Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The 'Climate Justice' Fantasy

The rough road to adopting a universal climate treaty at Paris in December

SystemChangepopular-resistanceRancorous negotiations over a draft version of a universal climate treaty took place this week in Bonn, Germany. The treaty is supposed to be adopted by nearly 200 nations at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris in December. The fight in Bonn is over how much the countries of the world should cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, by what year they should complete those cuts, and who should pay for the transition.

For example, some proposed provisions of the draft treaty would require the complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 and the transfer of more than $100 billion per year from rich countries to poor countries after 2020. The funds are supposed to compensate poor countries for climate change damages and to pay for their adoption of no-carbon energy sources.

What would it take to achieve total energy decarbonization? To answer this question, the Mary Robinson Foundation Climate Justice program issued its "Zero Carbon, Zero Poverty the Climate Justice Way" report this week. The study argues that keeping the world within the proper "carbon budget...can be achieved through a rapid peaking of the world's carbon emissions, by 2020, and a complete phase out of carbon emissions by 2050."

The carbon budget can be thought of as the amount of carbon dioxide the world can emit while still having a good chance of keeping the modeled average global temperature increase to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated that staying within those limits requires humanity to not emit more than 1 trillion tons of carbon. (To get carbon dioxide equivalents, multiply by 3.67—that is, 11 tons of carbon dioxide equals about 3 tons of carbon.) As the World Resources Institute reports, humanity has already used up 515 billion tons of its carbon budget, which means that there's only 485 billion tons left. At current emissions rates, the remaining budget will be used up by 2045.

So how should the global carbon budget be allocated? Some draft provisions in the universal climate treaty aim to outline a fair way to divvy up the world's carbon budget. One proposed provision of the treaty notes that "the largest share of historical global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries." Another provision directs greenhouse gas emissions reductions to take place "in accordance with historical responsibilities of developed countries and different socio-economic contexts and development stages of developed and developing country Parties." In other words, rich countries would be required to cut their emissions first and fastest because they have already used up more than their fair share of the world's carbon budget. 

Before the U.N. climate change conference convenes in Paris, each country is supposed to submit its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions toward solving the climate problem. For example, the Obama administration has committed the U.S. to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below their 2005 levels before 2025. Is this pledge and those made by other countries enough to keep the modeled global average temperature increase below 2°C?

No, says new report, "Fair Shares," issued earlier this week by a consortium of environmental activist organizations. The fair share activists' report delineates how they think the world's carbon budget should be allocated under the new treaty. In their calculations, they use carbon dioxide equivalent measurements so as to include the effects of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. If nothing is done to mitigate greenhouse emissions, the world will ostensibly be emitting the equivalent of 69 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030.

In order to stay on the modeled pathway toward keeping the world only 2°C warmer than the pre-industrial average temperature, the fair share activists assert, "Nothing less than a systemic transformation of our societies and our economies will suffice to solve the climate crisis." The systemic transformation would require that humanity cut our emissions 31 billion tons by 2030. The rich countries have so far pledged to reduce by 2030 their domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 5.5 billion tons and the poorer countries by 8.3 billion tons, leaving a gap of 17 billion tons between there and the activists' goal. Currently, the world emits the equivalent of about 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, implying that global emissions will be 12 billion tons lower in 2030 than they are now.

FairSharesGraphFair Shares

What's the fair way to fill in the 17-billion-ton gap? The activists calculate that rich countries need to boost their domestic reductions from 5.5 billion tons to 9.1 billion tons. They also call for "a vast expansion of international finance, technology and capacity-building support." This means the rich countries should provide poor countries with the wherewithal to reduce by 15.1 billion tons the greenhouse gases they would otherwise have emitted. The amount that poor countries are expected to cut would actually be reduced from their current pledges of 8.3 billion tons to 6.6 billion tons. In other words, the activists reckon that it is only fair that poor countries greenhouse gas emissions be permitted to increase a bit as their economies develop.

What do the activists think is the U.S.'s fair share of reductions? Historically, the U.S. is responsible for about 30 percent of the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since 1850. The fair share activists calculate that the United States is promising to cut its annual emissions by only 2 billion tons by 2030. Without going into the arcana of the climate equity calculations, the activists argue that the U.S. should instead cut its emissions by the equivalent of 13 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030. According to the latest figures the U.S. emitted 6.7 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 2013. Under the most stringent interpretation of "historical responsibilities" for climate change, the U.S. would have to entirely eliminate all of its greenhouse emissions including those from electric power generation plants and automobiles by 2030. Meanwhile, Washington would be required to provide the money and technology to poor countries that would enable them to avoid annually emitting 7 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 2030.

This week, summing up where the climate negotiations in Bonn stand, one of the fair share activists—Harjeet Singh—bluntly said, "The money to prepare for and deal with climate impacts must be at the centre of the deal." No money, no agreement. In any case, it is a total fantasy to think that the U.S. and other rich countries will agree to a treaty that would require them to stop emitting greenhouse gases entirely in just 15 years.

Note: I will be reporting daily dispatches during the last week of climate treaty negotiations at the Paris conference in December.

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

  • IceTrey||

    "What would it take to achieve total energy decarbonization? "

    Molten Salt Thorium Reactor.

  • But Enough About Me||

    A nice little pebble-bed reactor would probably do the trick, too.

    Or one of these.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yeah, right.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just an MSR. Thorium reprocessing isn't required.

    Regardless, this is a question for the markets and not the ecoloons.

  • IceTrey||

    The thorium is for long term viability. There's a lot more of it than uranium. In addition it doesn't need to be enriched prior to fueling. Just dump it in. Plus because of the type of uranium it is bred to makes it very hard to use for bombs. It's not just about the enviroment it's about providing first world levels of energy to all the people in the world.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    We don't need thorium for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is not nearly as proliferation rsistant as you think. In a 2 salt configuration you need to contiunyally process the 232Pa and the 233Pa. 232U is a hard gamma emitter but 233U makes perfectly good bomb material and because the teo isotopes have half lives days apart you can effectively let the salt enrich itself.

