Climate Change

12 Years to Disaster? How Climate Activists Distort the Evidence

The data behind apocalypse 2030 is based on placing blame, not predicting the future.

|

HD Download

Many officials and climate activists claim we have only 12 years to act on global warming. Where does this figure come from? A 2018 Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The second sentence of that document reads, "Global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate." The 12-year figure comes from subtracting the year of the report, 2018, from the earliest possible date of 1.5 degrees C warming, 2030. 

The problem is that this was a statement about the past, dressed up to suggest that it's about the future. It's not about what will happen; it's extrapolating from what has already happened. Actual temperatures in 2030 will depend on whether warming speeds up or slows down, and also on whether the year is warmer or colder than the long-term trend.

Why the 22-year range? The authors of the IPCC report defined the current rate using data from 1960 to 2017. Using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) land-ocean temperature series that underpins most popular reporting about warming, global excess temperatures were 0 in January 1960 and 0.94 degrees C in December 2017. So the Earth has to warm another 0.56 degrees C to reach 1.5 degrees C. Some fifth-grade math tells us that should happen in 34.55 years if warming continues at the same rate. We'd hit 1.5 degrees C on July 21, 2051. Different measurements might give a couple of years either way, but not 22 years.

The range of 2030 to 2052 is not about how warm the earth is but who's responsible for the change in temperature. The figures reflect "anthropogenic warming," or warming rooted in human activity. By citing a range of 2030 to 2052, the authors are indicating a high level of uncertainty. They're not sure how much of the 0.17 degrees C per decade warming is "anthropogenic," or rooted in human activity. They think it's possible that humans are warming the Earth 0.3 degrees C and some unknown factor is actually cooling the Earth 0.13 degrees C. (The IPCC declined to make any of the report's authors available for an interview).

If you think the problem with global warming is hotter temperatures (melting ice, rising sea levels, and other physical effects), then you should care about the year 2052, not 2030. But if you think the problem with global warming is that humans are tampering with something pristine—and you only consider the worst possible scenario—then 2030 is your date. Focusing on anthropogenic warming suggests that what's happening in the real world matters less than who's at fault.

Not all environmental change is bad. We hear about possible species extinctions, but not about the species that will thrive and diversify on a warmer planet (for example, insects and sea life may be increasing in numbers and variety due to warming to date, although this is controversial). In any event, no one knows the optimal rate of speciation and extinction. We like majestic old-growth forests and exquisite biologic specializations where the climate is stable, as well as the vibrant adaptations and innovations in fast-changing environments.

Furthermore, far more of the Earth's surface is too cold for humans than too warm at the moment. Historically, warm periods are more prosperous than cold ones, and more people die in cold months than warm ones. In addition, destructive weather events are not concentrated in the warmest months or the warmest places, so there's no direct reason to expect more of them in a warmer world. Carbon dioxide is good for plants, and plants are good for both people and the environment.

Granted, there is reason to prefer less change to more, because more change could tip off catastrophic cascades. We know we can live with current temperatures; we can't be sure we'll be happy if things get significantly warmer. And even if a warmer world is better in some ways, the benefits could be overwhelmed by the transition costs. But these are arguments to reduce the overall human environment footprint rather than to reduce the temperature by any means necessary.

This is where the 12-years-until-disaster alarmism becomes toxic. Lowering 2030 temperatures significantly requires wide-scale geoengineering—for example, scattering glass beads on arctic ice or injecting sulfur into the stratosphere to reduce the temperature immediately (the IPCC report emphasizes carbon sequestration, a possibly less risky form of geoengineering, but also says that sequestration and emission reductions are not enough). Crude, dramatic rules like banning coal or outlawing airplanes could slash emissions quickly, but the effects would not be fully felt in temperatures for up to a decade. Moreover, those approaches increase the human impact on the environment and introduce more uncertainty into future climate. They may bring down global temperatures by 2030, but at the cost of introducing greater long-term uncertainty and possibly tripping more catastrophic cascades.

Policies like a carbon tax or building nuclear power plants take years to implement, and only begin to reduce the rate of CO2 emissions. These work for planning horizons like 2 degrees C by 2050. But they have environmental benefits beyond temperature, their effects are more predictable than panic rules, and they're more likely to be maintained as political winds change.

Even better would be long-term, sustainable, global agreements to leave fossil fuels in the ground permanently. These agreements could take decades to nurture and make sense if we focus on 2100. They could serve to address global issues, including many environmental ones, and to support world peace and prosperity. They won't cool the Earth by 2030, possibly not even by 2050, but they could deliver a better world to our grandchildren. Alarmist panic interferes with such rational consensus building.

Which brings us back to the IPCC special report. It contains two contradictory threads, likely as a result of being written by a committee. The 2030 date relies on huge uncertainty about how much global warming has been caused by humans—a factor of three between 0.1 degrees C per decade to 0.3 degrees C. But later the report cites studies that conclude, "human-induced warming trends over the period 1905–2005" are "indistinguishable from the corresponding total observed warming." If the latter claim is true, then we know the rate of anthropogenic warming, and it will hit 1.5 degrees C if the rate remains the same in more like 30 years than 12 years.

If we don't understand climate to the point that we have a 3:1 uncertainty band about anthropogenic contributions to warming, it's foolhardy to rush in with radical changes. When you don't understand a complex system, but you do know there are powerful offsetting forces at work, you should be cautious about fooling with it. So, on one hand, if we understand climate well enough to know the amount of anthropogenic warming, the rate is not high enough to cause a crisis by 2030 if it does not accelerate. On the other hand, if we don't understand the climate well enough to be confident of the anthropogenic contribution, we should avoid massive, rushed experiments.

Even if everything the alarmists say is true, 2030 is not a feasible planning horizon. It admits only panic solutions that increase long-term uncertainty. You don't plan for the horizon you want to control, you plan for the horizon you can control. The climate in 2030 is already baked in—we should worry about dealing with it, not changing it. The climate in 2050 is in play, with many attractive policy choices to be implemented with sense, prudence, trial, and error.

Video credits:

Produced and edited by Justin Monticello. Written by Monticello and Aaron Brown. Camera by Zach Weissmueller. Graphics by Isaac Reese. Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Music: Aerial Cliff by Michele Nobler, Land of the Lion by C.K. Martin, Thoughts by ANBR, Flight of the Inner Bird by Sivan Talmor and Yehezkel Raz, and Run by Tristan Barton.

Photos: Alterphotos/Abaca/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Sachelle Babbar/ZUMA Press/Newscom; (EyePress Newswire/FL Wong)/Newscom; Hermann Bredehorst/Polaris/Newscom; BENOIT DOPPAGNE/BELGA/Newscom; Alterphotos/Abaca/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Kay Nietfeld/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom; WixtrÖM Peter/Aftonbladet/Tt/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Andrea Ronchini/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Beata Zawrzel/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Gina M Randazzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Yichuan Cao/Sipa USA/Newscom; Roberto Almeida Aveledo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Sachelle Babbar/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Ben Birchall/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Sadak SouiciLe Pictorium/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Gina M Randazzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Andrea Ronchini/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Hermann Bredehorst/Polaris/Newscom; WixtrÖM Peter/Aftonbladet/Tt/ZUMA Press/Newscom; SUSANA VERA/REUTERS/Newscom; UNclimatechange from Bonn, Germany, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

NEXT: Remy: Dogecoin Rap

HD Download

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

  1. Many officials and climate activists claim we have only 12 years to act on global warming. Where does this figure come from? A 2018 Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Let’s try to keep up. We’re now at about 9 years since that claim was first made.

    1. …and climate scientists are <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-media-vs-climate-science-11618355224"finally backing away from these claims. Because they’re not rooted in either current reality or any sort of future that is likely to occur.

      In a simple model of the world, authority figures say absurd and false things, and the media calls them out. The reverse happened this time, with the climate crowd reacting to the media’s botched coverage of the Fourth National Climate Assessment in 2018, itself a strained compilation of extreme worst-case scenarios that still couldn’t deliver the desired global meltdown.

      Even David Wallace-Wells, the author of 2019’s climate-crisis book “The Uninhabitable Earth,” was moved to call on fellow activists to revise their advocacy “in a less alarmist direction.”

      To this day, the print edition of the New York Times has never mentioned RCP 8.5, the unsupported emissions scenario on which so many of its climate jeremiads rest.

      The Washington Post has used it twice, once to say it portended a climate disaster and more recently to suggest its falling out of favor didn’t mean the climate wasn’t headed for disaster.

      How did we get from reality to Greta Thunberg, Joe Biden and a Bloomberg columnist who says Exxon “threatens the continuation of human life on earth”?

      1. The media take on climate change lifted off from the science about fifteen years ago. It’s been six or seven years now since Michael Mann, inventor of the hockey-stick graph, started complaining about the unscientific fear-mongering in the media.

        This has been the great, open secret: the “Scientific Consensus” has always been a creation of the media, and never had a source in the actual scientific community.

        1. The media take on climate change lifted off from the science about fifteen years ago.

          The hurricanes in 2005, particularly Katrina, seems to have been the watershed that caused a mass psychosis amongst them.

          1. Climate hysteria has been around longer than that. Have the “experts” been proven right about anything? But of course, “the science is settled.”

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. I first heard about climate change in 1983 when I was 12. I mentioned it to my dad, who was an engineer, and he said it was a joke cooked up by the nuclear power industry (at the time, he worked on coal power plants, which were making a comeback in the wake of the oil crisis). I heard about it again a few years later after we had a very hot summer, then beginning in the 1990s, it was practically every day. I think the left and media really started to make it their issue after the 2000 election was “stolen” from Gore because it was his pet cause.

            1. Gore is obsessed with hunting !anbearpig. He’s super cereal about it.

          3. Red Rocks White Privilege
            I agree Please check more thenewsopener.com

          4. Katrina was a disaster not because it was unusual but because of where it hit. It was the failure of the levies in New Orleans who did not even take a direct hit that was a disaster. A city on the coast lower then sea level is never going to do well when hurricanes come close. The storm surge would have been even more catastrophic if it would have hit on the west side and New Orleans would have been part of the Mississippi River.

