Finally Some Good News!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

As reported in the Guardian (so it must be true), we are treated to some great news:

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change


Figure 1. Ominous looking clouds coming from smokestacks symbolize our uncertain future … or some nonsense like that. Photo from the Guardian article.

So … why is this good news?

Well, think about it. If the world “loses for ever” the chance to avoid dangerous climate change, then at least we’ll be rid of the thousands of people clutching their pearls and whining because of the understandable lack of action in response to the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Plus, we’ll be rid of the eponymous Boy himself, I’ll be glad to see his back.

And we’ll be rid of people wanting to pick our pockets to further their anti-development agenda under the guise of worrying about climate. If we get to where it’s “irreversible”, we won’t be bothered by them trying to take our bucks to reverse it.

Think about how peaceful that will be without that alarmism … bliss.

Then we can get back to the job we should have been doing all this time, which is trying to protect people now from climate disasters now. That way, whether or not CO2 turns out to be “teh eevil”, we will be protecting people as much as we can, and as soon as we can.

Only five more years until peace breaks out! I can hardly wait!

w.

PS—The headline itself was a howler too. Any climate change is indeed irreversible … to mangle the Rubaiyat,

The moving finger writes, and having writ,
Moves on, nor all your piety nor wit,
Can call it back to cancel half a clime
Nor all your tears wipe out a word of it ...

Not only is any climate change irreversible, climate change is also inevitable … but please, don’t tell the IEA. They’re on a good path, we just have to stay schtumm for five years and we’re there.

PPS – I don’t think Willis will mind my pointing out that the deadline when Copenhagen COP16 was going on in 2009 was 10 years according to the Met Office:

Click image for story.

It seems that between 2009 and now, 3 years went missing. It must be worse than we thought.

I also made a screencap of the Guardian story for posterity, should it disappear.

- Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to Finally Some Good News!

  1. Willis Eschenbach says:

    I probably should have put in the [sarc] tags, so people would know that this is not serious …

    w.

  2. bushbunny says:

    Who are the IEA Willis?

  3. MangoChutney says:

    Some for the Glories of This World; and some
    Sigh for the Prophet’s Paradise to come;
    Ah, take the Cash, and let the Promise go,
    Nor heed the music of a distant Drum!

  4. geo says:

    Ah, Willis, you dewy-eyed waif. Surely you know in the popular press that disaster is always five years away.

    It is only in the more cautious academic press that disaster is 20 years away. Of course, most of those authors plan to be tenured by then if they’re not now, or even more safely retired if they’re already tenured.

  5. bushbunny says:

    Oh Willis I Googled IEA, and an official in another article reckoned that all those who project clean energy are smoking dope? Seems the IEA must be another group? International Energy
    Authority, they are for gas and oil.

  6. Me says:

    Willis, I think we skeptics can tell the difference, plus in 5 years we will be laughing at them, yet again, but I guess they will have moved the goal post by then, and claiming they were misquoted like we have seen before!

  7. Mike says:

    I suffered irreversible climate change tonight as we flew from Kona to San Jose. Brrrrrrrrrr! It got cold, I was really surprised! Monday after witnessing the 49ers/Giants battle this weekend, we will drive home to Nevada where I won’t be surprised that it will be even colder yet. Next week, I should start skiing, that is if global warming will hold off from another season or so. Need to build a model so I can understand the future. 5 years to irreversibility…hope the XOM in my IRA can holdout.

  8. Marcus Kesseler says:

    My, the Green Energy lobbyists and propagandists are really putting in some serious overtime to maximise ‘climate awareness’ for Durban. Reminds me of the weeks before Copenhagen. Only this time my level of regulation anxiety is near zero, and I live in the EU!

    Marcus

  9. TWE says:

    They said the same thing 5 years ago! Warmists moving the goalposts again.

  10. UK Sceptic says:

    But until then, we have five more years of undiluted excuses and alarmism that grow lamer and more desperate by the day…

  11. oldseadog says:

    Oh, I think you are safe enough, Willis.
    Apart from Guardian readers, of course……. .

  12. Let folks make their own minds up, Willis. The thread will be far more fun that way.

  13. Doug in Seattle says:

    I would rather it be 5 days until I see that brat’s back.

  14. It’s the Guardian, it’s not serious…of course it isn’t…

  15. jonjermey says:

    What happened to that ’100 months to stop irreversible damage’ meme that was around a while ago? How’s that working out?

    Oh, wait, here it is… http://onehundredmonths.org/

    They seem to be in bed with at least one Guardian columnist, so that’s possibly where the ‘story’ comes from.

  16. Isn’t is wonderful that they don’t even have to say in which direction it is changing? All change, in whatever direction is bad and irreversible. Bit of a “no lose” position, really.

  17. Dave N says:

    Trouble is we’ve passed the “point of no return” several times according to various experts. People should have stopped whining ages ago.

  18. Andrew Harding says:

    When nobody listens to the doom merchants they have to resort to more and more alarmism to get people to listen. Finally, when still nobody listens (because common sense says it isn’t so) they give an ultimatum. At that point there are no toys left in the pram, so where do they go from there? They will move the goalposts ever forward, tell us their models needed some more research (and money). Willis I appreciate what you are saying, but these people never ever, shut up.

  19. Hoser says:

    In five years they’ll say they were wrong, but just five more years and it will be too late. By then they can crank up the new ice age hysteria.

  20. The good news is that we live at a time of unparalleled bliss. The world is relatively peaceful, the climate has not been better since the medieval warm period and we have masses of cheap abundant fossil fuel.

    We live at a time when anti-biotics still work and most of us here have not had the trauma of seeing siblings or our children dying from the simple diseases that killed so many in the 19th century.
    We live at a time of scientific knowledge: medicine, weather. We live at a time when technology is so abundant and cheap that even the humblest in our societies have access to a lifestyle of entertainment that would be the envy of any medieval monarch.

    Things could still get better — but if the worst we have to worry about is that there may be a fractional increase in temperature — that things may get even better, is it any wonder that some people just can’t believe that we have it so good and look desperately for ways it is going to get worse?

    The problem with knowing too much is that we know how good it is now and then see how much worse it could get!

  21. Doug in Seattle says:

    Didn’t they say the same thing 5 years ago?

  22. Sera says:

    Omar Khayam would be proud- thanks W.

  23. mat says:

    Geo good point ‘disaster is always five years away.’
    Just like the greenish dream is always only another billion away !

  24. I just had a nightmare that in 2016 just before the UN climate conference in Tahiti a new report came out that said we have to act and abandon fossil fuel within just 5 years or the climate Armageddon would be upon us.

    Thank God it was just a nightmare and I’m not eagerly awaiting for the tippping point to occur in the real world within just 5 years.

  25. pesadia says:

    Willis,
    You have the right to remain silent, but any prediction you make, may be used against you in the court of public opinion.
    Thats only my opinion though and is not a prediction.
    More please

  26. I really don’t understand why people are accusing gases for ‘climate change’. Scientifically considering the fluid properties, convection method of heat transmission, physical properties of our climatic atmosphere, making of ‘green house’ and ‘green house effect’ as has been explained etc ‘Global Warming’ due to gases is impossible. And, no gases can be green house gases and they have no role in the ‘Rain cycle’. We have CC because we have disturbed the ‘rain cycle’, the most effective cooling system of Nature.
    Please visit the blog for details.

