A student in despair over Romm’s 11°F temperature increase article – if this comment was reversed, it would be called a ‘death threat’

English: Fatih Birol, the Chief Economist of t...

Fatih Birol, the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, at a conference in Vienna, 22 June 2009. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

UPDATE: 5/30 8:45AM After we pointed it out Romm has now snipped the ugly part of the comment seen in the screencap below, it only took him five days to notice it with our help. The original post in entirety is preserved here http://www.webcitation.org/682NzGF0b – Anthony

UPDATE2: 5/30 3PM Reuters has issued a correction, removing the 2050 reference and replacing it with (towards the end of this century) See http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/co2-iea-idUKL5E8GO6B520120530

UPDATE3: 5/30 4:3oPM In response to being called out, Romm issued one of his usual jihads, insinuating with the help of Eli Rabett aka Dr. Joshua Halpern that everybody else is stupid but him, and that we really will all roast. He trots out his favorite predictive Wheel-of-Climate! again.

MIT_climate_bandit

It’s a laugh riot. But Romm didn’t start questioning the story until AFTER other people started to question it, and he passed it on with no caveats in the original post, archived here. He did make a note in comments saying “I meant to post that 2050 is obviously a mistake by the reporter.” but never actually did make any caveat in the main body of the post until he found himself embarrassed by it all. He also deleted (5 days later after we pointed it out ) the ugly commentary about death wishes for “coal/oil people” (see below).

The level of noise today is telling, much like the “voodoo science” claims of Pachauri. – Anthony

This is sad. Joe Romm promotes another overt fabrication, and some poor kid writes in despair, hoping all the “oil/coal people” here die “a horrible death, preferably caused by climate disasters”. If that were sent to somebody at ANU, it would by the Appell/Stokes rule, be declared a “death threat”. Since it’s on Romm’s site, the poster gets sympathy and counseling instead of admonishment. See below.

First, Romm’s reporting of an overt fabrication of 11°F temperature rise by 2050 by Fatih Birol.

The claim of 11°F  comes from this Reuters news article . It cites Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the IEA, who says:

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters.

Of course 6°C =11°F, and given the climate sensitivity figures bandied around by the IPCC, there doesn’t seem any way these numbers can pencil out.

Hans von Storch writes on Die Klimazwiebel that this is “pure alarmism”:

A forth interesting issue is that climate science has become irrelevant; it shows up in passing, when “limit devastating climate effects like crop failure and melting glaciers” is mentioned, and the quote “the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050)” is made.This is a pretty bold prediction, given that we have so far less than 1 degree warming since pre-industrial times, so that the warming must be more than 5 degrees/38 years, i.e., about 0.7-0.8 deg/decade. I consider this pure alarmism, which is related to the timing, and a misuse of scientific analysis for creating some unsustainable short term drama for the Bonn-negotiations.

I wonder if this 6-degrees claim is really from IEA, or just an addition by Fatih Birol, because is no not mentioned in the IEA’s announcement.

Even Joshua Halpern, aka “Eli Rabbet”, says in comments the claim by Birol makes no sense:

Not having a BS detector that works on himself, Romm runs with it, embellishing it with this bit of propaganda:

As Birol said of 11°F warming late last year, “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.” If only school children ran the country.

And following his rant, we get this comment first up from a school age child:

And not one person in the thread following that comment, not Halpern, nor even Romm himself, says anything about the death wish, or even suggests to the poor kid that saying such things are unacceptable. There’s agreement in the silence. There’s no significant disagreement with the feelings of doom espoused either. It is really depressing for the lack of reality based discussion.

I have to wonder though, if this kid has ever driven or ridden in a car, or used electricity made from coal. Maybe he/she thinks such things are powered by the grace of the green energy fairy.

If the situation were reversed, Romm, Appell, Halpern, and the whole cast of haters would be all over it as yet another example of how terrible skeptics are.

Their double standard behavior is disturbing. Romm should be ashamed of himself, but he won’t be, because he’s paid a six figure salary to promote this garbage.

About these ads

135 thoughts on “A student in despair over Romm’s 11°F temperature increase article – if this comment was reversed, it would be called a ‘death threat’

  1. To get to that target by 2050 you would have to be seeing a .7C increase every 5 years. Or in other words, the entire warming of the last century would have to be manifesting itself every 5 years. So when will it start?

  2. In my hometown today, between morning and afternoon, there was a 11F warming. Deaths were in the millions as people burst into flames on the streets and in their houses. A similar trend was found in cities around the world. Tonight the human races faces certain extinction as a result of a 11F temperature rise felt around the world as sure as daytime follows night. News at 11.

  3. Clearly, we’re in the age of stupid. We already knew about alarmists vile misanthropy, but each day I become more and more in awe of their unyielding stupidity.

  4. In 2050 pretty close to 1/2 of the people on the earth today will have died. In excess of 3 billion people. Of these 3 billion, it will be found that 1 million died as result of stress and worry over climate change resulting from alarmist propaganda. Fully 50 million will have died as a result of poverty induced by diversion of resources to less efficient production. The rest died because it was their time.

  5. Not to mentioning encouraging a teenager to feel so hopeless about the future. If I had a student who was like that I’d be referring him/her to counseling ASAP.

  6. Jenn Oates says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Not to mentioning encouraging a teenager to feel so hopeless about the future. If I had a student who was like that I’d be referring him/her to counseling ASAP.

    Forget that. Counsellors would ‘validate’ his worries. Just have him read any dozen posts on WUTW, picked at random.

  7. It’s actually not a threat, and that’s why it doesn’t matter whether the utterance came from an alarmist or a skeptic.
    “I hope you die and rot in hell” is a curse, which is a sin; but it is not “I hate you and I’m gonna kill you” which is a death-threat.

    REPLY: Right, and my point is that none of the ANU messages were death threats either, as the former ANU Chancellor Chubb verified yesterday. They were all just rants/curses…but they got elevated to death threat status by a overzealous news media and hyperbloviating bloggers like Tim Lambert and David Appell. – Anthony

  8. To anyone truly concerned about the fake threat of climate change that they cry at night like 17andsacred, please consider the following point.

    The number one cause of unnatural death is government, not climate change. Throughout history we can see:
    Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and Pol Pot to name a few. Today it’s UNESCO, NATO, the US Military Industrial Complex, etc. …not climate change. Please try to focus on real threats to human life in reality, not in some pseudo-scientific climate cult.

  9. 17 years old? I don’t think so. 7, maybe. If really 17, he or she is unhinged.

  10. This kid is obviously depressed and needs counseling. When someone is caught up in negative emotions they have no ability to think straight – I hope this kid recieves help. Its really sad that people are using children to score political points.

  11. I might be missing something, but I get an increase of over 1.3C per decade, not the 0.7 – 0.8 HvS says (I assume he just did an accidental reciprocal calculation of the missing 5+C over 38 years). That means all of the observed warming over the last century, every five years or so.

    Do we know if anyone, maybe even ol Fatih himself, is prepared to place a big fat ol’ bet on this?. I’ve got $10k or so I’d like to place against it, so long as we can have the bet decided in the nearer term (say on getting that 1.3C by 2022)

  12. Just posted this in reply to the poor child’s post:
    David Ross says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 30, 2012 at 1:03 am

    First, please don’t wish death on anyone. Second, please don’t worry yourself, the actual changes so far in recorded history show us without a doubt that this is nonsense, there is no way the temperature will change by that much, it is pure unscientific political alarmism designed specifically to scare people like you. They are using you and scaring you with imaginary bogey men.

  13. Oh, if you wonder where or how in the world those children got that way, they catch them young……. DirkH showed this to me….. It’s an education site for very young children…. http://www.primolo.de/node/8532 It’s German, but I used Google translate for it here…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/why-our-kids-just-arent-getting-climate-change/

    It includes some of the dumbest statements. And, they’ve even got replicable experiments! And, when they grow to be about 17….. well with that sort of instruction, by then, in order for self preservation from stupid, a student would have to uncritically accept blathering bs from imbeciles such as Romm and Birol and the 11°F rise in < 40 yrs.

    You know, its funny…. I'm afraid for our future …. maybe even more than the 17 y/o….. but, for very different reasons. How does one raise a child to respect their elders and follow instruction from authority when there's a bunch of raving lunatics attacking their young intellect?

  14. Jenn Oates says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:32 pm
    Not to mentioning encouraging a teenager to feel so hopeless about the future. If I had a student who was like that I’d be referring him/her to counseling ASAP.
    ——————-
    I’d refer them to WUWT.
    No better place to learn.

  15. Stop scaring the children. Reprehensible behavior by “adults”. Indoctrination at its nadir. Way to ruin a life. And a society. Cynics and pessimists do not make for a healthy culture.

