IPCC

Why We Shouldn't Fear a Climate Apocalypse

Environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr. says many media interpretations of the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report are "irresponsible."

|

HD Download

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its highly anticipated report on global warming in early August, U.N Secretary-General António Guterres declared it "a code red for humanity," insisting that "the alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk."

Guterres' "code red" language was echoed by many reporters and activists, some of whom called humanity "guilty as hell" of "climate crimes." Others prophesied that the climate news was only going to get worse and that we faced a choice of immediately passing the Green New Deal or death.

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, thinks such reactions are not only wrong but "irresponsible." Pielke believes that temperatures are rising in response to human activity, but he also argues that the alarmism dominating the climate discussion is counterproductive. "Nowhere does the IPCC report say that billions of people are at immediate risk," he says, stressing the gap between what's actually in the report and the highly politicized way we discuss climate change.

Reason's Nick Gillespie talked with Pielke about why apocalyptic scenarios about temperature change are at odds with trends in energy use, how the planet is actually getting more hospitable to human life, and how ongoing incremental improvements in energy technologies will almost certainly lead to a brighter, cleaner future for all.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie, edited by John Osterhoudt and Ian Keyser

Photo: Rampelotto/EuropaNewswire/Newscom; Play the Game/Flickr/Creative Commons; Play the Game/Flickr/Creative Commons

NEXT: After 18 Disastrous Years, the U.S. Should Withdraw All Troops From Iraq

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. “Why We Shouldn’t Fear a Climate Apocalypse”

    Because there isn’t going to be one.

      1. In that case, why spend trillions of dollars on a lost cause?

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

          The given website………. VISIT HERE

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

          See……………VISIT HERE

      2. Tipping points were passed decades ago.

        False! The tipping points are 10 years away!

        Just as they have been for the last 40 years…

        1. Exactly…if you’ve been watching you’ve seen this play out before.

      3. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online.WSx this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now……………… VISIT HERE

    1. “Because there isn’t going to be one.”

      Or maybe just not the one they expect.

      TheGrandSolarMinimum.com

      Winter is Coming.

  2. Just like covid there is never an honest discussion in mainstream media. Never.

    This is an area where reason gets it right.

    1. Reason was mean to Trump. That means they’re wrong about literally everything. Jeez. Where you been?

      1. You are so unbelievably broken. His comment wasn’t even about trump, but you are so deranged that is all you can talk about.

      2. At this point if you voted for Biden discussing politics should be pretty embarrassing. Of course a lefty has no ability of rational thinking so it hasn’t even dawned on them they own all of the disasters.

    2. This is an area where Reason occasionally gets it right.

      FIFY. We still get pretty regular updates from Ronald “The End Of Doom” Bailey saying, “it is eminently possible to grow the world’s economy while keeping global temperatures below catastrophic thresholds” between calls for mandatory vaccinations and mandatory infectious disease testing.

      1. Shorter guide to understanding Reason’s positions on divisive issues:

        If it’s good for corporations, it’s not so bad.

    3. The Venn diagram for people who freak out about COVID and those who freak out about climate change is an almost perfect circle.

      1. Add in Critical Race Theory and you’ve got the trifecta.

        And isn’t it a miracle that we can save the climate, eliminate covid and vanquish racism with the one simple trick of handing our freedoms over to a socialist, anticapitalist uber-government?

    4. Very true. Never is correct. Never an honest discussion in the media about anything. Thank you. Reread the constitution and its amendments. Decide for yourself how this applies to your life and start living that way. Simply doing the right thing for the right reasons is very powerful. God bless America

  3. At this point, I look at climate hysteria as more of an academic curiosity. I would love to know how people are so willing and desirous to latch on to apocalyptic scenarios and “the end of the world” beliefs. What is it about the end of the world that draws people? Is there a reason they purposefully inject fear and anxiety into their lives? Is there a reason they would rather be stressed and angry than relaxed and content?

    So many interesting sociological manifestations that come from the climate change religion. If I was a sociologist, I would be all over studying it.

    1. The reason is the theory that there’s positive feedback to temperature increases. CO2 increases lead to higher temperatures which lead to increased CO2 increases which leads to higher temperatures and it all feeds back in on itself. But I’ve seen no evidence for it. In fact, the Gaia Hypothesis predicts the opposite, that there’s a negative feedback. More C02 increases plant growth with reduces C02. And the evidence seems to point ot the latter. But I’m not a climatologist nor do I play one on TV.