    If you stick with a 1 salt or 1.5salt then you need a much larger fuel volume. We just don't. Need the headache right now with existing fuel supplies.

  • IceTrey||

    The U-232 and U-233 can't be separated so the gamma rays can't be eliminated. I didn't say it was impossible I said it is much harder. I doubt a bunch of ragheads could pull it off. As you said it can be run denatured which is not an insurmountable obstacle. With an MSUR you still have the requirement to enrich the U which as we both agree is easier to use for bombs. If we're going to develop MSR tech we might as well go all the way to using Th. It's just one step away.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Reading is good (misspelling is bad, but phones suck).

    because teo isotopes have half lives days apart you can effectively let the salt enrich itself.

    You don't have to enrich the 233/232Pa, it enriches itself.

    LEU isn't easier to use for bombs, so no it is not the same. Give me a stream of 232/233Pa and a few months and I will give you weapons grade 233U, so no.

    Why do the headache of handling Th when you can just burn existing stocks of U/Pu? No, you don't need the extra step, so why delay the implementation for it?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So that salt IS gonna enrich itself?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    For the third time, yes.

    The half life of 233Pa is 27 days. The half life of 232Pa is 1.3 days. Both beta decay to U so the key is to enrich the amount of 233Pa and get rid of the 232Pa.

    So I chemically separate Pa from the salt. It's a mix of 233Pa and 232Pa. I wait 27 days. The concentration of 233Pa is 50% of its starting value. The concentration of 232Pa is 1/1,000,000th its starting value. I chemically separate the remaining Pa from the mix again. I have just enriched the ratio of 233Pa to 232Pa by a factor of 500,000. Repeat as many times as necessary to get essentially pure 233Pa which then beta decays to 233U which is a perfectly good bomb material. The 232U is not a problem because it isn't there.

  • IceTrey||

    You're product is still going to be contaminated with U-232. 232 and 233 are chemically identical and are essentially inseparable. 232 is a gamma emitter with a half life of 73.6 years.

    http://liquidfluoridethoriumre.....r-weapons/

  • IceTrey||

    Ignore the above comment. I see where we're missing each other. I meant a terrorist group can't just steal some fuel salt and make a nuke. Sure your scenario is plausible if your the US and have a steady stream of material. In other words I agree with what you are saying but it would take an operation on an industrial scale to make it work.

  • IceTrey||

    If you can pull that off you might as well just enrich uranium.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    This is easier than enriching uranium. All I need are holding tanks, chemical separation columns, and a clock. Burning denatured U in an MSR is immune to this. Only breeders/converters like those that burn Th are vulnerable to this problem.

    The only problem (solution?) is to run the reactor so close to shutdown that you can't afford to divert any Pa away, but I suspect that would be very difficult and costly to make it attractive.

  • IceTrey||

    And a shitload of Pa.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    This statement makes zero sense. The bottom line is that you want to put these reactors everywhere in the world. That means lots and lots of continuous operation reactors giving you a wonderfully self-enriching stream of Pa (assuming the 2 salt configuration talked about earlier) which you can use to make 233U. Denaturing doesn't solve it unless you have a steady supply of 231Pa available (hint: we don't). This whole process is far, far easier than enriching weapons grade U.

  • IceTrey||

    If it was so easy why hasn't anyone done it yet? Why isn't Iran doing it? I just got an email form Kirk Sorensen and he says you're full of shit.

    "The decay tank is always being refilled with fresh Pa232. The temperatures and rad field of that location are so intense that this fictional repurposing he imagines is impossible. If the thorium fuel cycle was so simple for weapons it would have been done decades ago. But it wasn't, because it's not.

    Ask him to explain how to make it impossible to repurpose gasoline for napalm, or steel for swords, or fertilizer for explosives, yet we use all those products. But for some reason nuclear energy has to be perfect."

  • IceTrey||

    I want to retract the part about Kirk saying your full of... He did not say that. That was me.

  • IceTrey||

    I want to publicly apologize to Kirk he was kind enough to answer the questions of a stranger and I abused his kindness by posting his private reply and put words in his mouth. I shouldn't have done that and I feel like a real heel.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    If LFTR was so easy why isn't anyone doing it? See how effective an argument that was? Now I'm going to use some big math here, so try to stick with me. We're going to use TWO tanks. It's so crazy it just might work!

    The reason that no one does this today is that no one has a steady supply of Pa. They would have tobuild a reactor first and then find enough fissile inventory to start it, presumably by enriching uranium. If I can enrich uranium I'll just use that and avoid the hassle. Or if you're a major power like the US (or North Korea) you use graphite core reactors to make Pu.

    To make matters worse you were dumb enough to include Kirk's final response indicating that even he admits that it isn't immune to proliferation. Reading comprehension fail. Also misrepresentation of my positio to Kirk fail. Care to make it 3 in a row, 'tard?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Oh, and here's a thing we in the science-y world like to call a "paper." I realize it can't compete with an e-mail from a newly minted PhD looking for government funding of his project, but humor me.

    After irradiating thorium-based materials for one month, the canisters are removed and dissolved in nitric acid3, 4. The resultant sludge goes through three stages of filtration. Protactinium is separated during the second stage, by co-precipitation with MnO2 (ref. 3). It is separated further in the third stage using iodic acid and combustion to form protactinium oxide, containing only 233Pa. Any traces of 232Pa (half-life of 1.3 days) and 234Pa (half-life of 6.7 hours), formed by competing reactions, decay to 232U and 234U during the dissolution stage, in which they are removed. Left to decay, 233Pa becomes ultra-pure (99%) 233U.

    Gosh, seems I was right. Oh, and ref. 3? Yeah, that was in 1964.

  • IceTrey||

    "No, you don't need the extra step, so why delay the implementation for it?"

    Why would there be a delay? The hard part is handling the salt. Once you've got the materials for that figured out the rest is easy peasy. As for safety would you rather have trucks driving around full of U-235 and PU-239 or Thorium which in it's natural state is useless?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No it isn't. Xe sparging and noble metal plate out are engineering challenges. Hastelloy-N looks perfectly adequate to handle the salt. The hard part is building the continuous reprocessing plant.

