Greens extend estimated point of no return – by 25 years!

One day we'll reach that tipping point Martha!
The climate tipping point

How many climate deadlines and incontrovertible tipping points have been noisily proclaimed over the years, only to be quietly forgotten or shamelessly rescheduled, when the deadline passes uneventfully?

The Earth League, a group composed mostly of climate personalities nobody has never heard of, have just extended the green point of no return to 2040 – a whopping 25 years from today.

According to their “Earth Statement“;

2015 is a critical year for humanity. Our civilization has never faced such existential risks as those associated with global warming, biodiversity erosion and resource depletion. Our societies have never had such an opportunity to advance prosperity and eradicate poverty. … This includes additional public funding for mitigation and adaptation at a level at least comparable to current global ODA (around 135 billion USD p.a.).

Read more:

OK, I kind of glossed over a lot of their statement, but I think I have captured the essentials. And that extended deadline for the new green point of no return?

… With current emissions trends, the remaining 1000 Gt CO2 [in their estimated global carbon budget] would be used up within the next 25 years. …

The rescheduled 2040 tipping point, intriguingly, ties in nicely with the Chinese non-commitment to consider reducing CO2 in 2030.

I haven’t spotted any mention of the “N” word on the Earth League website. For all the Earth League’s claims of being deeply concerned about the planet, nuclear power, which former NASA GIS Chairman James Hansen recently warned is the only credible route to decarbonising the global economy, doesn’t even seem to rate a mention.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 22, 2015 10:08 am

This reminds me of Zeno’s Dichotomy Paradox … in reverse.

Reply to  Max Photon
April 22, 2015 10:30 am

not in reverse Max…you are always almost there in Zeno’s formulation it’s just that you never get there!

Reply to  fossilsage
April 22, 2015 11:26 am

Personally, I prefer the Copenhagen formulation. You are both there and not there until you look to see if you are there. But that is neither here nor there.

Reply to  fossilsage
April 22, 2015 12:07 pm

Not even close enough for government work?

Bryan A
Reply to  fossilsage
April 22, 2015 12:17 pm

I am reminded of Muammar Gaddafi and his infamous, ever moving, “Line of Death” threat

Reply to  fossilsage
April 22, 2015 1:48 pm

SHRNFR – you mean Shrodinger!

Reply to  Max Photon
April 22, 2015 11:51 am

My simplistic view of the Climate (science) Tipping Point

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  vukcevic
April 22, 2015 12:05 pm

LOL ! Very well done !!!
… and a quite accurate visualization as well… 😉

NZ Willy
Reply to  vukcevic
April 22, 2015 1:12 pm

Yes, excellent.

Gunga Din
Reply to  vukcevic
April 22, 2015 1:37 pm

But I can’t figure out if the …uh… animal is supposed to be those who know better but continue to hoodwink others or the hoodwinked.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 22, 2015 2:16 pm


Reply to  vukcevic
April 22, 2015 3:31 pm

The mule could be the taxpayer and the climatastroligists are off to the left starting to unload their loot. Can’t help saying Bravo! & Encore! about this cartoon.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  vukcevic
April 22, 2015 8:45 pm

unfortunately that is just a dumb sterile mule. It should be a jackass (a donkey).

george e. smith
Reply to  Max Photon
April 22, 2015 6:26 pm

Well you see these folks have gotten so used to being world travelers, that the just aren’t ready to return yet; hence another quarter century of places yet to visit.

Jim Reedy
Reply to  Max Photon
April 22, 2015 8:02 pm

Just like any other religious cult, when the dead line passes for Armageddon… don’t rethink. reschedule

Reply to  Max Photon
April 25, 2015 11:44 am

Big Bob
April 22, 2015 10:13 am

It would be nice if we could finally PASS the tipping point so we could stop hearing about it and get on with the adaptation phase

Kelvin Vaughan
April 22, 2015 10:14 am

Perhaps they need to concentrate on a big cause of CO2.

Reply to  Kelvin Vaughan
April 22, 2015 12:08 pm

I thought the group contributing the most CO2 to the ecosystem were microorganisms. Maybe we should start a campaign to reduce them, “Ban the Bacillus” or People against protozoans” or some such clever slogan.

Reply to  Kelvin Vaughan
April 23, 2015 7:01 am

Some 900 thousand different kinds of living insects are known, so better get started on some of the others. There’s a grant-bonanza out there, guys.

April 22, 2015 10:17 am

We will be tipping by then, but into cyclical cold. Most estimates put it in the 2020 to 2040 range for the next LIA type event. So far current weather is on track for that.

Richard M
April 22, 2015 10:19 am

By 2040 it is much more likely that the entire man-made global warming meme will be mocked and derided as a low point for science.

Reply to  Richard M
April 22, 2015 3:08 pm

Ah yes that would be sweet but you underestimate the power of belief my friend. They will keep believing that it will happen some day so we must act now. This glaciation is just a temporary thing. Once it’s over we’ll all boil and end up like Venus. 😉

Winnipeg Boy
Reply to  Richard M
April 23, 2015 8:07 am

mocked and derided by the same people pushing it down our throats now. The fun part will be referencing the internet as the permanent record and throwing it back at the fraudsters. That is, if we are still allowed to use the internet in 20 years.

Reply to  Winnipeg Boy
April 23, 2015 1:13 pm

No, if it cools, the warmistas will take credit for the cooling because of “all the things they’ve already done.” Then they will demand still more funding and more control over the decisions that free people should make for themselves, because after all they foresaw the problem and turned it around.
And FYI, by that time the internet will say only what the government wants it to say about this and other important topics.

