0.2 and 0.7 degrees Celsius for each greenhouse gas emissions scenarios used in its AR6 analyses."

    This is when I decided that there was something seriously wrong with the IPCC. Go look at every single IPCC for the past 30 years- each subsequent panel *lowers* the projected temperatures by small amounts. The most catastrophic estimates occurred back in the 90s.

    Read the section on confirmation bias. It tells about how scientists were "Replicating" the research year over year, because they expected to get the "right" answer and would discard results too far away from that "consensus" number. Over the years, what happened is that the number slowly drifted towards the right number.

    I believe the same thing is happening in IPCC.

    1. Can we declare the Paris Agreement a success and forget about it now that projections are already nearly in line with the agreements goals?

  19. Depends on the goals here.

    The point of the models and the messaging is NOT to address climate change. it is to achieve power over you.

  20. This sort of lukewarm skepticism is exactly what Biden's Ministry of Truth wants to fight

  21. At the root level, these clowns either believe that Darwin was wrong, or that they are more powerful then God.

    (one option for believers, one for "scientists")

    Leave the poor earth alone, and she will be fine.
    If you have to intervene, refuse to exhale CO2 for the next six months.

  22. >>argues a new commentary in Nature.

    argues every person for 30 years.

  23. I was born in 1945 and the reason that I say that is I have seen and read everything that I could in my quest for knowledge. This whole "Climate Change" odyssey started in 1973 when Popular Science came out with an article on lower temperatures forecast for the near future. They exaggerated it to get readers to say that by 2015 all humanity would be gone because shorter and shorter growing seasons which would lead to much lower yields and loss of crops, leading to food shortages, causing food riots, deaths and extinction. Then it returned to normal weather patterns with a couple of warmer years, so now it was "GLOBAL WARMING" and we were off to the races again. Hollywood graphics appeared everywhere showing city after city decimated by floods because of massive temperature rise. The U.N. jumped in with their manupilated IPCC computer models, then Al Gore jumped in with his dire climate disasters and then it was: "Only you can save the planet", and the fundraising began. These people are just plain crazy and at least 250 of their predictions have failed to come true. For one thing NOBODY has proven if an increase in CO2 is a trailing gas which results from higher temperatures or if it causes it. NOBODY! Now every hot day, forest fire, cold day, or snowstorm is a result of "Global Warming", or should I say "Climate Change" as it is called now as "Global Warming" failed to come true. Even Biden after a speech on "Climate Change" as the major threat to the Democracy, was walking off stage and was heard on a hot mic stating "This is all bull shit". It is a con game and we are the victims. Trillions of dollars collected and for what?

    1. "This whole "Climate Change" odyssey started in 1973"

      I would argue for 1966 when a coal industry journal published an article predicting higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and higher average global temperatures. Both have since been observed and measured.

      1. But not well correlated to the models. Temperatures have remained uniformly lower than the models predicted. Also, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are much lower than those predicted in even the early part of this century.

        1. Which is what this story references. So, any ignoring of those facts shows a willful ignorance.

          1. "So, any ignoring of those facts shows a willful ignorance."

            Models are not facts. Observations and measurements are facts, and the facts show that CO2 concentrations and temperatures are rising.

            1. But relating the two requires models, which haven't proven to be correct.

              1. The heat trapping character of CO2 and other such gases is experimentally demonstrated and the theory is sound. No models are required.

                1. Irrelevant, asshole.

                2. Yes but several gases are also heat trapping implying causative from this is a fools errand. Water vapor is far more heat trapping than CO2.

                  1. Water vapor isn't produced when burning fossil fuels. CO2 is, unavoidably, and the industrial revolution is characterized by a massive increase in burning fossil fuels. Actions have consequences, however much you're inclined to deny or minimize them.

                    1. Burning methane produces 2 molecules of water and one of CO2.

                    2. "Burning methane produces 2 molecules of water and one of CO2."

                      Has water vapor concentration in the atmosphere increased since the industrial revolution? I don't think the issue, if it is an issue, has been raised. CO2 concentration has increased in both the atmosphere and the oceans, as has temperatures.

        2. "Also, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are much lower than those predicted in even the early part of this century."

          But ocean concentrations and temperatures have been higher than previously understood. Models are only models, and modelling the earth's climate is hellaciously difficult. In any case, warmer temperatures and higher concentrations of CO2 have been observed and measured in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

          1. That demonstrates that the models are wrong, not working, and useless as predictive tools, which was the OPs point. Also, as he pointed out, the models are based largely in historical records such as ice cores, which don't demonstrate a causative relationship. Climate change is based largely on correlative relationships. Many critics have pointed out that the majority of climate scientist don't factor in solar activity very well (mainly because reliable records of solar activity are to recent to model). They point out that Mars and other planets appeared to have had a similar pattern of warming despite no increase in CO2.

            1. "That demonstrates that the models are wrong"

              They are models. It's not reality. They predict both increased CO2 concentration and temperature, both borne out in observation and measurement. If you want to know the exact climate conditions some 50 years hence, no model will tell you this. TV weather forecasters can't tell you with certainty if it will rain tomorrow. It's foolish to expect any more accuracy with global climate models forecasting decades from now.

              1. It's foolish to expect any more accuracy with global climate models forecasting decades from now.

                We should definitely use them as a basis for global policy, though.

                1. "We should definitely use them"

                  I disagree. The heat trapping character of green house gases is well understood, without modelling. The observation and measurement of CO2 concentration and temperature is also well understood, without modelling. If reality isn't convincing enough for you, a computer model of reality isn't going to do the trick.

                  1. "I disagree..."
                    You are full of shit, asshole. You are stupid enough to assume that single-entry bookkeeping is sufficient to address the issue.
                    You ARE that fucking stupid.

                  2. Actually the heat trapping properties are not well understood and are constantly being refined. And that still leaves out the largest factor in global temperatures (of any planetary body) solar output, which is not a constant. Or even near a constant.

                    Additionally you are making a huge jump from CO2 to all GHG, which includes a wide variety of gases, including oxygen (O2) and nitrogen and ozone (O3). The heat trapping properties of gases must also include a discussion of thickness of the atmosphere. Mars has a higher concentration of CO2 atmospherically than Earth but a much thinner atmosphere. Mercury is much closer to the sun, but it's dark side is far colder than any temperature recorded on earth because it has no atmosphere. Some of the Jovial moons have deep atmospheres, and fairly warm temperatures for what would be predicted based upon the solar location (as do some of the Saturinian moons). Some of these atmospheres are low in what would be commonly classified as GHG, while others are high in them. The concept that what most people commonly refer to as GHG as the sole causative agent or even the primary causative agent behind climate changes is not as solid as some will have you believe. I tend to say they play a part, but how much is debatable, and how much may be the result of a lagging effect, say solar output triggers warming which leads to more permafrost melting, which leads to release of CO2 and methane trapped within the permafrost. Can you definitively state that the triggering effect was the methane and CO2? Or was it a result of the increased solar output?

                    1. I think I'll go with the 99% of climate scientists and all the National Academies of Science in the known universe on this question, not soldier's "analysis". No doubt those scientists are not as clever as soldier and I am sure have never considered variabilities in the suns output, the thickness of the atmosphere, or variability among GHGs, but still his degree is in animal science or some such field and so I wouldn't ask those climate scientists whether Herefords or Angus's have more or less complications in the birth of large headed calves, but I would him. Hopefully the climate scientists wouldn't insist he wasn't thinking of everything about these breeds or become surly when challenged.

                    2. " The concept that what most people commonly refer to as GHG as the sole causative agent or even the primary causative agent behind climate changes is not as solid as some will have you believe. "

                      I can't speak for climate changes in general, but the one in question, the one that follows the industrial revolution, seems driven by the attendant increase in the release of CO2, a green house gas, rather than any change in solar activity. This is the conclusion most who study the matter have come to.

                      My favorite atmosphere in the solar system, by the way, has to be that of the saturnine moon, Titan. It has a range in temperatures that allows methane to exist in solid, liquid and gaseous states, like water on earth. They apparently have methane rain, snow, clouds and perhaps even thunderstorms there. Incidentally, Titan was the name we gave to the last distressed sparrow chick we saved and raised until it could fly and live in the wild. All previous attempts, four or five of them, ended in failure.

  24. They didn’t history match? That’s modeling 101. Without that a model is basically speculation.

    1. You say speculation, I say propaganda.

    2. I seriously question the resolution of tree rings and ice cores. Not to mention all temperature reading pre space age. Pretty sure it's an impossible task.

  25. First you admit the Hunter Biden laptop story was factual and should not have been suppressed.
    Now you admit some of the research in Climate Change has flaws.
    You aren't going to be invited to many cocktail parties with this kind of record, Reason Editors.

  26. Can't build a Nazi-Regime without propaganda up the whoo-ha...

  27. "Among other problems with that scenario is that it assumes a sixfold rise in global coal consumption per capita by 2100."

    How is this a problem? Bailey and others, and not only journalists, have for years been advocating something like a ten fold increase in fossil fuel consumption for the poorer half of the planet. This would put them roughly on a par with the richer half. Shellenberger, an oft cited environmentalist here, goes so far as to encourage the wealthier nations to invest in the exploitation of African coal resources to help them along in achieving this.

    1. Except that isn't what they actually pushed. Yes, fossil fuel use will increase but engines and power plants are far more efficient so the ten fold increase is a fabrication of your imagination.

      1. "Except that isn't what they actually pushed. "

        It is though. They advocate the best way to deal with climate change is to bring the poorer half of the planet to a par with the richer half. That means raising their energy use, That means increased fossil fuel consumption. Internet sources give per capita energy consumption in Zimbabwe to be around 500 kwh, and 70,000 in the US.

        Read Shellenberger's book if you doubt me.
        You can download it for free by following this link:

        1. [...]They advocate the best way to deal with climate change is to bring the poorer half of the planet to a par with the richer half. That means raising their energy use, That means increased fossil fuel consumption.[...]

          This is typical of the half-witted 'reasoning' of trueman and the remainder of the watermelons. It might be simple stupidity, or dishonesty.
          They (trueman included) refuse to account for the increased efficiency in almost every consumption of energy, basing their bullshit claims on the assumption that everybody in Africa is getting a brand new 1970 Olds 88.
          STFU trueman; your bullshit only proves you to be an uneducated liar.

        2. And I see you ignored once again their actual position that didn't call for a ten fold increase at all, but did call for increased access using modern more efficient power plants and internal combustion engines that use far less fossil fuels than what was utilized when we in the west adopted these power sources.

          1. It may not be a ten fold increase. I picked the number to be conservative. For Zimbabwe to get to US levels of per capita energy consumption, it would require a 140 fold increase. According to my Elixir command line, 140 is more than 23 times greater than the 6 fold increase that Bailey found so problematic.

            1. "It may not be a ten fold increase. I picked the number to be conservative..."
              You pulled a number out of your ass, steaming pile of lefty shit.

        3. Did you not even read the second half of my comment or did you just read the first sentence and responded, thus making yourself look foolish, as I already addressed this in my comment and disputed your assertions.

          1. "Did you not even read the second half of my comment"

            I skimmed it, which is more than I can say for the original article.

            1. Lying pile of lefty shit admits to being lying pile of lefty shit.
              STFU, asshole. No one here cares about your trolling in the hopes of getting an extra click on your website.

          2. Wait, somebody reads soldier's verbose and self referential comments to the end?

            1. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
              Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
              Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
              Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.

        4. It is though.

          No, it isn't. You're leaving off the part where that's how you get these economies onto clean energy like solar and nuclear.

          And this is not the first time you've been corrected on this.

          It's almost like you don't want to portray Shellenberger's views accurately.

          1. "You're leaving off the part where that's how you get these economies onto clean energy like solar and nuclear."

            What economies? Those of the wealthy half of the planet like the US? They run overwhelmingly on fossil fuels, and solar and nuclear are marginal. Hydro is arguably solar, but there are only so many rivers on the planet suitable for electrical generation. I'm not sure what it is you believe you are correcting, though I appreciate your attention and taking the trouble to respond.

  28. "...Those of the wealthy half of the planet like the US? They run overwhelmingly on fossil fuels, and solar and nuclear are marginal..."
    The latter thanks to fucking watermelons like you, asshole.

    "...Hydro is arguably solar, but there are only so many rivers on the planet suitable for electrical generation..."
    I'm sure it will come as a complete surprise the steaming pile of lefty shit known as trueman, but, amazingly, a river can be dammed AT MORE THAN ONE LOCATION!

    "I'm not sure what it is you believe you are correcting,.."
    That's because you are a lying pile of lefty shit.
    Stuff it up your assd.

    1. BTW, pretty sure Trueman has me muted as I'm also pretty sure to have been among those providing evidence that he is a lying pile of shit. His 'inability' to provide cites was a tell.
      He is either dishonest enough to hope his bullshit flies, or, more likely, too stupid to know how stupid he is.
      Never presume cupidity where stupidity will suffice as is the case here.

  29. Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant In St Neots ? Check out this!

  30. "Ocean animals face a mass extinction from climate change."

    This has all happened before, it will happen again.

    But *this* time, it's personal.

    When the cyanobacteria first started farting toxic oxygen into the air, causing mass extinction of the predominant lifeforms on the planet--anaerobes--someone should have stopped them!

    And when the CO2 levels increased markedly 260M years or so ago, and caused global warming and ocean acidification that killed off something like 80% of all ocean, land, and insect species...someone should have imposed carbon taxes and fleet MPG targets to stop them!

    1. " that killed off something like 80% of all ocean, land, and insect species..."

      It's no laughing matter. Those that survived suffered severe cuts in their standard of living and per capita GDP.

  31. I for one don't deny that the globe may be warming (or at least that the climate may be changing), nor even that man may have exacerbated this trend. And I am willing to do my part to help minimize my impact: I telecommute when I can, I minimize my driving (e.g. walk to lunch when I'm at the office), we have a garden, we compost, I drive a car with really good gas mileage.

    On the other hand, the earth has gone through severe climate shifts even within the last few thousand years--none of which were precipitated by man-made pollutants. 11,500 years ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with mile-thick ice sheets. Yet that ice all melted. Why? Was the ice an aberration (no) or was the warming an aberration (no)? What is the earth's "correct" temperature? If the earth was cooling and glaciers were expanding and the seas retreating (as ice build-up captured more and more water) would these same scientists and politicians be recommending that we burn more stuff to put more CO2 into the atmosphere? Why is water vapor--the #1 greenhouse gas by a 7-1 margin--never mentioned? What caused the medieval warm period when olives last grew in England and Vikings last lived on the shores of Greenland and silver mines in Sweden were not covered by glaciers? What caused the subsequent Little Ice Age that saw the Thames freezing solid every winter for 200 years, and farms and villages in northern latitudes were destroyed by expanding glaciers?

    I think some people would have complained bitterly about the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet, if they could pin in on oil companies or capitalism. Heck, they would if asked on polls: "Do you believe AGW is the cause for retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet? Yes or no?" because 99% of people (a made up statistic) have no clue what the Laurentide ice sheets were.

    Sometimes I imagine a modern society 10,000 years ago, complete with MSNBC announcers pronouncing their dismay about the loss of habitat for the Ohio Basin polar bears, because the ice "which was once 1km thick is now only 250m and completely gone at some points". This is despite the huge beneficial impact that the melting of the ice sheets had on humanity as a species. Not that I'm claiming AGW is a good thing, but simply stating a fact that not all climate change is bad for humanity, and that it is reasonable to wonder if AGW may include any positive effects--for example, growing seasons will be longer at higher latitudes).

  32. Of course the Reason "science editor" accepts without question a paper that the ignorant readers here can take as confirmation of their continued ignorance. There is not a whiff of skepticism or "let's see what other climate researchers say about this 1 day old article." Of course not.

    Now, for you purposefully ignorant fuckers who believe only the science that doesn't conflict with your political beliefs, here's a quote from the article:

    "It is important to emphasize that, whereas unduly hot outcomes might be unlikely, this does not mean that global warming is not a serious threat. Multiple lines of evidence establish that the planet is more than 1 °C warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution, and that further warming poses severe risks to society and the natural world. There are many aspects of climate change we do not yet understand, hence the continued necessity of climate science. But there is no serious disagreement that continued emissions will lead to dangerous levels of warming."

    1. 1C warmer is about the same as the holocene maximum (about 4 to 6 thousand years ago). This period included the development of writing and modern agriculture, building of the pyramids, and early days of recognizable Chinese culture.

      I'd say we can tolerate that level of improvement again.

      1. Apparently you stopped reading before "further warming poses severe risks to society and the natural world."

        1. and ..."But there is no serious disagreement that continued emissions will lead to dangerous levels of warming."

          1. Apparently you suck up UN-backed political B.S. like a sponge.
            Chicken-Little, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

            Now; Go look at WWII climate that dropped 5C.. Obviously the massively exhausted gas emissions of a World War didn't raise the climate at all. In fact it cause it to get colder. And never-mind just a few years ago we set RECORD COLD TEMPERATURES not seen since the 60s..............

            No, no; Chicken-Little, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
            Any B.S. at all to pull out the Gov-Guns and Dictate....

      2. "I'd say we can tolerate that level of improvement again."

        We have air conditioning. The crops we rely on to sustain us don't.