    For safety I would rather have trucks full of denatured U and Pu than fully self-enriching Pa. You do understand that 232Th itself is only fertile and has to be turned into fissile material, don't you? THAT is the weak link.

  • Luap Leiht||

    Amazing conversation...shows why comments sections should be on all articles. I especially like the scientific terms such as raghead and shitload.

  • But Enough About Me||

    This.

    I have a friend who does lots of environmental "consulting" as an engineer, and he's forever harping on about how "the market" isn't delivering his preferred modes of, well, everything he thinks is necessary to "save" us. I keep reminding him that "the market" is simply a convenient shorthand for "millions upon millions of people interacting with others everyday making decisions about how to consume and produce (buy and sell) in their own best interests," and that the lack of alacrity in developing (for example) a deep and broad market for electric cars is the ultimate form of crowdsourced decison-making.

    He hates that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Your friend doesn't like millions and millions of people. That's what HE'S trying to tell you!

  • Tommy_Grand||

    he is not your freind

  • But Enough About Me||

    Oh, I'm quite capable of being friends with people that I have some fundamental disagreements with.

    It's called "being an adult."

    I do get that most people who would have some fundamental disagreements with me wouldn't want to be my friend. And I'm okay with that. ;-)

  • Brian||

    I think his point is that any friend of yours who doesn't mind forcing his disagreements on you through the state is no real friend to you.

  • But Enough About Me||

    Oh, I understood the point — though it's not quite accurate. He continues to be mystified by "the market's" failure to achieve his glorious vision, but he's reasonably indifferent to having the government force it upon others.

    Now, his comeback point, which is correct as far as it goes, is that crowdsourced decision-making is great unless you're drawing from a massive pool of ignorance, in which case the crowd will settle upon a solution that's suboptimal even for them.

    Sort of like the recent Federal election here in Canada. ;-)

    There's no true defense for that form of decision-making, which is why so many political wonks fear for the future of democracy.

    My retort to that point is that the crowd is often constrained to a very limited set of choices (i.e., elections), but at least in terms of a capitalist market, the choice set is very large and if they're participating willingly throughout the process, they're more likely to be reasonably-informed, particularly when an immediate drain on their limited resources is being contemplated. Resource drains during elections are always obscured via propaganda and demagoguery — it's only afterwards that one discovers their choices could end up being wildly suboptimal.

  • BYODB||

    And this is why that line of reasoning ultimately ends up with an unelected tyrant telling everyone what is best for them. It's for their own good after all, they're just too dumb to realize it.

    Yeah, sure. Whatever.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Lots and lots of unelected tyrants.

    And besides just telling people what is best for them, they force them to bend to the millions upon millions of commands of the unelected tyrants.

    Welcome to the Progressive Theocracy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Just because you are his friend, it does not mean he is your friend, or a friend to the millions upon millions of people he hates and wants to see impoverished and controlled .

  • Hank Phillips||

    Were it not for power imported from Canadian CANDU reactors, the Yankee people's states would still be stuck in the ending of Atlas Shrugged--like New York in October 1965.

  • GroundTruth||

    A strangely appropriate comment given that the one nuke plant in MA is now scheduled to be shut in '19 and the greenies are screaming it's not soon enough. So tell me, what are we going to do for electricity? Solar isn't realistic at this latitude (and climate), wind is a bad joke, maybe start burning politicians?

  • JWW||

    At the end the hard core greenies believe that what will need to be done will be to get rid of just a few billion people.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They don't want to get rid of people. They much prefer to rule and dominate.

  • Inigo "Chip" DuBois||

    "What are going to do for electricity...maybe start burning politicians?"

    Interesting idea! It's likely to be "carbon neutral," it will simultaneously make for a lot less garbage lying around, and it probably produces a lot of extra heat from the melting fat (many of them tend to be chubby).

    Note to lurking US attorneys: this is joke and not intended to be taken as anything but a bit of satire at statists' expense.

  • Luap Leiht||

    Burning politicians is just another form of dirty fuel. The greens would never go for it.

  • Win Bear||

    Were it not for power imported from Canadian CANDU reactors, the Yankee people's states

    And you believe that trade and comparative advantage would be a problem for Yankee libertarians... why?

  • GamerFromJump||

    True, and the ongoing regumurder of all things nuclear is proof positive that this isn't about the environment, it is about control.

  • tarran||

    Sadly, Al Gore's little doomsday cult will fuck over the poor in the developing world the worst; the ones who can least afford the reaming.

  • Suicidy||

    Marxist Progressives will murder hundreds of millions more through the 21st century with their AGW bullshit. Every progressive should be executed as a traitor and many for crimes against humanity.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    that would lower the carbon footprint quite a bit, depending on the method of execution

  • buybuydandavis||

    Woodchipper?

  • Luap Leiht||

    Buried alive...it's the only way to truly sequester the carbon.

  • But Enough About Me||

    It'll be an unintended consequence, of course — these folks are nothing if not equal-opportunity reamers. Just as long as they have a fair shot at turning back the clock a century or so, they'll ream anyone they can.

  • straffinrun||

    Not to Goodwin, but... I'm reminded of this scene whenever I think about what they really want.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Consider editing the Wikipedia. As Aaron Swartz observed before he was murdered by our government, only a tiny handful of people actually write the Wikipedia, which is dedicated entirely to smothering the Petition Project signed by 30000 scientists, and frightening children with an endless procession of econazi Hobgoblins only Government Coercion and Taxes can save them from.

  • But Enough About Me||

    Have you seen how fast some of those editors change the edits back to what they approve of? These folks work in femtosecond time slices. Damn near proves Einstein wrong about the speed of light being the fastest thing in the Universe.

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    Energy strangulation for everyone that doesn't have the proper thoughts. All they care to use for the correct thinking people....

  • Jackand Ace||

    "Activists" are suggesting this?

    PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has been issuing updates on the carbon budget for 7 years. And they claim we are decarbonizing at between one and two percent per year, and to avoid a 2 degree increase we need to be at 6.2%.

    http://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pd.....x-2014.pdf

    They aren't "activists." They're accountants and businessmen.

  • ||

    I don't think anyone is questioning the accounting.

    It's the policy that is in question.

  • Sevo||

    "They aren't "activists." They're accountants and businessmen."

    Jack, as the pathetic ignoramus that you are, I'm just gonna guess that you never heard of the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority'; hey imbeciles aren't expected to know that sort of stuff.
    So, just admit you're here where the adults are and STFU.

  • DesigNate||

    I love that he's so ready to trust the words of the accountants and businessmen when they say something that he likes.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Jackass Ass,

    PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has been issuing updates on the carbon budget for 7 years.


    The fact that you would say something as absurd as "carbon budget" without so much as blushing reveals the level of gullibility behind your thought processes, Jackass.

  • ||

    Why anyone would believe anything IPCC says with the track record of lying, changing data, and failed predictions is beyond me.

    Jackland would you believe in them if it was a different topic matter ?

    How about the stock market ? Would you make investments based on recommendations from a stockmarket advisor with the same track record as the IPCC ?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Hey, oneout...it's PwC, not IPCC. As in PriceWaterhouseCoopers. One of the merged Big6 accounting firms, as in Coopers And Lybrand and Price Waterhouse. One of the largest accounting, tax, and consulting firms on the world. Nothing to do with IPCC.

    Idiot.

  • Haven Monahan||

    Hey JackAss,

    Did you even read the report you linked?

    You don't even have to go beyond the foreword before it says that it is "based on IPCC data".

    Who's the idiot now?

  • DesigNate||

    The idiot is always Jackass.

  • GILMORE™||

    "PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has been issuing updates on the carbon budget for 7 years. '

    Comments like this simply demonstrate how little you understand about what companies like this actually do, and why.

    I've been working w/ these kinds of people for nearly 2 decades. They'd provide annual updates on the Dandelion Deficit in the Sahara Desert if they thought it could be used to help stimulate UN-Funded Flower-Relocation Projects.... and the special services they provide to assist w/ these very-same kinds of deals.

    Its Marketing, dumbass

  • JWW||

    Heh, let me know when these "accountants" come up with carbon free energy. And don't say nuclear, that's not allowed.

  • Win Bear||

    They aren't "activists." They're accountants and businessmen.

    Sure, and they stand to make lots of money from carbon budgets, carbon trading, etc. Who do you think is going to actually administer and verify all these policies? Accountants and lawyers. Other people who stand to gain lots of money and power are nonprofits, government employees, and certain consultants.

    If AGW action were just about "activists", nothing would be done. But there is lots of money to be made by screwing the rest of us.

  • ||

    This is the most important point.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    the transfer of more than $100 billion per year from rich countries to poor countries after 2020. The funds are supposed to compensate poor countries for climate change damages and to pay for their adoption of no-carbon energy sources.

    Is anyone out there stupid and naive enough to believe this would be the case? That the money wouldn't just go right into the pockets of politicians and their friends?

    That Maldives is a popular target for climate change activists. And its government is a corrupt shit show. The previous president, a hero of climate change, was likely abusing his powers and is now serving a 13 year sentence for arresting a judge (and that sentence itself is political retribution). Does any idiot out there honestly think the billions of dollars that would go to the Maldives would be used appropriately?

  • geo1113||

    Not only would the money get into the wrong hands, but the demands will become much greater than $100 billion/year.

  • tarran||

    The amount of corruption polluting the environmental and green movements is staggering.

    Here is just a taste. Remember that shithead that proposed prosecuting scientists who questioned his religion under the Rico statute. Turns out he was pulling in a cool 1 million a year of tax payer cash.

    What the Joe Boyle's of the world are pushing for is for the poor to be taxed and compelled to tithe to the breaking point so that the clergy can dine on gold plates.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Funny how you bring that up. I recall Ron and Judith Curry suggesting it could be the end of science as we know it due to that letter. And now we have congressman Lamar Smith looking to start an investigation of that scientist you mention. Oh, and libertarian Competetive emterprise Institute is looking to do the same.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/pol.....requesting

    I wonder if Ronald and Judith think these investigations will end science as we know it, or if these investigations are now righteous.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you're saying that double dipping is ok. Good to know that you believe defrauding taxpayers is a-ok.

  • tarran||

    It really exposes Joe's utter moral depravity doesn't it?

    Here you have a genuine violation of NSF regs regarding financial disclosure - including pretty strong evidence of embezzlement (the $100,000 in grant money that was gifted to the school operated by Shukla's brother in India), and Joe is equating an investigation into that with the utterly evidence free assertion that scientists who arrive at conclusions at odds with Joe's profession of faith must be getting money under the table to deny Joe's religion.

    Shukla's double dipping, the salaries paid to his wife and kids that are obscenely high for the unskilled part time work they are reported to do, would be a problem regardless of his scientific positions. The NSF has an interest in policing its grants to prevent that very sort of fraud. Preventing fraud in no way is an attack on the scientific method.

    Prosecuting and investigating people on nothing more than their scientific judgement is an attack on the scientific method.

    And joe is trying to pretend the former is the latter, solely because the target is a coreligionist of his backward and civilization-hating millennial death-cult.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Good to know you approve investigating people just because they wrote a letter. Or maybe even posted a comment, eh Tarry? Or are you just selective in your outrage? I'm sure it's the latter.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    They brought the scrutiny on themselves, but a better question to ask is why wasn't this discovered sooner? Further proof that this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power. You will excuse any act as long as it allows you to steal.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Investigations by the government, as long as they "bring them on themselves" right? Who knew you were such a statist.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It isn't because they brought it on themselves, retard. They should have been caught sooner for theft and fraud. They never should have gotten millions for "research" which amounted to a grand total of 1 paper while he paid his whole, fucking family.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "They brought scrutiny on themselves..."

    -skippy

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Convenient eliding of the rest of the sentence, but lying seems to be a core competency of socialists:

    They brought the scrutiny on themselves, but a better question to ask is why wasn't this discovered sooner?