    And about power crisis, I would like to point out that applying the properties of standing water column in the running water condition has been a blunder in the hydropower engineering. Correction of the mistake can give us unlimited hydropower by installing turbines in series. Please visit the blog for details and video clip of the experimental demo. Discussion is going on in http://us.mg40.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch
    Irreversible climate change is also IMPOSSIBLE.

    [I've removed your blog link and email address - people can access your blog by clicking on your name and email you via the blog ~ jove, moderator]

  27. Steeptown says:

    Is there a climate conference coming up soon in some nice warm sunny place then?

    I guess there must be, or there wouldn’t need to be this sudden scare story.

    I guess I’d better stop travelling, using electricity and stop using my oil-fired boiler.

  28. Peridot says:

    “The boy who cried Wolf” is becoming their biggest problem. The warmists were on to a loser as soon as the change was made from ‘disaster in 100 years ‘ to ‘disaster … any time now!’

  29. John Marshall says:

    The man who made this statement is the IEA’s senior economist. And we know what they are like, a bunch of know it all power freaks. Take Stern (Lord) for one, his report only highlighted his lack of knowledge and understanding of science the rest of it was alarmist rubbish.

    The world would be better off without these monsters.

  30. Dave (UK) says:

    Haven’t the IEA ever heard of ice records re. CO2 levels, or more generally that crucial item that the alarmists are so intent on ignoring, namely, evidence?

    It beggars belief that the alarmists still cling so desperately to their belief that the current level of CO2 is bad, increases even worse, and, by inference, that the previous CO2 value before the Industrial Age was somehow the right and proper concentration. It is truly a new religion.

    Where are the scientists among them? Perhaps now is the time for the climate change equivalent of the Dover trial of 2005: science, reason and rational thought versus AGW and related nonsense.

  31. ozspeaksup says:

    5 years should see most of their unis etc feeling rather nippy, and hopefuly theyre snowed under and can’t dig out to rave more drivel.
    ok I can dream can’t I?

  32. Finntastic says:

    Does anyone actually know what they are talking about here? This is the IEA, propped up by fossil fuel money, which has previously been found to have downplayed the risk of peak oil.

    This closely follows the study of 1.6 billion temperature records over two years by Richard Muller, a climate sceptic, funded by the Koch brothers for crying out loud, that found that global warming is real. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

    So, even the fossil fuel lobby realise what is happening. These aren’t ‘warmists.’ Rejecting all evidence simply because you don’t agree with it is moronic.

    Sticking your fingers in your eyes and going ‘la la la la’ won’t change the fact that it has got to the point that even vested interests can’t drum up credible scientific backing to the countless climate denial straw men theories. Doesn’t that tell you anything?

    As for the idea that the only thing the world will ‘lose’ is ‘climate alarmism’ with a 4-5 degree rise, I’m glad you are happy that, as countless studies have shown, we will be on course to lose a great deal of the world’s wonders. Beyond that, if any trip to Bangladesh will show you, there will be many millions of people who will lose their homes, livelihoods, food, the lot.

    But, hey, you’re in your nice comfy room with your flood barrier and your head in the sand blog. Humanity will doff its cap to you in the future.

  33. Philip Bradley says:

    The irony here is that those smoke stacks are either spewing out harmless steam or particulate carbon and hydrocarbons, generally referred to as aerosols in climate science.

    Reductions in particulate aerosols are responsible for somewhere between 60% and 80% of the observed warming over the last 30 years.

    http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf

    The scientific evidence says more smokestacks will reduce global warming (in the sense of reducing the global land temperature derived from minimum and maximum temperatures).

  34. KnR says:

    So how long do people think it will be before the IEA decided that ’5 years’ actual means some other higher figure that pushes the ‘day of doom’ further ahead or are they going to resort to saying they never made the claim in the first place ?

  35. old44 says:

    Again?

  36. Robert says:

    Irreversible tipping point, forcing factors, lock-in effect,…. What next? 2012 the year of Armageddon? Maybe not, that’s been done. There’s even a film about it. Still, the devout followers of the AGW religion will think of some new pseudo science buzzword or phrase before too long. Anything to keep their voices shrill and the money flowing from the long-suffering taxpayers.

  37. Boudu says:

    This reminds me of the joke about the man who was given six months to live by his doctor. “But I’ll not be able to pay the bill for your treatment in that time” says the patient. “In that case”, says the doctor “I’ll give you another six months”

    I thought we’d just about exhausted our last ’60 months to save the Planet’. Now we’ve got to start over?

  38. Blade says:

    World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

    If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change

    [PHOTO CAPTION: Any fossil fuel infrastructure built in the next five years will cause irreversible climate change, according to the IEA. Photograph: Rex Features]

    The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be “lost for ever”, according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

    - Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011 05.01 EST

    Fiona you dolt, you are officially jumping the shark and the whole world gets to see it. Fonzie is ROTFLHAO. Wow! Meme much? Obviously yes, since the same AGW catastrophic phrasing appears in every paragraph. To compare this propaganda piece to some phoned-in high school level homework essay would be an insult to the kids. You are a pod person, an anonymous clone with a meaningless life. Erich Von Daniken is laughing at you. AOL says ‘you’ve got nothing’. Your friends and family avoid your emails. Your dog prefers to walk himself … [NB: other old-timers might remember the days of USENET epic fail rants :-)]

    In all seriousness though, that is the biggest steaming pile of poo seen in one place in a while. It could be an Onion article or even an April Fools joke. It’s so bad that there are no comments there at the Guardian that I can find.

    If this embarrassing article is any indication, it shouldn’t be long now. First there is the futile charge of the decimated regiment at their superior, unyielding and merciless opposition. Then we get to see what their death throes look like.

  39. Sera says:

    Oh yes- the ruby yacht of Omar Khayyam…

  40. Roger Knights says:

    … clutching their pearls …

    LOL!

  41. DC51 says:

    The problem with this is, it’s a bit like the sign in the pub saying FREE BEER TOMORROW
    tomorrow’s always just around the corner, but never quite gets here!

  42. Stacey says:

    The Guardian is an absolute joke when it comes to global warming alarmism. What happened to Charles Windsor’s 100 months before we reach a tipping point. Panorama put out a very good programme on the green subsidies that were adding to the cost of uk energy. In steps censor in chief Damian Carrington to rubbish the programme however they did allow the programme maker to respond. I post a comment praising the programme and what happens. The censor in chief removes it. Comment is Free if you Agree.

  43. Ralph says:

    Could someone tell the IEA to stop winter? I’m cold. Thank you.

  44. Bob says:

    Climate change is irreversible. Once it changes, you can’t go back and change it unless you have a dog named Mr. Peabody.

  45. Solomon Green says:

    The USSR always had five year plans, As did Harold Wilson’s Labour Government in the UK. The EU has come up with a few as well. Isn’t it time that we grew bureaucrats with more than five fingers?