        2. They’ve been saying the end of the world is night for the last 35 years and keep moving the goalposts.

          I believe in climate change, but I don’t believe scientists have any idea about what is going to happen or when. Setting an arbitrary date is a scare tactic, and there’s nothing scientists love more than inflating the urgency of their findings any time they find a microphone in front of their face.

          1. “ there’s nothing scientists love more than inflating the urgency of their findings any time they find a microphone in front of their face.”

            Those are not scientists, they’re activists. Scientists present data with the appropriate uncertainty and caveats. See Curry, Judith.

            1. Scientists are severely reticent to explain how serious Climate Change, caused by Global Warming, actually is. Of course, they aren’t Agronomists, either.

              When large growing areas in multiple countries and locations happen, which is made far more likely, right now, people who eat, can get really nasty.

              Make no mistake. It’s not sea level, it’s not glacial melt, it’s not heat waves—-it’s trying to grow food in an unstable climate, that is the problem. Commodity food prices are already more than 50% higher, and they’re not coming back down.

              1. What are you talking about?
                If the earth warms, then arctic regions will become huge food production areas.
                The Northern hemisphere is covered in a world wide temperate rain forest.
                If that area becomes grassland, huge areas currently. On productive will become a breadbasket.

      2. AARON BROWN teaches statistics at New York University and at the University of California….and therefore is not qualified to write anything about climate, global anything etc except if it covers for the corporate polluters.

        Instead why not read the latest writings by people trained in the subject. They are usually referred to as “climatologists” which is more than simply a word that’s spelled differently than “statistics teacher “.

        One thing I’ve noticed is how often someone writes articles on topics they have no background or training in and a whole chorus of people come out and agree with their usually completely unfounded opinion. Mr Statistics Prof would be given an F if he submitted this sloppy and virtually unreferenced bloggy piece at a high school and yet people eat this crap up.

        1 of the most important facts people miss is the reason scientists stopped calling this issue Climate Change and now refer to it as Global Warming is because data from the oceans (remember them? They cover almost 75% of the Globe] have alerted them to changing conditions there,causing a vast increase in their concerns to the point of alarm.

        Don’t believe anything I say,I’m not even a Stats Prof,I just read the climatologists reports. You can do this too,and avoid having a Stats Prof do your opinionating,um thinking (if u can even call it that) on topics other than Statistics.

        1. Physician, heal thyself!

        2. I’m confused. I thought global warming is what they used to call it 20 years ago and now it’s climate change. Has it swung back again?

          As long as we’re just appealing to authority and not arguing the merits of the case, I’ll take a stats professor’s word over that of an anonymous commenter any day.

        3. Wait, you are complaining on data that he read in IPCC report? You know ones written by your so called climatologists?

          Can you point me to something climatologists have been right about?

        4. Dude, not only is a statistician extremely qualified to understand something as statistically-filled as climate science, but given the heavy reliance on models, a statistician or chemical engineer is MORE qualified to understand how the primary tools work than an environmental science major. Anthony Watts, meteorologist, is also one of the biggest critics of climate modeling because he relied on atmospheric models for his job, and knew just how limited they were.

          Additionally, it is impossible to get work in climatology if you upset the top men, just like for decades it was impossible to get work in nutrition unless you subscribed to the low-fat diet plan (only reversed after Atkins became popular with the masses, outside of academia).

          Finally, turn it around. Global warming was the 90s term. Climate change became the term in the 2000s as it was found things weren’t clear.

          1. We can only predict five days of weather. If it’s someone saying it’s 6 days or more, they’re pulling your chain.

        5. AARON BROWN teaches statistics at New York University and at the University of California….and therefore is not qualified to write anything about climate, global anything etc except if it covers for the corporate polluters.

          So you can’t actually refute any of his arguments then… got it…

        6. You are not a climate scientist, so by your argument you should just stop talking because you do not know what you are talking about.

      3. Which fossil fuel company do u own?
        Coal is an archaic n relatively inefficient method of creating energy. It’s highly effective at creating toxic particulates that have nothing but disastrous health effects on everything it touches.

        Nuclear has 2 insurmountable problems: the real possibility of accidents caused by human error, poor maintenance or construction . Reactors subject their components to highly damaging environments,far worse than coal or gas does.

        Spent nuclear fuel has an unbelievably toxic life of Thousands Of Years. No one will be able to get close to it for time out of mind. Despite decades of research n service we still have nothing approaching a usable,worthwhile, realistic or remotely rational storage solution. Nuclear lovers need to read the factual reports describing the leaking ,rusting corroded barrels of radioactive waste stored in the failing cracking pits specially made for them,some of them already partially flooded with now radioactive water.

        Frankly there are problems with every method of creating energy. (Of course as Exceptional Americans it will never occur to us to cut down or be thriftier with our energy use.)
        Some are obviously more toxic and dangerous than others. Interestingly they are usually the ones backed by large global corporations who receive government (meaning tax payer subsidies and have large troops of lobbyists and commentator trolls, just like we see here.

        1. Accidentally posted to the wrong section.

        2. Nuclear is actually the safest.

          Wind kills birds and undependable.
          Solar – panels are toxic, batteries are toxic and strip mine the earth.

        3. Nuclear has 2 insurmountable problems: the real possibility of accidents caused by human error, poor maintenance or construction. Reactors subject their components to highly damaging environments, far worse than coal or gas does.

          So you admit you have no clue what you’re talking about? That’s a bold strategy… Either that, or you are hopelessly mired in nuclear technology from the 1950’s.

    2. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings A are much SHA better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    3. Climate Change is a hoax to get your money and collapse the economy. Nothing generates electricity better than coal and nuclear.
      I see Climate Change people on the same level as flat Earthers.

      1. Hulver,please see reply above that didnt get posted as a reply to your comment.

    4. This article is basically a mirror for all modern politics. The real world damage doesn’t matter. Just who can be blamed.

    5. 2030…we have already passed the time when we could act to stop, reverse or even minimize the horrors coming.

    6. I was the assistant director (at the ripe old age of 19) of the group, named “Survival Inc.” that met with Senator Nelson and started Earth Day, in 1970 (we did not know Ira), stopped the SST, and a lot of other things. As an ecologist, I say listen to the Earth; it’s not too late, but it’s getting there…peace

    7. The speed of the bullet has no relevance, when the worst-case scenario can be an extinction level event.

      12 years, or 120 years, does not change the fact that action needs to be taken.

      When it comes to AGW, there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion – There are only those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW, and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW.

      1. If there is no debate or discussion then there is no science. You sir are a religious zealot espousing a new book of revelations.

      2. No debate. How much of AGW, is man-made? How much is just the Earth or solar cycle? It’s pretty arrogant that man thinks they destroyed the earth. But you have to ‘feel’ you do something.

        Like recycling here in America has always been a crock.

      3. Except there is no data in ANY of the IPCC reports that supports an extinction prediction. This is despite decades of them explicitly looking for one.

        How could climate change cause extinction? Think for five blinking minutes. The temperature in the tropics is balanced by water evaporation. It literally cannot get any hotter in any rainforest, island, or wet area. Dry areas will get wetter due to increased evaporation (directly proportional to temperature). The northern latitudes will then become more hospitable, not less, as winter is reduced in severity. There may be changes in rainfall patterns, but it will be overall an increase, which will aid humanity almost universally (and in areas where this is a negative, can be countered by improving existing flood controls). The maximum expected temperature change is still less than daily variation in temperatures, so the idea that animals will be unable to adapt seems questionable at best (at least one major study on butterflies that found this was found to be falsified, as the analysis only counted moves up in altitude, not down).

        The fact is that global warming is less “imminent death” and more “acid rain”. It’s a problem, but not insurmountable, and once you look into the devastation involved in countering it (the Green New Deal was the first correct-order-of-magnitude plan that didn’t involve a substantial quantity of genocide, aka “population reduction”), the values of addressing climate change seems questionable compared to just letting it be.

      4. If this will lead to extinction, then the solution is clear.

        http://www.deseret.com/2007/12/11/20058540/laureate-gore-sounds-the-alarm

        During the Cold War, he said in the address, scientists used to warn of “nuclear winter” — the consequence of nuclear war, in which smoke and debris would block the sunlight from the atmosphere. Now, he said, “we are in danger of creating a permanent ‘carbon summer,”‘ in which pollution traps the heat that is normally radiated back out of the atmosphere.

        We need enough smoke and debris in the air to ensuire that not a single photon of sunlight ever reaches the surface. all of Earth will become freezing cold, all year long.

        What is the wait?

        Let us do this now!

    8. Snow a thing of the past!
      Obama, the lightbringer, has 4 years to save the world.

      Snow is racist!

    9. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare ?Visit Here

  2. outlawing airplanes

    Greta Thunberg hardest hit.

    Never going to happen.

    1. Sure it will, Paul. For you and me. Not the Party.

      The US can easily meet its Carbon emissions goals without using nuclear power. It just requires a gigantic lowering of the standard of living for most of its citizens. Which would bring things more in line with how the rest of the World lives, and therefore be “equitable.”

      Don’t worry, we’ll be made to understand.

    2. John Kerry won’t like that.

  3. If you think the problem with global warming is hotter temperatures

    then you haven’t been paying attention to the science, which has quite clearly and empirically shown the increase in GMT to be driven by nights and winters that are less cold, not by days and summers that are more hot, which Ron has in fact reported on before.

    1. I thought Global Warming was any inconvenient weather anomaly will attributed human industrial emissions of CO2, forever and ever, amen.

      1. Yes, instead of “Global Warming” it’s now “Climate Change” and instead of melting ice caps its now “extreme weather”. Do try to keep up.

        Also, industrial emissions aren’t what causes hurricanes to kill black people: that’s caused by plastic straws and voting for republicans.

        1. instead of melting ice caps its now “extreme weather”

          Which has to include “Tropical Superstorms” since actual hurricanes so rarely make landfall anymore.

          1. The majority of hurricanes have always been “fish storms”, they only affect fish.

            It’s not the the number of landfalling hurricanes has declined, it’s that in the past, pre satellite, we only knew about the hurricanes that made landfall, so the “fish storms” never got counted.