    What next, JackAss?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks. You just reiterated that your ok with the scrutiny, because they brought it on themselves. Why it wasn't discovered earlier is meaningless. By the way, nothing has been proved anyway, but here comes the scrutiny. And why? Because they wrote a letter exercising their free speech.

    Scrutiny... It's ok when your side does it. Keep going!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Holy fuck are you stupid. Yes, if someone shouts and wakes the neighborhood while breaking into a house and is then arrested after bringing attention to themselves I have no problem with that.

    Oh, and for the record it was a private party, Pielke Jr., who looked into the 990 filings and found the funding discrepancies, so it wasn't even additional scrutiny brought on by a government investigation, but the fact that they've been scamming us for 15 years is a crime in itself that should have been caught much, much earlier.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    He's light years beyond stupid....never change joe, levity is good for the soul.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|10.23.15 @ 5:10PM|#
    "Thanks. You just reiterated that your ok with the scrutiny, because they brought it on themselves. Why it wasn't discovered earlier is meaningless."

    Keep ducking and weaving Jack. Stupid shits like you will think it's clever; the rest of us find it amusing.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|10.23.15 @ 4:27PM|#
    'Investigations by the government, as long as they "bring them on themselves" right? Who knew you were such a statist."

    Who knew you were *this* stupid?
    Yep, libertarians should always ignore fraud and theft, since those might be punished by the government!
    What a fucking pathetic piece of crap!

  • DesigNate||

    I know you're short, but did your brain growth get stunted too?

    I mean, otherwise how do you account for thinking that being investigated because you don't agree with the "consensus" and being investigated because possible financial shenanigans are in any sense equivalent?

  • Brian||

    Yes.

    He's gone full retard today.

    Twice in one thread, he's transitioned from annoying troll to obvious idiot making a fool of himself.

    And he keeps doubling down.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    first, kill all the whites

    #killallwhitemen

  • GamerFromJump||

    Know where else made a concerted effort to separate from/drive out whitey and suffered for it?

    #welcometoliberia
    #welcometosouthafrica

  • JWW||

    They asked the President to sic the DOJ on people because of their speech!!!!

    You bet your ass all those fucking facist assholes deserve to be investigated.

  • DesigNate||

    Jackass is right up there with Tony on what he would let his political brethren get away with.

  • Hank Phillips||

    These are environmental national socialists. Rather than eradicate all Jews to make the world safe for altruism, econazis want to eradicate the very form of energy produced mainly by Jewish scientists at Los Alamos to make the world safe from national socialism. It's a pity the Natsoc surrendered 3 months too soon.

  • ||

    Does any idiot out there honestly think the billions of dollars that would go to the Maldives would be used appropriately?

    In all fairness, I don't think the billions of dollars we give to the US government is going to be spent appropriately whether we give it to the Maldives or not. Even less so if the money passes through the UN.

  • ||

    "That the money wouldn't just go right into the pockets of politicians and their friends?

    That is , of course, the main purpose of the exercise.

    It's always about the money even when it appears to be about power.

    The control of the flow of the money buys power. The primary objective of the Presidential race is to decide who gets to dole out the $800 billion stimulus packages.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's always about the money even when it appears to be about power.

    Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power, in this town a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after ten years, power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I can not respect someone who does not see the difference.
    -- Frank Underwood

  • DarrenM||

    They're going to put y'all back in chains caves!

  • Brochettaward||

    This is such a shit show. Sorry, Ron. I will never buy into the flimsy facade of science around all of this. It is nothing more than a massive wealth redistribution ponzi scheme. It is inherently anti-capitalist, anti-individual, anti-free trade. The socialists of the 20th century lost and rebranded themselves environmentalists with a new argument against free trade that centered around the bullshit argument that we are all connected and that everything we do as individuals can and should be regulated because of the environmental impact.

    Do any of these pieces of shit talk about how success will be measured in the war on climate change? Beyond carbon emissions, I mean. What actual measure of success will there be 100 years from now to show whether we succeeded or failed to stop global warming? Because something tells me these people won't admit they were wrong if nothing bad happens, and instead be touting these supposed successes if they can ram them through. The climate will be the same regardless.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Success will be achieved when plant life starts dying.

  • Al Sharpton||

    Decarbonization = Progressive speak for International Wealth Reallocation.

  • Frankjasper1||

    Except for their wealth of course

  • Ron||

    Those in charge of the redistribution will be the wealthiest of all, mostly from bribes of course.

  • ||

    Then there are the low level "useful idiots" like AmSoc, Tony, and Jackland who advocate redistribution because they don't make enough to think they will suffer.

    It's only the producers who are hurt by redistribution initially and I doubt any of those three are sucessful

  • Glide||

    So, I assume that if the eco-wing of the Democratic Party is out to eliminate all carbon and destroy my career by the time I hit middle age, then the president and the presumed future woman-in-chief at least have a thorough, detailed nuclear plan that they are campaigning hard for, right? Since that's the only "alternative" energy that could power a whole country even in the silliest Greenpeace fantasy? They're all over that, right?

    Right?

    God damn it, they're still talking about solar?

    Well, we're f***ed.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear" covers a lot of the ground the econazis don't want you to see. The author, Petr Beckmann, was a Reason contributor back in the day.

  • ||

    In other words, rich countries would be required to cut their emissions first and fastest because they have already used up more than their fair share of the world's carbon budget.

    If this is the argument, it seems to me that the more developed countries should get a credit for the technology that has already been distributed to the world, which the developing countries will not have to re-invent.

    The way it's going now, developing countries get to pay their own startup and operating costs, then pay a penalty because they took the risk, then pay for their competitors startup costs and permanently cripple their industries so the developing countries can catch up. Do I have that about right?

  • ||

    developing countries get to pay

    *developed*

  • Hank Phillips||

    These speculative agreements typically exempt communist countries. Another Reason commenter led me to a kewl blog titled Real Science, based in Boulder, where Petr Beckmann ran Access to Energy. The blog, https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/, is pretty cool. It features photographs of sea level in 1871, and that year's climate angst articles from newspapers.
    Europeans should ask themselves if they are better of now than before signing the "Anti-Money-Laundering" treaties the US shoved on them as its own economy crashed.