  16. Tell that poor kid that the planet managed to warm very rapidly and naturally 11,500 years ago. In Greenland and Venezuela the temp increased 10c in just ten years, that is 1c every year for a decade.
    Naughty planet to behave so badly and without the help of the few humans around at the time. But seriously these adults (?) are a disgrace.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

  17. Alexis says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:40 pm
    ““I hope you die and rot in hell” is a curse, which is a sin; but it is not “I hate you and I’m gonna kill you” which is a death-threat.”

    No, it’s not a curse; a curse would be “Your descendants shall turn into frogs”. It’s a death wish.
    My wish, OTOH, is: I hope the kid grows a brain.

  18. omnologos says:
    First comment by a school kid? What a nice coincidence. I wonder if 17andscared is bald.

    My thoughts run along the same lines. More likely “47 and scared of an end to the gravy train.”

  19. Is this for real? Does the chief effing economist for the effing IEA think the world is going to be 6 degrees hotter by 2050?. This man advises governments and energy companies. We really are doooomed, but not by AGW, by AIS, advanced institutional stupidity, it has infected academia, government, the UN and now the IEA. God help us.

  20. Brian, I often refer my students to WUWT and other sane climate sites; did so today, in fact. My colleagues as well, but I don’t think they actually read any of it because they continue to blather on about glaciers melting, oceans rising, and climate warming. It makes me want to retire on my minuscule pension and eat ramen the rest of my life. :)

  21. It must be hell to wake up on the Internet to discover you are a 17 year old nutter. Sounds like he has been abandoned by responsible adults all 17 of those years.

  22. It’s a PR mans wet dream.

    He’ll keep promoting it saying look even school children understand.

    If there is a hell though the kid might want to look at Dante’s inferno and the Seventh circle onwards, I am unsure if ignorence counts in hell though, it certainly does in a court of law.

  23. Birol is not completely out there. In Australia, the dominant scientific body, the CSIRO, has predicted “up to” 6 degrees C by 2070 for Australia. A similar figure was quoted by the Prime Minister Julia Gillard as justification for the new carbon tax, which comes in in a few weeks.

    While Birol’s prediction exceeds this, it is well within the same ballpark. As far as I know, no mainstream media (apart from the sceptical minority) questioned the CSIRO’s claim, so Birol may well expect to get away with it.

  24. Birol is an economist. Don’t bother about their predictions; no-one, including themselves, expects them to be right. Their “use” is in explaining what went wrong afterwards. Noted by Winston Churchill in the 1950’s and still valid.

  25. And don’t worry about the kid. Just explain that AGW is just like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy – an adult fable to disguise where the money comes from.

  26. It’s deffo propaganda, IMHO – as already said, likely a 40-something about to lose his funding! Of course, the warmista will take such comments here as a sign that us skeptics are all insensitive uncaring morons…..and will miss /ignore the fact that the UNTRUE alarmism has at least, in part, created such issues with our kids…….

    Seriously though, it’s no different to Agony Aunt columns in ‘Spotty Teen Weekly’, anyone who finds the need to write about such problems to a public forum is a bit sad (IMHO), but hardly likely to require suicide watch, maybe just needs some ‘attention’. If genuine, the kid needs friends and possible counselling, but also needs to resit school and learn some of the questioning skills everyone should have to enable them to work through such thoughts.

  27. The trouble is that few people are aware of history these days, even less so of historical climate. In this article carried here a few months ago I followed the gently warming trend from the first decades of the 17th century, after first identifying the dates of the decline seen in the previous half century.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/

    A warming from the time of Shakespeare clearly predates the co2 scare, and of course we can trace the changes in climate –sometimes warm sometimes cool-back many thousands of years. Sadly I would bet that the 17 year old has never been taught about our ever changing climate and I suspect his knowledge of history doesn’t extend to beyond his short life.
    tonyb

  28. If 17, his girlfriend has probably dumped him because he’s a AGW fanatic, and he’s depressed.

    The counseling should be for Romm and Birol for peddling this drivel.

  29. If indeed a 17 year old wrote that, how sad that the climate war has come to this.

  30. Further down the page (response 6 from “Dr Peter Carter”), I spotted this little gem:-

    We are ending almost all life and yet only a handful of people are calling for the acknowledgement of the dire planetary emergency we are all in.

    Make no mistake this 7C by 2100, due to current investment in more of the very worst polluting fossil fuels, is a real commitment being made today and its much worse than 7C.

    It is a full long term commitment of about 12C due to the ocean heat lag.

    At 3C all crops in all regions have declined below baseline yields (IPCC NRC UK Met Office). At 4C 75% of species are committed to extinction (IPCC). At 7C the planet is uninhabitable if there are any humans left.

    The solution is a global demand that all fossil fuel subsidies (direct and indirect) totalling well over $1 trillion be forthwith stopped and the direct subsidies transferred to the clean zero carbon industry.

    I don’t know if anyone is keeping the score but I think I’m correct that 12C is the most extravagant claim so far.

    Mind you, and following on ferd berple’s post above, 2 days ago in my back garden in rural Wiltshire, the temperature difference from night to day was 21C. That was in around 12 hours so I guess I’ve vapourised already.

  31. I’m with a couple of commenters upthread. This comment sounds more like it was written by a 40 year old trying to sound like a 17 year old and doing a lousy job. Really typical of alarmist crowd to throw in references to big oil and big coal, as if people running all the cars and machinery are innocent of any involvement. It isn’t the oil companies that burn the oil young man, they just dig it out of the ground. And it isn’t the car companies what build those wonderful driving machines either, Its the people who drive the cars that are bruning the oil!!

    On the other hand, this kid could be real, and if so,he needs help. The truth is that kids are coming out of the school system these days with certain things taken for granted. The earth is round, the earth orbits the sun, and global warming is destroying the planet.

    The AGW messages are in fact delivered as if factual science, and that is what most students grow up believing given that they are immersed in that story line and given no contrary opinion within their curriculum.

    Fortunatey when they go outside, a quick glance at the horizon show rhat the eartth isa actually flat as any fool can see, and the sun circle the earth which also becomes obvious with very little observation. They;ll figure cimate out when it doen’t get hot after all on their own.

  32. 2050 makes no sense, but 2100 or a bit later does. The 2050 was inserted by Reuters based on a misunderstanding and was never uttered by Birol. Birol, and the IEA have often said in public that

    “the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius [11°F], which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

    and similar language is in the World Energy Report. The 6C is supported by work at MIT, although there the median is 5.2 C

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/climate-change-1002.html

    http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/1989

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

  33. When the little prat has not shrivelled up by 2050 he/she will wish it had spent more time on its studies and less time on climate sites. No sympathy from me. I was working not whining at 17.

  34. I think even the Team would be embarrassed by Fatih Birol’s ridiculous claim. We have to remember this guy is an economist from an NGO – in other words, his grasp of what happens in the real world of science is tenuous at best. He has learned that scary climate stories help ensure long term career prospects, especially in the shadowy world of those organisations which do not have to bear responsibility for either their deeds or words.

    And let’s not forget ‘climate science’, as it is practiced today, bear little or no resemblance to real science.

  35. An Evening with Michael Crichton
    November 15, 2005

    About 50 people died in Chernobyl, what I’d been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong. It was astonishingly wrong. At the time of the disaster the predicted deaths was 2,000 immediate. The New York Post thought there would be 16,000. The Canadian Broadcasting Company in ’91 thought there would be that many, and you see the BBC and The New York Times in 2002 predicting at the low end 15,000 deaths. Their estimates were 15,000 to 30,000 deaths.

    The most troubling of all, according to the UN report, was that the largest public health problem created by the accident was the damaging psychological impact due to a lack of accurate information.

    This was manifesting as—they said—negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative and dependency on assistance from the state. In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying, but false, information.

    Same old same old.

    http://independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=111

  36. At 17, the mind, in particular the male mind, hasn’t fully matured. I used to be scared of the Daleks on Dr. Who, but even though I knew it was Sci-Fi, I was only 6 then.

  37. @Jame Sexton

    You know, its funny…. I’m afraid for our future …. maybe even more than the 17 y/o….. but, for very different reasons. How does one raise a child to respect their elders and follow instruction from authority when there’s a bunch of raving lunatics attacking their young intellect?”

    I fully agree. However this is all part of the Socialist Manifesto, or Agenda 21 as it is better known. In it, it talks openly of removing the faith of children in their parents, & teaching them to look to the state for knowledge & salvation – nice people hey? They talk openly of de-educating people & children as they will consume more if they are educated to too high a level! Of course “they” in the New World Order Global Big Guvment, like their counter parts in the PDREU, will have the benefits of private education in one of the many Global schools, as are the offsrping of EU workers (fat cat bureaucrats) in the at least 14 European schools dotted around, all paid for by the hard-pressed (& ever increasingly so) taxpayer, at around $25,000 a year!!!! After all there have to be some people to eat the beluga cavia & drink the Moet & Chandon, otherwise it will all go to waste! ;-)

  38. jimboW says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:58 pm
    I might be missing something, but I get an increase of over 1.3C per decade, not the 0.7 – 0.8 HvS says (I assume he just did an accidental reciprocal calculation of the missing 5+C over 38 years). That means all of the observed warming over the last century, every five years or so.