  46. Claude Harvey says:

    If the game didn’t make sense to begin with, it won’t have to make sense to continue playing after “game over”. Many of the players are professionals with no other sources of fame and fortune. “Play on”, they’ll cry! “Win just one for the Gipper!”

  47. rukidding says:

    Is that finally final or just a maybe finally final. :-)

  48. Rick Morcom says:

    The Guardian, (or Grauniad as it is affectionately known to those who occasionally disagree with it) does put out some wacky stuff, especially as Monbiot is one of the blue-eyed boys up there. But it is still a fine newspaper, one of the best in the world, so please don’t condemn it totally. Just use liberal pinches of salt, skeptoscopic glasses and common sense.

  49. H.R. says:

    Too late already. The earth has been experiencing irreversable climate change ever since its matter started condensing into a planet. The climate state of the earth can’t go back to where it was one second ago, and that’s true for every second of all of earth’s existence.

    I’m waiting for the alarmists amongst us to get real and start predicting when we’ll all turn into zombies; something a little more specific and less obvious than “climate will change.”

  50. Eimear says:

    Lets be nice to them and give them at least 10 years. :) Will it matter in any case, as 4.7 billion of us are due to die in the next 7 weeks with the effects of GW.
    Idiots.

  51. thingadonta says:

    Its amazing how gullible people can be, its always NOW that is the last chance. Isnt this rather convenient?

    It would be funny, if these kind of statements and documents werent handed to the Australian PM by the Chief scientist eg “The critical decade”. These scientists will have a lot to answer for.

  52. Spector says:

    This sounds like a conclusion of ‘Fear-Forced Science’ (Post-Normal Science) where its proponents say the consequences of inaction are so terrible, in the off-chance their theory proves to be correct, that all skepticism must be laid aside.

  53. Matthew W says:

    Sheesh !!
    Yet another “tipping point’ !!!
    In 5 years, get ready to post this in the “Fail” section !!

  54. Yeah, one hundred months, ending miraculously in December 2016. Yawn.

  55. UK dissenter says:

    IEA was set up in 1974 after the post-Israeli war OPEC oil crisis. See Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency. It started life, apparently, as a boring and sensible OECD intergovernmental body responsible, as much as such organisations can ever be, for advising the G7 and now the G20 on energy security. More recently (2008?) it’s been taken over by greens, and peddles the ‘peak oil’, ‘renewables-are-easy-and-cheap, and other crazy myths. Like many intergovernmental bodies, it’s joined the eco-apocalypse main stream. I guess that’s where the ‘smart’ money is nowadays. It’s certainly where the international pork-barrel is.

    The Wiki IEA entry starts off reasonably factual, and then goes all strange, mainly due to something called the Energy Watch Group (EWG), a pro-renewables lobby group. I don’t know why Wiki pretends to be neutral. On energy, climate and environmental issues it joins the BBC, the UN and all Western liberal papers in the endless eco-porn-fest that passes for ‘news’.

    One weird recent claim by IEA, is that renewables are undercut by the huge state subsidies for fossil fuels. I’ve seen this claim elsewhere. It’s clearly bonkers, and made-up but does anyone know the basis of this claim, and who made it up?

  56. jaymam says:

    I had always suspected that climate alarmism was being driven by the nuclear power industry, and I warned the greenies about that years ago.

  57. richard verney says:

    5 years. Gosh, as long as that. It must br true that there has been some hiatus of the warming since change is obviously happening far slower than originally thought. Back in 2009, it use to be only 50 days to save the world. ” Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.” See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm

    Of course those 50 days have long since passed and guess what, the world is still here. It has survived.

    Why do people/organisations peddle such nonsense. It merely makes them look ridiculous. Some how, the skeptics should keep on reminding the world of previous predictions that have not stood the test of time. This would show the average reasonable person how crazy these green organisations really are.

    As far as I am concerned, in the climate field, wolf has been cried too many times.

  58. Thortung says:

    Interesting how the Grauniad haven’t the courage to allow comments on that piece :)

  59. Dave_G says:

    “it is still a fine newspaper, one of the best in the world, so please don’t condemn it….” which explains it’s ‘massive’ readership I suppose. Well, since it’s the consumate reference document for the BBC you can make your own mind up.

  60. beng says:

    Same old image-propaganda techniques. The “smoke” coming out of the stacks in the Guardian pic is almost all condensed water vapor. Ooowww, scary.

    They should have used the even more impressive standard propaganda pic of cooling towers emitting harmless steam.

  61. Curiousgeorge says:

    There’s a piece in http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/sustainability-is-a-process-of-creative-destruction?hpt=hp_bn12 talking about this as “creative destruction”, and how it’s a good thing. Some twisted logic involved.

  62. dave ward says:

    “But until then, we have five more years of undiluted excuses and alarmism that grow lamer and more desperate by the day…”

    “When nobody listens to the doom merchants they have to resort to more and more alarmism to get people to listen.”

    Yes, no doubt about it…
    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/where-there-is-uea-there-is-climate-change-propaganda/

  63. D. Patterson says:

    They want you to take it on the word of Fatih the need to immediately “revolutionize” the international energy sources, literally, the pronouncements of the economist of the International Energy Agency, Faith Birol.
    Monbiot Meets…Faith Birol is a video in which Faith is examined by Monbiot, who discovers you cannot expect the assumptions of Faith to remain consistent from one year to the next.

  64. JohnWho says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 11, 2011 at 11:50 pm
    I probably should have put in the [sarc] tags, so people would know that this is not serious …

    w.

    Oops, too late – I’ve already set a reminder in my calendar for the Ides of November, 2016.

    :)

  65. Alex the skeptic says:

    Many years ago, someone put in a classified advert simply saying: “Your last chance to send in your one dollar”, giving an address where to post the one dollar bill. He recieved over 50,000 dollar bills through the post.

    Your last chance to save the planet…………………………………

  66. Frank K. says:

    TWE says:
    November 12, 2011 at 12:22 am

    “They said the same thing 5 years ago! Warmists moving the goalposts again.”

    I agree with TWE. The climate science industry has some of the BEST goalpost movers in all of science, be it an “ice free” arctic [heh], devastating sea level rise, glacier melt-offs, ocean life die-offs…

    And you can be sure that whenever there are press releases of some impending climate cataclysm, there is some huge amount of climate ca$h that is desired to be transferred from the taxpayers of the world to the greedy (and hypocritical) climate industry hacks…

    By the way, when mention is made of the billions in Climate Ca$h, our warmist visitor friends are usually strangely silent…why is that?

  67. Les Johnson says:

    UK Dissenter: your

    One weird recent claim by IEA, is that renewables are undercut by the huge state subsidies for fossil fuels. I’ve seen this claim elsewhere. It’s clearly bonkers, and made-up but does anyone know the basis of this claim, and who made it up?

    The IEA published some. The vast majotrity of the subsidies are for consumers in 3rd world countries, to keep the price of gasoline or power down.

    Real subsidies for producers in the west (as opposed to tax breaks), are mostly for coal in Germany and France (go figure), and for alternate energy or carbon capture (again, go figure).