  • Adans smith||

    Seeing your going to destroy all the major economies where will the money come from to 'help' the poor countries. Also I have yet to see any fuel that will replace all the uses of oil,cars,ships,planes,trains and chemicals. I guess back to the horse and wagon and sailing ships.

  • DesigNate||

    Wagon's and sail boats require wood to build, killing our forest.

    No, I'm afraid it's horses, feet, and swimming for us.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I see a lot of open fires in this future... how's that jibe with the Clean Air Act and a zero-carbon existence?

  • DesigNate||

    Oh no no no, you don't get fire citizen. That's only for the brave men and women working for the government.

  • ||

    In the SF Bay Area wood-burning heat sources have been recently banned.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    draft treaty would require the complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050

    LOL

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Obama administration has committed the U.S. to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below their 2005 levels before 2025.

    Committed to whom, and by what instrument is this binding?

  • Win Bear||

    Well, what Obama has been trying to do is to create a large, wealthy community of successful rent seekers around emissions limits and carbon-related policies; these rent seekers will then engage in lobbying and ensure that the policies stay around.

    You know, the same reason ImEx, social security, and farm subsidies are still around.

    Looks like Obama missed his deadline, though.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Washington would be required to provide the money and technology to poor countries that would enable them to avoid annually emitting 7 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 2030.

    Washington doesn't provide money to anyone.

  • GroundTruth||

    Washington is free to provide all the money they want to poor countries.

    I however will not.

  • Cloudbuster||

    So you've stopped paying taxes?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Ronald, you recently had an article on hurricanes, noting that they haven't increased in frequency. Of course science says it's the severity of storms that will increase due to the planet warming.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.....canes.html

    Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, and now this. Strongest hurricane recorded.

    http://www.weather.com/storms/.....xico-coast

    Maybe science is on to something, eh?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Jackass Ass,

    Ronald, you recently had an article on hurricanes, noting that they haven't increased in frequency. Of course science says it's the severity of storms that will increase due to the planet warming.


    "Science" says?

    Maybe science is on to something, eh?


    Just like Triny the Soothsaying Chicken is on to something.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And you still haven't provided an explanation for Jupiter's shrinking red spot or shrinking ice caps on Mars.

  • Jackand Ace||

    And I won't.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|10.23.15 @ 5:12PM|#
    "And I won't."

    Gee, Jack, how about telling us how fracking is gonna be the end of the world again? Your non-vintage whining is SOOO amusing.

  • OldMexican||

    The Jackass, like his fellow Marxians, decided to make their last stand on top of the Climatey Changey hill regardless of the many facts and wrong predictions that are raining on them.

    "Climate Change is made of Koch!" is to be their rallying, and last, cry.

  • ||

    Climate change beleebers are so funny. When it snows in July somewhere unusual that's just weather.

    When it doesn't snow somewhere it usually does that's climate change.

    You useful idiots are so predictable....and idiots.

  • Akira||

    I dunno - don't they usually say that any abnormal weather event at all is evidence of a climate change catastrophe?

  • ||

    No matter what happens it is because of climate change. Every single event is evidence of it. That is why it is now called climate change. Pinkos love them some nebulous terms.

  • Sevo||

    "Maybe science is on to something, eh?"

    Maybe you're a slimy cherry-picker, eh?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Gee, maybe it is.

  • DesigNate||

    How dare you bring real science into this religious debate!

  • ||

    Jack it isn't the strongest STORM in the Pacific ever. It's just the strongest one called a hurricane because of where it formed.

    The multiple storms in the Pacific that were stronger were called cyclones or typhoons because of where they formed.

    Now put your little prick back in your pants before you rub a blister on it.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Ooh, oneout the tough guy whines! Don't let me upset you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    By the way, I said strongest hurricane, didn't I? Idiot.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|10.23.15 @ 8:48PM|#
    "By the way, I said strongest hurricane, didn't I? Idiot."

    So your pedantry is supposed to impress who, exactly?

  • DesigNate||

    Of course if you weren't such an abject moron, you'd have realized that hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones are all the same thing.

  • Sevo||

    "Of course if you weren't such an abject moron, you'd have realized that hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones are all the same thing."

    We have a choice here:
    1) Jack is so fucking stupid he didn't know that.
    2) Jack knew it, but somehow presumes that sort of pedantry supports his idiocy.
    So, the choice is:
    Is Jack stupid? Or is Jack stupid?
    I'm saying "Yes!"

  • Sevo||

    "Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, and now this. Strongest hurricane recorded."

    Bullshit:
    "The storm is comparable to Typhoon Haiyan, which killed 6,300 people in the Philippines in 2013, the World Meteorological Organization says."
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-.....a-34614864

    And bullshit again:
    "List of the most intense tropical cyclones"
    North Atlantic, "Igor", 2010
    Eastern Pacific, Ava", 1973
    Western North Pacific, 10-way tie, 1971-2015
    (check wiki)
    Jack, why do you lie so transparently? Might it be a result of your ignorance?

  • Jackand Ace||

    And of course add to the list the once in a thousand years rainfall this year on South Carolina.

    http://earthsky.org/earth/1000.....h-carolina

    The hits just keep on coming.

  • Sevo||

    Gee, Jack, you're pretty good a cherry picking. Does it pay well, or are you just stupid enough to do it for fun?

  • ||

    When was the last thousand year event and where? You know, of course, that one should expect some hundredth of the country to experience a thousand year event every ten years.

  • Sevo||

    No, Jack does not begin to understand that.
    Jack is an ignoramus who presumes that any statement regarding a rare occurrence means we're all gonna die unless the government fixes things!

  • Win Bear||

    That is one study and it noticed a correlation empirically. Furthermore, even if real and even if global warming is "causing" it, the cause is more likely the difference in air and water temperature, rather than global average temperature. That is, as global warming progresses, hurricanes should decline in strength again.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think it's becoming quite clear why Gun Control is such an important issue to the left.