April 22, 2015 10:24 am

2015 is a “critical year for humanity,” because during and after this year natural cooling of the earth’s climate will become sufficiently discernible for people to turn their back on CAGW for good, worldwide. Greens see 2015, and rightly, as their last chance to screw everybody.

Reply to  Gus
April 22, 2015 11:42 am

November 2016 could be a tipping point in the US; but it depends who takes over the Whitehouse in 2017.
As an aside, the left in Canada is up in arms. In the several hundred pages of our federal budget that was tabled yesterday, there is not one word related to “global warming” or “climate change”. The media and the left are all over it but good for the Harper Government. They put money in for mass transit because it is a good thing to do, not because of our old saw CAGW. Goon on them.
The political debates for the election this October could get interesting.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
April 22, 2015 12:11 pm

But Ontario just joined Quebec (or is it the other way around?) and California in some carbon trading scam deal…

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
April 22, 2015 3:10 pm

“Goon on them”? A Freudian slip? I wish we could but that would be violent, illegal and it’s more fun to watch the show. Popcorn?

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
April 23, 2015 1:36 am

The campaigning for the UK general election in a couple of weeks’ time has seen no mention of any climate-related policies from any of the parties. Not even from the Greens, who now have delusions of grandeur that they can be considered a serious political party, and so have been holding forth about the National Health Service, austerity programmes, housing, taxation, etc. just like the rest of them.

April 22, 2015 10:27 am

There is only one “incontrovertible tipping point” around :
0c == 273.15K
And the temperature record shows we almost seem tightly damped above that phase change , but have repeatedly plunged below it .
Also by definition , public funding means resources taken under threat of prisons backed by guns .

April 22, 2015 10:37 am

There is no single reason why 2015 is critical, that is, what exactly we can do in 2015 that we won’t be able to do any more in 2016. The kind of phony urgency that used car dealers employ – your last chance, act now, no time to think twice.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
April 22, 2015 11:15 am

“your last chance, act now, no time to think twice.”

Reply to  Paul
April 22, 2015 12:56 pm

I couldn’t find a job one summer in college so I tried working for commissions only at a car dealer. The sales training was to memorize the following line: “What kind of deal do I have to make you to get you to buy this car today?”

Bryan A
Reply to  Michael Palmer
April 22, 2015 12:27 pm

2015 will be your last best chance for a Landmark, Unprecedented, never before in the Anals (annals) of Man Kind, agreement on Destroying the global economy in the Paris COP a feel. Come 2016, it will be too late for a 2015 Paris agreement.
Will the lack of a true agreement be blamed on the Parisites

April 22, 2015 10:37 am

Maybe this is where Al Gore brings in Tipper to help “tip” things, as it were.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
April 22, 2015 2:40 pm

Old chap, I thought I recalled something.
Per the inimitable and omniscient Wikipedia (which even I can edit . . . .)
“A longtime family friend of Al and Tipper Gore confirmed on June 1, 2010, that the Gores had sent out an e-mail to family friends announcing that they had made a mutual decision to separate” [Downloaded about 2137 Z/22 April 2015]
Maybe Tipper would oblige – but she might also ‘tip the wink’ that Al has tipped past the point of no return for Climastrophists.

April 22, 2015 10:55 am

Understand the existing data.
This can:
Prove Al Gore and the consensus are wrong.
Prove AGW is a mistake.
Prove the ‘war on coal’ is misguided.
Prove CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Prove climate sensitivity (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is not significantly different from zero
Right here. Right now.
Only existing temperature and CO2 data are used. Fundamental understanding of math and its relation to the physical world are assumed.
The CO2 level (or some math function thereof) has been suspected of being a forcing. The fundamental math is that temperature changes with the time-integral of a net forcing (not the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself). For example, a bloc of metal over a burner heats up slowly, responding to the time-integral of the net forcing (heat from the burner minus the heat loss from convection and radiation). Add a blanket over the block (a ‘step change’ to the loss) and the block temperature increases to a new steady state temperature but the temperature increases slowly (in response to the time-integral).
Existing data includes temperature and CO2 determined from Vostok, Antarctica (or any other) ice cores for at least a full glacial or inter-glacial period. If CO2 is a forcing, the temperature should change as a transient following the start of CO2 level change instead of temperature and CO2 level going up and down in ‘lock step’ as has been determined from measurements and is widely reported.
Existing temperature and CO2 (Berner, 2001) assessments for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) are graphed at
Pick any two points separated in time that have the same average global temperature (AGT) anomaly. The cumulative forcing is the time-integral of the forcing (or a function thereof) times a scale factor. Because the AGT at the beginning and end of the time period are the same and the time-integral of the forcing is not zero, the scale factor must be zero. As a consequence, the effect of the forcing is zero.
Granted that if the math function consists of an anomaly with respect to a ‘break-even’ CO2 level, a ‘break-even’ level could be determined to make the beginning and ending temperatures equal. Pick another time period with equal beginning and ending temperatures, but different from the first pick, and a different ‘break-even’ level might be calculated. Since the possibility of many different ‘break-even’ levels is ludicrous, the conclusion that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT prevails and something else is causing the temperature change.
A somewhat different approach to the proof showing that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and also identification of the two main factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at
Identification of the two main factors that do cause climate change are disclosed in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 .