    Do we know if anyone, maybe even ol Fatih himself, is prepared to place a big fat ol’ bet on this?. I’ve got $10k or so I’d like to place against it, so long as we can have the bet decided in the nearer term (say on getting that 1.3C by 2022).

    You can put in a bid on what the temperature will be in 2014 and 2019, and make other bets, on Intrade. (They hold your money until the issue is resolved or you sell your bet–it works like a futures market.) Here’s the link: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20

  39. IEA is running their own forecasts, not IPPCs. And I think these forecasts say that we’re heading for +6C (above “pre industrial levels”, which they of course take as LIA temperatures…), but not by 2050, but as a long term equilibrium. That’s also IMHO rubbish – but still far less scary than +6C in 38 years.

    There are three reasons why I object so strongly against the AGW scare: 1) It will, if the warming doesn’t happen or is benign, destroy public confidence in science. 2) The alarmism causes actions that do more harm than good (e.g. promotion of biofuels) and 3) It takes away our children’s hope for a good future (which they have all reason to have!)

  40. It could be worse. He could be out getting involved with gangs, shootin up, commiting crimes and vile acts, mixing with crack ho’s. But that’s enough about Romm, it’s the 17 year old I am concerened about

  41. If this person is really seventeen, I fear for his future. Likely his science knowledge and logic are no better than his English, which is dreadful. Why does he think the punctuation manufacturers make so many apostrophes? He’s supposed to use them for contractions and possessives, so unused oversupply doesn’t rot the supply-and-demand equilibrium. Unfortunately, far too many teenagers write as this one does, aping someone physically merged with his cellphone or other electronic pacifier; to become fully human, he may have to have such instruments surgically removed.

  42. Friends:

    Several posts have made the point that is summarised well by davidmhoffer when he says at May 30, 2012 at 1:38 am:

    On the other hand, this kid could be real, and if so,he needs help. The truth is that kids are coming out of the school system these days with certain things taken for granted. The earth is round, the earth orbits the sun, and global warming is destroying the planet.

    The AGW messages are in fact delivered as if factual science, and that is what most students grow up believing given that they are immersed in that story line and given no contrary opinion within their curriculum.”

    The Copenhagen IPCC Conference was held in December 2009. Its Opening Ceremony included a video that showed a child being attacked by effects of global warming.

    Importantly, in the lead-up to that event, the UK government ran an advertisement which showed a cartoon of a child suffering suggested effects of global warming. In a presentation at York University I said of that advertisement:

    It is child abuse to tell children that the future is not a place of opportunity for them to grow up into, but is a place of horror where their homes will be destroyed and their pets will be drowned.

    BBC Radio interviewed me (live on air) about my views as people were leaving for the Copenhagen Conference. The interviewer said I had “claimed global warming is child abuse”. I replied saying, “No, I said that advert. is child abuse.” The interviewer replied, “But the advertisement was about global warming” and stopped the subject.

    Clearly, at least some ‘warmers’ consider harmful indoctrination of children to be proper conduct.

    Richard

  43. Robert of Texas says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:58 pm
    This kid is obviously depressed and needs counseling. When someone is caught up in negative emotions they have no ability to think straight – I hope this kid recieves help. Its really sad that people are using children to score political points.

    ——————————————————————–

    Well every other argument they put forward is “think of the world we are leaving our children” so it isn’t much of a shock really.

  44. “Graeme No.3 says:

    And don’t worry about the kid. Just explain that AGW is just like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy – an adult fable to disguise where the money comes from.”

    Very very funny and true. LMAO

  45. To repeat this attack on Joe Romm and Fatih Birol is an argument in bad faith which originated in David Appell’s dislike of Joe Romm and which you are amplifying for similar reasons. The 2050 is an insertion by Reuters based on a misunderstanding.

    On Appell’s blog, Eli pointed this out and suggested that Appell ask Birol. In the discussion there scientific sources were found by others for the 6C claim in 2100.

  46. “richardscourtney says:
    May 30, 2012 at 3:14 am”

    I would consider Frannys 10:10 No Pressure video of school kids being blown up at the touch of a button to be actual child abuse, certainly more abuse a child may be exposed to due to CO2 driven AGW.

  47. Missed commenting this on a previous post so I’ll just post it here… seems more appropriate…

    quoting Nature: “A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists. A group calling itself the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has claimed responsibility for the non-fatal shooting of a nuclear-engineering executive on 7 May in Genoa. The same group sent a letter bomb to a Swiss pro-nuclear lobby group in 2011; attempted to bomb IBM’s nanotechnology laboratory in Switzerland in 2010; and has ties with a group responsible for at least four bomb attacks on nanotechnology facilities in Mexico. Another branch of the group attacked railway signals in Bristol, UK, last week in an attempt to disrupt employees of nearby defense technology firms (no word on whether anyone noticed the difference between an anarchist attack and a normal Wednesday on the UK’s railways). A report by Swiss intelligence says such loosely affiliated groups are increasingly working together.”

    If anyone has noticed, the skeptical side is always being blamed (incorrectly) for what the warmists are up to, being performed by their members. This must be some sort of propaganda rule they keep activating.

    First it was skeptics are following pseudo-science, the opposite is true. They claim peer-reviewed results are the only correct science and it seems peer-reviewed is the only pseudo-science now days, especially in major journals. Then they blamed us on corrupting kids educations and once again the opposite is true. Now eco-terrorism, the e-mail threat bit, once again it didn’t even exist. The list never ends.

    I used to be one of them, I’ve been in their circles and they place no weight on killing off half the population for the cause of “saving this third rock”, as long as it is not them. They tend to be tied into drugs and atheism, no rules, no morals for them. Now where is the modern-day Ness the meek and good-natured citizens want to know? I can think of no other group of people who really want half the world’s population dead. Can you? All they need to do is sever the world’s population from inexpensive energy, therefore affordable nutrition, and military protection, and they will accomplish their goal without lifting a rifle. Scoff at this thought, but it is underway with the MSM behind, and many of you know it. Just watch the people stand by and watch it happen.

    Those at realclimate, greenpeace, desmogblog, bradblog, wwf, ourglobalwarmingblog, thinkprogress, skepticalscience, collide-a-scape, ipcc, drmartinwilliams, stoat, un, dilbertblog, iea, openmind, scienceofdoom, to name a few… the modern day Reverend James “Jim” Jones’s, feeding mental poison to their climate followers, but instead of killing themselves, they want the rest of humanity to die, slowly, by hunger, or from the cold from lacking affordable energy. The old, the weak, I always learned those are the ones to protect first, at all costs.

    Do I not like them?…. you bet, but not dead, just in appropriate prisons, mental wards, or rehabilitation centers where they belong.

  48. You only have to glance at the photo of Fatih Birol, the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency to know what sort of a man he is. Unlike the portrait of Dorian Grey, his faults, his greed, his evil intentions, his ambition and duplicity are etched into his face. One could trust nothing at all that this man ever says.

  49. Bill Tuttle says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:35 pm
    Their double standard behavior is disturbing.
    You are implying that they actually have standards…
    ===============================================
    Of course they do, just not very high.

  50. 17 and his whole life? I can see him now crapping in diapers and worrying about climate change.

  51. Lucia at The Blackboard finds the IPCC 0.2C/decade trend is now +2 sigma higher than the UAH temperature record trend. i.e. ~95% probability that the mean warming rate of the IPCC models is wrong – NOT a “very likely” (>90%) correct.

    Birol’s 6C/32 years is 1.8 C/decade. That is ~940% of the actual 32 year trend!
    That is pure fear mongering with no physical basis.

    Nicola Scafetta finds natural cycles with minor anthropogenic contributions give better forecasting/hindcasting than IPCC models.

    I find the IPCC’s case is “Not Proven.”

  52. Patrick:

    I take the point you make to me at May 30, 2012 at 4:01 am. However, I stand by my point that it is also “actual child abuse” to destroy a child’s hope for the future and to replace it with fear. Indeed, the 17-year old in the above article is an example of what can be expected when a susceptible child is exposed to such abuse. Of course, not all children are susceptible but some are.

    Richard

  53. Reuters has issued a correction. The IEA is referring to the consequences at the turn of the coming century

    “When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (towards the end of this century), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters. “

  54. So 2 C by 2050 is pretty bad stuff and 6 C by 2100 or a bit later would be a total disaster.

    Contrary to rumor the Easter Bunny is one scary dude, ask Eli.