      Does not mean climate change ain’t a concern. Melting ice sheets would be a major problem. But it’s not an apocalypse.

      1. If it means going to the beach will be a shorter drive, then bring it on!

        1. But the beaches would be covered with bits from Old Los Angeles that wash up every high tide.

          1. Have you been to a Los Angeles beach? This wouldn’t be new.

      2. Yes, it is an easily mitigatable concern. Thus, the reason I find the apocalypse crowd almost fascinating at this point.

      3. If the feedback is solely positive then the world would never have glacial periods. And no, the feedback isn’t negative either.

        The correct answer is there are multiple feedback mechanisms. The problem with the climate models is that the primary driver of climate is C02 with solely a positive feedback mechanism and no growth of negative feedback to counter it.

      4. the Gaia Hypothesis predicts the opposite, that there’s a negative feedback

        Correct. In line with the principle that things tend toward equilibrium. Climate disaster scenarios as a general rule assume that things will trend away from equilibrium. There are limited circumstances where that might happen, but a betting person would be wise to assume that physics will continue to work in the same way we’ve always observed it to.

        1. To be fair, the Alarmist models DO argue for an equilibrium. It is just that they argue the equilibrium is at ~3C to ~5C higher than today. The main cause of this is the increased heat causing more CO2 to escape from the oceans and other carbon sinks. But to be clear, they are not arguing that it is runaway warming forever, just that the CO2 balance creates a new equilibrium.

          (I’m not saying the Alarmists are right- and it is noteworthy that the “Most Likely” sensitivity has been reduced pretty much every report since 1991, so my bet is that we will settle on some modest warming)

          1. I don’t hear much about sensitivity these days…used to hear people screaming it was in the 5-7 degree range….still looks closer to 1.5 degrees to me

      5. The reason is the theory that there’s positive feedback to temperature increases. CO2 increases lead to higher temperatures which lead to increased CO2 increases which leads to higher temperatures and it all feeds back in on itself.”

        Were that the case the planet should have cooked sometime between the Ordovician age and now..

      6. Systems with net positive feedback are inherently unstable and will rapidly and repeatedly swing from one extreme to the other. Since are climate system doesn’t behave like that it is exceedingly unlikely that net climate feedbacks are positive.

    2. Just another reminder from the left that you can take the religion out of people, but you cant take their desire/need/affinity for religion out of human nature.

      There are so many parallels between leftist behavior and irrational cult behavior, but the climate stuff is pretty close to the top. Its got elements of original sin (we caused it with our evil combustion), an omnipresent, omnipotent evil that seemingly effects every aspect of human existence and is the explanation for everything bad (seriously, I havent found a single thing they wont blame on climate change…you could probably convince them to think a DROP in CO2 was caused by climate change at this point). Calls for overly austere living conditions. Constant end of the world predictions that are always wrong and have to be pushed back that would make Zorp the surveyor blush…

      It is honestly funny at this point when they shit on religion, with absolutely no insight that they have been at woke church for years.

      1. You’re hitting on a huge part of it. Religion wasn’t created because a god or gods forced it on people. It was created because people’s psyche demands it. When you remove orthodox religions as the outlet for such demands, weird humanism religions like politics and climate change move in to take the place.

      2. The need to believe is fundamental (pun intended).

        1. I find the belief that communication regarding shared experience is possible among people is enough for me. But I might be weird.

      3. It is a religion. Here is how you tell: Next time someone tells you have to immediately switch to carbon free energy or will will all die, say “Yes I agree! We need nuclear power now!”

        1. I was informed by a professor of environmental science 20 years ago that nuclear power is racist. True story.

      4. I had to look up the reference.

        Zorp is considered the god of Reasonabilism.

        But now I see why Bailey can’t shake that last bit of catastrophism.

      5. The odd part is all of the scientists who profess to buy in to the alarmism. I guess some have a financial or career interest in studying climate change, and some want to avoid ostracism by their university colleagues or friends on social media, and that tend not to hear from the scientists who disagree, either through self-censorship or media bias.

      6. you could probably convince them to think a DROP in CO2 was caused by climate change at this point

        A drop in CO2 would be climate change. That’s the beauty of the term. The one thing the climate will never do is stay the same, whether or not humans exist.