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 22, 2015 12:00 pm

Understand that if you ignore formulas for a brief moment and realize that California, Brazil and Australia are all in a major drought phase with significant economic losses, and Boston received record snowfall in record time, which was also felt in GPD and personal freedoms, it’s fair for one to think something is happening. So maybe we fire all of the scientists and start fresh.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 12:14 pm

“….. it’s fair for one to think something is happening.”
Indeed. Normal climate and weather variability is ‘happening’. Get used to it!
Adaptation is in our genes… and our future!

Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 12:24 pm
Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 12:42 pm


So maybe we fire all of the scientists and start fresh.

Firing the current class of “climatrologists” and their propagandists around the world feeding off of the taxpayers they have stolen from would be a good start. Firing all of the scientists is not recommended, though many in cosmology and some parts of the physics professions might agree with you. As long as you only fired the people in cosmology and the physics industries that they disagreed with!

Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 2:36 pm

Australia is in a majors drought phase? I don’t think so. What are your data?

Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 5:42 pm

“California, Brazil and Australia are all in a major drought phase with significant economic losses, and Boston received record snowfall….which was also felt in GPD (?) and personal freedoms..” And if they’ve never had droughts before you’d be on to something, but alas, you’re not. What do “economic losses” and “personal freedoms” have to do with the severity of a drought? “x” amount of rain is “x” amount of rain. Because at this point in time more people affected simply because….there are more people, it’s the same drought.

Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 6:23 pm

DOH ! Its very rare that parts of Australia are NOT in drought.
Drought in Australia is, and has always been, part of the NATURAL climate.
But let me tell you.. where I am is very much NOT in drought.

Jim Reedy
Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 8:13 pm

Don’t include Australia mate, extreme weather is actually about the norm
“A land of droughts and flooding rains”

Reply to  Lneraho
April 22, 2015 10:51 pm

Western Queensland has a drought.
Western NSW does not have a drought (despite Tim Flannery saying otherwise).
Giles (WA – in the middle of nowhere) has had above average rain for some months.
And please don’t tell any of the poor folk living is Sydney that there is a drought. The poor sods are drenched.
All the major population water storages are at higher levels than at the same time last year.
So please stop watching the ABC, reading Fairfax newspapers and listening to the drivel that comes from there likes of Flannery.

Reply to  Lneraho
April 23, 2015 2:09 am

Yeah it’s so dry here people living downstream of Manly dam (I didn’t know there was one) are at risk of flooding because the dam is…errrmmm…full of…errrmmm…water, y’know that stuff Flannery said would never happen again and why we need desal plants. Over 9000 calls to State Emergency Services since Monday. So far wettest April in 17 years for Sydney. I can tell you one thing, it was bitterly cold on Monday. I love it when nature simply won’t play ball with computer predictions.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 22, 2015 8:50 pm

Sorry Dan, but even being a skeptic on AGW, I cannot accept the Phanerozoic as representative of what has happened in the last several million years of climate regarding CO2 and any temperature effects.
Continents are in different locations, the Panama strait became an isthmus and thus most certainly altered ocean heat flows. Now cannot be related to climate from 500 MYa.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 23, 2015 7:04 am

joel – The determination that CO2 has no significant effect on climate results from the computational mandate that temperature change is in response to the time-integral of a net forcing and not the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself.

April 22, 2015 10:57 am

How convenient. Just the correct amount of time to indoctrinate a whole generation through the education system. Watch as climate change becomes a compulsory and graded school subject.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Rob
April 22, 2015 11:18 am

Making our children resistant to the truth.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Rob
April 22, 2015 12:00 pm

it already is – Next Generation Science Standards – scary stuff

Reply to  Rob
April 22, 2015 1:17 pm

Already is. Climate change is supposed to be part of Common Core teachings. More regarding Common Core origins and outlook here:

Reply to  Rob
April 23, 2015 1:22 pm

It’s a twist on an old Rodney Dangerfield joke.
Man goes to the doctor, doctor says “Bad news , get your affairs in order, you only have 6 months to live.”
Man says, “That’s terrible doc, and my money is all tied up for a year and I can’t even pay your bill.”
Doc thinks for a bit, then says, “Tell ya what. I’ll give you another 6 months.”

April 22, 2015 11:00 am

One could support: “I support the Earth Statement’s call on world leaders to deliver an ambitious, science-based and equitable outcome in Paris”…
…but the second part contradicts the first: “that sets us on a path to limit global warming to below 2 degrees”.
Sad that several of their references are incomplete, eg.:
– Mouginot, J., Rignot, E. and Scheuchl, B. (2014) Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica , from 1973 to 2013, , 1576–1584. — which journal and what volume/issue? But at least we know the page numbers!
– Rahmstorf, Stefan and Dim Coumou (2011) Increase of extreme events in a warming world, 108 (44) 17905- 17909. — which journal?
There’s a lot of grey literature in the list too, even though they are claimed to be “scientific references”. That includes all but one of the references supporting “3. Zero-carbon society by 2050 is key to future prosperity.”, eg.:
– UNEP (2013) The Emissions Gap Report 2013. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
– Global risk and opportunity indicator (GROI) (2013),
– Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2014) Pathways to Deep Decarbonization. 2014 Report. SDSN, New York and Paris.
– Rogelj J, McCollum D & Smith S. (2014) What emission levels will comply with temperature limits? Chapter 2 in UNEP. The Emissions Gap Report, Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
– The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2014) Better Growth – Better Climate. The New Climate Economy Report, Washington D.C.
– GH, Brundtland [sic! — not the only reference with malformed author name — was it rushed out?], and World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission On Environment and Development. Oxford University.
– GEA (2012), Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge UK the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
– IMF, (2014) Energy subsidy reform – lessons and implications, Report, Washington DC.
– Schellnhuber, HJ, et al. (2013) Turn down the heat: climate extremes, regional impacts, and the case for resilience – full report, Washington DC, World Bank, June.
…I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture. No wonder they’re hidden on a separate page to the main text.