  55. Dr. John M. Ware says (May 30, 2012 at 3:11 am)
    “Unfortunately, far too many teenagers write as this one does”

    Gd he nt wrt txt omg lol

  56. Why is it always Reuters which carries the most alarmist nonsense?

    During the Copenhagen summit in 2009, Reuters was by far the loudest alarmist news service at the time. I guess that tradition continues.

  57. I grew up with the Cuban missile crisis. Genuinely 1 hour from all out nuclear war if the Russian ships had not turned, on my 12th birthday; with the “four minute warning” of impending nuclear war; with the Vietnam war; the cold war and as much latin and classics as our teachers could beat into us. Our response was to try and get the girls to meet us behind the bike sheds to tell them the end was coming. If I had sat around whining at the age of 17 about what might happen in 38 years time I would have been given a smack round the ear from my Dad. The kid should learn some rocket science if he is that scared and get the hell off the planet. I trust he will leave his designer trainers and computer and video games behind and stop getting lifts in his mum’s SUV to school. These are, after all, creations enabled by the evil oil and coal barons. It is no good complaining if you are too stupid to find out the truth, and too pathetic to do anything about it.

  58. Eli Rabett said (May 30, 2012 at 1:41 am)

    “…2050 makes no sense, but 2100 or a bit later does…”

    Wow, that makes me feel so much better. Instead of temps rising 6C in the next 38yrs (456mo), they’ll rise 6C in the next 88 yrs (1056mo).

    Instead of a projected .0131C per month, we should be seeing only .0056C per month.

    By the way, just how much temp rise has there been in the past 17 years? If this really is a scared 17 year old, he/she was born in 1995. 1998 was the “warmest ever”. He/she saw the warmest temps ever when he/she was 3 years old, and hasn’t seen a year warmer than that in the past 14 years.

    And that scares him/her…

  59. James Sexton says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Clearly, we’re in the age of stupid. We already knew about alarmists vile misanthropy, but each day I become more and more in awe of their unyielding stupidity.

    Unfortunately, these people are not stupid – and they have succeeded in getting their incorrect message across. They are astride a tiger though and are starting to get ever more concerned that they will have to dismount. My hope is that they are not planning to use the inevitable backlash as a useful crisis: my concern is that they have.

  60. ferd berple says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    In my hometown today, between morning and afternoon, there was a 11F warming. Deaths were in the millions as people burst into flames on the streets and in their houses. A similar trend was found in cities around the world. Tonight the human races faces certain extinction as a result of a 11F temperature rise felt around the world as sure as daytime follows night. News at 11.

    ==================

    And they have to deal with the subsequent 11F cooling at night as well. It’s a tough world out there

  61. They “corrected” their story.

    Went from “…”When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters…”

    to

    “…When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (towards the end of this century), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters…”

    So in that case, it appears that Reuters (in particular, the reporters or editors) inserted or changed the timeframe.

    It does say at the end of the article “Additional reporting by Gus Trompiz and Muriel Boselli; editing by Jason Neely”.

    They’ve also closed their comment section on the story.

  62. John F. Hultquist says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    “17 years old? I dont think so. 7, maybe. If really 17, he or she is unhinged.”

    Actually, these threats are similar to those James Hansen at NASA GISS has made to oil company executives. This 17 yeard old kid is just following in Hansen’s footsteps.

    Fortunately, we will finally be able to defund the climate clowns after November’s election…

  63. This young person needs assistance. Comments like that lead me to ask if this is evidence of deeper issues having nothing to do with climate. He or she sounds depressed and a 17 year old with depression is a pants on fire emergency. Romm has a duty to tell this young person to go talk to a trusted adult about his/her fears. Now.

  64. so eli rabett, where is all that extra feedback supposed to come from? For 6 deg c, you’ve got a forcing of the co2 doubling (only inclear skies) of 3.7w/m^2 and for the surface to rise an average of 6 deg C, you’ve got to block an additional 20+ w/m^2 beyond the co2 doubling contribution, almost the equivalent of all co2 currently in the atmosphere. Hint, a 5 deg C rise of the whole atmospheric column would result in only a 30% increase in absolute humidity, assuming constant RH and that amounts to perhaps 8 W/m^2 of additional power absorption. Nevermind that your very existence is absolute proof that the climate system is highly stable and self regulating.

  65. It is not just 17 year olds. I know several adults who literally lie awake some nights worried about what they actually believe will be the end of life on Earth. No, it is not rational. Yes, I have tried facts, science and sweet, sweet reason on them. No, it had no observable effect on them.

    Have you ever tried talking with a hypochondriac? They resent the idea that maybe they are not really sick; they get angry — really angry — that you would even suggest that they are not sick. At some level, I think that many of the CAGW foot troops are some sort of “global hypochondriac”. They place great value on the idea of the world being destroyed. They seem fascinated by the belief that we humans are destroying the planet. I don’t understand it, but it seems as if they will cling to any rationale which lets them hold on to the idea (the hope?) that the Earth is doomed.

  66. ntesdorf says:
    May 30, 2012 at 4:21 am

    You only have to glance at the photo of Fatih Birol, the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency to know what sort of a man he is. Unlike the portrait of Dorian Grey, his faults, his greed, his evil intentions, his ambition and duplicity are etched into his face. One could trust nothing at all that this man ever says.
    ==================================================================

    As well said by P.B. Shelley:

    Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lips, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

  67. Wayne said: “If anyone has noticed, the skeptical side is always being blamed (…)” and (of the warmists) “They tend to be tied into drugs and atheism, no rules, no morals for them.”

    Hipocrite!

  68. Jimmy Haigh. says:
    May 30, 2012 at 3:33 am
    “What is happening in schools these days so that students believe this crap?”

    To answer my own semi-rhetorical question: “A whole generation of liberal/leftst schoolteachers and the complete “dumbing down” of the education system, that’s what.”

  69. If this was really written by a 17 YO, It is a girl. 17 YO boys don’t readily admit to being scared.
    IMHO. This is adult written. Peter Gleick perhaps.

  70. Romm is just another naked boogeyman. Immature teens have not yet mastered fear and are still afraid of the dark. They require guides if they are going to visit Romm’s house of horror. Teachers are not informed guides and are pouring gasoline on small flames. Despicable! GK

  71. Anyone now seventeen was born in 1997/98. From then on, to the extent measurable, all subsequent years have registered either unambiguously declining or manifestly stable global temperatures.

    For this misfortunate exemplar of post-modern education (sic), facts matter nothing, AGW catastrophists’ nattering “narratives” are key. As mere attitudinal prejudice rather than reasoned response, this “learned helplessness” fits perfectly with the totalitarian worldviews of such as Pentti Linkola and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, beholden to death-eating Luddite sociopaths like Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Keith Farnish.

    [SNIP: OK, that’s a bit too far. WUWT does not condone suggestions like this and has condemned them when thay appear on other sites. -REP]

  72. First, 17andscared, consider that the warming we have had since 1850 has been overwhelmingly a positive thing. The longer growing seasons and more benevolent weather in the developed countries has resulted in a better life for most people. Warm is, within limits, always better than cold.
    Second, don’t dwell on things you can’t do anything about (I wish I could do that myself). Instead, work toward short and long term goals that you set for yourself. You are at the age when you need to decide what you will do with the first part of your working life. One goal you could set would be to go back to 9th grade composition class and learn to write properly. Based on your writing, I would never hire you. That is a far more urgent issue than climate change for you personally.
    Third, the past will generally repeat itself, so let history be your teacher. Do you really think that the planet can warm as fast as 11 deg. by 2050? Question everything, look at the record, and develop your own opinions. This applies to everything, not just climate. Don’t let a self-serving scaremonger ruin you life.

  73. Why would anyone place credence on childish prattle. These kids know nothing that hasn’t been served up to them in school. If the education (!) system is nuts, it is no wonder that the kids come up with nutty beliefs/worries.

  74. James Sexton has it exactly right in his comment above, we live in “the Age of Stupid”.

  75. Oh, I think that it is possible for Romm to be both ashamed and alarmist. We know what he is, and his price is 6 figures and a govt. pension.

  76. It looks as though Romm has snipped part of the comment. But his reply is very strange:

    17andscared says:

    May 25, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    Im 17 and been into climate for my whole life. Im sad. I cry at night sometimes, sometimes i wonder if its even worth trying in school and life, since civilisation is pretty much screwed,try and enjoy life while its good. And if any oil/coal people are here i have one thing to say: I hate you.[snip] everyone i know pretty much accepts that the future will suck but few know how bad. :( :( :(

    JR: One never knows whether such comments are genuine or not, so while this commenter was not advocating violence, I think it best to avoid the kind of over extremist speech that is standards fare on the denier blogs.

    Not advocating violence….really Joe……we will have to remember that.

  77. Eli Rabett says:
    “In the discussion there scientific sources were found by others for the 6C claim in 2100.”

    And third-person speaking Eli finds that the economic portions of these simulations posited in these scientific studies reflect current European (and potential USA) economic reality to what degree????