    The Canadian “subsidies” are not subsidies in the normal sense of the word. Most of what they call subsidies are tax deferals. These deferals also expire in 2015. Much of the real subsidies is for CO2 research. One program is labelled as a subsidy, but its intended purpose is to increase government revenue! The Alberta Royalty regime is also called a subsidy, which is strange, as it increased royalties. The fall in royalty revenue after is due to reduced production which was caused by increased royalties.

    Governments and NGOs don’t seem to understand this. If you want more of something, reduce the taxes. If you want less, increase its tax rate.

    http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/key_graphs.pdf
    http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies_slides.pdf
    http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/ffs_awc_3canprovinces.pdf
    http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_48776931_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

  68. Dear Willis,
    Another memo you did not get!
    That boy who cried wolf is back and he is now a fully grown mann!

  69. shrnfr says:

    But beng, water is a global warming gas you know. Unless it becomes a cloud in which case it might be a global cooling gas. Anyway, we need it to store all those missing joules of energy in the lowest part of the Marianas Trench. Gotta be there because they couldn’t find it in shallower water.

  70. Gary Mount says:

    ArsTechnica is in on the fun too:
    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/were-screwed-limiting-emissions-to-a-2c-temperature-rise-is-almost-beyond-reach.ars
    Its fun reading their echo chamber comments on that site.

  71. Michael Palmer says:

    The moving finger writes, and having writ,
    Moves on, nor all your piety nor wit,
    Can call it back to cancel half a clime
    Nor all your tears wipe out a word of it …

    Deeply dissatisfied. I was waiting for the rhyme with clime — dime? grime? slime? crime?

  72. Bill Illis says:

    The point they are trying to make is that we shouldn’t be building any energy infrastructure that produces CO2 because that infrastructure will have a lifetime / will be in use for 40 years. If the energy infrastructure in use 35 years from now is still emitting CO2, we won’t be able to stay below 450 ppm (which will produce dangerous climate change of +2.0C according to some made-up formula).

    And the IEA would like lots of funding so they can study these issues and protect their phoney-baloney jobs and perks (being an autonomous international agency with lots of high-paying jobs and meetings in warm places during the winter).

    This is the same mindset that those trying to stop the Keystone oil pipeline have. They don’t want ANY energy infrastructure built or ANY new power plants or new coal mines or new fracking natural gas sources or any fossil fuel energy infrastructure of any kind, anywhere.

    Because they all believe Hansen’s theory.

    The theory is the issue.

  73. phil says:

    Every five years, they say “in the next five years…” shouldn’t someone be going to jail for this fraud? It’s time for us to speak up and hold those accountable for the AGW hoax. It’s costing us taxpayers millions.

  74. Bill Conley says:

    What we really need now is a “consensus” on the five (5) year alarm so we can all consider it “settled science” and then a big countdown clock in Times Square so we can all know how much time we have left (or not).

  75. Eimear says:

    @ jaymam

    Your damn right jaymam.
    I bet those greens wouldn’t like to hear that.

  76. J.H. says:

    The trouble is Willis, a climate catastrophist’s memory is only a day long……sigh.

  77. 1DandyTroll says:

    It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it. That for each wind driven megawatt produced in UK there has to be an equal megawatt ready to be produced by coal or gas fired power plants, so for each wind farm megawatt being built a coal or gas fired power megawatt has to be built.

    So, essentially, the eco-loon are making sure the coal and gas industry is booming.

    Oh, the irony goes even further. Now who would stand to benefit if the british closed up coal and gas shop? The wind industry? Or the neighborly owners of wind industry in France (Électricité de France), Germany (E.on) and Sweden (Vattenfall) who also happens to be those afforded the contracts to build nuclear power plants in UK.

    So, essentially, the eco-loons, in all their bong induced wisdom, are literally promoting more nuclear power plants being built in UK, by foreign companies no less. And how can those companies afford to build nuclear power plants in UK?, Could it be because they’re sured to get 3-1 on all investment in building wind farms in UK, all paid for, of course, by the british tax paying collective who’ll keep paying to the year 2030.

    Oh, and of course, all the above companies tend to own large portion of the collective coal and gas industry of EU as well, so the irony just continues.

    So, essentially, the crumbled british empire have the green socialists to thank for their new state of experiencing the true nature of the environmentalist’s kindness of a green economy populated by the new breed of the poor huddled mass’. :p

  78. HalfEmpty says:

    Welp, We knew it was going to happen, best of luck to us all. Is Fred Astair still available to show us how it’s done? Tony? Dwight Towers will take us home. No fear shipmates.

  79. Alan Millar says:

    Ahh…………. disaster is five years away is it?

    I think the writer should go to my local pub, they would get really excited!

    They have a sign which says free beer tomorrow!

    Alan

  80. Gary Pearse says:

    Now lets check IEA’s resume:
    -no WMDs found in Iraq, although there were suspicious empty storage installations in the desert and they had gassed 25,000 Kurds not long before.
    -no success in monitoring/negotiating Iranian WMD work
    -now they have grasped onto CAGW rather belatedly and, with no expertise pronounced the end of the world as we know it in 5 years. Even Hansen et al haven’t gone that far. If these klucks think it possible (even if we wanted to) to replace world power generation facilities in 5 years then they are not up to any IEA-type jobs (remember IEA means International Energy Agency!!) Also, Willis, we don’t have to wait 5 years – since we can’t do anything substantive within 5 years, the game is already over.

    I think its time for the US, Canada (while we still have a conservative gov), Japan and BRIC (there is no hope for others) to stop funding the IEA and the UN in all its forms. Bill,Belinda and Warren can take care of Third World problems.

  81. Chris B says:

    Is there a 12-step program for apocalyptists? A Doomsday-sayers Anonymous?

    Fiona: “Hi, my name is Fiona”.

    Fellow travellers: “Hi Fiona.”

    Repeat after me

    God grant me the serenity
    to accept the things I cannot change;
    courage to change the things I can;
    and wisdom to know the difference.

    Stinkin’ thinkin’

  82. Christian Bultmann says:

    Amazing…’People running around with signs saying ‘the world is coming to an end’ are considered the sane ones by the MSM

  83. jaypan says:

    2007: Over 4.5 Billion people could die by Global Warming-related causes by 2012.
    2011: World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns.

    Chosing a five year period is not a good idea. Time goes by too fast.

  84. Steve In S.C. says:

    With all this crying wolf it is about time for someone to que the music from “Peter and the Wolf”.

  85. G. Karst says:

    Where were these people 5 years ago? Do they not realize that they are recycling the same tired prophesies, dished out 5 years ago? Are they completely unaware that we have endured identical failed prophesies continuously since Hansen, Gore, Mann, Trenberth, Gavin, Holdren, etc, figured out the sure fired operandi of spreading panic for money!?

    The pyramid scheme only makes money for those early fraudsters at the top of the pyramid. Anyone climbing aboard now, will receive little reward. I guess, there remains a possibility, that some natural weather disaster could put them into the money zone, if it is bad enough. Isn’t that the definition of a ghoul? GK

  86. DirkH says:

    It’s a pity the IEA is now an indistinguishable part of the doom monger’s machine. They used to provide some valuable data.