        What’s going to start eventually undoing the narrative is that climate change has gotten to be so incredibly ubiquitous in the grant-awarding world that, as the saying goes, you may not be able to get a grant to study primate behavior, but you can definitely get a grant to study the impact of Climate Change on primate behavior.

        This has the short-term effect of producing a bunch of studies that support the narrative, but the long term effect is that it’s now common wisdom that humans left Africa because of Climate Change. Sub-Saharan Africa was cut off from the rest of humanity by Climate Change when the Sahara dried up. Humans started engaging in agriculture because Climate Change had warmed the world enough to make it possible.

        So there’s now a whole generation of kids that aren’t too far away from starting to do the math on the fact that the climate changes constantly, and has been on a 25,000-year warming streak that’s ongoing.

        In short, once Climate Change explains everything, it explains nothing.

    3. If one accepts this is a pending apocalypse, then the zealots can feed their egos by telling themselves they are literally saving the world.

        1. Yep; “feed their egos” <- There it is.
          Getting there feeling of importance by *Power* over others instead of *Value*. The same way armed criminals get their feeling of importance.

      1. “those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”

        – CS Lewis

    4. With the gradual erosion of formal religions, people have a void and want their lives to have meaning. If they can be warriors for Mother Earth, or for social justice, or whatever, their lives have meaning.

      Which is ironic, since many Progressives view humanity as a curse upon the planet.

      1. That’s the irony of progressives that makes me laugh the most. My most progressive friends hate humans and consider humanity a bane to the planet. Yet, they are the first ones demanding lockdowns in order to prevent even one person from dying from COVID.

        Bein a progressive means existing on one heck of an emotional rollercoaster every instant of the day.

        1. I cant tell you how many thousands of times Ive heard some idiot say “we need a plague”, or some neoMalthusian worry about overpopulation.

          They now want to force others to doublemask and triplevax. they just like the feeling of being on the side in power.

          1. Sadly, that’s exactly it.

            Just like a great explanation of woke bullies who always turn out to have horrible bigoted and racist comments and statements in their social media history.

            It’s not that they care about the woke garbage they push, it’s that they are simply bullies, and previously being bigoted and racist was a way to bully people, now the opposite is the way to bully people.

          2. I cant tell you how many thousands of times Ive heard some idiot say “we need a plague”, or some neoMalthusian worry about overpopulation.

            They now want to force others to doublemask and triplevax. they just like the feeling of being on the side in power.

            They only want a plague that kills other people somewhere else…

  4. > Others prophesied that the climate news was only going to get worse and that we faced a choice of immediately passing the Green New Deal or death.

    The Green New Deal doesn’t ahve a damned thing to do with climate change. It’s starts and ends with anti-capitalism. Period. Not that I am defending crony-capitalism, but that’s not the cause of climate change.

    1. And the Green New Deal has plenty of crony capitalism to go around, to green energy companies.

      1. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  5. Even if the absolute worst predictions are true, it will not mean the end of humanity.
    When the ice sheets melt in Greenland and Antarctica and sea level rises 10 feet, then over the next hundred years people will have to move away from coastal cities to new coastal cities.
    The Antarctic continent will now be open for human habitation.
    Canada will possibly have coral reefs and there will be no ice at the poles.
    Again, millions of acres will be opened to human habitation and plant growth will be more exuberant.

    I look forward to the many nuclear power stations that will be built under the green new deal to power all the electric cars./sarc

    1. Again, millions of acres will be opened to human habitation and plant growth will be more exuberant.

      And, again, on the timescale we’re talking, habitation of Mars is supposedly a reasonable concept. The idea that people will live on Mars in perpetuity with eyes to inhabiting other planets while not even living on and taking advantage of the majority of the Earth’s crust and troposphere is laughable. We’ll colonize Europa but won’t live on Arctic ice or in/on seawater that costs less than 1/1000th the price to build on? What planet are you living on currently?

      1. Mars is supposedly a reasonable concept.

        Mass colonization of Mars will NEVER happen. The core is dead, so there is no magnetosphere and thus no way to maintain an atmosphere.

        1. It’s not even clear that you could maintain an atmosphere even with a magnetosphere. Doesn’t mean we won’t figure out how to live in tunnels or under domes (Note: Personally, I’m of the mind that Venus is a much more likely target for colonization). Exactly how many people would have to live on Mars to constitute *mass* colonization?