Steve P
Reply to  Peter Ward
April 22, 2015 11:16 am

Right. Almost all the legs of this scam are untenable. There is no evidence that any additional warmth would be bad, but there is a lot of evidence that overweight America can’t live without air conditioning at meat locker levels, so the too warm meme is an easy sell to at least some segments of the population.

April 22, 2015 11:05 am

Yippee! 25 more years of grants.

Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 11:09 am

I don’t know who the Earth League are, but I know that the whole premise of this post is wrong and the headline completely misleading. The time by which the global carbon budget will be used up has been estimated at around 2040 since the concept was first raised. This group isn’t “extending” anything.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 11:19 am

They stole your pitch Harry. Never mind I’m sure your colleagues will find another piece of crap to throw at the rest of us.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 11:22 am

Flashman’s arguement boils down to – “We’ve been telling that lie for almost a year and a half now, so it MUST be true!!!”
nice use of the phrase, “since the concept was first raised”. Yeah, right, like no one ever, ever thought about this before September of 2013. You don’t even make any sense by your own pathetic standards.
Btw, although I’m sure everyone here knows by now, “Think Progress” was set up by John Podesta, who is still the Chairman in charge of the organization that runs it, which is the “Center for American Progress”, which he created. John Podesta is also the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.
So yes, Think Progress is in verifiable fact, a full-time dedicated appendage of the Hillary for President 2016 Campaign. That’s who is pushing this.
(and people still wonder how politics got involved in this issue)

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  wws
April 22, 2015 11:57 am

What I’m saying isn’t a difficult concept, except apparently around here.
Whether the concept of the carbon budget is valid or not, or promoted by John Podesta or for that matter Karl Marx or Genghis Khan is irrelevant. The point is that the date by which its proponents say it will be used up has not shifted, as claimed in the post. It’s important to understand something before ranting about it.
Do you get it now?

ferd berple
Reply to  wws
April 22, 2015 12:27 pm

appendage of the Hillary for President 2016 Campaign. That’s who is pushing this.
oh yes! yet another politician telling us to cut our carbon footprint so they can continue to live high on the hog. I’m fully prepared to reduce my carbon footprint to that of Gore, Obama or Clinton. But of course cutting your carbon footprint is always for “the other guy”.
Funny how “lead by example” has escaped the ruling class in America. Now its “do as I say, not as I do”. You’all take a smaller slice of the pie, so I can take a bigger one.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 11:44 am

There’s no budget to bust.
Five hundred ppmv of the vital plant food CO2 is better for living things than 400 ppmv, 600 better still and 800 the beginning of the best, but we probably won’t get there. Doubling the presently historically low, low level of this essential trace gas would be a good thing.
Princeton physicist Will Happer says over 1000 ppmv would be close to ideal (and much else worth listening to for scientific illiterates like the Hairy Flasher):

Reply to  Gloria Swansong
April 28, 2015 6:28 pm

Someone on another blog was touting the nonsense that when we hit 700 ppm atmospheric CO2 humans will have to walk around with oxygen tanks. Do high schools not teach basic science any more? I cannot figure out how we became so science illiterate.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 11:46 am

The 1000 pG C number as a “carbon budget” is simply arbitrary; pulled out someone’s butt because it sounds impressive. It sounds good to have a whole number that can easily be placed in a short sound bite. Why not just 1 exaG C? It’s the same thing, but 1 of anything just doesn’t sound as impressive to the ignorant masses.
In the larger context of Earth’s annual carbon cycle of transfers between natural sinks and natural sources, the annual addition of human’s fossil-fuel sourced CO2 is trivial. Other impacts from man, such a deforestation, regional water pollution/depletion, and overfishing are far more devastating than any supposed Temp rise from additional CO2, which is beneficial to enhance growing seasons, and reducing heating costs. With enough cheap energy, we can push seawater desal operations to economic feasibility, and reduce deforestation (esp in in Africa where trees are harvested to make charcoal for cooking), and increase crop food and farmed fisheries production to reduce the pressure on the oceans.
The reality is by 2040, pCO2 may be around 455 ppm, and the only major impact of that will be a greener biosphere. Meanwhile global temperatures may actually be lower than today due to a cyclical cooling period.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 22, 2015 12:31 pm

Love the one exaG idea. Not scary enough, obviously.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 12:09 pm

Politics run on propaganda; valid science [runs on] results, runs on Reproducible research.
Which do you favor Flashman?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 12:37 pm

From Harry’s Thinkprogress link: “In the central scenario, the entire carbon budget allowed under a 2°C climate trajectory is consumed by 2040,..”
The main problem with what you put out Harry is the real world temperatures are lower than what is projected in the numerous scenarios. So the 2040 date is wrong. The 2C temperature is wrong. So the entire CO2 did it claim is wrong.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 2:01 pm

Don’t quite understand the numbers here about the global carbon budget being used up, Flashy.
My understanding is that Scotland alone has over 200 years worth of coal if you want to spend the cash to extract it, and under the North Sea there are gazillions of tonnes that could be turned into usable gas if the will was there.
Not the same as 25 more years.