  87. Jeremy says:

    So sad to see a once useful organization (produces the World Energy Outlook each year) besmirched by the higher ups (Fatih Birol) who appear to have drunk the CAGW kool-aid nonsense. These comments or quotes from the head of the IEA, if confirmed, are just wild puerile unsubstantiated speculation.

  88. Chris B says:

    The “Boy” was eventually telling the truth, and nobody believed him, so not a good analogy.

    The CAGW “Boy” don’t hunt but Chicken Little’s. Excuse my jumble of metaphors, colloquialisms, acronyms and idioms.

  89. Trevor says:

    Everything is always 5 years away, including the next doom laden headline.

  90. Olen says:

    Would any moderately conscious and reasonably coherent scientist make catastrophic and almost biblical predictions based on evidence withheld from their reports? Or would they attribute all weather to one cause and then change their claim as each one is exposed as wrong while accepting money for their services? Scratch the last sentence, I apologize, prostitutes do not hide their services nor do they take money for services not rendered. Well not if the client is conscious and coherent.

    The truth is the world will never be rid of people willing to sell their grandmother for a buck or a little power and recognition. Whether the cause is training, habit or a missing screw it is best not to let that kind of personal moral values affect judgment.

  91. Dr. Lurtz says:

    If we use more oil, people get upset and complain. If we use less oil, Saudi Arabia will not get as much money, and become very, very upset. When we [or they] get very, very upset, a major war happens.

    If we warm, we use less oil. If we cool, we use more oil. The conclusion is inescapable: Global Warming will cause war!

  92. Werner Brozek says:

    According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/12/you-say-years-i-say-let-call-whole.html

  93. ferd berple says:

    bushbunny says:
    November 12, 2011 at 12:07 am
    International Energy Authority, they are for gas and oil.

    Putting a price on CO2 is all about increasing the price of coal as compared to oil (coal emits more CO2 per unit of energy) so that the oil industry can make more money. Carbon capture is all about the oil industry getting paid to do something that currently costs them money – injecting CO2 into old wells to boost production.

    The IPCC isn’t about saving the planet – it is about making money – lots of money – all dressed up as saving the planet.The IPCC was started by an oil man – Maurice Strong. Strong went on from the IPCC to run the Iraq Oil for Food program, and we know how that turned out.

    Strong moved to China after his $1 million role with Tongsun Park – no extradition from China to the US. Strong now advises the Chinese on GHG production – how to make money from it. Apparently they are becoming quite good at it.

    In this the Chinese are clearly years ahead of the EU (and Australia and BC and California). The EU asks its citizens to pay the cost of stopping GHG pollution, to the point where they are facing bankruptcy. The Chinese have taken the other approach. Unless EU citizens pay them money, they will increase pollution.

    And guess what – the bankrupt EU will pay China – using money borrowed from China. For which the citizens of the EU will be paying taxes on the interest to China for the rest of their lives, and for the rest of the lives of their children and their children’s children.

  94. David Corcoran says:

    “Hoser says:
    November 12, 2011 at 1:04 am
    In five years they’ll say they were wrong, but just five more years and it will be too late. By then they can crank up the new ice age hysteria.”

    They never, ever, ever admit they were wrong.

  95. galileonardo says:

    Willis, no need to wait five years. It was already deemed irreversible in a PNAS study early 2009. In regards to their study our old friend Susan Solomon said:

    People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we’re showing here is that’s not right. It’s essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years.

    But I think your celebration of the Boy’s demise may be premature. She added:

    I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it. Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.

    Ahh, post-normal logic. I hope I didn’t spoil your breakfast. The AGW activist scientists and their comrades will not go gentle into that good night, so keep your fists up.

  96. juanslayton says:

    Michael Palmer: Deeply dissatisfied. I was waiting for the rhyme with clime — dime? grime? slime? crime?

    Gotta be ‘time,’ Michael, as in ‘five years time.’ But I can’t make it sound right.

  97. “If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world’s existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that “carbon budget”, according to the IEA’s analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.”

    The above statement reveals that the UN (IPPC, IEA) agenda is to control the global economy by controlling the burning of fossil fuels. IPPC model projections are being used to “justify” those controls. Beside the facts there is little “proof” that any global temperature rise above 2C is dangerous or that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 contribute significantly to that rise, the assumptions they use to estimate the critical five year window are wrong. Click on my name for a detailed analysis of the atmospheric “carbon budget”. That analysis indicates that the present fraction of the atmospheric carbon that comes from anthropogenic sources is only about 6% and on average those emissions first entered the atmosphere around 10 years ago. Even if we stopped burning everything this year, we should not expect to see an effect in the next ten years and then it would only be a step drop of less than 10%. My model projections indicate that the annual average CO2 at Mauna Loa will be close to 400 ppm five years from now. Further projecting with “no control action” 450 ppm will be exceeded around 2032 and is expected to peak out about 500 ppm around 2080. Willing to take bets on who’s projections come the closest?

  98. Camburn says:

    The question is:
    When has the world NOT been headed towards irreversable climate change? I am certain the sun rose this morning, that is now a fact and is irreversable. (Thankfully).

    Will the climate be the same next year as it was 100 years ago? I am 100% confident that it won’t be. Just as I am 100% confident that in 100 yeas the climate will not be the same as it is/was this year.

  99. Reed Coray says:

    Michael Palmer says: November 12, 2011 at 6:24 am

    <em<The moving finger writes, and having writ,
    Moves on, nor all your piety nor wit,
    Can call it back to cancel half a clime
    Nor all your tears wipe out a word of it

    Deeply dissatisfied. I was waiting for the rhyme with clime — dime? grime? slime? crime?

    How about: “Nor all the tears of the silent mime…“?

  100. pat says:

    You can only do this for so long. Like all fanatics , they double down rather than face the embarrassment that they have been wrong for 20 years.

  101. You people all make way to much sense but you are all, shall we say misdirected. The issue here is not and has never had anything to do with physical reality. It is and has never had any other purpose then to finance the life style journalists and other alarmists desire. No alarm bells no reason other then to wrap fish to buy the Guardian or pay the people manning the Met Office.

  102. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    November 12, 2011 at 6:24 am

    The moving finger writes, and having writ,
    Moves on, nor all your piety nor wit,
    Can call it back to cancel half a clime
    Nor all your tears wipe out a word of it …


    Deeply dissatisfied. I was waiting for the rhyme with clime — dime? grime? slime? crime?

    The Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam is a curious piece of work. It was written by a Sufi, a mystical sect which people think is Muslim but which predates Islam. As do most Sufi works, it contains a number of levels of meaning.

    Regarding the rhyme, you’ll have to take that up with the translator, as he decided to use an A-A-B-A rhyme scheme, in which the “B” line doesn’t rhyme with anything.

    My favorite line from the Rubaiyyat?

    “I wonder what it is the vintner buys,
    One half so precious as the stuff he sells.”

    The original translation was done by a man named Edward FitzGerald, who was good, but didn’t understand all of the underlying traditional Sufi symbolism regarding wine and flowers and the potter and the “Niche” and the like.