            1. It’s not the the number of landfalling hurricanes has declined, it’s that in the past, pre satellite, we only knew about the hurricanes that made landfall, so the “fish storms” never got counted.

              There’s that, too, but I seem to remember, and this is 100% me pulling this out of my butt, but when I was a kid hurricanes seemed to landfall with some frequency. I don’t live in hurricane territory, so I’m just going on my impression from the ’70s-’80s, no actual experience.

              Maybe it was the declaration after Katrina that this was the new normal that Cat 5 hurricanes were going to landfall every year from now on, but it seems like it’s actually gotten more rare.

              1. Shortly after Katrina, there was a huge “drought” – an extended period when no hurricane made landfall in the US. That period with no landfall was the longest in recorded history.

                However, the recorded history doesn’t really go all that far back – a few centuries at best. And the length of the drought, while a record, was not statistically anomalous when compared to that known record.

                1. Thanks – this is what I thought I had recalled hearing, i.e. that there’s been an unusual, but not unprecedented, lull in hurricanes landfalling since Katrina.

                  1. That’s also only a lull for the US, not a global lull in hurricanes.

              2. Keep in mind, the country has a LOT more people now than it did when we were growing up during that period, and the coasts are far more developed. More people = more injuries, deaths, and property damage.

                1. This applies to those who point to increased insurance rates for those areas; more expensive buildings = more expensive insurance, regardless of climate or weather.

              3. It’s on a cycle. Overall, there’s no long term trend over the past 40-something years. Graphs here.
                http://climatlas.com/tropical/

      2. It refers mainly to the warming oceans which cover about 70% of the Globe therefore regardless of your neighborhood conditions the majority of the planet is noticeably warming.

        And yes,its still ” the melting ice caps” but worse because we’ve only relatively recently discovered they are being dissolved from underneath also which,think about it,directly raises the sea level,vs above ground melting which has to make its way to the oceans.

        The warming oceans appear to some scientists to be adversely affecting the weather. Since they are,in partnership with the sun,mainly responsible for all weather its not an unrealistic idea and it’s a major source of climatologists alarm.

        Don’t believe me, I’m not even a Stats Prof. I merely read the climatologist’s reports. Why not read them yourself instead of this unREASONable bloggy stuff?

        1. Um. If you melt an ice cube that’s floating in water, it doesn’t change the water level. The only way the water level changes is if you change the total amount of water in the ocean (for example, by melting ice that’s on land); changing the water already in the ocean from solid to liquid does nothing, at least not directly.

  4. Lowering 2030 temperatures significantly requires wide-scale geoengineering—for example, scattering glass beads on arctic ice or injecting sulfur into the stratosphere to reduce the temperature immediately

    Indeed – this is where this stuff gets dangerous.

    There is nothing whatsoever wrong with trying to reduce our GHG emissions, as we really don’t know what consequence there may be to adding these new streams of CO2 and methane, specifically, to the atmosphere.

    But this principle also applies to shooting the stratosphere full of sulfur or scattering glass beads throughout the arctic. These won’t be reversible processes.

    And in fact the impulse to not just mitigate potential future warming but to initiate active cooling is very, very misguided in that, as Ron points out, the world is at the moment a little on cool side for most life forms and could stand to warm up a bit, within (unknown) limits.

    But a decrease in GMT by even a few degrees would be absolutely disastrous for most life forms on the planet.

    1. Plus, it’s been proven that Socialism doesn’t bring the peace and prosperity they claimed so they have to make stuff up and scare the crap out of people in order to bring it about.

      1. U must b right except… Year after year the countries with the highest rate of satisfaction n happiness are always the same darn socialist ones. Of course some people r happier with huge income disparities, no real income growth since Runny Raygun, medication that costs 2-4x the rest of the world, killer cops,high levels of illiteracy n poverty, the world’s most bloated military, endless fake wars on Error and don’t forget the LARGEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD (by number & percentage!), bigger than China or even Stalin’s Gulag population. (Land of the free?)

        Oh yes, socialism Bad, crapitolism…uh…um…hmmmm….

        1. Socialist countries are so happy they have the highest suicide and alcoholism rates in the world. Idiot!

        2. Where would you even get such an idea? If I look at the the 2020 “World Happiness Report”, I don’t see any socialist states in the top 50.
          I get that people sometimes like to claim that the Scandinavian countries are socialist, but they are not.

          Socialism is “A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by the community as a whole.”

          Scandinavia is full of large, publicly traded corporations. They are free market economies, and have strong protections on personal and property rights. They are fairly wealthy countries, and that wealth has allowed them to enact lots of expensive social programs. But just because something has “social” in it does not mean it is socialism.

          Sure, the people trying to market socialism want you to think Denmark, but what you get is Cuba or Laos.

        3. Year after year the countries with the highest rate of satisfaction n happiness are always the same darn socialist ones.

          It is known that socialist utopias are also very hesitant to punish citizens for speaking their minds. Also, literally no one ever tries to flee a socialist country to get to a freer, more capitalist one…

    2. Absolutely agree.

      It’s far more likely, at least in my view, that geoengineering is the real threat. In an effort to ‘fix’ things, we could conceivably do far more damage. At least in the short term, I think. Long term I doubt we could do a whole lot to ‘ruin’ the planet.

      Either way, we know for a fact this planet has a cycle of glaciation and triggering it would kill off a lot more people than warming could. And it’s inevitable, to boot, just not on a time scale people can wrap their brains around.

      1. And it’s inevitable, to boot, just not on a time scale people can wrap their brains around.

        Yeah – there’s a theory that AGW may actually be what’s keeping the planet from slipping into another glaciation.

        If only things were as simple as political activists would have them be.

        1. Probably a bit soon for that since we’re still exiting the last mini-ice age that happened only a few hundred years ago, but really who knows. The data points that exist are simply too scattered to really make any solid judgements let alone prognostications.

          On a long enough timescale, we should probably be more concerned with a solar flare taking out all the electronics on the planet (and probably all the satellites in orbit).

          Last time it happened, circa 1859, there weren’t a lot of electronics to fry just miles and miles of copper wire.

          And we still don’t really know what the solar cycle really looks like, even today after decades of study. Weird, since it’s the primary driver of all warming in the solar system.

          1. And just to reiterate a point that I see repeated here at least occasionally, the planet’s atmospheric parts per million of CO2 is far closer to the extinction point for all life than it is to even pre-historic CO2 concentrations so it’s an absurd argument from the get go.

            And not by ‘just a little’ either. Even full-blown panic monger ‘climate scientists’ acknowledge prehistoric CO2 levels were somewhere around 2000PPM instead of todays ~400PPM, and somewhere around ~170PPM just about all plant life dies.

            It’s no contest.

            ‘Environmental activists’ would be better served chasing real sources of pollution rather than imagined ones that exist purely as a condemnation of capitalism. They are useful idiots for socialist revolutionaries, and little more.

            1. Environmental activist would serve humanity better by yelling into the void.

              1. Yelling releases more CO2 than just indoor voice squawking.

          2. we’re still exiting the last mini-ice age that happened only a few hundred years ago

            That wasn’t nearly a full glaciation – more of a downward nudge in the otherwise straight-upward trajectory of temps for the last 25,000 years.

            If you look at the previous interglacials over the last million years, none of them lasted as long as the current one.

            Of course, this theory also relies on AGW starting with the Australian aboriginals deforesting Australia via fire when they arrived, which problemetizes a great deal of the political AGW theory.

            1. And the theory that the mass die off of American Indians after European discovery triggered the mini ice age, as the smoke (and CO2). from fires they used to clear forests contributed to warmer temperatures and the decreased population burned less forests and grasslands.

      2. Is there a legitimate, tested methodology for determining average global temperature? Something with accuracy and repeatability numbers? If there is I can’t find it.

        1. Is there a legitimate, tested methodology for determining average global temperature?

          Arguably the satellite system, but it only gives us data going back to about 1980. Prior to that you’re relying on pretty much random spot checks from thermometer readings in various contexts around the world (but in fairness, a whole lot of them), with gaps such as unpopulated regions filled in by extrapolating patterns in other data. This data goes back to about 1880. Beyond that, “proxies” like tree rings, which have a little bit of circularity to them, no pun intended.

        2. The National Weather Service had weather stations. At one of the utilities we operate we report current weather (sky) conditions, precipitation, current temp as well as high and low temps.

        3. In theory the average global temperature could be determined by using the average energy (something close to 1.47 watts per square meter) from the sun over a 24 hour period and using a constant loss from radiation corrected for the messy mixture of gasses in the atmosphere results in something on the order of 252 degrees more or less. Problem is the measured temperature is closer to 287 degrees (For those of you that cut class the day they taught science these temperatures are using the Kelvin scale developed by William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. Of course the title was purely symbolic as the barony consisted completely of the bottom of the Kelvin River as it wound through Glasgow where he taught at Glasgow University). Or to quote that great philosopher Yogi Berra “In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is”. You can check out this and other interesting facts in one of my favorite books “Nearest Star” including a great description of the famous 1859 solar flare; something that if it happened to day would alter life on earth as we know it.

          1. “Nearest Star”
            THX; in the Amazon cart

      3. It’s far more likely, at least in my view, that geoengineering is the real threat. In an effort to ‘fix’ things, we could conceivably do far more damage. At least in the short term, I think. Long term I doubt we could do a whole lot to ‘ruin’ the planet.

        There’s been a pretense for a long time that mankind had the power to manipulate nature to his liking through the power of Science!, irrespective of the long-term consequences. Those dams that the greenies like to rail against were considered the country’s greatest engineering feats in its history and an enabler of civilization growth when they were built. Manned space exploration and the moon landing, arguably the height of our scientific achievements, came to be seen as a colossal waste of money. Now, the pretense is that Science! can fix global temperature fluctuations and somehow bring about some “ideal” physical stasis that only these Correct Thinkers seem to have a proper grasp of.

        Michael Crichton had these types pegged quite well via Ian Malcom’s speech on scientific ethics in Jurassic Park.