  • GroundTruth||

    Short version of treaty text:

    1) Water is now to flow uphill

    2) Those who produce shall be punished for that sin by supporting those who do not.

  • MJBinAL||

    What we need is ....

    A 100% terminal, highly contagious virus .... that only afflicts leftists.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, the portrayals of Ehrlich in the first chapter of Ron's new book are hilarious! Every time someone comes up with a theory or technique to avoid famine, Paul doubles down on doom.
    The Green Revolution? Ha! Propaganda!

  • Miner49er||

    Dear Mr. Bailey. You've been drinking too much warmist kool-ade. How the "carbon budget" is "allocated" (Think abut the meaning of those words in a libertarian context.) is irrelevant. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use has no material effect on climate.

    Carbon emissions are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for purporting to regulate them. See Patrick Moore's recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.
    Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) air emissions .The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.

    A 10th grader can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). Carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2.

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO = CaCO3. You can make magnesium carbonate in your kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia. For more detail see the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad.

  • Jima||

    Climate change is natural and ongoing. Political thievery and backstabbing is also natural and ongoing. Combining climate change and political thievery doesn't suddenly make political thievery moral. I have two long words for the IPCC, and those who worship at he altar of climate change "prevention/intervention":

    Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Yoooooooooooooooooooooooou!

    Taking money out of my pocket may make you feel good, but I'll vigorously resist that idea until I am decomposing into CO2 and other organic compounds. If I find out in advance that I'm dying soon, I'll eat things that increase the CO2 emissions of my decomposing body.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    To that I can only say "Obamacare cannot possibly survive judicial scruitiny." Never underestimate the ability of the leaders of the free world to take us back into the dark ages.

  • JeremyR||

    As someone who owns 100 acres full of trees, somehow I should be a very rich man because I am sucking up carbon like crazy. Yet somehow I'm guessing I will never see any money

    Not that I should mind, you, but the only people going to profit from this are cronies of the government.

  • SF Pete||

    oops, he let it slip, it's all about the money..another socialist/Marxist redistribution scheme..

  • Jackand Ace||

    Good article on the relationship between a warming world and storm intensity, with the usual caveat that any one storm can't be attributed to global warming. But just like Patricia can be blamed on a warm ocean, so too was Sandy which had unusually warm Atlantic waters.

    http://m.daltondailycitizen.co.....l?mode=jqm

    "Nonetheless, we can say this: Record-setting hurricanes like Patricia are consistent with one major prediction that climate researchers have made for some time about the consequences of a warming world."

  • Sevo||

    "Nonetheless, we can say this: Record-setting hurricanes like Patricia are consistent with one major prediction that climate researchers have made for some time about the consequences of a warming world."

    If you had read what was posted above, you'd have seen there was nothing special about Patricia, so we can easily see this is one more failed "prediction".
    Thanks for posting it so we can keep track of such bullshit.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "In addition to its unprecedented 200-mph (320-kph) sustained winds earlier Friday, Hurricane Patricia now holds the record for lowest pressure in any hurricane on record. With a minimum central pressure of 880 millibars (25.99 inches of mercury) at the 4 a.m. CDT advisory, Patricia broke the record of 882 millibars set by Wilma in the Atlantic Basin almost exactly 10 years ago. Around 1 p.m. CDT Friday, the minimum central pressure reached its lowest point, 879 millibars (25.96 inches of mercury)." In addition to it being the fastest intensifying hurricane on record.

    http://www.weather.com/storms/.....xico-coast

    But yeah, nothing out of the ordinary here. Move along.

  • Sevo||

    Shitbag, did you read the cites above?
    I'm not going to post them all, but, oh, look here!
    "Tying for 10th place at 910 millibars (26.87 inches of mercury) are two hurricanes, 80 years apart, that both peaked in intensity near the western tip of Cuba."
    http://www.weather.com/storms/.....20130911#/!
    So, as the old question goes, are you stupid or dishonest? And the answer is "yes".

  • Sevo||

    My apologies; you are correct.
    It is the most powerful by 2 millibars. Almost as impressive as the 'hottest X' by .001*.

  • Sevo||

    And then it turns out it's only the 'most powerful' in the eastern pacific.
    Ida 1958 Not Specified 877 hPa (25.90 inHg)
    Kit 1966 Not Specified 880 hPa (25.99 inHg)
    Nora 1973 Not Specified 875 hPa (25.84 inHg)
    June 1975 Not Specified 875 hPa (25.84 inHg)
    There's more:
    (wiki)

  • Sevo||

    Now let's look one more time for our cherry-picking commie:
    We've now gone from:
    "Strongest hurricane recorded."
    To:
    "Hurricane Patricia Recap: Strongest Landfalling Pacific Hurricane on Record"
    Cherry-picking 'landfalling' and location, all of which is claimed to prove:
    "Nonetheless, we can say this: Record-setting hurricanes like Patricia are consistent with one major prediction that climate researchers have made for some time about the consequences of a warming world."
    Yes, we can. We can also say that my dog shedding hair is consistent with my claim that we're all gonna die!

  • Win Bear||

    climate researchers have made for some time about the consequences of a warming world

    More intense hurricanes are not the consequence of a warming world but warming water relative to air. Hence, stronger hurricanes are likely not a long term feature of climate change.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The world isn't coming to an end, joe. You're just going to have to accept it.

  • Bgoptmst||

    Call me old fashion but I feel that if we are going to redistribute wealth to 3d world nations it should be via imperialism.

    I kid, but seriously ... Why the fuck would I want to pay taxes to give money to people in developing countries?

  • ||

    ...and have them waste it. The whole plan is demonic.

  • ||

    "The following citizens are to report to the carbon sequestration facility for immediate carbon removal..."