    However, it is powerfully translated, and has remained the standard.

    w.

  103. Bill H says:

    The IEA….

    James Hansen and Michale Mann hokey schtick true believers who are set on getting a kick back for killing millions..

    do these people have any honor or moral fiber? believing the lie even when the truth has exposed it.. pathetic..

  104. dtbronzich says:

    Maria van der Hoeven, the head of the IEA, has a pro-nuclear agenda. It’s not too surprising, considering how many IEA board members are heavily invested in uranium stocks.

  105. Manfred says:

    The Guardian appears to think this article is rubbish as they don’t allow comments.

  106. Clive says:

    On December 2, 1988 Suzuki wrote, “We no longer have the luxury of time … we only have a decade to turn things around.”

    Whatever David.

    Ref: “The man who cries wolf.” Harrowsmith, 1989.

  107. A correction to my previous comment. I found a formula error in the projections of the anthropogenic contribution and have corrected it. Instead of peaking at about 500 ppm around 2080,my previous comment should be expected to peak near 450 ppm around 2062. I’ll be gone by then but my grand children will see if this pans out as a good prediction.

  108. Steve from Rockwood says:

    @Sera,
    Always some gems in Rocky and Bullwinkle.
    “We should march on Washington”.
    “Shucks, he’s been dead for years”.

  109. RockyRoad says:

    Finntastic says:
    November 12, 2011 at 2:30 am

    Does anyone actually know what they are talking about here? This is the IEA, propped up by fossil fuel money, which has previously been found to have downplayed the risk of peak oil.

    This closely follows the study of 1.6 billion temperature records over two years by Richard Muller, a climate sceptic, funded by the Koch brothers for crying out loud, that found that global warming is real.

    Of course it’s real–but do you have any evidence besides a bad case of huffing and puffing and I’ll blow your house down that man has caused it and that man can do anything about it? Specifically, I mean can you come up with anything that disproves the null hypothesis?

    I’m actually glad…GLAD I tell you, that the earth is warming. We’re still coming out of the Little Ice Age yet as a geologist I’m warning you that what we’re facing sometime in the future (nobody knows when, but it isn’t a matter of if, but when) is the next Ice Age. Now that scares the socks off me ’cause it will be extremely difficult for this planet to support the current population when that happens–in fact, it simply can’t. You couldn’t grow a turnip where I currently live in those conditions, and it will be a thousand times more likely it will happen than your bellyaching about impending doom that only computer models generate.

    so how do I know another Ice Age is guaranteed? The past is the key to the future–we’ve had so many of ‘em (at about 100,000 years duration each) with a very short warming period in between (from 10-12,000 yrs) that it comes around like clockwork. And as much as the CAGW crowd think they know about “global warming” or “climate change” or “climate change disruption” or “weather wierding” (my head is spinning), the next Ice Age is going to be like a Fargo winter–you know what’s coming and that information does you no good whatsoever.

  110. Tom says:

    It’s OK for you guys and gals in America; you still have a relatively rational federal government. Australia is now run by the fascist Left, which has not only pushed through parliament a carbon dioxide tax, but also is determined to silence dissent and has a judiciary “inquiry” (witchhunt) underway into conservative media critical of the Greens to achieve that objective.

  111. John Trigge says:

    Can someone let the Australian Greens know that they have to raise their rhetoric level and reduce their goal by half. The fools still think we have ten years to change the world.

    Australia: Greens set 100 percent-renewable goal
    10. November 2011 | Markets & Trends, Global PV markets | By: Jonathan Gifford

    Just days after helping the historic carbon tax to pass the Senate of the Australian Parliament, the Australian Green party has said it believes a goal of 100 percent renewables can be realized within a decade.

  112. Rodzki says:

    “We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes,
    We’ve got five years, what a surprise,
    We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot,
    We’ve got five years, that’s all we’ve got.”

    David Bowie

  113. Mark ro says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 12, 2011 at 9:38 am
    “a mystical sect which people think is Muslim but which predates Islam”
    Willis, I spent a little time looking into this as I’d never heard of Sufism. Man that is some wild stuff. The earliest reference I could find to it was 8th Century while 632 was when the Prophet passed. Another wild read is “The Siege of Mecca” which chronicles the prophesied appearance of the Muslim savior (they thought they found him). An indestructible being who unites with Jesus behind the walls of Damascus to wipe out the Jewish race, or maybe it was just their 10,000 strong army. They turned them into puddles of something nasty. Whoever came up with that one had to be trippin HARD. I guess they just don’t make it like they used to:)

  114. Camburn says:

    Tom:
    There is nothing rational about the USA current government. You should be thankful that Australia passed the carbon tax. Your economy should boom with all the new green jobs that are going to be created using your money so you can’t spend it on lightbulbs.

  115. David Ball says:

    Maybe “The Pied Piper” is a better analogy?
    “I read that book! Boy cries wolf, has a few laughs. I forget how it ends”- Bart Simpson

  116. David Ball says:

    Clive says:
    November 12, 2011 at 11:19 am
    Use that one myself Clive !! It was around that time that he started to refer to my father as a “D-ord” .

  117. David Ball says:

    Oops, ……. Should read “D-word”. Boy, if he had called my father a “D-ord”, it would be “on” !!!

  118. old construction worker says:

    “David Corcoran says:
    November 12, 2011 at 8:18 am
    “Hoser says:
    November 12, 2011 at 1:04 am
    In five years they’ll say they were wrong, but just five more years and it will be too late. By then they can crank up the new ice age hysteria.”
    They never, ever, ever admit they were wrong.”

    You’re right about that even if Climate change means another “Ice Age”. They will still blame it on CO2.

  119. Larry Fields says:

    If I remember correctly, Hansen claimed that Obama had 5 years to ‘save the planet’. This was in late 2009 or early 2010. He’ll have his Harold Camping moment sooner than many of the other prominent Warmistas.

    When that auspicious moment arrives, we should all have a TEOTWAWKI party to celebrate. Carbonated beverages mandatory.

  120. wayne says:

    That scrubbed steam coming from those ‘smoke’ stacks is just that, harmless steam.

    “World headed for irreversible climate change in five years …”

    Wooooo… the ‘seers’ have spoken!

    These evil, stealing, lying, cheating, manipulative demons spewing such lies are just that to me, demons. And I can see the vile green foam of words coming from their mouths in response to such blasphemy to their “beliefs”. Be gone. You will hurt my heart no more!

    … and I hear there is going to be yet another demon fest in Durban soon.

    Excuse me, but going through Wikipedia for definitions, demon was the closest description found to accurately portray their actions to me in the light that the mass-media has taken on in these modern times a “super”natural reach, so to speak, of words from a very select small group of people propping themselves as “seers” of the future.

    What a circus!

