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
The trouble is Willis, a climate catastrophist’s memory is only a day long……sigh.
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
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.
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
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.
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’
Amazing…’People running around with signs saying ‘the world is coming to an end’ are considered the sane ones by the MSM
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.
With all this crying wolf it is about time for someone to que the music from “Peter and the Wolf”.
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
It’s a pity the IEA is now an indistinguishable part of the doom monger’s machine. They used to provide some valuable data.
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.
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.
Everything is always 5 years away, including the next doom laden headline.
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.
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!
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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…“?
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.