  6. Now do the study about how we should fear the Green New Deal, parts of which are in the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. Oh, and you might add the analysis about how we could have avoided Biden’s Green New Deal entirely by reelecting Donald Trump.

    “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected”.

    —-Biden campaign website

    https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/

    This outcome was not only foreseeable but also foreseen, and nothing is unavoidable if we can choose to avoid it.

    1. Look, if the choice comes down to The Green New Deal or Mean Tweets, you know what I’m choosing.

      1. Green Mean Tweets?

        1. Voiceover(singing): “Ho ho ho!”
          Giant: “You talkin’ about your momma?”
          #hashtagsometungincomprehensible

        2. Mean Joe Green Tweets

      2. We know what Brandyshit’s choosing!

        1. He’s actually making a bit of sense in this thread. I’m worried…

      3. The Fall of Kabul for the whammy?

    2. Didn’t you listen to sbp and Mike?
      Biden does not support the gnd. Who do you believe the idiots here or your lying eyes?

  7. Not panic? Unpossible, given that we now have:
    1. A population with large contingents of drama queens conditioned to see themselves as helpless victims, usually at the mercy of oppressive establishment if not just life itself.
    2. A population equally addicted to panic porn, with natural negative psychological tendencies amped up by a panic industry.
    3. That panic industry, i.e. media and other grandstanders, not only serving itself but also supporting political factions and leaders.
    4. Political factions that have partisan, utopian fantasies and urges to remake society, who special in using fear to manipulate the masses, and can’t resist using panic for whatever ends they desire.

    1. 5. Special interests like battery makers, electronics, metal mining, and nuclear power who stand to cash in on electrification.

  8. In at most 40k years, we’ll be experiencing another ice age. One that will bury most of the northern hemisphere under 1000s of feet of ice. It doesn’t matter if temps go up 1.5 or 2 or 5 C in the next 30 years. The ice age cometh.

    1. But calling it “climate change” instead of “global warming” covers both bets. They already made the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” about a sudden-onset Ice Age caused by the melting ice caps stopping the Gulf Stream and cooling the northern hemisphere.

      1. And now, we’re told, the Gulf Stream is at its weakest point in 1,000 years, so catastrophe is imminent.

        Although apparently there was no catastrophe 1,000 years ago, just a Medieval Warming period which was great for human life and crop yields and such. Even Greenland was colonized.

  9. The US and EU/UK can do little to affect climate change. The emissions in those areas are about the same or slightly lower than 1992, so much lower per capita. Meanwhile, China exceeds the US and EU/UK combined with India rising quickly. If the US and EU/UK had dropped emissions to ZERO, the worldwide emissions would still be higher.

    If the Green New Deal had anything to do with emissions instead of government control, nuclear energy would be the centerpiece of the legislation. Thinking mining of rare earth minerals is not offsetting the lower emissions in the cars with electric batteries is naive. There are chip shortages when capacity is only 500,000 electric vehicles year per year. Wait until they try to build 14,000,000 electric vehicles per year (annual US sales of new cars). And it would still take over 15 years to replace the 213,000,000 personal vehicles in the US. It doesn’t seem the woke crowd are willing to look at the entire picture.

    As long as no agreement includes the BRICS, no real slowdown of climate change can occur.

    1. Think you’ll be able to keep your old ICE vehicle for 15 years? Think again! The progs will set a deadline much sooner than that (maybe 5 years from now) where you must turn it in, because this is a climate EMERGENCY!

      1. They can try, but will be voted out quickly. Last year, all 400,000 EV’s built were sold. With 213,000,000 personal vehicles to replace, unless they hit the holy grail of hydrogen energy, the cost of the rare earth minerals for 213,000,000 batteries will make the EV cost prohibitive.

        1. Cost prohibitive isn’t even the issue. Physical quantities of the required metals (several) prevents 200M vehicles from being manufactured, let alone 200M vehicles combined with infrastructure (power walls), tools, appliances, and electronics. And it’s not just a ‘known and potential reserves’ issue, it’s a ‘relative abundance within reachable distance of surface of the crust’ issue.

    2. “Wait until they try to build 14,000,000 electric vehicles per year (annual US sales of new cars).”