    3. I don’t know, having to move society to big-ass train for 50 years sounds like a small price to pay. Sure, everything you know and love gets buried under miles of ice, but Exxon’s no longer in business and that’s what’s really important.

      1. That, and as we learned, mean tweets!

    4. “There is nothing whatsoever wrong with trying to reduce our GHG emissions, as we really don’t know what consequence there may be to adding these new streams of CO2 and methane, specifically, to the atmosphere.”

      What are the associated economic costs from such reductions attempts? They strike me as things that are very much wrong. They lower economic growth, and compounded economic growth is essential for having the resources to solve social and other problems which may arise soon.

      Your points on the potential irreversibility of these geoengineering attempts are great ones. I’d like more understanding about the tertiary effects from these kinds of global manipulations, before we start tinkering with the biosphere.

      1. What are the associated economic costs from such reductions attempts?

        I should have been clear that I mean individually-initiated, voluntary reductions.

        There is no harm in choosing to buy a car that emits less GHGs. There is no harm putting solar panels on your house.

        Governments banning coal are almost certain to cause some sort of unforeseen harm, since blanket bans seem to always turn out that way.

        compounded economic growth is essential for having the resources to solve social and other problems which may arise soon

        This is a really essential point to hammer, and Lomborg has been saying this for years and years.

        Eliminating power plants doesn’t eliminate the need for power. Eliminating cars doesn’t eliminate the need for people to get around. Eliminating these things will only cause people to engage in these activities in ways that are even less efficient and more “polluting.”

        What we need is the technology and cooperation that modern economies make possible.

        1. The long-departed poster MikeP used to repeat it incessantly here. I guess it sunk in with me Thanks, Mike.

          The power of a naked exponential.

        2. Look at the environmental impact of a horse/animal powered society compared to a internal combustion engine powered society. You think NYC stinks now, imagine having enough horses to move 7+ million people and goods around.

          1. And imagine the flies.

    5. we really don’t know what consequence there may be to adding these new streams of CO2 and methane, specifically, to the atmosphere.

      But a decrease in GMT by even a few degrees would be absolutely disastrous for most life forms on the planet.

      This isn’t true, or if it is, much of the data driving the concern over AGW and rising CO2 is completely bogus. We have tons upon tons of data from around the globe going back millions of years showing that we’re much closer to CO2 starvation than we are to toxic overabundance. Not saying we should engineer pro-CO2 solutions for their own sake like the discoverer of GHGs did, but there’s no evidence, othr than James Hansen talking competely out of his ass, that we’re even remotely capable of creating a CO2 catastrophe.

      1. there’s no evidence, othr than James Hansen talking competely out of his ass, that we’re even remotely capable of creating a CO2 catastrophe.

        It may well be the case that continuing to pump CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at the same rate we have been for another couple of centuries could have adverse effects.

        Reducing the amount of CO2 and methane that we are adding to the atmosphere is highly unlikely to have any adverse effects.

        Reducing the absolute amount of CO2, specifically, in the atmosphere would be a very, very bad idea.

        I would even say that IMHO it’s likely that added CO2 in the atmosphere will simply be absorbed by increased greenery, which we’re already seeing happening. AFAIK, there’s no similar mechanism taking up the methane.

        1. It may well be the case that continuing to pump CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at the same rate we have been for another couple of centuries could have adverse effects.

          Adverse effects =/= catastrophe. Ocean levels rising 10 ft. in a century would be an adverse effect, but it’s hardly catastrophic to the planet, the human race or anyone living more than a few hundred feet from a coast line or tidal/flood plane.

          1. Adverse effects =/= catastrophe.

            True. Nevertheless, undesirable.

            Ocean levels rising 10 ft. in a century would be an adverse effect, but it’s hardly catastrophic to the planet

            Also true, and getting at one of the things that has dropped out of the conversation regarding “catastrophic” climate change, which is the time factor – change is not a problem in and of itself, it’s change that happens too quickly that is the concern, and as far as I understand it, we’re nowhere near that pace.

            1. Far less catastrophic than a quarter mile of ice appearing over the Dakotas.

            2. “Also true, and getting at one of the things that has dropped out of the conversation regarding “catastrophic” climate change, which is the time factor – change is not a problem in and of itself, it’s change that happens too quickly that is the concern, and as far as I understand it, we’re nowhere near that pace.”

              Pretty sure Manhattan’s West Side Highway was predicted to be under water by now; it’s not. And that genius Al Gore claimed the arctic would be ice-free by 2013; looks like he missed by at least several hundred years or, possibly, forever.
              Not a single one of the (date-specifc) predictions from any of the neo-Malthusians has yet to happen. Not ONE. And as everyone *should* know, ‘X will happen’ absent a date is not a prediction, it’s bullshit.
              “Yeah, but….”
              OK, let’s allow that portions of FL will get flooded sometime in the future and PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO MOVE!!!! HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY DO SO???
              Seems the time spans suggest a look at history so let’s look at, oh Chicago, during a time span when travel was far more difficult and relocation not nearly as easy. Say 1840-1940:
              1840 population: 4,470
              1940 population: 3,400,000
              Wealth is now far more mobile, travel and transport of goods far easier than even 1940, so adapting to some of the more drastic (if unlikely) predictions would not be difficult for the current US population.
              Uncomfortable, but far less uncomfortable than adapting to a pre-electrified society, especially if we have to yield control of the economy as part of the deal.

    6. Reducing combustion as a whole is a good idea no matter what your opinion, as it reduces actual pollution as well (Sulfur, NOx, CO, and all sorts of HAPS). I’ve managed to build consensus at my job by demanding “REAL” reductions, not paper reductions that essentially export emissions.

      1. Reducing combustion as a whole is a good idea no matter what your opinion, as it reduces actual pollution as well (Sulfur, NOx, CO, and all sorts of HAPS).

        Setting aside the goalpost shifting (at least some of the compounds you cite actually cool the globe); my ICE lawnmower is far more inefficient pollution-wise than my car and still emits all those things as levels far too low for human physiology to react to.

        If sulfur emissions is a real problem, you probably ought to fill in half the hot springs in Yellowstone. DMS (from the decomposition of phytoplankton, and largely responsible for ‘the smell of the ocean’) is, and always has been, the single largest source of atmospheric sulfates. The transit time is quicker, but the total amount and total effect on the atmosphere is orders of magnitude larger than fossil fuel production and always has been.

        An enlightened individual would take your goalpost shifting, in combination with your tilting at windmills as a sign that you don’t actually know anything about or care about the atmosphere and just want people to do what you think is the right thing to do; whether it is right or not.

        1. Mad. Okay. You obviously know nothing about environmental emissions.

          When I say sulfur, I mean: H2S, SO2, and SO3. The three emissions that result from industry and combustion. These result in acid rain (H2S directly, the other two react with water to form Sulfuric/ous acid). All other sulfur compounds are heavy and don’t stay in the air very long.

          Sulfur doesn’t cool anything in low emissions that are achieved by smokestacks. The idea of seeding the upper atmosphere with sulfates to form permanent white smoke is bonkers, but also completely different from low-atmospheric emissions, where sulfur compounds get rained out quite quickly.

          1. You obviously know nothing about environmental emissions.

            *proceeds to spew ideological nonsense selectively irrelevant to the claims made*

            Humans aren’t the largest emitter of sulfur, H2S, DMS, Sulfates,… doesn’t matter. Cutting our emissions would have minimal effect on the environment and the massive decline in emissions over the last 40 yrs. has done little to decrease whatever imaginary maladies you may think we suffer from atmospheric sulfur.

            Long term emissions aren’t a problem for the reasons you, yourself, cite: these compounds (all of them) wash out of the lower atmosphere quickly.

            Lastly, sulfates in the lower atmosphere aren’t completely different from sulfates in the upper atmosphere. They still seed cloud cover (and produce acid rain), they just don’t fall out as quickly. I could agree that massively increasing the amount of sulfur would be a bad idea but, just as with CO2, we are nowhere near any sort of catastrophic level and need no global reduction effort. Per your own information, acid rain is a self-regulating/solving issue: states and municipalities that emit more suffer the effects more directly. I can’t tell if you don’t understand the issue or if you, in your quest to make mountains out of molehills, just don’t care.

            1. Ummm. We’ve been monitoring sulfur for decades, centuries if you count qualitative monitoring. Combustion of sulfur-laden coal is the reason for the famous London yellow smog and acid rain. It’s a local pollution problem. The reason it hasn’t been a problem in years has been the very successful enactment of low-sulfur regulations, emission scrubbers, and the Claus process.

              No one cares about global levels of pollutants because global levels are and have always been irrelevant. It’s all about local pollution.

              Talking to you is reminiscent of my encounters with the Flat Earth Society.

              1. The reason it hasn’t been a problem in years has been the very successful enactment of low-sulfur regulations, emission scrubbers, and the Claus process.

                So your alleged problem that requires curtailing all combustion hasn’t been a problem in years? Your comment reflects favorably on myself and flat earthers, even they aren’t stupid enough to call for curtailing all combustion as a religious edict.

  5. It’s been something like one more decade until the point of no return for, what, going on thirty years now?

    Guess they should just give up since they passed the Rubicon a while back. Maybe they should spend their time helping Musk colonize Mars or something.

    1. Guess they should just give up since they passed the Rubicon a while back.

      Bjorn Lomborg made that point going on ten years ago, but he was condemned as a Science-Denier.

    2. People keep saying “if we don’t do something now, it’s all over” or something to that effect. And many years pass and things are still pretty much the same. Why do people keep believing these assholes?

      1. Why do people keep believing these assholes?

        Because most people isolate themselves in partisan bubbles, such that many, many people have never, ever heard any alternate views on any of this.

      2. “Why do people keep believing these assholes?”

        For the same reason my Jehovah’s Witness grandparents kept believing predictions of the end of the world made by their church’s leaders, even though these predictions repeatedly failed. Humans can be deeply and persistently irrational, most of all when they feel they are members of a chosen group in opposition to the rest of the world.

        But the Jehovah’s Witness’s leadership never claimed to be scientists. Scientists revise their hypotheses when their predictions fail. Those who keep predicting the same thing, only revising the date after each failed prediction, ARE NOT SCIENTISTS no matter what degrees and job titles they hold.