    (but more seriously, I do agree that primarily China and India do need to clean up their ‘smoke’ stacks and we need to turn our attention to the real pollution occurring on this planet, and people, it’s not CO2)

  121. major says:

    Where do these A-holes come up with this crap? There is absolutely no evidence in the current research that anything of the kind is going to happen in 10 years or 100 years. If anything, the world is heading to the next ice age cycle which means colder, dryer climate. The only things we know cause sudden climate change are asteroids, comets, extreme volcanism; not emissions from vehicles. I pitty these people that actually believe climate crisis theory because they are beknighted fools being led by unscrupulous bas___rds like Al Gore

  122. Martin457 says:

    Is there a consensus as to what the tipping point is? Maybe it’s the tipping points that need to be worked out.

  123. Resourceguy says:

    My how they fear the Obama fail, and Sarkozy fail, and Kyoto fail, and EU fail, and OECD fail, and unsustainable socialist fail! Better to get the lock in on spending before the budget cuts and insolvency come to bear on budgets in the manipulated states of the U.S. and EU. They know that new spending commitments will be axed first and the big fight will be over what to cut among current obligations.

  124. Gail Combs says:

    Peridot says:
    November 12, 2011 at 2:10 am

    “The boy who cried Wolf” is becoming their biggest problem. The warmists were on to a loser as soon as the change was made from ‘disaster in 100 years ‘ to ‘disaster … any time now!’
    _________________________

    I think they lost it when they went from the Ice Age cometh to Global Warming and finally…. CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!

    With it being cooler for the last couple of years, I am hearing “So much for Global Warming” from the people freezing there rears off here in the “Sunny South”

    At this point adrenal exhaustion has set in and people are more concerned with finding or keeping their jobs.

  125. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    With the runaway alarmism about catastrophic global warming, the “Man is evil, it must be man’s fault!” mentality, the mangling of assorted historical temperature records, and the decades of real climate science research lost when the default assumption (sometimes unspoken) became “(C)AGW is happening therefore our work can only confirm it and/or describe how bad it’ll get”… I sometimes worry we missed finding out this interglacial will end very soon, and have lost many years where we could have been developing the extensive reliable energy sources and making the other much needed preparations we’ll need to survive as a society without dropping back to the stone age.

    Really, I do.

  126. jae says:

    “I probably should have put in the [sarc] tags, so people would know that this is not serious …”

    Hmmm.

  127. Mark ro says:

    Willis, would you please provide a reference to Sufism predating Islam ??

  128. AlexS says:

    No worries then, seems to be always 5 years from disaster…

  129. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Nice pic from the Telegraph of all those windmills not turning. I called up the story so I could zoom in and have a better look.

    Question for the atmospheric experts: How did that rainbow form in front of that building near the middle behind the bird choppers?

  130. Michael Palmer says:

    The moving finger writes, and having writ,
    Moves on, nor all your piety nor wit,
    Can call it back to cancel half a clime
    Nor all your tears wipe out a word of it …

    The finger writes with ink that sticks like, er, glue.
    It will run out in henceforth five years’ time.

    There. A somewhat uneven A-A-B-A-C-B rhyme scheme tho – can anyone fix that for me?

  131. PaulID says:

    Yet another home-run for Willis, if I was wealthy I would pay (very well) you to write 2 stories a month for my blog (of course they would only be seen by a few family members and friends but hey) keep up the great work and never let anyone get you down.

  132. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Mark ro says:
    November 12, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Willis, would you please provide a reference to Sufism predating Islam ??

    Thanks, Mark. I fear that the origins of Sufism are lost in the past. However, there are plenty of oral traditions that Sufism predated Islam. Do a google search on ‘sufism “predates islam”‘ for a variety of references to these traditions.

    The original source for my claim was the writings of Idris Shah, but I no longer have the book, I read it years ago. It was called “The Sufis“.

    In support of my claim, Wikipedia says about Shah that:

    Shah presented Sufism as a universal form of wisdom that predated Islam.

    Since the Sufis have always been a somewhat secretive mystical order, I fear that actual evidence is very scarce, and the best we have to go on are the oral traditions of the Sufis themselves. They say that their beliefs and practices are older than Islam … and I generally believe them.

    Shah’s older brother and Robert Graves published what I consider the most accurate translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam … although not as poetically nice as the FitzGerald translation.

    w.

  133. Mark ro says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 12, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    Sir, With all due respect, When was the last time you visited a land where lack of belief equates to beheading?

  134. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Mark ro says:
    November 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 12, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    Sir, With all due respect, When was the last time you visited a land where lack of belief equates to beheading?

    Mark, despite my extensive travels, I don’t think I’ve ever been in such a land. The Koran says that you should whack people (or cut off a hand and a foot from opposite sides of the body) if they leave the faith and then actively agitate against Islam. Can’t remember the exact Sura, but it’s there.

    But I know of nowhere that a simple “lack of belief” is grounds for beheading.

    In any case … what’s your point? Yes, I’ve worked in Islamic countries, a number of them, if that’s what you’re asking. Can’t say I cared for the religion or how the folks treated each other, but that’s nothing new.

    And?

    w.

  135. Larry Fields says:

    Someone who’s a lot better organized than I am could keep track of all of the time-specific doomsday prophesies from prominent CAGW believers. At the end of each year, they could look at all of the Venusian hell runaway global warming scenarios, disastrous sea-level rising scenarios, and other predictions that have come and gone, without incident. Then we could bestow a Harold Camping TEOTWAWKI Award upon the most outrageous. Although it couldn’t compete with one of the prestigious Darwin Awards, it’d still be fun, in a perverse sort of way.

  136. Dave Wendt says:

    I think the lads at the Grauniad need take a breath and a cue from their countrymen at MPFC

    or perhaps this one

  137. John A says:

    For most of my life, disaster was 4 minutes away. 5 years is an improvement.

    Sea levels appear to be falling (why? no-one seems to know) and temperatures have flatlined and may actually be starting to fall again (although no-one has convinced me one way or the other).

    We live on a dynamic planet. Climate change is inevitable. Earthquakes will always occur. Lightning strikes constantly. And idiots will always believe that it is getting worse and we are all on a rollercoaster to destruction.

  138. oakwood says:

    A few weeks ago, for suggesting in comments below one of their articles that the intensity of climate change stories in the Guardian would increase as we approach the Durban conference, the comment was deleted, and I was put on the ‘pre-moderated’ sin-bin.
    That Damian Carrington is desparately trying to fill the shoes of Monbiot on CC scare stories since Monbiot’s own self doubts have led him to move onto other subjects.

  139. Dave Springer says:

    Dev Bahadur Dongol says:
    November 12, 2011 at 1:57 am

    Turbines are already installed in series where possible. I live on the shore of one lake in a chain of 5 manmade lakes formed by a series of dams along the Colorado River in Texas. There are hydroelectric turbines at each of the 5 dams. This comprises a series of turbines through which the same river water flows.

    I fail to see what you’re running on about. Wherever practical hydroelectric turbines are already placed in series.

  140. Gail Combs says:

    …IEA warns If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change…

    Actually that is very funny. Seems no one told these people we are in an interGLACIAL and that means “climate change” back to glaciation is pretty much certain.