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 23, 2015 5:48 am

The premise of the budget is that we can only burn a certain amount if we want to avoid CAGW. That’s a complex and uncertain idea and I’m not going to argue for it. But that’s what it means.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 23, 2015 12:28 pm

Sir Harry
There is no such thing as a ‘carbon budget’ and the promises of CAGW are baseless. Not dodgy, baseless.
The ‘carbon budget’ idea is based on an expected relationship between CO2 and temperature that is unsupported by the available evidence. That being the case there is nothing ‘C’ to base AGW upon.
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the true believers, there is simply no reason to be alarmed about the recent gentle rise in global temperature nor the past 18 years of no rise.
As fund-raising scams go, it is not even a very good one. That is why the chaotic and desperate moves to use elite negotiations to bind countries to fund a ‘climate mitigation fund’ run by a bureaucracy that is answerable to no one. Funding without accountability is cool!
Every teenager’s dream! It’s been fun, boys and girls, but it is time to grow up.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 22, 2015 6:55 pm

Wow, Basically unprecedented.. a left wing totalitarian socialist alarmist….
….. worried about overspending a budget !!!

Winnipeg Boy
Reply to  AndyG55
April 23, 2015 11:22 am


Harry Passfield
April 22, 2015 11:23 am


The time by which the global carbon budget will be used up has been estimated at around 2040

Oh b*gger! So no more BBQs! Do the Aussies know?
But who the f*ck decided on a Carbon Budget? What we need is a BS budget.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
April 23, 2015 1:31 pm

The BS budget was all used up within the first 2 years of the Clinton administration.

Steve C
April 22, 2015 11:25 am

Not so much a tipping point, more a vanishing point.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Steve C
April 22, 2015 11:50 am

Depends on your perspective, (sorry, I just got done with a nasty descriptive geometry solution, and this one was just too easy)…

April 22, 2015 11:26 am

Reblogged this on RubinoWorld and commented:
The apocalypse has been postponed 25 years! Whew!

April 22, 2015 11:45 am

A compilation of the various tipping points and postponed doom days would be useful for rhetorical purposes. We have a consensus: it’s bad. How bad? Can’t agree. Has one been put together? –AGF

Reply to  agfosterjr
April 24, 2015 11:53 pm
April 22, 2015 11:46 am

We’re in more danger from the global financial and banking system than from CO2 emissions. Two more years to go to the next meltdown …

Mark from the Midwest
April 22, 2015 11:48 am

Speaking for myself, I’d appreciate an extra 6 degrees C about now, then I can turn the furnace down, and stop using so much propane …

April 22, 2015 11:48 am

So then, we are to believe that all of humanity is going to die in a burning, stinking, smoldering pile of flesh if we don’t all cough up millions upon millions of public dollars and hand it over freely to those whom believe they know what is best for the lot of us?
Sounds like pure socialism. Green has become a religion for these people. A dangerous cult of lies it is.

Reply to  John
April 22, 2015 1:00 pm

“… if we don’t cough up millions uponof millions of public dollars …” FIFY

Margaret Smith
Reply to  John
April 23, 2015 9:44 am

pure socialism?? Oxymoron!

April 22, 2015 11:49 am


Mike Maguire
April 22, 2015 11:49 am

The lack of accountability comes from several elements.
1. The lengthy time frame, dealing with decades to at times a century
2. The lack of authentically reconciling previous forecasts to observations
3. The constant moving of the goal posts, using the same strategies but just moving it forward
4. Add in the fact that appropriate adjustments based on realities from observations are not getting dialed into newly projected tipping points(same story and ending but new deadlines).
The reason that operational meteorologists are more skeptical than any other scientists is that we see this clearly. We use weather models(different than climate models in many ways). However, we must reconcile reality with models every day. The forecast/projection using the updated guidance based on fresher data must also be given tremendous weighting.
An operational meteorologist will have made thousands of forecast updates in a 20 year period and be wrong hundreds of times, know it and acknowledge it………..hopefully, hundreds of times. Climate scientists/modelers with 50+ year time frames, don’t need to reconcile/update in timely fashion……they are always right. How many times have we heard a climate scientist admit to being wrong and changing their projection?
Climate models are much different than weather models in many ways. However, they have similarities regarding their value which should be appreciated by users of both of these products.
Detail needed to forecast specific weather features in a chaotic atmosphere is not possible with skill beyond 2 weeks.
The same chaotic atmosphere also has many feed backs, forcing mechanisms, interactions and unknowns on a longer time scale that make projecting the climate, just as uncertain.
We still can’t even say what the effect of increasing water vapor and clouds might be with confidence. What about the dozens of interactions/processes, including things like the explosive vegetative growth from atmospheric fertilization and increased global evapotranspiration?
A meteorologist that insisted that it would rain tomorrow, then when it didn’t rain, changed it to the day after tomorrow, then the day after that,at some point, would lose credibility and hopefully, either realize that his/her models are biased towards forecasting rains that are not happening…………….or find another job where they can display better skill!
How long will it take for the current crop of climate scientists/modelers to get this?

johann wundersamer
Reply to  Mike Maguire
April 23, 2015 4:34 pm

Mike Maguire – refreshing!
refreshing, earnest, accountable.
Que será, será! Whatever Will Be, Will Be ( the future’s not our’s to see – but we stay on )
Thanks – Hans

April 22, 2015 11:49 am
Reply to  albertalad
April 22, 2015 12:15 pm

Try to refrain from reading the comments below that article. You’ll lose brain cells, guaranteed.