  6. And what climate change mitigation policy changes do the writers at Reason support?

    You’re gonna have to fuck Big Oil if you’re interested in this at all.

    1. Nah, if you want to do anything about it you’d have to invade China and India.

      Yeah, it’s stupid, but if climate activists were serious that’s where they’d start.

      The ‘developed’ world isn’t producing all those ‘dangerous’ trace gasses, after all.

      1. No, if they were serious they’d create mass hysteria over a mild respiratory illness and get a population dominated by cowardly morons to cheer them on as they ordered the destruction of our civilization to fight the illness.

      2. If climate activists were really serious, we would make tactical nuclear strikes on China, India, and rapidly industrializing portions of Africa. That would thin the herd. and eliminate a lot of industrial output.

        Of course their theories are garbage, and AGW is just a phantom menace.

    2. You’re a real genius in how you pack so many logical fallacies into such a small space. It’s really quite impressive. How do you plan to stop beating your wife? You’re going to have to drink a gallon of bleach if you’re interested in that at all.

    3. And what climate change mitigation policy changes do the writers at Reason support?

      What climate change mitigation policies do you support?

      Please be sure to provide the scientific bases for your answers.

      1. Kill all the “science-deniers”, duh.

      2. “Please be sure to provide the scientific bases for your answers.”

        And the date-specific results of specific measures, or STFU.

      3. Divert as many resources as humanity can muster to end carbon and methane pollution and try to invent new technologies to prevent more damage than has already been done, then pray.

        Put all Republicans on trial for crimes against humanity.

          1. I think so.

            Imagine “climate alarmists” were right all along. Would there be a bigger moral crime imaginable than actively deceiving the public on an existential threat to the species and actively working against fixing that problem in favor of short-term profits?

            Just pretend that were true. What would be reasonable?

            1. So let’s pretend your “what if?” is true and go ahead and execute your political rivals right now.

              Sounds legit. No fascism there. No sir.

              1. I do not support capital punishment. I don’t particularly care how they are punished, as long as all the other nihilistic monsters of the world get the message.

              2. And equating punishing people for great moral crimes to fascism is fucking weak sauce and you damn well know it.

                1. All you fascists accuse their victims of “great moral crimes.”

                  That’s just part of the territory you live in.

        1. Well, sounds great. Just ban fossil fuels. Why didn’t anyone else thing of that?

          The problem is that would result in the death of billions.

          The problem is that there is no replacement. When it has been tried, it backfires. Horribly. I would suggest looking at the article “Coal Trumps Solar in India”, which features Indians protesting solar arrays as “fake electricity”. Read about how much worse life gets when you don’t have reliable electricity for light, communication, and powered tools. Talk to Texans like myself who were at the mercy of the winter three months ago as our over-wind reliant systems failed (and were only brought back online via helicopter de-icing of wind turbines, greenwashed power at its finest).

          Now, please tell me how we need to make that mandatory?

          1. So we have no choice but to commit species-wide suicide. Sounds like you’ve thought this through real hard.

            You can learn about how solar can perfectly well replace fossil fuels, as long as we have the political will to invest in it. I won’t do your googling for you. Not that we have a choice.

            1. It’s not suicide. See my earlier rant about how there was no evidence whatsoever that civilization, much less our survival was threatened.

              We have been pouring money into solar for decades now, and there’s precious little to show for it. After tens of billions in investment, perhaps it’s not a lack of will, but fundamental flaws in the concept that no amount of technological progress can correct for.

              Perhaps you are the one who has been lied to.

    4. And what climate change mitigation policy changes do the writers at Reason support?

      If they were libertarians, they would say they support policies that don’t interfere with personal freedom, aren’t tax driven, and don’t result in government growth.

      1. Are those priorities more important than saving the biosphere of planet earth?

        I’ll never understand grown adults who insist on having immovable ideological commitments, especially ones that have no record of success, when they aren’t merely empty slogans.

        1. Spreading mass poverty is a sure way to destroy the biosphere. Poor people are desperate to find a way to feed their family today, and don’t give a damn about long-term consequences.

          And your other favorite program, socialism, destroys the biosphere even faster than it impoverishes the people; for examples, the Aral Sea and Chernobyl.

    5. You’re gonna have to fuck Big Oil if you’re interested in this at all.

      That’s a really big ask as we have no immediately viable replacement for transportation fuel. We’d have a much bigger impact on CO2 by switching the vast bulk of our grid generation off of coal and over to nuclear. It’s zero-carbon emmissions, far less environmentally impactful than all renewables (and it’s not even close), and is almost completely reliable. On top of that, newer reactor designs (pebble bed, LFTR, or molten salt Thorium) can be made 99.9999% safe whether you’re talking about meltdown or waste management.

      Of course, going to nuclear is one of those things that requires a longer horizon than 2030.

      1. On top of that, newer reactor designs (pebble bed, LFTR, or molten salt Thorium) can be made 99.9999% safe whether you’re talking about meltdown or waste management.

        I’d be suspicious of the data showing that current nuclear isn’t 99.9999% safe. You pretty much have to assume that every 10th reactor is going to get hit by an earthquake *and* a tsunami, catastrophically melt down, and count everyone who’s going to die of cancer 60-80 yrs. after exposure in order to get much below 90%

    6. 1. Prove the link between c02 and climate.
      2. Determine the optimum desired temperature and state the reasoning.
      3. Explain the opposition to nuclear power generation.
      4. Prove this not just about population control.
      5. Fuck off.

    7. Ah yes chicken shit Tony lobs a handgrenade into the audience and chastises you for getting out of the way.

      1. Euthanizing Tony would help with climate change. As it would reduce the number of acolytes for the AGW orthodoxy.

    8. Big oil is actually big energy and they already are investing heavily in solar and wind. They’ll fo just fine no matter how they make the energy, short of us all going back to pre electricity horse and carriage economy.

      1. “…short of us all going back to pre electricity horse and carriage economy.”

        Our resident piles of lefty shit just creamed their jeans.

        1. But you have 3 horses and that person over there has none after he traded his for alcohol and scratch off tickets. Not fair.

          1. If Jack helped you off a horse, would you help Jack off a horse?

      2. “Big oil is actually big energy and they already are investing heavily in solar and wind. ”

        Big oil can’t manufacture or sell sunlight or wind. Hydrogen on the other hand is something the oil companies manage according to current business models.

        1. Look at who owns the solar companies. Big oil is already widespread and horizontally integrated to protect themselves from market fluctuations. They’ve been creating or acquiring solar companies for years now.

          Shell has a bunch of Solar groups, including MP2 and Kraftwerke
          Sunpower is a subsidiary of Total
          Chevron Power is a solar branch
          Exxon has their EnergyFactor

          And no one uses hydrogen. It’s among the most polluting fuels you can get since it’s half-burned methane.

          1. Hydrogen is used in California, the nation’s trend-setter. It’s not renewable and can be manufactured and sold by the pound. Perhaps when Republicans regain power, hydrogen will get more focus.

    9. MMGW is still a hoax

    10. Did someone wake up our pet retarded monkey, Tony? Hopefully things will get a little less boring.

  7. They were against Big Oil before they latched on to Climate “Change”. It’s just a continuation of their protest where now they can get Big Government power behind it.

    If CO2 is the problem, why not implement CO2 scrubbers powered by nuclear energy? A simple solution that would work immediately. But it doesn’t provide the Big Government power grab that they seek.

    1. Also nuclear bombs are bad, therefore nuclear energy is bad. Which gained more steam after millions were killed as a result of 3 Mile Island.

      1. And Cher was in some movie…

    2. Why don’t they just time all the lights we already have, using the traffic light engineering department every traffic light needing municipality already has? That would cut emissions and fuel consumption to 1/3.
      Government only cares about 2 things: control and tax theft.

    3. You can’t scrub CO2. There’s almost no place to put it. The few areas that do exist are limited, require huge amounts of energy to put in, and many have leaks, which mean that you either slowly depressurize (wasting everyone’s time), or you have a million Lake Nyos waiting to blow.

  8. Same old bullshit. Nothing to see here. Obey without question.
    Or learn from history. (since they mentioned the sixties):

    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2021). “Widespread” agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.

    We can only wish that he had been right, and both New York and Washington DC were gone now.

    1. We can only wish that he had been right, and both New York and Washington DC were gone now.

      Besides, according to Wiki, NYC is 33ft above sea level. Why would a 10-foot rise in sea level put it under water?

      1. Because of global climate warming change! Didn’t you read the article?

      2. Wouldn’t sink the whole island, but it would certainly make a big mess and much would have to be rebuilt higher or abandoned.
        Fortunately, it looks like we aren’t likely to see more than a few inches of sea rise, if anything, in my lifetime at least.

        1. Wouldn’t sink the whole island, but it would certainly make a big mess and much would have to be rebuilt higher or abandoned.

          Oh I don’t doubt a ten-foot rise over the course of, say, thirty years would be a huge problem. But “Goodbye, NYC?” Seems unlikely.

          But as you point out, for all the hyperventilating about the rising seas, no one can actually find the rising seas (at least no faster than they’ve been rising since the glaciers started melting all those years ago).

          1. “But as you point out, for all the hyperventilating about the rising seas, no one can actually find the rising seas (at least no faster than they’ve been rising since the glaciers started melting all those years ago).”

            I agree with you, but isn’t the site of Thermopylae essentially under water at this point?

            1. It’s not glacial runoff that will raise sea levels, so much as the thermal expansion of the ocean waters. As the temperature of the oceans increase, their volume increases, raising sea levels. It’s hardly rocket science, just basic climate science.

            2. No, where there was a narrow beach between the mountain and the sea 2600 years ago is now land a half-mile wide. The slow rise of the sea has been far more than offset by local factors raising the land.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopylae

    2. “It admits only panic solutions”

      Isn’t that the whole point? More than a bit like ushering in trillions of dollars worth Democrat wish lists under a very thin veil of pandemic response.