        1. That's a first... Plants grow better in the cold???

  33. "Exaggerating the real problem of man-made climate change is not helpful for guiding the public and policy makers in their efforts to mitigate and adapt to rising global temperatures."

    Unfortunately, the goal of the policy makers seems not to be mitigation and adaptation, but control using whatever excuses they can find.

    And, sadly, many (the vast majority) within the academic community are all in on this concept that society needs to be directed by the smartest (in their own opinion) rather than allowed to develop organically from the bottom up.

  34. "And, sadly, many (the vast majority) within the academic community are all in on this concept that society needs to be directed by the smartest "

    Society is directed by money and its ability to control resources. Money makes the world go around, as the song says. We are all enthralled to it, even academics. Perhaps if we replaced money by a regime of energy accountancy, we might be in a better place to manage our future.

  35. If you read the two papers, it is clear that they are admitting that the climate codes and methodologies are not fit for purpose. Very carefully crafted to make it look like just a few billion $ more are needed, but they specifically mention clouds, and how the codes cannot predict the formation of clouds. Clouds are condensation phenomena, which are inherently chaotic and it is not POSSIBLE to predict them, not right over your head, this afternoon, and certainly not for the entire planet for the next 100 years.

    They are admitting failure, and are hoping that they can get away before people realize how big the con has been.

    1. You're confusing weather with climate. We can't predict whether or not a cloud forms tomorrow at a given location any more than the temperature. But there are trends that can be predicted. That's the hallmark of climate. Weather is ephemeral.

      "They are admitting failure, and are hoping that they can get away before people realize how big the con has been."

      Joseph Stalin, Martin Heidegger and JP Sartre all began their careers as climatologists. They were never known for admitting failure.

  36. Hysterical cries from warmist true believers do not help either climate science or the development of rational public policy. There is no doubt that we have increased atmospheric CO2 about 50% and that we cannot continue to increase fossil fuel burning exponentially forever. However that 50% has not caused any serious problems and may have been on balance beneficial from increased agricultural production. Computer climate models are too primitive to give reliable guidance. Real believable data is available. There is some warming which is not evenly distributed. In the US Southeast the temperatures recorded outside urban heat islands show a 0.1C per century warming. As expected with greenhouse warming the Arctic has warmed more. Overall NASA's satellite data indicates a 1C per century warming trend for the whole planet. These small gradual changes have not been a serious problem. Most of the supposed ill effects are really due to something else when examined closely. Pure economic forces may correct our emissions growth with no public policy inputs. For example, coal use is losing market share to natural gas which is cheaper and happens to emit less CO2 per kWh generated. Even natural gas may lose out to safe cheap nuclear power if the small modular nuclear power efforts are successful. Rented Batteries Electric Vehicles are cheaper and more capable than current fuel powered cars and trucks. Half of our fossil fuel emissions will soon disappear as fuel powered vehicles are replaced by RBEVs. Coincidentally, RBEVs provide cheap battery energy storage which makes wind and solar power more attractive. It is just engineering and economics not government rules or subsidies. Earth is at the outer limit of the Sun's habitable zone. Without a strong greenhouse effect it freezes solid to the equator as it did about 500 million years ago and most life went extinct. About half our current fossil fuel CO2 emissions are lost each year to natural processes. If we want to keep the benefits of our current CO2 level we need a continuing CO2 human emission source equal to about half our current level. This suggests that it is prudent to plan for a continuing but reduced use of fossil fuel at about half our current global consumption. If natural CO2 emission sources dry up humanity will need to burn more to prevent another freeze up mass extinction.

  37. My next door neighbor spends about $800/mo in the winter to heat her home with electricity.
    I eliminated the middleman and just burn coal; costs about $800/ SEASON.

  38. How many of the commenters have gone to actually read the article in the May 4 edition of Nature. My interpretation go that article my differ from Ronald Baily's. The take away is that the climate is not for sure going to Hell but it is going to slow down when it gets near Bakersfield.

  39. What a splendid combination of arguments from consequences, motivated reasoning, epistemic closure, projection, ignorance and outright lying is on display!

    Well done! Most impressive.

  40. So, it's going to get very warm......or maybe ......very, very warm. We are either only slightly interfered with or on a possible continuum, royally interfered with as an entire planet. It is merely hypothesis one way or another, so in the meantime, the money-guys who run the hedge funds that profit on fossil fuel can fund the big lie to preserve cash flow. THEIR families will live in gated communities in New Zealand when the SHTF.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.