Reply to  deebodk
April 22, 2015 12:34 pm

Lol – true.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  albertalad
April 22, 2015 3:47 pm

All excellent points in the article. The weather/climate and conditions for the last 3 decades, have likely been the best for life on this planet, since at least the Medieval Warm period around 1,000 years ago.
Considering the higher CO2 levels now, it’s probably even better.

Eric ah
April 22, 2015 11:51 am

At least Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe in tipping.
[Ouch. Accurate though. .mod]

Reply to  Eric ah
April 22, 2015 3:37 pm

Cows maybe…………..

April 22, 2015 11:53 am

Next up: Years will be decreed by executive order by our King and his mob as 730 days.

April 22, 2015 12:05 pm

I checked some big news sites, The climate change propaganda is extra gnarly today. Anthony Watts with this well managed blog will most likely be made sort of a folk hero in years to come. I find the climate skeptics are intelligent people with the added benefit of common sense. It’s funny the elite types aren’t skeptic on this issue. Well at least in public the aren’t. This is sort of a white sock uprising against to most bizarre scam in recent human history.

Bubba Cow
April 22, 2015 12:08 pm

It’s Earth Day, right?
O is in Florida stumping for money to protect the Everglades – I thought they were 80 feet under by now. I must have missed a news cycle.

April 22, 2015 12:13 pm

The Earth League, never heard of them. I have heard of The Human League though.
“Well the truth may need some rearranging,
Stories to be told.
And plain to see the facts are changing,
No meaning left to hold.”
Were they singing about Global Warming? 😉

Reply to  NancyG22
April 22, 2015 12:27 pm

Also the Human Fund, which I would consider more legitimate than the Earth League.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
April 22, 2015 12:19 pm

While waiting for the doomsday in slow-motion, climate Titanic has already reached the iceberg. More than 2/3 voted for something else than green/left in the Finnish parliament elections last week.

Reply to  Jaakko Kateenkorva
April 23, 2015 10:32 am

Congrats on the elections then

April 22, 2015 12:37 pm

Fortunately, we have a record of predictions made by environmental doomsday alarmists in the past. Fool me once, shame on you …

Steve Reddish
Reply to  MikeW
April 23, 2015 7:57 pm

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Looks like they were already using the consensus meme: “Demographers agree almost unanimously…”.
With apologies to Desi Arnez, it’s a sure sign they knew they had some persuadin’ to do.

April 22, 2015 12:43 pm

I remember being told as a grade schooler in the 1960’s, we only had twenty years to live before all life was snuffed out on earth by air pollution. My dad told me the teacher was full of it, I told the teacher what my dad said, he insisted my dad was wrong, needless to say, we’re still alive.

Reply to  Chris
April 22, 2015 12:54 pm

wow chris I’m kind of glad I was born in 1980

April 22, 2015 12:44 pm

I’m glad they included resource depletion in their list. I think that’s more important than global warming. I feel like it’s 1961, when NASA had to choose the concept they would use to go to the moon. We need new technology to help us produce cheap energy in the future.

Greg in Houston
April 22, 2015 12:50 pm

Solar energy will be economically viable in ten years and always will be.

Reply to  Greg in Houston
April 22, 2015 1:14 pm

Whatchu talkin about wiillis? lol

Reply to  Greg in Houston
April 22, 2015 1:26 pm

At night time too?

Jim Reedy
Reply to  Colin
April 22, 2015 8:31 pm

I believe that Solar will be quite viable… but it really has to be generated out in space so 24/7
Japanese have been experimenting with microwaves to transmit energy (quite successfully I think).
[hear something about the Japanese experiments last week or the week before].
Land based.. not so much…

Reply to  Greg in Houston
April 22, 2015 2:05 pm

That would be nice and quite possible. So here’s an idea, let’s save the $trillions being spent globally on solar today and put that money into something that is economically viable today so that when solar IS economically feasible we will still have a functioning economy when that time comes.

Aicha Wallaby
Reply to  Greg in Houston
April 22, 2015 8:04 pm

Hey, I knew what you were saying 😉 Economic feasibility is always just around the (perpetually receding) corner.I always think that cost is a good proxy for amount of energy consumed to create something. Greens seem to think we can “solar panel” our way into zero use of fossil fuels. The cost is probably indicating that this idea is a net (energy) loser.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Aicha Wallaby
April 23, 2015 2:34 pm

I was sent the NYT article boasting that solar and wind are now as cheap or cheaper than ‘new conventional’ power. Which is to say, the over-regulated and trumped up requirements imposed on coal and nukes. They mention 5 cents per kwh for wind.
So I wrote back to my friend with the true cost showing the need for greatly under utilised parallel generating capacity that has to be financed to make up for cloudy, windless days. The total was 29 cents per kwh for both solar and wind. That is about 4.5 times the claimed cost of new coal and more than 5 times the cost of new nuclear.
The thing solar and wind can’t overcome is the massive investment needed to keep the power flowing when they are down. As for CO2, the total CO2 needed to manufacture, erect, connect, maintain and dismantle a large wind generator is large. The CO2 emitted to build, operate and maintain, dismantle and dispose of an equal amount of conventional power plant has to be added to the tally because it is a necessary part of the same total system. The total CO2 is always higher if a windmill is involved.
Tesla would have us buy very large batteries from their subsidised plant in AZ to ‘store the excess’. The boys down the road from Waterloo who make one foot square thyristors will be delighted with that idea! We can put a 10 MW inverter on every major suburban street corner. What happens if you stick an ice pick into a 1,000,000 aH battery?