      1. Trillions of dollars is probably too optimistic. It may be quadrillions (thousands of trillions) by the time (if ever) we wrestle this climate change to the ground.

    3. At least NYC has been employing Dutch engineers to advise on the best and most economical way to build sea walls. Far too little is being spent on adaptation given that the climate system has a very long time constant.

      1. “to advise on the best and most economical way to build sea walls.”

        Artistically designed steel slats, so that you can easily see through it?

  9. 12 Years to Disaster?

    So – When I’m travelin down the road, I’m flirtin with disaster?

  10. The climate in 2030 is already baked in—we should worry about dealing with it, not changing it.

    The climate in 2030 is already baked in— is almost entirely outside of our ability to affect so we should worry about dealing with it, not changing it.

    FIFY

  11. Be happy! Don’t worry!

    If Darwin is right, we can’t destroy the earth, nor can we “fix” it.
    If the world religions are right, we can’t destroy the earth, nor can we “fix” it.

    1. If the world religions are right, we can’t destroy the earth, nor can we “fix” it.

      There’s one religion you’re forgetting . . .

      1. All hail Cthulu!

  12. I agree climate change is real. However the solution isn’t to throw trillions at it. That will only accelerate the problem and leave the planet a boiling mess. That’s the goal – so they can demand more trillions: “We’ll fix it this time, we promise.”

    Instead the solution is to continue with incremental improvements as we’re doing and otherwise wind down our carbon usage. The pandemic showed that world could slow down considerably. Of course that wasn’t sustainable because of loss of tax income, but if we abolish social security and medicare then it would be.

    Also we need to plant a few trillion trees. But it’s possible to do that over a few decades. (Or carbon sucking phyto-plankton.)

    1. Also we need to plant a few trillion trees.

      Luckily, the trees themselves are already helping with this.

      1. If you wanted to control the environment/CO2, plastic is a better material than wood by just about any metric other than maybe aesthetics.

        1. Other than that wood does its thing all by itself. Which is why I’m not sure we “need” to plant trees, since trees are quite literally designed to create new trees.

          I am in no way anti-plastic, however. To me it seems that most people who are don’t understand what plastic was before it got turned into plastic.

          1. Other than that wood does its thing all by itself.

            Over a longer period of time and then it begins to undo its thing all by itself.

            I’m not saying we should make more plastic or plant more trees, but if you wanted to sequester CO2 and control the environmnt, especially on any sort of useful or reactionary time scale, plastic is clearly the better choice.

            1. Fair enough.

          2. The other thing is that when you create an artificial situation like that instead of a natural one there may be unintended environmental consequences.

    2. Again, disagree. The US has more forest growth now and more carbon more permanently sequestered than when it was colonized and, as a planet, there’s mountains of irrefutable non-consensus-based scientific evidence that we’re closer to CO2 starvation than we are to alarming overabundance.

      1. The US has more forest growth now and more carbon more permanently sequestered than when it was colonized and, as a planet, there’s mountains of irrefutable non-consensus-based scientific evidence that we’re closer to CO2 starvation than we are to alarming overabundance.

        This is true.

      2. The oil we extract from the ground turns into CO2. This is not hard to understand. So yes, we still need a few trillion more trees to suck it up, regardless of how many trees we once had.

        1. The trees don’t turn the CO2 back into oil. This is not hard to understand. So, yes, planting a few trillion more trees to try and sequester it in any meaningful way is a pretty retarded idea, especially if we burn more oil planting more trees than were originally here.

          1. And this conveniently sidesteps the other fact I stated/assertion I made; that lower CO2 levels are in any way desireable.

            1. that lower CO2 levels are in any way desireable.

              This can’t be emphasized enough, considering some of the notions that are starting to circulate.

              Whether or not increasing CO2 in the atmosphere beyond a certain concentration is destructive (or possible), reducing it holds high potential for disaster on a global scale.

          2. LOL thanks for admitting that burning oil creates CO2. And planting a tree doesn’t require much energy and can be done with solar. The fact that you have to resort to insults shows you’re wrong and you know it.

            1. LOL thanks for admitting that burning oil creates CO2.

              I never said burning oil doesn’t create CO2. Planting a tree does require energy which, even if done with solar, requires CO2 to be produced. The only way you get more trees without expending CO2 is to simply allow them to grow and, to my point, there are more trees growing in N. Am. than before we got here.

            2. The fact that you have to resort to insults shows you’re wrong and you know it.

              And it’s not an insult. You want to actively prohibit progress in pursuit of a solution that won’t work to a problem that we don’t even necessarily have. It’s a retarded idea.

          3. Mad one,
            A trillion new trees would reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by 2 ppm per year. So lower the CO2 levels to preindustrial levels would take 100 years IF we stop adding any right now.
            Otherwise, your comment is meaningless as usual.

            1. And given that we are closer to CO^2 starvation than the alternative, your comment shows you are full of shit.

            2. A trillion new trees would reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by 2 ppm per year.

              This is inaccurate and is only based on the amount of CO2 the trees woud fix initially as growth. It ignores the fact that we already have more trees than we started off with because we expend energy (and CO2) planting them and that if we planted them and did nothing else, they would just hum along absorbing 2 ppm for the next hundred years, rather than consuming regional water supplies, capturing it for 10, 20, or 50 yrs. and then burning to the ground, re-emitting all of it.

              And, moreover, as you said, it’s a trillion trees if we stop adding right now. Unless you’re stopping China and India, it’s what?, a trillion trees a decade? A year?

    3. “However the solution isn’t to throw trillions at it.”

      No, as you point out, that’s the rationale for throwing trillions at any number of things.

      1. Trillions isn’t that much anymore.

    4. Many people say, “climate change is real” and assume causes are anthropogenic. This has never been proven and yet government policies are built on this assumption.
      I believe governments see overpopulation as the primary issue and this is just one tool to try and control it (you).

  13. Not all environmental change is bad.

    Sure it is, since obviously the climate from, uh, ***hurriedly reviews article and comments*** 2009 was the best possible!

  14. The message, “it’s too late.”
    The answer, “give up and enjoy our last days.”

    1. Reminds me of a cold war cartoon of two golfers on a putting green, with the city on the distant horizon engulfed in a mushroom cloud. The caption says “Go ahead and putt, the shockwave won’t get here for a couple minutes”..

      1. Lol.
        The too late narrative pisses me off.

  15. The same IPCC that falsified its data years ago to bolster its alarmist claims.

    For a moment let’s imagine a real scientific model that represents global temperature and sea level increases based on human activity creating CO2.

    And let’s pretend that this model demonstrates that by reducing CO2 X amount we can prevent the destruction of our coastal cities.

    Wouldn’t it be easy to develop a CO2 calculator that every citizen could use to demonstrate their current contribution and plan reductions.

    What would that calculator show for the wealthy, whose opulent lives require servants, multiple homes, yachts, private jets and industries producing crap?

    Nope, this is about taxing everyone equally regardless of their carbon footprint. Will that change the habits of the wealthy?

  16. It’s amazing how many Democrats, the self-proclaimed party of science, think that this means everything on the planet is going to die by 2030. The only bright side is that they are not having children who’ll (they believe) die before they turn ten.

    1. No, it’s just a bullshit argument to achieve a different objective. They don’t care about your evidence, they are playing a different game.

    2. “…The only bright side is that they are not having children who’ll (they believe) die before they turn ten.”

      Nope; it’s all signalling.
      Check the Malibu RE market; when water-front property starts shorting, you’ll know they’re serious.
      Until then, it’s cocktail party bullshit.

  17. The funny thing about the extreme “solutions,” like banning airplanes, is that they are completely unenforceable rules. Anyone dumb enough to ban essential goods and services is just dooming their civilization to third world status and anyone smart enough not to take this suicide pill will prosper and dominate with reduced competition globally. Any society that attempts to limit its people from fleeing said restrictions will be forced to use violence, resulting in civil strife and eventually WW3.

    That almost sounded like an endorsement of environmentalist accelerationism to create Libertopia faster.

    1. Already happening. China passed us while we spent time wringing our hands about even more unnecessary, useless, fairy tale based rules meant to foster self hate and learned helplessness.
      In the real world, vicious, aggressive, win by any means necessary people always beat timid rule following pussies.

  18. This article is literally insane, since it’s already Apocalypse Now for numerous poor countries in the tropics.

    1. What does this even mean? There’s one common thread that drives all of the poorest nations of the world – energy poverty.

  19. Defining C02 as a pollutant is the greatest lie of our generation. It’s essential to life. Further, it’s a benign gas and it makes up an infinitesimal percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere.

    We’re just over 400ppm. At 180ppm, plants starve.

    We should welcome more C02, we should not fear it.

    1. We’re just over 400ppm. At 180ppm, plants starve.

      And they don’t choke on the stuff until about 80,000 ppm (on land, aqueous plants can tolerate even higher concentrations). Humans tend to die off at around 50,000 ppm. From a global perspective, barring assertions that even most scientists specifically regard as absurd, CO2 is a self-limiting problem.

  20. So I guess the left will stop worrying about mileage requirements for 2050, right?

  21. For those promoting significant changes, are you carbon neutral?

  22. A guy at work believes this. I challenged him that if the world hasn’t ended in 12 years he should kill himself, at the very least he shouldn’t save any money for retirement because the world will end before that. He instantly started back tracking

  23. Well NOAA has Colossus and NASA has HAL who both agree that the End Times are upon us.

  24. It seems to me that comparative advantage makes it nearly impossible to regulate and/or tax ourselves out of our current environmental impact. Making it more expensive just shifts production to places willing to pollute more. Deregulation of nuclear seems like one of the only possible paths we can take with a positive outcome.

    1. Fuck nuclear. I never consented to outdoor experiments with waste products that have 300k year half lives and that have regular Strontium 90 and cesium-137 leaks (9 leaks a year average from Palisades NPP 40 miles WSW from me). You’d be amazed at the rates of bone cancer, lymphoma and Leukemia in Southwest Michigan.
      Btw, they don’t bother to warn anyone when leaks happen. Same with other NPPs.

      1. BULLSHIT WARNING!
        Cites, and a lot of them, for your lies.
        You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

        1. IOW, you got nothin’. Bullshit? You’re soaking in it!

          1. I notice all the factual refutations you’ve offered as a brain-damaged lefty shit:
            Zero.

      2. BTW, bullshitter, while it’s not possible to prove your head is up your ass, it’s easy enough to show the likelihood approaches 100%:
        If there were even some tiny sort of possibility of what you claim, and the possibilities of major awards, the ambulance-chasers would have half-time ads on the Super Bowl.
        Again:
        You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

        1. And you’re a bottomless pit of lies, not to mention dangerously unhinged.

          1. And you are a neo-Malthusian who would be dangerous if you ever had any power.
            Fuck off and die; make the world a better place.

  25. It seems like most of the hardcore climate change folks, when you have listened to them long enough, always seem to get around to the idea that the real solution to climate change is socialism. Oddly, the same holds true for those promising to end racism, sexism, and most of our other perceived faults.
    Oddly, having lived in socialist countries, my experience is that these problems are worse there than in capitalist countries.

    1. If course, none of the truly socialist countries give a shit about climate change.

  26. Sadly, millennials have been brainwashed by their teachers, the media and the entertainment industry, which are all populated by liberal arts majors with no understanding of electric generation. They’ve been taught to believe we can transition to green energy without any understanding of how inefficient solar panels are because the adults who told them have no idea what they’re talking about.
    I worked in the energy industry for 35 years and know enough about the electric demand of industry to know solar isn’t a practical solution.
    I’ve had conversations with millennials and have explained why solar isn’t our future and have given them the example of one industrial customer on the Boston Harbor waterfront, which uses a 9,000hp motor to grind cars into pellets. They’re situated on about an acre or two of land in one of the most densely populated areas in the country. They have a 7 megawatt service with their own substation. In order to meet their electric demand you’d need 7,000 large (1kW) panels, which would be impossible to fit on the property. I get the deer-in-the-headlights look and they dismiss my example and are adamant solar is our future.
    Think about this…every species on earth has the instinct to reproduce. Yet many millennials don’t want to have children because they believe environmental catastrophe is in the immediate future. The fact Is without the instinct to breed humans don’t stand a chance and our species will be long gone and the earth will be laughing at us.
    Lastly, if we transitioned to nuclear in the ‘80’s like the electric utility industry wanted to we wouldn’t be talking about carbon emissions. The truth is enviros fought nuclear power and forced the electric utility industry to give up.
    Blame them.

    1. Of all the malarkey in that comment, your conclusion tops everything above:
      Lastly, if we transitioned to nuclear in the ‘80’s like the electric utility industry wanted to we wouldn’t be talking about carbon emissions. The truth is enviros fought nuclear power and forced the electric utility industry to give up.
      Blame them.

      Please provide us a list of all the communities demanding to have a nuclear plant built in them.

      1. Please provide a list of all communities which demand an end to electrical power.

      2. Just about any community in France. The French get about 80% of their power from nuclear energy. They have not been made afraid of nuclear power. Apparently better managed than in the US or Russia.

  27. Prediction: By 2024, the planet will be so overwhelmed with financial/economic disaster that references to climate change will elicit ironic chuckles.
    And yes, ANTHROPOMETRIC financial/economic disasters.
    And that’s not even counting war (which IS anthropometric, isn’t it?).

    1. Transthropogenic Climate Change

      Where you can be a carbon polluter like John Kerry or Joe Biden but identify as an environmental crusader.

      1. Transanthropogenic Climate Change – Where you identify as a climate crusader but quid-pro-quo your drug-addled, deadbeat son a job at a natural gas company.

  28. Many binary operations are rippers. I invested about $320,000 then i decided to withdraw after several week but the withdrawal wasn’t successful, then I tried to contact the binary operation email and phone number, but got no response from them that was when everything started looking weird. Some weeks later I got a mail from them insisting I should invest more money if I want to withdraw my money which I rejected, and I never hear from them again that was when I knew I had been scammed. I was really devastated at those moment and felt so bad that my hard earn money is gone. After some month I came across a lot of testimonies on many bitcoin site how HACKSOLUTION7 AT gmail dot com had helped many people recovered there stolen, scammed or duped money on bitcoin or any other form on digital currency. I contact them and they promised to help me get my money back, asked me some personal details of the scammer which I provided. The result was amazing I recovered all my stolen money back within 72 hours I was so happy as I never believe I could get my money back. Thanks HackSolution you restore Joy into my life after several pain I’m so indebted!!!

  29. In the Pliestocene era (the cycles of glaciations we are now in) the warm, inter-glacial periods (like now) last about 12,000 years. We are at about 12,000 years since the beginning of the Holocene. The measurements of the earth’s temperature throughout the Holocene (measured with proxies) shows that it peaked about 8,000 years ago and has been cooling ever since. The 1700s were the coldest time since the Holocene began. And the earth has had CO2 levels 5 times higher than we have right now and life has survived.

    Do we really think we are more powerful than the million-years of cycles of Climate and orbital perturbations that we could “destroy” the planet when when only 8,000 years ago we were already 2 degrees warmer than what we fear???

  30. Splendid article. It’s well to remember that we are not far above the lowest temperature the earth has seen in 550 million years, and close to the lowest level of CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period. Close to is the scientific sense, since the temp range is 285K-295K, excluding brief excursions to 280K and 300K, with a median of 290K, ±3.5%. Current temp is 288K. 20,000 years ago, the LGM, London and NYC were under mile-thick slabs of ice. We emerged from that with no preceding CO2 change. And from the Younger Dryas that followed.

    We emerged from the LIA around 1840 with no preceding CO2 change, and human CO2 production did not take off until 1880 at which point temps declined to 1910.

    CO2 levels have steadily advanced since 1840 while temperature went up and then down and then up and then down… The years1929-1931 produced a 30% decrease in human CO2 production, and global CO2 continued its languid rise, and temps rose till 1941 and then declined. Interestingly, temps went down during WWII and postwar reconstruction. That led to the 1970s magazines warning of the Coming Ice Age.

    CO2 is not in control of climate, and we are not in control of CO2.

    And since the GHG effect of CO2 is at 50% in the first 20ppm, and declines exponentially after that, the next doubling to 800ppm will increase its GHG effect by maybe 2%, totally overwhelmed by the other eight forcings.

    Climate change is a given, not a problem. CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution.

    1. That is the most concise condensation of climate denier BS I’ve ever seen.

      1. Please, Monomath (excellent name), quote the words, phrase, or sentence you disagree with and cite your refutation. Refuting is ever so much easier than proving, but it does require some knowledge.

        1. Which is where the neo-Malthusian runs into trouble.

  31. Hey remember when your “science correspondent” whose terminal level of education was a BA in philosophy snapped from writing a book called The End of Doom to becoming a global warming apocalypticist and insisting that people should forced at the barrel of a government rifle to take an experimental vaccine with no safety testing or FDA approval because he’s a pathetic fucking old pussy pissing his chinos about somebody giving him a laboratory-modified cold virus?

  32. Wow this is Wonder ,
    This is shocking ,How did we get from reality to Greta Thunberg, Joe Biden and a Bloomberg columnist who says Exxon .
    https://wapexclusive.com ,“threatens the continuation of human life on earth”?

    1. How, you ask? By good ol’ climate science denial propaganda is how. What did you “think?”

  33. And I, naive, thought that we still have 50 years left. It is difficult to imagine what will happen in the world when such a catastrophe begins.

  34. Stop subsidizing all power sources, including coal, oil, wind, solar, nuclear and all other forms. Allow energy sources to compete fairly.

    Allow the increased the usage of nuclear power to supply power. Eliminate 2/3 of the regulations and busy work that government agencies impose to preserve their power and funding.

    The market unbound from government interference will naturally drive toward the balance of the most efficient energy source(s) that have the least impact. this is likely to be some sort of combination and not a one solution fits all situation.

    Perhaps instead of a large power generation plants, we will land on smaller more localized power generation plants? There are lots of ideas to explore and test and plenty of innovative people. Unleashing the creativity of people will allow us to rise to the occasion every time.

    Obviously humans are in a better state since the industrial revolution. Worldwide the human condition is better with less poverty, more freedom than prior to the industrial revolution. Easy access to energy of all sorts has spurred this development.

    In my opinion we don’t go back to the dark ages. Just like a steak comes from a cow and not a shelf, the woke climate control crowd needs to realize that their devices didn’t appear out of thin air. Their beloved devices are the result of decades upon decades of incremental creativity made possible by previous developments on our journey beyond the dark ages.

    There are those among us who pre-date television/or color television, grew up with party telephone lines where we had to wait for the neighbor to finish their call before we can use the phone, that phones had a wire to attach it to the wall, watch the very first computers to come to market and then watched computers become available to the public instead of just large companies.

    1. There was a great ad, I think it was Apple, where a kid is sitting outside doing creative stuff on his tablet. He neighbor walks by and asks “hey what are you doing on your computer?”

      He says “what’s a computer?”

    2. “The market unbound from government interference will naturally drive toward the balance of the most efficient energy source(s) that have the least impact.”

      Carbon emissions are an externality. Unbinding markets isn’t going to change that.

      1. “Carbon emissions are an externality. Unbinding markets isn’t going to change that.”

        Assertions from low-watt lefties =/= evidence, nor argumemt.

        1. You don’t know what an externality is, do you? Don’t be afraid to ask.

          1. If you don’t know when you’re being called on obvious bullshit, don’t be afraid to ask.
            But I’m really tired of explaining to brain-damaged lefty shits how obviously stooooooooopid they are.
            So we now have a program to help such fucking ignoramuses as you:
            16 digit C/C number, expiry date, security code, 3 hour minimum (and in your case figure fare more), $385/hr.
            Sign up now , or remain the fucking ignoramus you are now!

          2. BTW, lefty piece of shit, I was well familiar with the term ‘externalities’ long before they were shown to be largely the fantasies of brain-dead lefty shits like you.
            Again, 16 digit C/C number, expiry date, security code, 3 hour minimum (and in your case figure far more), $385/hr.
            Sign up now, or remain the fucking lefty ignoramus you are now!

            1. You clearly have no idea what an externality is or how it pertains to the discussion. It’s a tricky concept, admittedly, so I can’t be too harsh on you. I defined it briefly earlier on, so I suggest you start there. If that hasn’t helped, try an internet search engine. These days I’m using Duck Duck Go, but you are free to try others.

              1. “You clearly have no idea what an externality is or how it pertains to the discussion. It’s a tricky concept, admittedly, so I can’t be too harsh on you. I defined it briefly earlier on, so I suggest you start there. If that hasn’t helped, try an internet search engine. These days I’m using Duck Duck Go, but you are free to try others.”

                You are clearly a stinking pile of lefty shit who assumes your fantasies regarding the term “externalities” justifies your idiocy.
                I would suggest you offer something other than lefty claims to support your idiocy.
                BTW, have I suggested you fuck off and die? If not, please allow me to offer that which would make your family proud and give your dog a place to piss.

                1. Externality is not as difficult as it sounds. I urge you to take the time to learn about this important and fascinating subject. Even if it means taking a temporary break from your commenting efforts.

  35. Wow really an good article
    thanks for this information

    Blogging Tips 2021

    1. “thanks for this misinformation”

      Edited for accuracy.

      1. Added comment by one more in a looooong line of (idiot) neo-Malthusians.

  36. The government doesn’t have to do anything. We already have more efficient stuff because who wants to pay more for energy? Market forces are much more efficient than any government plan. When are they going to learn that?

    My wife is talking about the new e-Mustang SUV. I approve but only if we go for the GT model. Because we absolutely need an SUV that can do 0-60 in 3.6 seconds to drive to the grocery store.

    1. “Market forces are much more efficient than any government plan. When are they going to learn that?”

      Carbon emissions are what economists call an ‘externality.’ The burdens are incurred by participants who are not part of the market interactions.

      1. True. But the solutions to that will come from the market, not the central planners.

        1. The ghost of Adam Smith is laughing its ass off at you people.

          1. “The ghost of Adam Smith is laughing its ass off at you people.”

            The embarrassed ghost of Malthus is laughing at your idiocy, while the too-stupid-to-be-embarrassed Erhlich and Michael Mann should be.

        2. ” But the solutions to that will come from the market”

          How much are you willing to pay for a pound of sequestered carbon? Markets will only work when there is a demand for a product.

          1. Nothing. All I am saying is the cleaner energy sources and products that will decrease emissions will sell themselves. People are very innovative and there is a lot of money to be made.

            1. R&D is risky. Innovation, like controlled fusion, needs government subsidies. The private sector is not involved. Even something as banal as the touch screens on your smart phone only came into existence with government subsidies.

          2. Good question. I just finished reading an exposé of the way private land owners in the West figured out a way to scam the effort to “store” carbon in the coastal forests.
            https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere#1063357
            This would qualify for REASON’s “ideal” for using private sector (in the form of property owners and logging interests) for the worthy goal of reducing atmospheric CO₂ but ends up doing just the opposite at great public cost. Although it may be more difficult for farmers to get away with being paid by the government for planting cover crops to do the same thing I have no doubt the ingenuity of farmers will figure out a way, especially now that so much farmland is being bought up by huge corporations, often foreign owned.

            1. It is not a free market. It is a government devised plan to regulate the free market with made up carbon credits. So people found a way to scam the system. Big surprise.

              There is no actual market for CO2. It is just an example of another failure when the government gets involved.

              1. If it weren’t for government thugs we could all get rich buying and selling our sequestered carbon to each other. Surely this is not what you are driving at, or is it?

                1. “If it weren’t for government thugs we could all get rich buying and selling our sequestered carbon to each other. Surely this is not what you are driving at, or is it?”

                  If it weren’t for your inability to understand an argument or your (intentional?) mendacity, you might not be an object of laughter here.

                  1. There’s no argument here. There is no demand for sequestered carbon. There is no market solution. Laugh all you want. It won’t change anything.

                    1. “There’s no argument here. There is no demand for sequestered carbon. There is no market solution. Laugh all you want. It won’t change anything.”

                      If it weren’t for your inability to understand an argument or your (intentional?) mendacity, you might not be an object of laughter here.

  37. I was looking at that new Oceanbird sail powered cargo ship. I don’t know how well it will work but sure looks cool.

    Using the wind to power ships carrying cargo. I wonder how they got that idea.

    1. I hope you’re joking.

      1. Laugh while you can, monkey boy!

        1. Make an ass of yourself as you can, fucking imbecilic lefty shit~!

        2. BTW, assholish piece of lefty shit, did you get one more hit on your blog from posting here this week? Did someone make a mistake and click on your (bogus) handle, asshole?
          I’m hoping that most of us here recognize you as a pathetic piece of lefty shit posting here in the hopes that someone clicks on your handle, hoping your assholish blog doubles the weekly clicks.
          BTW, have I mentioned the esteem in which I hold you, you pathetic piece of lefty shit?

          1. What’s with all the ‘assholes’ and ‘shit’ etc?

  38. Since this publication seems to have allied itself with the climate-science denial claque, I have to conclude that its name is meant ironically.

  39. 9 years remaining, try to enjoy it.

    A. Not a disaster.
    B. Not an emergency.
    C. Bad weather has been around forever, don’t call it climate change.
    D. Colder weather is when humanity suffers.
    E. People have been moving to warmer climates for decades (since AC was invented). Now it’s moving to them, so it will save us money.

    1. Science and facts are not your friend, friend.

    2. A. Not a disaster.
      Declaring so does not make it so.
      B. Not an emergency.
      Right….it’s beyond that already.
      C. Bad weather has been around forever, don’t call it climate change.
      Ignorance of the difference between weather and climate is essential to climate change denial
      D. Colder weather is when humanity suffers.
      Completely unsupported claims like that are key to climate denial propaganda
      E. People have been moving to warmer climates for decades (since AC was invented). Now it’s moving to them, so it will save us money.
      Comparing early human seasonal migrations to people having Winter homes in Florida is stupidity personified

      1. shit your pants some more, bro

      2. BTW, you managed to pack two baseless assertions, one irrelevancy, a lie, and false dichotomy into one post.
        That’s close top a record, even for an ignoramus of your ‘abilities’.

  40. Here’s a short list of climate change deniers false predictions, bizarre rationalizations, crackpot beliefs and/or outright lies:

    Atmospheric CO₂ levels will never go over 400ppm
    Annual global temperature actually started dropping after 1998
    Arctic sea ice is increasing
    Ocean acidity is decreasing (and the coral reefs are just fine)
    Mean sea level is going down
    The private sector always solves global problems
    Warming is good for agriculture
    It still gets cold in Winter so it can’t be warming
    CO₂ is a harmless gas
    Science is a hoax
    We don’t care ’bout no stinkin’ facts.

    1. How could I have forgotten this one:

      COLD FUSION!!!!

      1. Oh, yeah, I remember everyone here just jumping on the cold fusion bandwagon, don’t you?
        One more lefty shit, one more strawman.

    2. Monomath indeed! Monomaniac, it seems. Betcha can’t cite a single named person who has put forward any of those statements in the last 5 years.

      1. I was going to respond to this moron with something pithy, but then I saw that he’s so fucking stupid he’s responding to the bot post like they’re real.

        1. At least s/he’s not lying about being a polymath; my guess is the “mono” regards lefty political ‘thought’.

    3. “…CO₂ is a harmless gas
      Science is a hoax
      We don’t care ’bout no stinkin’ facts.”

      Notice, like nearly every lefty shit who shows up, s/he not about to address any real issues, but has to drag strawmen around to make a point.
      Ever seen anyone here claim that “Science is a hoax” or that “We don’t care ’bout no stinkin’ facts”?
      Me neither, but if lefty shits had to deal with facts instead of their fantasies, they wouldn’t have such false ‘self esteem’.

    4. Holy crap. Literally none of this is true. No one seriously denies the world is warming and that CO2 plays some kind of role. They simply reject the notion that catastrophe is imminent. And anyone who truly believes CO2 is a disaster waiting to happen wouldn’t propose wind and solar as the only solutions.

  41. ” It admits only panic solutions that increase long-term uncertainty.”

    Hm. Reminds me of another event admitting panic solutions.

    /raises finger to pursed lips.

    1. The War of the Worlds broadcast?

  42. Wonderful update ,The hurricanes in 2005, particularly Katrina, seems to have been the watershed that caused a mass psychosis amongst them. https://www.wapexclusive.com

  43. People are so negative. Think of the opportunities here.

    This would be the perfect opportunity to get started on the Libertopia floating city people have been talking about for years.

    The Biden green spending plan opens up investment opportunities which could be used as you plan your new aquatic life.

    Anyone have a phone number for that Thailand guy who was in the news a while back?

    1. “The Biden green spending plan opens up investment opportunities which could be used as you plan your new aquatic life.”

      The whales, dolphins etc once upon a time were land based, somewhat like the elephants of today. They returned to the sea and never looked back. Both elephants and whales beat humans when it comes to brain size, so they also have that going for them.

  44. What kind of absolutely worthless statistics professor grabs only the first and last data points from a set and then assumes drawing a straight line through it is all the projection that should be done??

    Depending on the data in between, which could be all over the place, slowly rising but then beginning to trend upward exponentially, or rising quickly but then flattening off, the straight line projection could be wildly misleading.

    Someone take away this guy’s mortarboard until he does some remedial work.

    To say nothing of all the other bs “who knows, maybe warmer is better, we can’t be sure”… we can never be SURE of the future, but skilled people can use data to create useful predictions, and imbeciles writing ambiguous and un-researched articles saying “duh, who even knows?!” are an embarrassment to libertarianism. Be a free thinker not tied to tradition or dogma, but holy crap, you still have to be a THINKER.

    1. I think that ship has trotted into the sunset.

  45. Ni-based Metal Powder
    https://www.matexcel.com/category/products/metal/ni-based-metal-powder/
    Nickel alloys are heat-resistant alloys Nickel-based alloys contain Fe and Cr, are strong at high temperatures, are resistant to corrosion,

Please to post comments