    It looks more like Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain will be praying for AGW to keep warm because they won’t be able to afford sticks to rub together for heat. But who cares about economics, MIT had a cooooool roulette wheel.

  78. Keep in mind that most of us were also pretty naive at 17. Hopefully, this kid will eventually check historic temperatures and realize it hasn’t warmed at all in his/her entire life. And, when it doesn’t warm in the next few years they will start to realize they were had. It sometimes takes events like this for youngsters to realize that 89.341948% of all predictions are total nonsense.

  79. Links have been provided at RR, they are to an MIT study. If you want to know why Birol says 6 C by the end of the century go buy the 2011 World Energy Report, it’s in there. The statement itself is in the executive summary which is on line.

    So at the end of this, let us summarize, Romm was right, the IEA is forecasting 6C in 2100 or thereabouts. Tony was wrong (and David Appell and Hans v and several others here), no one was talking about 6C by 2050. Reuters made an error (see RR) and corrected it. Thank you for confirming my faith in Mr. Watts and his readers.

    REPLY: Except, the quote exists, so obviously your “no one was talking about 6C by 2050″ is just another rabett tale. BTW, Hr. Halpern, my name is not Tony, its Anthony.

    • It seems the 2050 date was mentioned in the IEA press release:

      http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=436

      “We have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act,” said IEA Deputy Executive Director Ambassador Richard H Jones. “Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs; under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships – a legacy that I know none of us wishes to leave behind.”

      So the Reuters reporter got it wrong, conflating the date for CO2 doubled in 2050 with 6C by then, instead of 6C by the end of the century. But in typical Eli-snarkbunny speak, Professor Joshua Halpern of Howard University blames everybody else here for bringing this point of nonsense to light.

      And, we’ll continue to do so, no matter what Mr. Halpern thinks about it.

  80. The IEA has a separate World Energy Outlook website, which has a section where quotes from news articles about the IEA are archived. Showing the expected wisdom of a UN bureaucracy, the new quotes arrive on Page 1, pushing older quotes to higher-numbered index pages, ensuring web links to pages with specific items will eventually die.

    Currently at the bottom of Page 8 is the correct “2100” figure:

    28 November 2011, People’s Daily Online, China

    Thats one reason Fatih Birol — the Turkish-born chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA) — has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Birol helps put together the IEAs annual World Energy Outlook, a much anticipated report that gathers trends in global energy use and tries to project them into the future. And a lot of those trends are very worrying. The IEA has said that current global-energy-consumption patterns put the earth on a trajectory to warm by nearly 11°F (6°C) above preindustrial levels by 2100 if we do nothing to change them — climate change that would in effect mean an entirely different planet. “That would be a catastrophe for all of us,” Birol said last week at a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City.

    On the current Page 1 though is a good whopper from Mr. Birol (bold added):

    21 May 2012, Huffington Post

    If this statement by Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA) last week wasn’t a dire warning, then I don’t know what is: “What I see now with existing investments for plants under construction… we are seeing the door for a 2 degree Celsius target about to be closed and closed forever.” […]Nothing in the “Camp David Declaration” comes even close to moving us off the frightening trajectory which the IEA is warning about. […] On the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, the declaration merely reiterates previous commitments to phasing them out over the medium term, despite the fact that according to Birol “we are going backwards.” From 2010 to 2012, fossil fuel subsidies increased from $400 billion to $630 billion. If you think this is an issue of environment vs. economics, think again. To quote Birol once more, “One dollar not invested now in reducing C02 will cost 4.6 dollars in the next decade to achieve the same effect.” It’s like using one credit card to pay off the debt on another. The interest payments will get you in the end.

    With price reductions from technology improvements for wind and solar and expected increased energy efficiency over the coming decade, it’s going to take $4.60 then to do what $1 does right now? Is that adjusted for inflation? Is he expecting multiple economies to crash and the US dollar to be seriously devalued?

    $1 now for $4.60 in ten years? Wow, that’s an impressive interest rate! How do I get in on that action?

  81. Jenn Oates says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Not to mentioning encouraging a teenager to feel so hopeless about the future. If I had a student who was like that I’d be referring him/her to counseling ASAP.
    _______________________________________
    That is the truly sad part of all of this and the reason I Really Really hate the fear mongering in the pursuit of cash and control. How many kids lives will be ruined or ended because of this crap? How many, like my niece will decide to go to college for some sort of “ecology degree” and end up in some dead end job (straightening up other peoples houses) instead of contributing to our technical progress?

  82. From the Fuzzy Wuzzy Bunny Rabett on May 30, 2012 at 9:09 am:

    Links have been provided at RR, they are to an MIT study. If you want to know why Birol says 6 C by the end of the century go buy the 2011 World Energy Report, it’s in there. The statement itself is in the executive summary which is on line.

    World Energy Outlook 2011 Executive Summary pdf download here.

    Relevant excerpt, report page 2:

    We cannot afford to delay further action to tackle climate change if the long-term target of limiting the global average temperature increase to 2°C, as analysed in the 450Scenario, is to be achieved at reasonable cost. In the New Policies Scenario, the world is on a trajectory that results in a level of emissions consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of more than 3.5°C. Without these new policies, we are on an even more dangerous track, for a temperature increase of 6°C or more.

    Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permissible by 2035 in the
    450 Scenario are already “locked-in” by our existing capital stock
    (power plants,
    buildings, factories, etc.). If stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the
    energy-related infrastructure then in place will generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450Scenario up to 2035, leaving no room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremely costly. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sector before 2020 an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.

    That tells us enough. The exaggerated $4+ figure comes from holding atmospheric CO2 to 450 parts per million by another daft global “carbon emissions” limiting scheme, which will never happen. The “New Policies Scenario” is looser, likely heavily weighted to “Green low-to-zero carbon” energy sources to reduce “carbon emissions”. If we do nothing than we get the 6°C.

    Which brings up previous IPCC reports and Jimmy Hansen projecting temperature increases with no restrictions that still haven’t materialized. Such has failed before. Why would the IEA (and a fuzzy wuzzy bunny rabett) believe that this time those increases really would magically materialize?

  83. John F. Hultquist says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    17 years old? I don’t think so. 7, maybe. If really 17, he or she is unhinged.
    _______________________________
    You have not dealt much with kids who have been spoon fed hate and fear by the alarmists have you? I get screamed at by teenagers (and adults) all the time because I -GASP – have ponies and livestock. Unhinged is indeed the correct term but it is the adult teachers that are doing the “Unhinging”
    “PETA has infiltrated our public schools, offering free lesson plans to teachers in every school, from coast to coast, under the guise of “humane education”….One such “lesson plan” was created by a PETA group called Just Choices. The lesson, The Road to Social Justice, equates racism, sexism and speciesism

    PETA is also on the CAGW bandwagon
    PETA to Energy Conscious Mount Sinai Schools: Going Vegan Is One of the Best Ways to Conserve Resources and Protect the Environment,

    PETA Protest Targets Elementary School
    …Regardless of how you feel about animal rights, this move by PETA to show up unannounced and uninvited at a Long Island elementary school to convince children that circuses mistreat their animals simply feels wrong-headed. Protesters reportedly handed out coloring books to children leaving for the day with stickers that read, “Circuses are no fun for animals” according to Newsday….

    more: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2009/03/3852-peta-turns-elementary-school-into-circus/

    PETA to pay schools for Ads on school property: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-penn-kids-soon-be-subjected-to-peta-ads-in-school/

    This same type of crap is going on in the schools in regards to CAGW. PETA is just easier to find examples of because it is more closely knit.

  84. @ RobRoy “I call it Munchausen Syndrome by Temperature Proxy.”

    Good one! I might be using that… :)

  85. Alexis says: @ May 29, 2012 at 9:40 pm
    ““I hope you die and rot in hell” is a curse, which is a sin; but it is not “I hate you and I’m gonna kill you” which is a death-threat.”
    ________________________________

    No, it’s not a curse however it is very easy to turn that type of anger and hate into a serious threat to others. Anthony already pointed out “…the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has claimed responsibility for the non-fatal shooting of a nuclear-engineering executive on 7 May in Genoa…. link

    This kid is a prime target for recruitment into this type of violent organization. Half of new graduates are jobless or underemployed and about 3.2 million students are expected to graduate from high school in 2011–12. How many of those jobless million are primed for mayhem by the brainwashing they have received?

    This is not theoretical either. I had for years been the “target” of several “attacks” by kids recruited by PETA. A friend is fighting a multimillion dollar lawsuit most probably engineered by PETA. The attacks on me stopped a week before they managed to entangled my friend in the lawsuit and not one attack has happened in the several years since then. (Lawsuit is still on going so enough said)

    The situation is darn dangerous, I just hope it does not explode into major violence.