      Buses and trains, as any socialist will tell you, are a more energy efficient way of moving people from their homes to their re-education centers. Not cars, comrade.

  10. “…we faced a choice of immediately passing the Green New Deal or death.”

    I think of it more like a package deal. If the Green Raw Deal is implemented, the planet won’t support as many people.

  11. Several reasons that rising temperatures are not an apocalypse:

    1. Higher temperatures are better for human and other life. The worst years in human history have been years like 536 or 1815 following a major volcanic eruption that drops global temperatures.

    2. People prefer warmer weather and have been moving to warmer climates for decades, since the invention of air conditioning.

    3. The threat of rising sea levels is greatly overblown. Coastal real estate is still by far the most expensive. And sea levels can’t rise nearly as much as they did following previous Ice Ages, since the polar ice caps don’t contain nearly as much ice as the continental ice sheets did. Sea levels will rise very slowly (think 1 foot per century, not meters per decade), giving humanity plenty of time to adapt.

    1. “Higher temperatures are better for human and other life.”

      Does that include jellyfish? Recent visits to coastal waters have been a revelation for me. I’ve never seen so many jellyfish in the water and stranded on the shore. You might not like the sound the proliferation of these creatures of the sea but it reminds me of the story of British novelist Evelyn Waugh, who, depressed and wanting to end it all, swam out to sea to drown himself. But a jellyfish had other plans. He was stung and the pain and discomfort were so acute that he swam back ashore to have it treated. He returned to novel writing and died eventually of old age.

      ” People prefer warmer weather ”

      Too warm and you die. We deal with heat by sweating. Too hot and sweating is no longer a solution.

      “since the polar ice caps don’t contain nearly as much ice”

      Two words: thermal, expansion

      1. Does that include jellyfish?

        Possibly, though the proliferation of jellyfish also has as a lot to do with some threatened sea turtle populations and overfishing of tuna.

        1. I assumed it was because inshore waters have become increasing toxic to all but the hardiest.

    2. What evidence would convince you that you’re wrong? If there is nothing that _could_ change your mind, you’re a zealot. Can you explain away ocean acidification, unprecedented heat waves, glaciers and ice caps melting, increased hurricanes, apocalyptic fires, the fact that oil companies were predicting many of these effects in the mid80s, etc.?

  12. WOLF!!!
    WOLF!!!
    WOLF!!!
    WOLF!!!
    (PUT ON A MASK!!!)
    WOLF!!!
    WOLF!!!
    Behold my hobbyhorse:
    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.”
    Sadly, both are still with us.
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2021).
    Fifty years of “Widespread” agreement on bullshit does not constitute truth; see flat earth.

    1. The good news is that the younger climate cultists are not reproducing because they think it’s irresponsible, so they’ll drive themselves to extinction like the Shakers.

    2. Fifty years of “Widespread” agreement on bullshit does not constitute truth; see flat earth.

      One of the better quotes I’ve heard from Frank Miller:
      “You’re confusing what’s right with what’s fashionable. Remember, for 300 yrs. the Spanish thought they were doing the right thing with The Inquisition.”

    3. “There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000”

      Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by about 30% between the time Moynihan was writing and today. The widespread agreement turned out to be fairly accurate. What were Moynihan’s detractors predicting?

      1. CO2 levels in 1969 (Mauna Loa) – 324.62
        CO2 levels in 2000 (Mauna Loa) – 369.55
        % change: 13.84

        It’s like you guys can’t help doing shitty research, making shitty projections, and proving to everyone how wrong you are.

        1. Today the CO2 levels are something like 420 ppm. If you know any predictions more accurate than the ones cited by Moynihan, let me know. Otherwise, his prediction stands up well.

          1. Otherwise, his prediction stands up well.

            But his accurate predictions of CO2 concentrations are ultimately meaningless. It was his predictions of global temperature increases that ended up being hilariously wrong. Which *SHOULD* make alarmists rethink their AGW models in a much more fundamental way than they have done.

            1. “Which *SHOULD* make alarmists rethink their AGW models in a much more fundamental way than they have done.”

              Aren’t the models constantly under revision? The global temperatures haven’t taken into account the warming of the oceans which seems to be where a good deal of the overall warming has occurred, rather than the atmosphere which was where Moynihan’s models assumed the effect would take place. Fully appreciating the role of the oceans that cover well over half of the planet’s surface seems to be a fundamental change in the way scientists understand the climate.

              1. Aren’t the models constantly under revision?

                Sort of?

                If you haven’t yet, go and read Pielke’s piece in full. He directly addresses that there are fundamental assumptions which should be questioned and which are not being. They just fiddle about on the edges and haven’t been willing/able to dive in and ask, “what if we are wrong about something really big?”

                Clearly there is some kind of warming impact from human activity, and only a fool thinks the climate doesn’t change. But to analogize: too many people want to plan a moon landing when we haven’t even learned how gravity works.

                1. On your advice, I gave Pielke a quick run through. It was low hanging fruit: modelling. It’s an infant practice and fraught with difficulty and complexity. As I understand, none of the IPCC trend lines are good. Hardly something to take comfort in. Scientists are at their best when they do science, observing, measuring and theorizing, and by doing science (observing, measuring and thinking about the physical world) they have become concerned over CO2 and green house gases.

                  “what if we are wrong about something really big”

                  That’s sometimes how science makes its greatest leaps. Overturning old truths, and realizing we were wrong about something we all took for granted. Think Darwin vs. the Church.

          2. So, unless I can find someone who’s less than 80% wrong, 80% wrong constitutes ‘correct’?

            1. The trend was correct. Your expectations are too high if you expect exact numbers from a first pass at climate modelling using a 1960s mainframe. Shorten the time span to 1 day instead of 30 years. Put our 21st computers to the task and you still won’t get 100% accuracy for tomorrow’s forecast.

              1. Your expectations are too high if you expect exact numbers from a first pass at climate modelling using a 1960s mainframe.

                They aren’t my expectations. I’m not the one proposing we do something about the climate one way or the other. They’re yours and Moynihan’s and the only reason we’re having this discussion is because, by your own tenets/expectations, you failed, continue to fail, and continue to deny that reality both internally and to the world at large.

                1. “They aren’t my expectations. ”

                  You were critical of the modelers and implied they were committing fraud. That’s ungenerous and unwarranted.

                  I’m not sure what reality you are accusing me of denying. Remember models are only models. Don’t confuse them with the reality they are modeling.

      2. The widespread agreement turned out to be fairly accurate.

        Only 81% incorrect!

    4. +100000000; Well Said.

      Deserves a repeat.
      Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2021).
      Fifty years of “Widespread” agreement on *bullshit* does not constitute truth; see flat earth.

      1. “Deserves a repeat.”

        Why? Because Moynihan understated the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels? And you call yourself a climate change denier!

        1. OMG! CO2!!! The thing plant-life craves!!!!
          Have fun inventing your nightmares; just leave the Gov-Gun-Forces out of it.

          1. “The thing plant-life craves!!!!”

            The problem lies in the heat trapping nature of green house gases like CO2. You can be sure that government will not be left out of it.

            1. “I’m MELTING! I’m MELTING!”, screamed the witch…
              What’s this news about record setting temperatures not seen since 1960s??? “heat trapping”???? WTF…

        2. Because Moynihan understated the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels?

          Overstated the rise in CO2, the rise in temperatures, and the rise in sea level.

          Ultimately, or summarily, the continued existence of NYC and DC despite CO2 levels in excess of those Moynihan predicted, well after he predicted them proves that even if he had predicted the CO2 levels correctly, everything else he said was bullshit.

          Keep polishing that turd.

          1. We know a lot more about the science of the atmosphere today than in 1969. You can’t fault Moynihan on account of that, as he was working on the best information available at the time. It’s disingenuous to say it’s bullshit.

            1. So phrenology is on solid ground as far as you’re concerned then, right?

              1. You’re being disingenuous again. The models that Moynihan was going by date back to the first climate models worthy of the name. Before that pencil and paper and slide rules were the modeller’s tools instead of those room-filling mainframes. The very first attempts did indeed show a trend to increase CO2 emissions. The fact that the predictions were not 100% accurate does not mean it was a cynical exercise in bullshit. An extremely ungenerous and naive way of looking at how scientists break new ground.

                I understand your fear that socialism and less reliance on burning fossil fuel with result in your sacrificing the comfort of a standard of living you’ve grown accustomed to. That’s no reason to smear and insult honest people who are dedicated to discovering how our world works, however imperfectly.

                1. You’re being disingenuous again.

                  The person saying a guess that was 80% wrong, because it was the least incorrect answer of the one being presented/discussed, is accurate/right says *I’m* being disingenuous! Whatever shall I do?

                  Before that pencil and paper and slide rules were the modeller’s tools instead of those room-filling mainframes. The very first attempts did indeed show a trend to increase CO2 emissions.

                  Abject horseshit. The conjecture between Fourier and Angstrom as they discovered the Greenhouse Effect had plenty of conjecture that GHG levels would rise. Angstrom hypothesized that they wouldn’t rise enough and that we should burn fossil fuels simply for the emissions. He failed to account for the Industrial Revolution. Moynihan was just continuing a long line of failed predictions.

                  An extremely ungenerous and naive way of looking at how scientists break new ground.

                  The “Welp, we were wrong, but close enough!” is far more corrosive to the understanding and applicability are the core motivations for practicing science in the first place. You lack of skepticism breeds the stupidity science is intended to dispel.

                  1. The person saying a guess that was 80% wrong,

                    My fault for perpetuating the half-untruth, the guess was 80% wrong and even if he’d been 100% right, the other conjectures he was spouting that were predicated on the guess are demonstrably incorrect. Very much the same way that even if a phrenologist were correct about trivial deformities in the human skull, the extrapolation to cognition and race was incorrect.

                    But go ahead, cling to your objectively 80% incorrect truth.

                    1. Models don’t provide us with truths. They are only models. Truth lies, if anywhere, in the measurements that scientists take. This is where your attention should be focused.

                  2. “The “Welp, we were wrong, but close enough!””

                    This is more disingenuousness. Put aside your cheap jack cynicism and give it a rest. Scientists have continued to refine their models since day one. And more importantly, they’ve continued to observe and measure the atmosphere.

  13. Translation- our Koch masters and their love for oil make us write this bullshit.

  14. But what about the killer bees?

    1. But what about the killer bees?

      The Murder Hornets will save us!

  15. I’m reminded of old images showing men wearing sandwich boards proclaiming: “Repent. The end of the world is nigh.”

  16. The part they leave out in all those articles is this, is China’s responsibility. Remember the “Temperature Pause” that happened in the 1990’s? Why did that happen?

    We implemented the Montreal Protocol and the production of CFC’s dropped sharply, and mostly stopped. Thinning the Ozone layer lets in MORE solar radiation, which does heat the atmosphere. It’s like those old red warming lights on buffets or food service lines that keep what’s under them warm. it does that by creating heat in what it shines on.

    Some people talked about it extensively in 2017 – 2019 and China supposedly https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02109-2 cracked down on the production and emissions. I doubt it, I bet they paid lip service to it, and set their paid propagandists to work.

    I saw articles where (Single source for the original theory.) that CFC’s dissolved into the ocean, and as it dropped in percentage it’s seeping back out. Yeah, just when people detected huge emissions out of Eastern China on satellites and reported it.

    Of course the caveat is nobody in the West makes them anymore, so they can’t say that the detection are 100% sure, no one had those sensors back when we made CFC’s in mass production.

    So what makes more sense? That a natural gas (Carbon Dioxide) that has varied widely over millions of years, and not followed temperatures before is causing today’s heating. Or the unnatural chemical gas that we know lets in more solar radiation is causing it?

    Oh wait, that theory is fixable and doesn’t require the entire world to lower it’s standards of living or Third World countries to not rise up, so that can’t be it.

    Most of the energy savings technology came from it’s cheaper to use less power, not from “Global Warming Panic”. People don’t want to choke on their air, like China and India so they cut back their air pollution, not some unproven theory.

    You will notice that government research into Nuclear Fusion power is dropping, but Elon Musk and Bill Gates and other billionaires are in that game now, so they would get exclusive rights to it. if a government does it, it’s probably public domain technology.

    No let’s spend billions on dipstick windmills and solar panels that don’t work at night (Yeah, who would want power in the dark?) so billions can be spent on uneconomically feasible tech unless government make power production prohibitively expensive or just plain illegal (Like California) by any other method.

    For a theory no one can show “A” leads to “B”, then leads to “C” and can prove it with math and science. Just panic, and throw out your old technology and be forced to make tech billionaires richer as they sell you the “New Improved” technology the government has made the only ones legal and available.

  17. Never let a crisis go to waste. And if there is not a crisis manufacture one.

  18. The Earth has warmed and cooled in repeated cycles for millions of years. No one ever seems to address the fact that the climate models all this panic is based off are inaccurate as hell. I live in Arizona and we told this year that, because of climate change (of course), our annual monsoon season will be unusually dry. We are already 30% higher than our average annual rainfall and we haven’t hit our winter rains yet. This is just like the predicted increase in hurricanes turn out to be a ten year decline in the number of hurricanes. These climatologists cannot accurately predict weather trends six months or six years out but can speak with authority about the weather in 100 years. The only thing they can accurately predict are the excuses they will employ to explain away their failures.

    1. “This is just like the predicted increase in hurricanes turn out to be a ten year decline in the number of hurricanes.”

      I’ve recently read that the number of hurricanes or their intensity is something of a red herring. A cat 5 hurricane is designated so due to its wind speed, and wind speed alone, while most of the damage done by hurricanes and other tropical events is due to storm swell, (rising levels of water coming ashore) and rainfall. The damage done by high wind speeds is relatively minor.

  19. Regardless of if the earth is warming or not, and if it is who or what is to blame is immaterial. The reality is the governments have a vested interested in being hyperbolic in an attempt in manipulating their citizens. In other words public officials lie to us because they believe that the ends justify the means. By the ends, this would be that they remain in power. So to rephrase they will do anything to remain in power and they feel justified because they remain in power.

    The one item that is always missing are any solutions that are viable, affordable and actually address a real aspect of the issue. Mostly there is virtue signaling advocating for positions that at best are a political money pot and even worse a counter productive political money pot.

    Thing that work are easy and affordable, can be done at the local level and are measurable. If something make a difference it continues, but if it does not then it is dropped.

  20. “The one item that is always missing are any solutions that are viable, affordable and actually address a real aspect of the issue. ”

    The missing items are solutions which are free market and capitalist. The solutions on offer, by UNICEF, for example, are socialist and stress equality as well as avoiding fossil fuels.

    1. The missing items are solutions which are free market and capitalist.

      Again, bullshit. The free market has and does offer solutions. Emissions have been cut further by solutions provided by the market that weren’t in any of the officially-offered solutions. Moreover, the places where the officially-offered solutions were most rigorously adopted, the change in emissions, if any, were much less significant.

      1. “The free market has and does offer solutions.”

        You mean like the wind farms that provide Britain with its cheapest electricity? News for you, these are recipients of generous government subsidies. Hardly the free market in action.

  21. Far too many people still recklessly behave as though throwing non-biodegradable garbage down a dark chute, or pollutants emitted out of exhaust and drainage pipes, or spewed from sky-high jet engines and very tall smoke stacks — or even the largest contamination events — can somehow be safely absorbed into the air, sea, and land (i.e. out of sight, out of mind); like we’re inconsequentially dispensing of that waste into a black-hole singularity, in which it’s compressed into literal nothing.

    For dangerously too long, collective human existence has been analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line. Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much they should have to pay for it — all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the wealthiest passengers) the fossil fuel industry, is on fire and toxifying at locations not normally investigated.

    The fossil fuel industry and governments can tell when a very large portion of the electorate is too tired and worried about feeding/housing themselves or their family, and the devastation being left in COVID-19’s wake — all while on insufficient income — to criticize them for whatever environmental damage their policies cause/allow, particularly when not immediately observable. Without doubt, mass addiction to fossil fuel products helps keep the average consumer quiet about the planet’s greatest polluter, lest they feel like and/or be publicly deemed hypocritical. It must be convenient for the industry.

    1. Good grief, do you actually belief all that nonsense?

    2. Are you willing to go zero carbon emissions giving up transportation, work and food? No heat in the winter or AC in the summer? Are you doing your part?

  22. If the climate change priests did not have a long history of being wrong and intentionally (and admittedly!) exaggerating their claims, then maybe it would be reasonable to take them seriously, That isn’t the case, however. If the truth was on their side, they wouldn’t need to constantly lie.

  23. Climate change is a political ploy to put fear in the hearts of the sheep and to brainwash them a powerful totalitarian government is the only answer. Look at how the left has advanced their agenda during the pandemic. They will never let a crisis or rumors of a crisis go to waste. They don’t see a crisis but an opportunity. “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

Please to post comments