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    I hate these people with a blood seething, psychotic rage. I wish they'd take a page out of their own book and all commit suicide if their really serious about this whole "climate change" bull shit. Give up your car, you fucking assholes. Give up your private plane, you fucking assholes. Stop breathing, you fucking assholes. You know they won't, they'll get to keep their cars, planes and breathing because these rules don't apply to these watermelon commies, they apply to the rest of us peons. "Let them eat cake" they say, I say "Off with their empty heads." Bring back the guillotine, I want to see control freak blood flow These people don't give a shit about the environment, all they care about is controlling people and power. They whole phony "save humanity" front is a facade

  • Arthur's Opinion||

    ^ Truth

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The study argues that keeping the world within the proper "carbon budget...can be achieved through a rapid peaking of the world's carbon emissions, by 2020, and a complete phase out of carbon emissions by 2050."

    There any talk on the feasibility of the technologies that are expected to produce this peak and glide path? Otherwise that is just words and words are wind.

  • ||

    My God.

    These people are crazy nutcases for real.

  • Mike88Kel||

    its simply about a new source of revenue for the state.

    why not put the money into alternative energy research? Germany gets over 75% of its energy from alternative sources.

    What if we got to even 50%? We could depend on our own oil and gas at that point, and abandon 'entangling alliances'.

  • Sevo||

    Mike88Kel|10.24.15 @ 3:36PM|#
    "why not put the money into alternative energy research? Germany gets over 75% of its energy from alternative sources."

    Because it's MY money; give it back.

  • Stevecsd||

    And the cost of electric energy for German companies has gone up 60% over the last five years.They are now double that of U.S. (Wall Street Journal). This is causing many German companies to move operations outside of Germany. This is what your alternative energy boondoggles lead to.

  • Denise145||

    I've made $64,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I'm a full time student. I'm using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great m0ney. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I've been doing…
    .......... www.homejobs90.com

  • Win Bear||

    Climate justice? Europe can start by reforesting: the deforestation of the European continent has contributed more to atmospheric carbon than the carbon emissions of the US.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is another example of how pseudoscience and counterfeit ethics trump science. By declaring themselves positive, christian and altruistic by birth and race, Germany's national socialists secured the support of religious altruists for their Mendelian eugenics program and proceeded to exterminate ethnicities they regarded as innately selfish. Today's version replaces both NSDAP and Soviet international socialism with a new ethical program whereby altruism now justifies environmental purity to replace the noble and benevolent racial purity of yesteryear's looter states. This will get worse for as long as you continue to ignore the question: By what standard is altruism a good thing? The evasion has gone on for 58 years and counting...

  • Arthur's Opinion||

    Good point. The fundamental issue of our time is the philosophy of altruism, which has underwritten every tyranny known to mankind, including this climate scam.

  • Waynef2000||

    Would someone please give me an article that refutes the Climate Change lunacy?

  • MSimon||

    Which Climate Change lunacy? There are so many of them.

  • Arthur's Opinion||

    If ratified such a climate treaty would be a crime against humanity, and it would lead to mass human suffering of the kind witnessed in Stalin's 1930s industrialization of the Soviet economy.

    Would this count as a treaty, or just another "Executive Agreement" like the Iran deal?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "carbon budget...can be achieved through a rapid peaking of the world's carbon emissions, by 2020, and a complete phase out of carbon emissions by 2050.""

    No exhaling by 2050.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The carbon budget can be thought of as the amount of carbon dioxide the world can emit while still having a good chance of keeping the modeled average global temperature increase to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

    So they've officially decided to ignore reality, and base their goals entirely on the output of their models.

  • Rich Homa||

    What is this "modeled average global temperature increase" crap? As long ago as 1961 Lorenz' experience made clear that modeling a complex/chaotic system doesn't yield reliable predictions, and the discrepancies between climate change models and reality over the past couple of decades confirms that in the eyes of any disinterested, reasonably informed person. Besides, even if we get CO2 reduced to the point where we satisfy the worshipers at the Church of Global Warming, what are we supposed to do to stop the Atlantic Ocean from continuing to widen and so allowing freer circulation of waters between the North Pole and the tropics? It's a pretty good guess that the restriction of that circulation was a major factor in bringing about the current ice age, so that restoration of a more typical distribution of continents is going to restore more typical temperatures - smaller differences in temperature by latitude, no Greenland-sized glaciers, no polar ice caps - regardless of human activity.

  • skeptic0||

    Ultimately, what matters is how many humans live on this planet. We should get to the point and promise how many people each country will have by 2030.

  • ||

    "Nothing less than a systemic transformation of our societies and our economies will suffice to solve the climate crisis."

    One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

  • indipete||

    Wouldn't it be easier to have a global nuclear war?

  • JenniferKane||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ...................... www.4cyberworks.com

  • Historybuff||

    One can only wonder... how many people will be impoverished... how many people will die due to poverty... how much misery will be suffered...

    ...simply so that wealthy liberal 'progressive' democrat elites can assuage their wealth guilt by 'saving the climate'. This is disgusting. The climate has always been changing... the climate IS changing... the climate will always change.

    Only liberal democrat stupidity stays the same.
    HB

  • John V. Linton||

    This article limns just a tiny fraction of the absurdity of today's climate argument.

    We have no way of knowing the magnitude of the human vector, and it's faux accuracy to talk of a 1 trillion ton carbon limit. Our models have been woefully inadequate to date, yet the more we fail to make accurate predictions, the more concerted the media bluster becomes.

    The reality is it's extremely difficult to tease out a scalar vector of humanity's impact from a complex chaotic system full of natural variation. We have no way of knowing what's normal, what's the baseline, and what complex feedback mechanisms stymie our best guesses. Climatology does not make predictions in the same way Newtonian physics does; it's closer to sociology in terms of the strength of its correlations.

    It's journalistic malpractice to cite fake numbers like the "97% of scientists" canard, a pure confection. Some of the brightest scientific minds on Earth doubt the cost/benefit of rapidly defenestrating carbon. Recently, top Google scientists looked at what it would cost the world to get off carbon and phrases like "beyond astronomical" were heard.

    It is the height of hubris, this constant media drumbeat that we know enough to predict such things. AGW is falsely analogized with evolution, even though evolution is nigh infinitely better proved. It takes a more Darwinian scientific mindset to raise skeptical questions than trumpet unfounded theory.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online