Reply to  Greg in Houston
April 23, 2015 1:52 am

Solar energy isn’t practical if we lack an energy storage medium. Thus far the combined cost of the solar power AND the storage medium kits is too high. The problem, of course, is the sun’s unwillingness to shine at night, and the panel’s reduced capacity on cloudy days.
I realize many of you think running out of resources is a joke, but I’ve been in the oil business for a long time, and I just can’t see where the heck we will find oil to replace what we are producing. The long term metrics show we are already experiencing a problem, and it’s bound to get a lot worse. This makes that “keep it in the ground” campaign truly pathetic. In 20 years those “keep it in the ground” climate hysterics will be screaming because oil prices went through the roof.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 23, 2015 3:34 am

Synthetic petrol and rubber. Coal(+electricity) in, petrol and rubber out. Easy. Standard since almost 100 years.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 23, 2015 4:29 am

Synthetic fuels are extremely expensive. And we lack the natural gas and coal to take up the load. We have a growing population, increasing world GDP, and a limited amount of resources we can tap.
The technologies we need aren’t available, or are incredibly expensive. This is a pretty serious problem, but somehow global warming takes center stage. What I’m seeing is that global warming is just a nuisance, it seems to be discussed a lot because there’s a weird nearly religious movement around it. If Obama werent acting so dumb, I would think there’s a secret Energy Information Agency warning them we are headed for a brick wall.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 23, 2015 2:40 pm

Fernando, synthetic fuels are not expensive. Who told you that? They are pulling your leg. Coal to liquid fuels are profitable at less than $50 a barrel equivalent and the same plant can make plastics and dozens of chemicals like waxes, polyethylene, creosote, ethanol and so on. There are trillions of tons of coal in the world. The issue is not coal supply nor cost of conversion. It is CO2 and whether or not that makes an appreciable change to the climate if it goes back up to what is has been on historical Earth (3000 ppm).

April 22, 2015 1:25 pm

2040 … ironically, the date that entitlements in the US will exceed taxes on the GNP at current tax rates.

Aicha Wallaby
Reply to  wallensworth
April 22, 2015 8:06 pm

And not too far from 2033, when Social Security “runs out of money.”

April 22, 2015 1:49 pm

Me too said Mike Mann , firsts on grants.

April 22, 2015 2:02 pm

Funny. A few years ago I often mentioned that we were past their fictitious tipping point and if they were serious shouldn’t they be running around like Chicken Little? Then of course they did. Then I often mentioned that if we were past the tipping point and emitting CO2 at ever increasing rates then shouldn’t we worry about adaptation instead of regulation. Now, surprise-surprise, they WERE just kidding about the past tipping point and the actual tipping point is still impending and we still have time to tax our way out of a problem. How convenient. They have taken a page directly out of Armageddon prophets dooms-day 101 book.

Chris Hanley
April 22, 2015 2:20 pm

As well as being associated with the IPCC, most members of the Earth League appear to be into their forties at least, so 25 more years of gallivanting from one talk-fest to another should see them into comfortable retirement.

April 22, 2015 2:53 pm

From the Earth League statement about itself:
“The Earth League is an international alliance of prominent scientists from world‐class research institutions, who work together to respond to some of the most pressing issues faced by humankind, as a consequence of climate change, depletion of natural resources, land degradation and water scarcity.” …..
Prominent scientists from world-class research institutions? Don’t know, I can’t say.
What I can say though is that if it is true, it proves once again that having fancy letters after your name like PhD does not guarantee that you have a lick of common sense nor that you will maintain your respect for sound science rather than let your way over-inflated ego drive you to deceit and scare mongering.
Reading through their climate change/biodiversity/resource depletion statement was like reading something from somebody who had lost touch with reality…..especially as regards climate change. It is truly sad and sickening to see what some scientists in this world have morphed into.

April 22, 2015 3:33 pm

Republican presidential candidate not sceptical either!
VIDEO: Climate Depot: Watch: Jeb Bush Endorses UN Climate Treaty Process: ‘We need to work with the rest of the world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions’
Jeb Bush: ‘The climate is changing and I am concerned about that.’ – ‘Be cognizant of the fact that we have this climate change issue and we need to work with the rest of the world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions’…
Via Tampa Bay Times: Tom Steyer’s climate change group NextGen Climate praised Jeb Bush for ‘leadership’: “Jeb Bush demonstrated leadership today on the issue of climate change—distancing himself from the other Republican presidential hopefuls and demonstrating why climate change doesn’t have to be a partisan issue”…
Climate Depot Statement on Jeb Bush: ‘The Bush family appears to be a climate skeptic’s worst friend. It is not within the DNA of any of the Bushes to oppose the UN climate agenda. President George H. W. Bush signed onto the 1992 Kyoto earth summit treaty which was ratified by the Senate. George W. Bush rubber stamped every UN IPCC report, rhetorically accepted all the warmists claims and validated the UN climate treaty process as president…
21 April: Politico: Mike Allen: Koch brothers will offer audition to Jeb Bush
In another surprise, a top Koch aide revealed to POLITICO that Jeb Bush will be given a chance to audition for the brothers’ support, despite initial skepticism about him at the top of the Kochs’ growing political behemoth…
Bush is getting a second look because so many Koch supporters think he looks like a winner…
where to turn?

April 22, 2015 3:49 pm

So – tipping points become the new meme for “nothing’s actually happening right now, but it might!”

M Seward
April 22, 2015 3:55 pm

Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is coming in 40 years!
Greenies, the political gift that just keeps on giving. LOL.