    However it will some how be blamed on “Global Warming” (rolls eyes)

  141. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gail Combs on November 13, 2011 at 6:03 am:

    However it will some how be blamed on “Global Warming” (rolls eyes)

    That’s because a tipping point was passed around 1998, and the anthropogenic global warming signal, as approximately measured by the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, became strong enough that it began paradoxically causing a chunk of the heating the planet must have been experiencing to go missing. As the AGW signal continues to strengthen, we are entering global cooling.

    There is an overwhelming consensus among the climate models, their output data is irrefutable, the Climate Science™ is settled. If we don’t scrap our fossil fueled infrastructure within five years and convert to Absolutely Completely Free solar and wind energy, that AGW signal will get so strong that too much heat will go into hiding, and then the continental glaciations will start!

  142. Steve Keohane says:

    Gail Combs says:November 13, 2011 at 6:03 am

    …IEA warns If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change…

    Actually that is very funny. Seems no one told these people we are in an interGLACIAL and that means “climate change” back to glaciation is pretty much certain.

    However it will some how be blamed on “Global Warming” (rolls eyes)

    (sarc) Gail, have you not noticed, in the charts of CO2 vs temperature from the ice cores, that whenever CO2 gets to its highest point, along with temperature, bingo, a new glaciation starts! Of course it’s the CO2 and CAGW! (/sarc)

  143. That is not series connection. please click on my name for details and email dev.dangol at yahoo.co.uk me for further discussion. please see the moderator’s note at the bottom.

  144. Mark ro says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm
    “But I know of nowhere that a simple “lack of belief” is grounds for beheading.”

    Thailand, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Dagestan, Sudan, Nigeria, Philippines, Yemen, Bangladesh, Egypt, India and Kenya just to name a few.
    WARNING extremely graphic images and video of Muslims beheading Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc,etc.
    [url snipped -w.]

  145. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Mark ro:

    Just what is your point? You are equating the actions of terrorist outlaws with the religion as a whole. It has the same value as an assertion that being gay ir black is grounds for fbeing dragged to death behind a truck in the USA. Linking to that video is just pure bigotry and has no place on this thread. Your understanding of Islam and the conditions in the countries you listed is sorely deficient.

  146. Gail Combs says:

    Finntastic says:
    November 12, 2011 at 2:30 am

    Does anyone actually know what they are talking about here? This is the IEA, propped up by fossil fuel money, which has previously been found to have downplayed the risk of peak oil.

    This closely follows the study of 1.6 billion temperature records over two years by Richard Muller, a climate sceptic, funded by the Koch brothers for crying out loud, that found that global warming is real…..
    ___________________________
    Oh good grief. Muller is in it for the money. He is not a “Skeptic” and never has been.

    If you want a “Follow the Money” I did it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/30/the-best-whopper-ever/#comment-783396

    It leads right back to Shell Oil – SURPRISE!

    The guy and his daughter own a “Green Company” with a Shell Oil VP as advisor. If CAGW goes down the tubes so does his very lucrative business. Privately owned companies are a very good method for receiving bribes through consulting fees and referred business.

    Even the Huff & Puff is FINALLY documenting the banker/Green coalition: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-debord/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-carbon-coalition_b_910442.html

    And it is a short step from banker to Oil, think Rockefeller (Chase/Standard Oil) Rothschild (Shell Oil) and Maurice Strong (World Bank/Petro-Canada)

  147. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Mark ro says:
    November 13, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    “But I know of nowhere that a simple “lack of belief” is grounds for beheading.”

    Thailand, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Dagestan, Sudan, Nigeria, Philippines, Yemen, Bangladesh, Egypt, India and Kenya just to name a few.
    WARNING extremely graphic images and video of Muslims beheading Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc,etc.
    [url snipped -w.]

    Ah. I see the difference. I was talking about governments and official legal executions. You were talking about mobs.

    In any case, ’nuff about that, back to the climate, thanks.

    w.

  148. bushbunny says:

    O/T At the APEC meeting in Hawaii, the countries attending were all in accord to follow a Green future. Hmmm, even China? Beware of false profits, sorry, prophets. LOL?

  149. tony says:

    Why must decarbonising the economy be seen as anti development? Surely it is an opportunity to develop technologies that work on renewable energy. Re-skill the economy and look to the future rather than celebrate the fact that we will become dependant on foreign power for energy security. Become world leaders in the new technologies that will power the world economies will provide jobs for college graduates as well as a basis to develop high quality manufacturing industry. We could try rebalancing the economy away from the financial markets and become a country that is good at making tangible things again….

    Or we could sit about chuckling to ourselves at the stupider scientists and hippies while the Asian and Latin American countries leave us behind as they become world powers in the new century

  150. Willis Eschenbach says:

    tony says:
    November 14, 2011 at 1:28 am (Edit)

    Why must decarbonising the economy be seen as anti development?

    Because at the moment we have nothing with which to replace fossil fuels … yet people still insist on reducing carbon. The only way to do that is to reduce energy use, which is anti-development. Simple.

    Surely it is an opportunity to develop technologies that work on renewable energy. Re-skill the economy and look to the future rather than celebrate the fact that we will become dependant on foreign power for energy security.

    Sounds great … but unfortunately, that plan is not working now, and has not worked the many times it’s been tried in the past.

    Become world leaders in the new technologies that will power the world economies will provide jobs for college graduates as well as a basis to develop high quality manufacturing industry. We could try rebalancing the economy away from the financial markets and become a country that is good at making tangible things again….

    Egads, you don’t want much, do you. Green jobs rears its ugly head again.

    Tony, if you can figure out how to make that all work, more power to you. Spain tried it and it all went pear-shaped for them. Solyndra and others tried it. You may not be old enough to remember the various government ventures into the energy industry, from Jimmy Carter’s Synfuel Corporation to hydrogen and ethanol and so to Solyndra and the present. All of them have been dismal failures.

    So if you know how to avoid the problems that have brought all of those projects low, tony, you will be a very, very rich man.

    In the meantime, however, I’d say don’t quit your day job quite yet …

    w.

  151. tony says:

    Unfortunately I don’t have the answers, otherwise I’d probably be too busy to post here.
    For every failed avenue explored knowledge is advanced a little, even if that advancement is just knowing where not to look again in the future. The idea of the next generation of power stations being built locking us onto a path that uses the same technologies for the next 30 years isn’t something to be celebrated.

    Is peak oil taboo subject in this neck of the woods ( I don’t really want to get bogged down in that discussion)?
    Easily reached fossil fuels are being depleted. Renewable energies along with nuclear will become more important in the future. We don’t have the capabilities to produce large amounts of renewable energy at the minute but just because we give up doesn’t mean other countries won’t. They will eventually be developed and surely it would be better to ride the crest of that wave rather than buying those technologies from our global competitors?

    Or are you saying we cannot learn from our past mistakes? Because we couldn’t figure it out we should give up?

  152. ms anderson says:

    I’d like to get in touch with you Mr Willis Eschenbach, I read a previous post of yours where you mentioned a friend of yours (now deceased) who lived in Vanua Levu – I’m trying to piece together info on his life for his family at the moment.

    Sorry to comment on an unrelated article, but wasn’t sure the best place to do it. Please let me know if you’d be willing to share some insight…

Comments are closed.