  86. Disko Troop says:
    May 30, 2012 at 5:23 am

    I live in England,and was about the same age when the Cuban missile crisis happened. I can remember my parents discussing it. They were pretty worried at the time.

    When I was 18 (1969), the college I was attending had a ‘One in Five(?)’ talk given by the Civil Defense people from the government. The aim was to give one in five (or whatever the number was) of the population a crash course in what to do in the event of a nuclear strike. I remember us being told to put brown paper on the windows, and the rest was basically put your head between your knees and kiss your a**e goodbye. It wasn’t so much frightening as laughable. That was when there was supposed to be a four minute warning. As somebody said at the time, some people can run a mile in four minutes.

    The same sort of people as promote CAGW formed CND, and wanted us to unilaterally get rid of our (the West’s) bombs. The only thing that stopped a first strike was the concept of mutually assured destruction, but that was a very powerful incentive, and we now know what happened. That scare has, I hope, receded. (Iran notwithstanding………..)

    But as HL Mencken said, government has to keep us in a state of fear. CAGW was chosen, but it appears not to be working too well. It appears they are now going for sustainability and the threat of mass extinction. Those don’t really fit the bill for scaring us all to death. It really has to be global, and involve apocalypse and megadeaths.

    This pathetic 17 year old (if he/she actually exists) is just shouting this generation’s equivalent of ‘Ban the Bomb!’

  87. Gail Combs says:
    This same type of crap is going on in the schools in regards to CAGW. PETA is just easier to find examples of because it is more closely knit.

    Yet one more reason I homeschool.

  88. All those multi degree warming projections rely on the strongly positive water vapor feedback built into climate models. The empirical data on global atmospheric water vapor, like most climate data, is pretty sucky which means this is another area which is like Alice’s Restaurant i.e. “You can get anything you want” in terms of interpretations. This

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

    is from a number of years ago, but I just did a quick search and it popped up fairly early in list and somewhat surprisingly there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that is more current and/or definitive on the subject. A strongly positive water vapor feedback claim is, on its face, so counterintuitive that, to my mind at least, it falls under the metric of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. From what I’ve seen not only do the proofs presented fail to rise to the “extraordinary” level, they don’t even approach the level of proof at a vary ordinary level. For most of the “science” it requires an act of epistemological charity to credit it with providing a basis for more than weak suspicion. There has been some works from the skeptic side which suggest the H2O feedback is either small or even negative and I tend to be more sympathetic to that view although I must admit that sympathy may be driven their agreement with my personal prejudices. BTW, being self aware enough to monitor one’s thoughts for intrusions of personal prejudices seems to be an aspect of modern analysis that is becoming as obsolete as buggy whips, but I’m just an amateur at this so what do I know.

    At any rate the strongly positive H2O feedback seems to be the fundamental footing upon which the edifice of CAGW is built. Absent it the rest is pretty much a house of cards. Given that the science, other than tautological model runs, has never really supported it and, if anything, the trend of evidence seems to run in the opposite direction, the fact that school’s across the planet are using this nonsense to terrorize their charges to the point that many are candidates for therapy because of it, is a crime against humanity ( I’ve been seeing stories of children requiring therapy because of this since AIT was a new release)

    There are many hypotheses which have been put forward to explain the vagaries of our climate. Probably at least 6-8 have attracted enough acolytes to be considered as a semiplausible possibility. Most are serious longshots, but even the betting favorites are far enough from getting it right that they don’t justify anything like the confidence that is commonplace in this phony crisis. While evidence from the science is incredibly weak, the evidence from history is almost incontrovertible. Doing the things demanded by the scaremongers pushing this hype has a history of its own and the record demonstrates that the results of doing so have never been good for humanity in the long run and in fact have almost always been incredibly bad. Embracing these supposedly”planet saving” mandates means essentially returning humanity to the state of existence that prevailed when the world was ruled by hereditary monarchs. The only real difference being that in that sweep of history we occasionally had a “good king” who could be, however briefly, benevolent. The misanthropy of our new overlords suggests that expecting any benevolence from any of them is an incredibly naive hope.

  89. REPLY: Except, the quote exists, so obviously your “no one was talking about 6C by 2050″ is just another rabett tale. BTW, Hr. Halpern, my name is not Tony, its Anthony.

    That quote doesn’t exist, Reuters reported: “When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol. Unfortunately ‘(by 2050)’ was not part of the quotation but an insertion by Reuters, perhaps that’s their normal practice to indicate an inserted note, but it seems liable to lead to misunderstanding as it has in this case. As pointed out by Eli they have now replaced the contents of the bracket with ‘towards the end of this century’ which more accurately represents the context of Birol’s remarks.

    REPLY: Sorry, Phil, not buying it. 2050 was there, no matter who inserted it, and people were in fact talking about it. I’m fine for blaming Rueters for making up/bollixing a quote, but it did in fact exist in print, and the 2050 date existed in the IEA press release. End of discussion. – Anthony

  90. Eli, Could you summarize the evidence that a 6C increase in temperature would be a disaster? Before you answer, without actually knowing how much sea level rise will occur how fast with a 6C increase over 100 years, who could seriously predict disaster based on sea level rise? As you probably know there have been several recent studies in which no trend could be detected in extreme weather events during late 20th century warming, so extreme weather is not a credible basis for predicting disaster. Anything else? Plants should be happier with more CO2 and we are nowhere near the point at which CO2 causes any problem for animals. All other things being equal, longer growing seasons in temperate zones should increase, not decrease crop yields. Finally, CO2 has been several times current levels in the distant past and life was never extinguished, and there is no indication of a tipping point. If anything, very high levels of CO2 associated with conditions still suitable for a wide variety of organisms should raise serious questions about the positive feedbacks built into climate models, which probably should yield a tipping point (if they were real). So even if there was a 6C increase (which is unlikely), the predictions of disaster seem to me to be almost entirely conjecture. If you know of observation-based information to the contrary, I would be interested.

    I keep thinking about a paper in PNAS in which output from regional GCM models (which don’t seem to work very well) was fed into a model for crop yield and output from that model was fed into a model for human migration. The result? Near certainty that the US will be flooded by millions of climate refugees from Mexico (Published online before print July 26, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002632107). This paper epitomizes much of what is wrong with climate science to me. It wouldn’t be taken seriously in any other field, but if it predicts disaster due to warming, it’s in.

  91. Watts Obession with Joe Romm is scary. Watts has this great web site. But he pomotes Joe Romm.

    He defends the Heartland billboard. Watts up with Watts?

    This used to be a great site for skeptics. Turning into a sleazy attack site.

    Please get back to Science.

    REPLY:
    Digging for the truth is never sleazy, but embellishing the truth is. I will continue to call out Romm on his embellishments and fabrications, as will others.

    Another good example is the story yesterday that Romm ran with saying :

    Extreme Weather Roundup: Earliest Second Named Tropical Storm, Record-Smashing Heat Wave, Widespread Drought

    “Beryl is Earliest “B” Storm on Record The chart shows the date of formation for the second named Atlantic tropical cyclone of the season from 1950 through 2012. The average date through 2011 was August 1, so Beryl is nearly 10 weeks earlier than average.”

    That’s TOTALLY false, Steve Goddard writes:

    ========================================================

    According to Hansen, 1907 was the coldest year ever. The following spring had a 100 MPH category 2 hurricane during Early March. A second hurricane formed on May 24 and hit the US. Only three hurricanes have hit the US during May, the most recent one being at the peak of the ice age scare in 1970.

    Hurricane Two
    Category 1 hurricane (SSHS)

    Duration May 24 – May 31 1908
    Intensity 75 mph (120 km/h) (1-min), 989 mbar (hPa)
    This hurricane hit the U.S. in May, causing minor effects. It was one of only 3 May hurricanes during the 20th century in the Atlantic Basin; the others were Able in 1951 and Alma in 1970. It marked the earliest date for the season’s second hurricane to form in any Atlantic season on record, and it was the earliest hurricane to hit the U.S. in recorded history.

    Source: 1908 Atlantic hurricane season – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    =============================================================================
    Romm couldn’t be bothered to check the data prior to 1950, and thus he lied with his claim.

    As for the Heartland Billboard, perhaps you didn’t read what I said about it:

    I also want to reiterate that Heartland made a huge misstep and blunder with their recent billboard campaign, and that while it is technically true that “unabomber” Ted Kaczynski did in fact write about his concerns about greenhouse gases in his manifesto (I checked), the method of messaging chosen by Heartland was just plain dumb, ugly, and counterproductive in my view. From what I gather, their intent was to use the same tactics that have been employed by alarmists against skeptics, to illustrate how these ugly tactics are used. But, when you sink to using the same tactics as your opponent, you give away any moral advantage you might have, and I think Heartland did that.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/on-the-climate-the-holocaust-denial-billboards-and-all-that/

    So if shooting down Romm’s embellishments and fabrications, which often make it into other publications, bothers you, you are welcome to skip over those entries – Anthony

  92. Yeah well, it’s Prof. Dr. Rabett, but Eli’s friends call him Bunny. The “quote” included an insertion by the reporter of “2050” that was not uttered by Dr. Birol so your uberquet REPLY: Except, the quote exists, so obviously your “no one was talking about 6C by 2050″ speaks for itself.

    REPLY: it does, because people WERE in fact talking about it, including Dr. Bunny Rabett, pointing out that it made no sense, without suggesting at that time that Reuters inserted it. Reuters has retracted the error and issued a correction, likely due to all the attention we and other skeptics gave it, and that’s a good thing.

    Now you only have to explain how we’ll get 6C/11F by the end of the century, when the last century worth of CO2 -vs- temperature doesn’t support that slightly less ridiculous number either. Can’t get there without feedback, and feedback isn’t cooperating, and absorption bands are getting saturated. What’s a snark bunny to do? Make stuff up? – Anthony

  93. Whether the claims are 2050 or 2100 are irrelevant when we know the models are the only things that have based this by 2100 and on the worst-case scenario. We know this is a grasping at straws model guess completely relying on positive feedback and not supported by any scientific evidence/observations demonstrated on the planet whatsoever for years. It has failed the test of scientific method even with many billions of funding, but some people not interested in science want to ignore this and continue their money grabbing agenda. They just won’t let the failed models lie and doing whatever means possible to change supposedly global observational data to reflect this. Unfortunately the 17 year old is just an example of a victim with this propaganda, without knowing the science facts.

  94. REPLY: Sorry, Phil, not buying it. 2050 was there, no matter who inserted it, and people were in fact talking about it. I’m fine for blaming Rueters for making up/bollixing a quote, but it did in fact exist in print, and the 2050 date existed in the IEA press release. End of discussion. – Anthony

    Anthony – unless I’m missing something I think Reuters accurately reported the first time – the IEA PR quote your provided:

    “We have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act,” said IEA Deputy Executive Director Ambassador Richard H Jones. “Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs; under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships – a legacy that I know none of us wishes to leave behind.”

    Reading the IEA quote gives a very clear impression IMO:

    “… we estimate energy use and CO2 emission’s would …. almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher.”

    There is zero indication in the IEA quote that they meant “by the end of the century” – it clearly states they expect a doubling by 2050 and “THIS” would likely lead to a 6°C increase.

    It is IEA fear mongering, repeated by alarmists like Romm, that is the real problem. Reuters reported IMO accurately according to info provided by IEA. Interestingly the “Press Presentation” link on the Press Release page goes to a dead link.

    More troubling to me is this quote from the IEA release:

    The report offers three over-arching policy recommendations for changing this status quo and moving clean-energy technologies to the mainstream market:

    First, level the playing field for clean energy technologies. This means ensuring that energy prices reflect the “true cost” of energy – accounting for the positive and negative impacts of energy production and consumption

    Exactly what does level playing field to reflect true cost mean? Sounds a lot like Obama’s mission to destroy coal even if it means increasing cost of energy, or his energy Czar’s idea we should vastly increase to cost of gas to encourage energy efficiency.

  95. The alarmists have much to be proud of.

    Causing depression and mental illness in young gullible people is a sure fire way to promote success in their lives.

    These people show the signs of radical activist thinking that leads to acts of terrorism because they have been brainwashed into thinking society is basically evil anyway and their actions can be considered as “noble” in their twisted thinking.

    Well done guys – another fragile individual’s life catastrophically ruined – and this person will live a hateful life and die waiting for the “holocaust” of global warming,climate change or climate disruption or whatever the new buzzword becomes.

  96. So,

    Scientists didn’t claim an ice age was coming in the 70’s… it was the media.

    Scientists didn’t deserve grief for “Hide the Decline”… it was the media.

    Scientists didn’t claim they received death threats…it was the media

    and now…

    Alarmists never said 6 degrees by 2050…it was the media

    Like all good Staple’s customers, I think they’ve found a great time-saver…

    http://www.freeimagehosting.net/me2ha

  97. My comment on Romm’s site that I posted a copy of here is *still* waiting for moderation yet he has now added some words under the kid’s post to advise against “death wishes like those on denialist sites”! What a joke!

  98. Come on guys. Stop with the teacher bashing. I have never experienced that type of indoctrination you accuse teachers of in my district. What I have witnessed is unfettered access to the internet. Teens can, all on their own, read about and buy into whatever they read on the net. No classroom required. No teacher encouragement needed. They can do it entirely on their own devices.

    • Pamela Gray
      Come on guys. Stop with the teacher bashing. I have never experienced that type of indoctrination you accuse teachers of in my district. What I have witnessed is unfettered access to the internet. Teens can, all on their own, read about and buy into whatever they read on the net. No classroom required. No teacher encouragement needed. They can do it entirely on their own devices.

      Pamela, YOU may not have witnessed it, but others certainly have. What else would you call it when a student presents accurate, factual, information in class (with citations) that contradicts the teachers position, and the teacher simply dismisses it as fantasy and refuses to even entertain the subject? This is exactly what has happened with my daughter many times.

      Yes, they may have access to the internet, but students are taught to bow to authority – and to accept the party line as taught in class. There is no room for independent thought.

  99. Back when I was a naive, passion inflamed undergrad, I imagined that “The Empire” was run by the oil companies, Ronald Reagan was Darth Vader and LA was that Rome-like Imperial center of power. I had it all figured out. The Ecotopian rebels would defeat the Empire, and peace would reign in the Galaxy.

    I have since grown up.

  100. To be fair…there probably were responses that did take issue with this and the student-aged commentor, but none of those comments make it onto the blog. I’ve posted there with facts and links that contridict them and my replies never show up.

  101. Romm seems to allow all sorts of strange comments, without a bit of remorse.

    Such as this gem (from poster “Wonhyo”, made on May 25, 2012 at 3:46 pm):

    “…On behalf of the generations who preceded you, please accept my apologies for our utter failure to pass down a stable, moderate, and livable climate for you and your children to live in…”

    And as PART of that generation that preceded you, there should be a hearty thank you to the REAL scientists – the ones who used their gifts and created vaccines.

    Vaccines for:
    Anthrax
    Cervical Cancer (Human Papillomavirus)
    Diphtheria
    Hepatitis A
    Hepatitis B
    Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
    Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
    Influenza (Flu)
    Japanese encephalitis (JE)
    Lyme disease (no longer available in the United States)
    Measles
    Meningococcal
    Monkeypox (the smallpox vaccine is used for this disease)
    Mumps
    Pertussis
    Pneumococcal
    Polio
    Rabies
    Rotavirus
    Rubella
    Shingles (Herpes Zoster)
    Smallpox
    Tetanus
    Typhoid
    Tuberculosis (TB)
    Varicella (Chickenpox)
    Yellow Fever

    Just a few years ago, that student might not have made it to 17. Global warming wasn’t the fear.

    Infant mortality in 1850 was about 216.8 (per 1000 births), while in 2000 it dropped to about 5.7 (per 1000 births).

    “…An utter failure to pass down a stable, moderate, and livable climate for you and your children to live in…”?

    If he really wants to be scared, pray that those diseases aren’t released from their cages.

  102. Dear 17andscared,

    I know this will be difficult to believe about people who have protected and nurtured you your whole life, but–there’s no easy way to put this–grownups don’t know everything. Yes, I’m afraid sometimes they’re completely wrong, don’t realize they’re wrong, and do the wrong things with the utmost sincerity. But worse than that–and I hate to be the one to break the news–sometimes they outright lie for their own gain, exploiting the unquestioning trust of, well, people like you. FYI, some examples of grownup liars are criminals, politicians, and climate alarmists–but I repeat myself.

    Your only defense against the sincerely wrong and the sincerely mendacious is knowledge, something very hard to get, but well worth the effort. When confronted with apocalyptic predictions, for example, you should seek out opposing views, compare the evidence offered both pro and con, and make up your own mind. I confidently predict that you’ll find the situation is seldom as clear-cut or alarming as initially presented. Bear in mind also that the doom of the human race has been predicted constantly for about the last 200,000 years and–surprise!–we’re still here. I remember my own sainted grandmother regularly declaring “The country is going to the DOGS!” when I was young. I’ll probably tell my own grandkids the same thing.

    If that doesn’t help, I offer these words of wisdom from contemporary popular culture:

    PS Also, there’s no Santa Claus.

  103. I found another interesting post slightly further down the thread:

    That’s all too plausible. Years ago, I read a book by ecopsychologist Chellis Glendinning,

    What is an ecopsychologist??? Do they counsel the climate? Perhaps tell ENSO how to better acclimate?

  104. Eli Rabett says:
    May 30, 2012 at 3:12 pm
    “Yeah well, it’s Prof. Dr. Rabett, but Eli’s friends call him Bunny.”

    Oi. A professor who speaks of himself in the third person. And you gotta pay for that kind of education. No wonder the US is seriously effed.

  105. I perused over some of the responses to that child’s juvenile rant. Wow.

    The posters are supposed adults and OBVIOUSLY climatologically void, weather cherry-pickers (You know, like NASA!).

    Yet a majority go on to FEED this kid’s delusion.!

    Sad. NOT ONE rebuttal suggested reading as much as possible from BOTH spectrums of thought. Don’t hitch your ideology to one but instead read furiously if you’re truly interested.

    In the process that person may discover TRUE science and be the better for it. Then again that kid may come to realize how big of, albeit nice, scientific ethos-void kooks they are.

  106. I perused over some of the responses to that child’s juvenile rant. Wow.

    The posters are supposed adults and OBVIOUSLY climatologically void, weather cherry-pickers (You know, like NASA!).

    Yet a majority go on to FEED this kid’s delusion.!

    Sad. NOT ONE rebuttal suggested reading as much as possible from BOTH spectrums of thought. Which is sid quo pro for ALL sciences. To NOT hitch your ideology to one star but instead read furiously if you’re truly interested in the subject matter.

    In the process this person may discover TRUE science and be the better for it. Then again this kid may come to realize how big of, albeit nice, scientific method-void kooks they are.

  107. Dear 17andscared (assuming you’re posting is sincere and not a troll),
    There’s no crying in science. Crying is an emotion. Science is a dispassionate endeavor. It’s supposed to be highly circumspect about it’s own conclusions. You’ve had the misfortune of being influenced by people who are activists and advocates, PRETENDING to be scientists. You need to learn this difference, because apparently, this lack of knowlege is harming your well-being.

    I don’t want you to feel bad, and I certainly don’t want unbalanced young men wishing mass death on productive members of society. You’re feeling things that are way out of proportion to your life. You’re too young to have a decent perspective on whether civilization is “screwed” as you so eloquently put it. Remember, if you’re living in the U.S. or Europe, you’ve had a kingly life when compared to the lives of people from the past. Ask yourself whether you’d enjoy toiling under the hot sun in a agrarian society? A lot of people like you probably think the answer is an obvious ‘yes.’ So do something productive. Go prove it to yourself. Hire on as a farm laborer one summer. I guaran-damn-tee you that after 3 months of laboring in the sun you will have a different perspective. You may discover that you enjoy air-conditioning.

    As for your hatred of oil and coal “people,” well, I’m not sure how best to get through to you how misguided such hatred can be. Do you ever enjoy the benefits of driving or riding in a car? In a bus? Is your home heated in the winter? Have you ever given any serious thought to what would happen to society if there were no oil and coal (and natural gas)? It would not lead to a society that we’d recognize. It would NOT be a utopia. There would be lack, suffering and decline. And people would be burning wood. People without wood to burn would be freezing in the winter. Please study the difference between the nations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic for a case study of what happens when wood from trees is the primary fuel for human beings. And then maybe you could thank the people who allow your life to be one of abundance, convenience, and for a lifestyle that affords YOU a wider opportunity of options.

    Here’s a wonderful message and perspective for a young person who’s been brainwashed into hopelessness by the modern Progressive movement, from Bill Whittle, from PJ Media. It’s about 10 minutes long, but well worth the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83P11kZuMtQ Please watch it and try to feel better. And don’t be so scared.

    Good luck, 17andscared.

    • Mickey.. Best rebuttal ever.

      Hat tip to the Bill Whittle as well. Love pjmedia as well.

      ~Cheers

      [Moderator’s Request: Paul, I’m sure you are not intending to be deceptive, but you have commented here with two different screen names today and three overall. Site rules prohibit using multiple screen names. Please select one and stick with it. Thanks. -REP]

  108. henrythethird says: @ May 30, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    …..And as PART of that generation that preceded you, there should be a hearty thank you to the REAL scientists – the ones who used their gifts and created vaccines…..
    _______________________________
    Yes in my grandparents time most families expected to lose children. I remember losing classmates to Polio.
    ____________________________
    Pamela Gray, There are good teachers out their in decent school systems. There are also those that allow in the crap. It depends on state mandates and the school system. The school system where I am stinks and I know this despite not having any kids because I and my husband end up tutoring a lot of the kids gratis. My Husband substitute teaches too.

  109. May 30, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    I found another interesting post slightly further down the thread:

    That’s all too plausible. Years ago, I read a book by ecopsychologist Chellis Glendinning,

    What is an ecopsychologist??? Do they counsel the climate? Perhaps tell ENSO how to better acclimate?
    __________________________________
    I could not let that pass without checking.

    So who is ecopsychologist Chellis Glendinning?

    A new book by ecotherapist and wilderness guide Bill Plotkin, Ph.D., founder of the Animas Valley Institute and author of Soulcraft: Crossing into the Mysteries of Nature and Psyche, offers many practical riches for therapists and practitioners or students of ecopsychology.

    In a fascinating synthesis of indigenous wisdom, non-Western spiritualities, depth psychology, social activism and ecology, Plotkin introduces an ecopsychology of human development that reveals how fully and creatively we can mature when soul and wild nature are allowed to guide us.

    He outlines an eight stage wheel of “eco-soulcentric” development from early childhood through death, and includes practical methods of proceeding naturally through these stages. Some of the names he gives the stages can be confusing or even a little precious (“The Thespian at the Oasis,” “ The Apprentice at the Wellspring”), but a close reading reveals their purpose.

    I do a lot of career exploration work with clients, so was especially interested in the stage he calls “The Wanderer in the Cocoon,” which encourages us to follow Native American teacher Harley Swift Deer’s advice to find both our “survival dance” and “sacred dance.” ……

    If this is they type of help available for this kid no wonder he is mixed up in the head!

  110. Yes DirkH, Eli finds it quit amusing to see the harumphing regalia being donned to ensure proper protocol. Engenders much eye rolling. When he was about to graduate, an old professor took Eli aside and told him of the traditional pre-doctorate ceremony where the candidates are helped to stuff a bunch of their papers under their shirts (evidently more of a chemistry thing than physics, but tastes differ). Skipped that one.

  111. Ok, I’m confused.
    Eli Rabett talks in the third person, with utterances such as:
    “Yeah well, it’s Prof. Dr. Rabett, but Eli’s friends call him Bunny.”
    =====
    Yet our overworked host, wastes His precious time replying to his inane comments.
    WUWT.
    I guess it is something personal.
    No need to explain, I don’t want to know :)

    • This self-referential third person thing reminds me of Sesame Street. I haven’t seen that since my son was 3.

  112. tonyG –
    that sort of thing is done by aging chickenhawks at bars named ‘the blue goose’,
    and sesame street….

  113. TonyG, if you really want a taste of attempts by authority to indoctinate, go to church. If you like the message, you will buy into it and hope your family will too. Yet, if you turn around and look into the faces of moms and pops, you will find many with worry lines. Why? Because about every third family will have a kid who has decided to live life on the edge, wanting nothing to do with the message spoken from the pulpit. How did that happen? A roll of the dice. Genetics delt a bad hand and you got a black sheep, or a depressed kid, or an angry personality. No one caused it. And certainly not the public school system. These kids are just that way and you cannot prevent it or cure it. You can only live through it and hope the kid does too.

    The school system did not turn this kid into a what he is right now. Nor his parents or other peers. Not even Romm. This kid came with the strange mood he/she has and has found something that feeds into his mood, validating it and creating more of the trauma he/she craves. That Romm is so willing to feed bowl fulls of trauma to this kid says much more about Romm than it says about all the other entities of assumed blame.

    • Pamela, you are certainly a staunch defender of the faith when it comes to public schools. You must have had very good experiences with the public school system. I can’t say I’ve had as positive an experience with my children.

  114. No, you have my thoughts and beliefs pegged wrong. No matter how bad the school system is, nor how good it is, you can still get a kid willing to believe in witches and worlocks, or climate alarmism and the likes of Romm, whatever feeds their dark outlook. Romm and his ilk did not create this kid, and neither do whatever school they attend. The kid came that way looking for devastation and someone or something to blame for his/her dark mood.

    • I have no argument with what you say about this particular person. But I think it’s rather naive to think that the situation is not exacerbated by a failing school system. There are those who will believe anything, no matter what. But what about those who will actually think for themselves, if given sufficient information, but who are NOT given that information, and not even told that it exists? What about those who try to think for themselves and find their ideas dismissed without even a hearing? What about those who are taught, repeatedly, to toe the line and keep their mouths shut – don’t disagree with the authorities, do what you’re told, and you’ll be ok?

      From my perspective, the public schools function primarily as indoctrination centers to teach children to believe “authority” unquestioningly. This comes from my experience with three children in a dozen different schools, in multiple districts, in two states. They’re NOT doing our children a service.

Comments are closed.