Reply to  M Seward
April 22, 2015 10:56 pm

The little boy who cried wolf is now getting to be a very old man crying wolf.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  toorightmate
April 23, 2015 2:43 pm


Walt D.
April 22, 2015 4:11 pm

The ghost of Harold Camping returns.

Reply to  Walt D.
April 22, 2015 4:30 pm

Yep. And just like Camping they still line up behind the false prophet or is that profit?

April 22, 2015 4:26 pm

Of course they don’t mention nuclear power. The left only sees a solution through mass global poverty. The thought of any viable prosperity producing power is forbidden and evil. That’s ideology the adults on the planet have to deal with .

Hocus Locus
Reply to  logoswrench
April 22, 2015 5:27 pm

It’s not as simple as ‘wanting’ global poverty, These people are terrified of radiation but are not willing to come straight out and admit it. It always emerges as something else — distrust or paranoia directed at corporations, government or human ingenuity itself. Or an eerie silence after the topic of nuclear energy is fronted, and relief when it passes. They do not know whom to trust, so they trust the shrillest voices (to play it ‘safe’). They are uncomfortable with log scales and are not equipped to compare (for example) the tiniest units measurable against what is known to be lethal. Above all I think (deep down) they choose not to ‘believe’ there is such a thing as natural background radiation. That may sound harsh and it make be a clumsy way to put it, but it may be part of the Gaia phenomenon somehow. What ever it is, we must seek to understand it. Hansen is right about that one thing, nuclear energy.
I give a rundown on several events in the US that contributed to a general fear of all things nuclear power here, … and propose a nuclear renaissance in letters, and … it’s time to finish taming fire.

Evan Jones
Reply to  logoswrench
April 22, 2015 6:49 pm

Of course they don’t mention nuclear power.
Because it is a tragedy.
The left only sees a solution through mass global poverty.
Because that is just a statistic.

F. Ross
April 22, 2015 5:00 pm

This is a big relief.
I start getting very nervous when those tipping points get near.

Evan Jones
Reply to  F. Ross
April 22, 2015 6:45 pm

When in doubt, overtip.

April 22, 2015 5:08 pm

“Our civilization has never faced such existential risks”
How ’bout an asteroid the size of Oklahoma? Now there’s an existential risk.
“as those associated with global warming, biodiversity erosion and resource depletion.”
Global warming is not an existential risk. It is beneficial.
What the heck is biodiversity erosion? (I’m sure it’s caused by CO2.)
Resource depletion. “opportunity to advance prosperity and eradicate poverty.”
We are going to eradicate poverty by reducing resource usage. Wait . . . what?

Evan Jones
April 22, 2015 6:42 pm

The Earth League, a group composed mostly of climate personalities nobody has never heard of, have just extended the green point of no return to 2040 – a whopping 25 years from today.
Don’t you get it? They’re laying in wait for when the PDO flips positive again. Then they claim that (typical effect) a tipping point.
Here’s a skeptic’s projection for you: We will very likely be cranking into a strong natural warming phase in 2040. It will look and last a lot like 1977-1998.

Evan Jones
April 22, 2015 6:44 pm

What the heck is biodiversity erosion?
It’s great. Oh, wait. I thought you said explosion.
(I’m sure it’s caused by CO2.)
It is. The explosion part.

michael hart
April 22, 2015 9:34 pm

Time for a cup of tea while we’re waiting. I’ll put the kettle on.

Village Idiot
April 22, 2015 11:14 pm

“OK, I kind of glossed over a lot of their statement..”
Maybe Brother Eric ought to bother reading stuff before he tries to lead us Villagers up the garden path with it..

Dennis Bird
April 23, 2015 1:36 am
Non Nomen
Reply to  Dennis Bird
April 23, 2015 3:46 am

Exhilarating rubbish at its best. Comedians desperately trying to be taken seriously.

April 23, 2015 4:06 am
April 23, 2015 6:18 am

Just normal pratice for an area that consider ‘heads you lose tails I win’ to be an acceptable scientific pratice.

April 23, 2015 8:26 am

So, “climate”, or weather, will be different in the future than today? Is that the message?

Mac the Knife
April 23, 2015 11:29 am

How long….How long, to the point of nor return?
The Point of Know Return – Kansas 1977

Non Nomen
April 23, 2015 1:30 pm

Fernando Leanme
April 23, 2015 at 4:29 am
Synthetic fuels are extremely expensive. And we lack the natural gas and coal to take up the load. We have a growing population, increasing world GDP, and a limited amount of resources we can tap.
The technologies we need aren’t available, or are incredibly expensive.

Sorry, not state of the art. The omniscient landfill of knowledge aka Wikipedia says:
>>The U.S. government launched a major (and largely secret) effort to improve synthetic rubber production. A large team of chemists from many institutions were involved, including Calvin Souther Fuller of Bell Labs. The rubber designated GRS (Government Rubber Styrene), a copolymer of butadiene and styrene, was the basis for U.S. synthetic rubber production during World War II. By 1944, a total of 50 factories were manufacturing it, pouring out a volume of the material twice that of the world’s natural rubber production before the beginning of the war. It still represents about half of total world production.<<
We do have coal in abundance. And the free market will see the price won't soar.

April 24, 2015 3:50 am

To have any credibility, let’s look at their predictions from 25 years ago and see how good they were. Otherwise not buying

April 25, 2015 12:04 am

so then is it on the same schedule as planetx? Everytime their end of the world deadline passes they extend the forecast as well. I give the warmers the same credibility. The anti continuing evolution crowd will eventually have to get over the fact that “the climate” depends more on when and where then a computer model can ever predict.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights