CNBC breaks with the climate disaster narrative of MSM

Surprising Story Coming From CNBC says Paris Climate Accord is “irrelevant” and cuts would “impoverish the world”

Jack Simmons writes:

When I first started reading this story, I had to do a double take.

CNBC-climate-accord

Not only was story accurate regarding the costs of trying to live up to the Paris accord, but it was being given prominence from a news organization I would have thought was a reliable supporter of the CAGW meme.

Notice also the source of the information was characterized as a scientist not a denier. A peer reviewed scientist at that.

Is there some sort of shift going on in the MSM world?

Here is one comment made by the author:

” In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.”

None of this is new to someone familiar with the costs of ‘fighting climate change.’ What is new is someone in the MSM universe acknowledging the consequences of actually trying to live up to these accords.

Full story: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/climate-accord-irrelevant-and-co2-cuts-could-impoverish-the-world-scientist.html

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
gery katona

I see, so we shouldn’t do anything then? Please.

Possibly not. Or do the more sensible thing and spend money on mitigation measures for if and when any problems arise, because as of now there are no problems.

I think David Johnson meant adaptation not mitigation. ie, spend money on adaptation measures for if and when any problems arise. Now that I do agree with (provided the problems are seen honestly).

John C

I have been saying this for years. Put the effort and money into better insulation and heating /cooling and real energy production instead of trying to stop the evil co2 boggy man and let the earth do what it has done for millions of years. We cope and adapt, not try to fix it. Political stupid stuff from the looney left.

Tom in Florida

No we should not. Our attention should be on real pollution not the carbon boogey man. Besides, a warmer world is a better world.

Pop Piasa

I’m with you. We should be spending all this loot on recycling and cleanly burning our unusable garbage for electrical power. The CO2 might cause a negligible additional warming, but the benefits will outweigh any eventual mitigations. How ridiculous to consider 0.04% CO2 a “polluted” atmosphere.

Pop Piasa

By the way…
Isn’t burning waste for power a “renewable resource” ?

Waste doesn’t have anywhere near the calorific value of coal; not worth building a power station for it. Ranks alongside shipping wood chips from North Carolina.

Auto

Tom in Fl
Agree – “a warmer world is a better world.”
Are we going to be privileged enough to get that warmer world?
CO2 lags temperatures – so even the ‘SUV Rise’ is likely to be a reaction to the Mediaeval Warm Period – please take note, progenitor of mann-made global warming – the MWP was warm!
But if El Nino is over, and the solar cycles are declining, may it not be time to prepare the scarf and bobble hat for next October?
It’ll likely not be much more than that – this winter.
Ten, thirty – a hundred – years out – all bets are off. Certainly I have not got the fifteenth root of the shadow of a ghost of an idea what will happen a century hence.
Tomorrow – likely similar to today.
36500 tomorrows . . . . .
We may get another warm cycle – or not.
I certainly don’t know.
I most certainly don’t know.
But – Tom is correct: “a warmer world is a better world.”
Let us hope for a warmer world – but be clear about what steps we need to take if we do not – or are likely not to – get it.
Auto

Mark Luhman

Pop Piasa Burning garbage make the most sense. Burying garbage is one of may dumbest thing the human race is doing now days, The human race finds inert oxides minrs them. turn them to active compounds by removing the oxygen and somehow thinking burying them not as oxides is a good thing. Then we are surprise when these unstable compounds migrate away from the landfill!. AS Ron Smith puts it “you can’t ix stupid.”

Makr L:
A properly designed land fill has very little “leakage” and the “leakage” that does occur is picked up by subsurface drains and treated. Unless you are talking about the folks that still dump things at the end of an isolated road.
But perhaps I am biased by 45+ years of municipal/environmental engineering in everything from composting to incineration to landfills, to water and waste treatment. Things have changed a lot in the 60 years since we used to end dump garbage off a convenient slope and bury it – or not.

Alan the Brit

Agree, let’s just enjoy the Interglacial we’re currently living in!

The best way for garbage to be used for fuel is not to burn it directly. Do what some have done and use landfills. A covered landfill will start producing methane as it decomposes. Tap the methane (natural gas) and use it for fuel in a power plant.

Hugs

We should do something, but not just anything.

Onyabike

So, its a huge investment for a non-problem then. That is not smart.
“If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you”. Calvin Coolidge

Don’t just do something, stand there!

mkelly

Simple answer is NO.
Projections/predictions have failed, the models have failed, the price of electricity has risen, etc. There is no reason to do anything.

We should allow African nations to generate power using their massive reserves of fossil fuels mainly coal. This would help to take them out of poverty and stop them crossing the Mediterranean in droves in search of a better life in the EU. This would fly in the face of the Paris accord, but so what, CAGW is acomplete fabricated myth anyway.

Pat Frank

Exactly right, mkelly. As Monckton said, have the courage to do nothing.
Your “Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability” is a terrific article, by the way. It makes the case that doing nothing is the most rational option.

Chris

“We should allow African nations to generate power using their massive reserves of fossil fuels mainly coal.”
Except that African nations, with the single exception of South Africa, don’t have coal reserves of any magnitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country

Tanzania has massive reserves of coal.

JohnWho

Well, maybe do nothing to prevent,
but do something to prepare.

Just read the paper…spot on. Well done.

Pat, it’s my experience doing nothing is almost always the right course of… action? Is doing nothing action??

DMA

I think the answer to this attitude of using innuendo and supposition upon which to base legislation is to propose a legislative resolution based on CO2 science
( see http://www.texaspolicy.com/multimedia/video/at-the-crossroads-session-ii-not-a-pollutant-co2-is-the-gas-of-life)
that declares an intent to promote release of CO2 to improve and protect the environment and humanity.

Julie near Chicago

I’d agree, providing it’s only a non-binding resolution. The only question is how to sell successfully the point that more atmospheric CO2 will be a good thing.
It would take a committed, concerted effort to push the positive message that CO2 is necessary and beneficial for a healthy biosphere and for us, and that we need quite a bit more of it.
The Earth is, presumably, slowly recovering from a period of severe CO2-starvation: as unhealthy a condition for plant life and hence for the entire food chain as any food-starvation is for animals. Including us. This should be one of the facts supporting the message.
It would be important to deal with negative comments or questions quickly, concisely, and correctly; then return to the positive.
I have read that in Navy submarines the CO2 concentration is sometimes as high as 1000 ppm, with, presumably, no ill effects on the humans encased therein. Can anyone point to a credible source for this?
I wasn’t able to play the video from the link above, by the way. But it’s also on UT:

Julie near Chicago

Regarding the video below: I don’t know what Anthony’s policy is about posting those, but all I did was give the URL. On other sites where videos embedded in comments are unwelcome, I substitute something such as youtube-dot-com for the leading part of the URL. That of course means the link has to be copied and pasted into the address bar, with the domain corrected by the user.
Some website-owners or webmasters object to this also.
Second. This comment is posted as a reply to DMA since there’s no “Reply” option under the subject comment.

Earl Smith

Julie: It was far worse than 1000 ppm. 1000 is what greenhouse growers use to increase production. In a 100 ft greenhouse with fans blowing to keep the place cool, resulting in a 40 second residence time the CO2 content drops from 1000 at the back wall to zilch at the exhaust fan in 40 seconds.
On my submarine the equipment for CO2 removal was designed to only be able to lower the CO2 to 1% when perfectly operating. Frequently ran up to 2%, at which point there would be a slight acidosis of the blood and some headaches. 4% is lethal. 1% is 10,000 ppm.
Earl

MRW

@Julie near Chicago,

I have read that in Navy submarines the CO2 concentration is sometimes as high as 1000 ppm

No. 5,000 PPM. Sometimes 8,000 PPM.

MRW

@Earl Smith

1000 is what greenhouse growers use to increase production.

My aunt kept her commercial greenhouse at 1200-1500 PPM. Preferred 1500 PPM. Said plants preferred the higher level, and her yield was higher and plants “happier.”

Julie near Chicago June 5, 2016 at 12:58 pm:
Posting videos in the Comments has been acceptable here for years, so not to worry, I would think.
/Mr Lynn

@Julie near Chicago, who writes:

I have read that in Navy submarines the CO2 concentration is sometimes as high as 1000 ppm, with, presumably, no ill effects on the humans encased therein. Can anyone point to a credible source for this?

Yes, Bennett, Peter, “The Physiology and Medicine of Diving”, 4th ed.
http://www.amazon.com/Physiology-Medicine-Diving-Peter-Bennett/dp/070201589X
CO2 becomes noticeable at ~20,000 ppm (2%) and toxic at ~50,000 ppm (5%). Closed circuit mixed gas divers commonly operate at levels exceeding 1000 ppm.

Julie near Chicago

To Earl, MRW, Mr Lynn, and Bartleby, who responded to my queries, thank you very much.
“There is nothing like the facts…
Nothing – in – the – world…
There’s no need to go grind an axe
If you’re sure that you’ve got the facts!”
Or something. :>)

John Robertson

Well.
You could pause,take a breath and then gather your facts.
Before you panic.
Of course this would make you a denier of the fine art of hysteria.
And no right thinking citizen would want that.
Yes sarcasm.

John Harmsworth

Glad you added the sarc tag, John.J. Hansen and his ilk (or elk, as I once read on here) had their war paint on and were picking up their rubber battle arguments to come after us!

Gunga Din

Do you mean that we should do something about a non-problem to create a real problem?
I’ll rephrase that.
We should act to prevent the “C” in CAGW when the “C”‘s that should have already occurred haven’t happened and the “A”, at best, should be an “a”?
“We should create a real “C” to prevent a hypothetical one? Please!”

Mike Smith

Nope. We need cheap, plentiful and preferable clean energy. Let’s work on that, exploring new possibilities especially safer nuclear candidates like Thorium.

Define “clean energy”

Pop Piasa

I was fine with the scrubbers on the coal power plant near me. Now the gas turbines replacing it are cleaner and more efficient. Coal has been economically blackballed by the current socio-science, anti-humanist school of thought and natural gas is relatively cheap here for now. Go with the highest energy density fuel with the least regulation.

AndyG55

Define “Clean Energy”
Coal in modern power stations..
Very little real pollution..
cheap as well
MASSIVE benefits of increased atmospheric CO2

Mike Smith

“Clean energy?”.
Energy produced with minimal pollution. That means atmospheric AND other forms of pollution.
Second question: is CO2 a pollutant? Regardless of the EPA’s position, I think not!

If we are going to spend trillions and impoverish billions of people, don’t you think it would be a good idea if we FIRST determined if all that money and suffering would actually accomplish ANYTHING? Just “throw money at it and hope” hasn’t worked well in the past.
Keep in mind that the increased CO2 has been, so far, beneficial to crops and forests. Keep in mind that the warmer climate has been, for the most part, beneficial so far.
Now is not the time to panic and institute the “oh God! Do something! Do anything!” solution.

Tom Yoke

The most important effect of CO2 emissions by far, is to create a robust and more productive biosphere due to CO2 fertilization.
Therefore if we literally want to Go Green, the “thing we should do”, is burn more coal. So there’s that.

Julie near Chicago

Absolutely. In the end, CO2 is irreplaceable in the cycle that produces our food, not to mention our oxygen (at any rate a good deal of it).
And there’s nothing “not-‘clean'” about CO2.

Nothing unsustainable either, unless it gets locked up in the ocean.

ozspeaksup

I noted the 14% increase in ag production he mentioned
hmm?
so, as most of us know
its NOT the GMO increasing any production( they dont increase yield never did doubt they will) at best they used to knock weed n bugs sideways now they dont.
now we have co2 enhanced superweeds and bugs resistant to more chem.
nice move huh?
sarc/

MarkW

Both CO2 and GMOs have been responsible for some of the agricultural increases over the decades.
There have been other things as well, such as improved farming techniques and non-gmo crop improvements.

David A

Crop yields have increased well above 15%. 15% is due to going from 280 to 400 PPM, and 15 percent is likely an understatement.

gnomish

do whatever the heck you want on your own dime.
keep your cakehooks off my wallet.
taking my stuff is stealing – got it?

ShrNfr

Massive misallocation of funds is worse than no allocation of funds. I have yet to see a study that rejects the null hypothesis that we are going to be going into a cooler period in the climate with the decline in solar magnetic activity similar to the decline of the middle ages with any significance. If we are going to do so, and I am not saying we are, spending money to mitigate “climate change”, aka the escathological cargo cult of the CAGW, will be spent for exactly the wrong reason.
There are a great many things to spend time and money on. Providing enough individual solar power setups to folks in third world countries sufficient to run a dorm fridge and a small microwave oven would improve the quality of life immensely for a great many of them.

Absolutely. The folks who carp that solar can never reliably power industry in rural Africa aren’t getting it. It will power houses just fine and it’ll be much better than what they have. You aren’t going to yank those people out of the iron age in 5 years.
As far as industry in the area goes, what’s wrong with industrial sites building fossil based power stations? Nothing. Once they’re established, they can grow a grid around them, create real cities and eventually reliable power will make it to the farms. The same thing happened in the US.
These folks who think we can transfer that tech instantly are not engineers. Not even close.

looncraz

We don’t need to do anything for the climate other than preventing easily preventable disasters or destruction – or to correct them more appropriately (such as replanting forests we uproot – and refilling lakes we drain… if possible – and not dumping trash into our waterways and oceans… standard stuff).
However, long before CO2 becomes a genuine climate issue, it DOES become a genuine health issue. Just look at what happens when you have 1000ppm of CO2 for health… it’s MUCH worse than anything that it could do, even in the craziest cAGW scenarios, to climate.

increased concs of CO2 would speed up the rate of dissolution into the oceans where it would be sequestered and converted into carbonates and bicarbonates – with the pH remaining constant at an alkaline 8.4.

old engineer

looncraz-
I think you are mistaking CO2 (carbon dioxide) for CO (carbon monoxide). I’ve been told that CO2 levels are artificially increased to as high as 1000 ppm in greenhouses, where humans have to work. On the other hand, an exposure to 1000 ppm of CO for several hours would make you very ill, possibly dead.

Wim Röst

‘Just look at what happens when you have 1000ppm of CO2 for health… ‘
We are exhaling 4% – 5,3% carbon dioxide ourselves = 40.000 – 53.000 ppm CO2. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing
Submarines have a limit of 30.000 ppm CO2. 1000-1500 ppm CO2 is seen as maximal comfortable.
Source: TNO-rapport | 060-DTM-2011-00610 p. 23, https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/Ventilatie,%20achtergrond%20van%20de%20eisen.pdf

sciguy54

Looncraz, you asked:
“Just look at what happens when you have 1000ppm of CO2 for health”
For humans the answer is… nothing. Each 100ppm of CO2 represents 1/10,000th of a bar partial pressure. That would be like going upwards in the air column about 1 meter. Are you concerned that someone might pass away because their hospital room is 1 floor above the lobby? Don’t you think mankind could adjust to a similar variation over the course of a century or so?

looncraz (good handle) writes:

Just look at what happens when you have 1000ppm of CO2 for health… it’s MUCH worse than anything that it could do, even in the craziest cAGW scenarios, to climate.

No. That’s a completely unfounded claim. 1000 ppm CO2 isn’t harmful to anything on the planet, certainly not humans. I don’t know of any diving squirrels, but I do know more than a few diving humans; we like 1000 ppm CO2. No problem. We don’t even notice CO2 until it hits 20,000 ppm. That’s a scientifically documented fact.

dp

What problem are you trying to solve, and what would you do to solve it?

Walter Horsting

Cheap electricity is the most important global health solution for clean water, clean cooking and air-conditioning. Sun Cycles 24-26 brings a new cooling minimum…More people die from cold than heat and we will need cheap energy. I do prefer Molten Salt Reactor technology for all new energy plants. egeneration.org

+1

Tom Judd

Wow, gery katona, never before in the history of Watts Up With That have so few (one; actually – yourself) caused so many replies from so many. (With apologies to Winston Churchill.)
I’ll leave it up to you to determine if that’s a good thing or not.

John Harmsworth

Eventually, as we run down our cost effective supplies of fossil fuels, we need to shift to other energy sources. If we can get the poorer two thirds of the world out of poverty before that, population will be stable if not slowly declining, global economic capacity will be greater and cleaner, democracy will be much more common with more educated populations and new technological possibilities will become evident.
The ONLY thing that makes sense is a modest additional investment in potential future solutions and basic science. Send all these Climatological Cassandras to the South Pole to count snowflakes!

mikemUK

JH
A mild ‘nitpick’, if I may –
In the myth, Cassandra was doomed to make correct predictions which nobody believed.
I’m sure that you didn’t intend to offer any such undeserved credit to the present charlatans!

John Harmsworth

D’oh! Thanks Mike. Ummm, pretty sure that was the M- in- law’s name! Yeah! That’s the ticket!

John Harmsworth

Note to self: Send Mike along to count snowflakes too.

MarkW

We have hundreds of years of fossil fuels left.
No need to worry about running out any time soon.
I’ll let our many times great grandchildren worry about that problem and use technology we haven’t even started to dream of yet, to solve it.

The known coal reserves in the UK were well over 300 years in the 1960s at the then rate of consumption, but this year saw the closure of the last deep coal mine in Yorkshire because of our unilateral climate change act imposed by the socialists; and pressure from the EU.

It would be more effective and cheaper to give everyone an air conditioner and electricity discount during warm weather.

“Sometimes it takes courage to do nothing….”

SC

gery katona
June 5, 2016 at 10:04 am
I see, so we shouldn’t do anything then? Please.
Gery has an made an excellent point. Perhaps we should throw some politicians and experts in jail… then again maybe it’s just better to demand all the money they wasted be returned.

Noblesse Oblige

That’s right. It is a non problem. A scientific scam of high order. It has been defined by those who stand to gain financially or politically from yet another expansion of the central government control over our lives; they already control medicine, banking finance etc.,. and a piece of the auto industry. Now they would add energy, and soonthey would have it all and we can rename ourselves in line with the old Soviets.

That is correct – do nothing until someone actually proves that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.
That proof must include:
1) Why whatever caused the Minoan, Roaman, and Medieval warm periods to be warmer than now, and why that cause is NOT the cause of the current warm period.
2) Why man’s CO2, at 5% of the annual emissions, is causing warming, while nature’s 95% is NOT.
3) The fact that the rate of warming of the current warm period is statistically indistinguishable from earlier warm periods before man’s CO2 was significant.
4) CO2 increases follow NOT LEAD temperature on most time scales.
5. Solar cycles are a better fit to climate than CO2 over a longer time span.
6. In 2012 the IPCC effectively said they don’t actually know if the earth is warming or cooling over the last 15 years, since the error bands include cooling.
7. There is a strong likelihood that the major portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was due to natural variations.
CITATIONS
1. http://www.sustainableoregon.com/temphist.html
2. Add up the numbers on the NASA chart: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page1.php
3. Phil Jones told the BBC: “the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”Phil Jones BBC interview, question A, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
4. realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 ; http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_lags.html ; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/
5. http://www.sustainableoregon.com/thesun.html
6. “As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nino, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade). {1.1.1, Box 1.1}“
From bottom of pg 2 of : http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf (local copy)
7. “…the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 ̊C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
From: An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures, Philip J. Lloyd, DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417, http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417 (Local)

Louis

Gery Katona, when the cure is worse than the disease, what do you suggest we do, make things worse?

joelobryan

Gery,
Yes, we should do something to fight the lies of Climate Change.
1. drill, baby, drill.
2. Frack, baby, frack.
3. Dig coal, baby, dig coal.
4. Fission, baby, fission.
5. Kill solar subsidies outright.
6. Slowly bring down wind subsidies.

JPeden

gery katona
June 5, 2016 at 10:04 am
“I see, so we shouldn’t do anything then? Please.”
Do something about what? The fact that Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its own [100%] Prediction Failure? Yes, stop its ruinous nonsense. Continue by asking yourself how you got duped, or else you’ll only get duped again by the next Apocalyptic Hoax.

Gery
I see, so we shouldn’t do anything then? Please.
Good question. Furthermore, what are we going to do about the little green men on the moon who are plotting to invade the earth? Again, please!

markx

We could stick to the current approach. “Do something! Do anything! But do it now!”
Or we could keep researching and innovating and work out what really works for all. We seem to have shelved world wide carbon trading schemes, and that at least is a very good outcome of the current approach.

Evan Jones

We shouldn’t do anything. Please!

Bleeker

Doing something for the sake of doing something is the most illogical course of action. If you really think you should do something then focus on something that helps for every dollar spend.

Leo Morgan

@ gery katona
Really yes stop doing things. Your “cure” is far worse than the “disease”.

MarkW

Why should we need to do anything.
The net impact of CO2 on the environment is positive.

brians356

You take it right! You’re pretty fast on the uptake. Now spread the glad tidings to your CAGW-clinging friends and relatives.

dukesilver

Yes – no action at all IS better than a hugely expensive symbolic gesture. I pay taxes and would like my money spent on meaningful actions.

Marcus

[snip unrelated off topic political comment .mod]

My favorite quote of the article:
“humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality.”
Um, what have many of us skeptics been saying all along?

SMC

“What that effectively mean, Kelly argued, is that rapid decarbonization is a “glib” effort that would result in “large parts of the population [dying] from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.” ”
A lot of skeptics have been saying this, too… For quite some time.

dp

I’ve assumed all along that a die-off was one objective in destroying economies.

One of those who failed to do any serious investigation is the soon-to-be-former President of the United States. It will be a large part of his administration’s legacy.

+1000

TRM

So instead of a carbon tax how about a tax break for all people and businesses to insulate their establishments? Whether it gets cold or hot it will work. It will also save money over the long run but that is the problem. Most people and businesses don’t think long term. So make the up front costs more affordable with tax breaks.
For one Solyndra you could insulate a lot of buildings and I guarantee you insulation would get a better rate of return. Heck in Solyndra’s case doing nothing would get a better rate of return.

TonyL

How stupid are we? We are so stupid we do not know enough to construct buildings with insulation. We are so stupid we need government to force us to do the smart thing.
I am so thankful for my moral and intellectual superiors solving all the worlds problems for me.

John Harmsworth

Careful what you ask for! Canada has pretty rigorous building code standards for insulation and infiltration that have good payback in most regions. Then mid-efficient ng furnaces came along with more, decent payback.
Unfortunately, good enough wasn’t good enough for gov’t do-gooders so they outlawed mids for residential use. The initial cost, reliability and payback for hi-e furnaces provide no decent payback, but I’m not allowed to make that decision for myself anymore.

Insulation is being done to old and especially new building

Goldrider

Somebody’s smelling the wind changing, methinks . . . ! 😉

Gamecock

Could be. I’ve been wondering how the legacy press was going to shift when the O presidency was over.

Stephen Richards

There have been a couple of small signals that the rats are starting to open the portholes

SAMURAI

Just five years ago, UN’s estimated cost for CAGW mitigation was $76 trillion over 40 years to keep CO2 induced warming below 2C by 2100…
Let’s say we waste $0.00 and enjoy another 0.3C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery over the next 84 years..
Moreover, since the coming Grand Solar Minimum may decrease global temps below current levels by 2100, should we Increase CO2 emissions now to offset future GSM cooling?
Better safe than sorry, right?
Oh, the Immutable Law of Leftist Irony…

Mark from the Midwest

This doesn’t surprise me, I’ve heard editorial rumblings over the past several years that indicate that in many people’s minds things “just don’t add up,” (fyi: I work in the telecom-television industry). What surprises me is that it’s a member of the Comcast-NBCu family. They are clearly the most left-leaning of all media organizations. The fact that they carried this kind of story will give cover to more centrist news organizations to start to probe and report on the political nature of the narrative.
Maybe this can usher in an era of useful environmental policy, rather than a policy of environment as an authoritarian tool.

I believe that the Paris accord was just one of the many “dog and pony” shows government is so fond of. Nothing concrete came out of it, just a lot of back patting and empty promises. Now all those governments can say–see we agreed to do something as they continue with business as usual.

Latitude

Surprising Story Coming From CNBC…
It’s just about money….they have had such a small market share…..saw what FOX, Trump, etc have done
MSNBC, and CNN are also trying to report more “fair and balanced”
…It’s just the numbers

SMC

That’s very cynical… And very likely accurate. Fox has been kicking CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the leftwing MSM’s backside in the ratings. Rating’s equate advertising and advertising equates to dollars. They for got the that the customer is always right. As always, follow the money.

gnomish

then we might speculate that the money formerly provided to push the CAGW agenda is drying up it they are now starting to look for alternatives, eh?

John Harmsworth

If only there was energy in cynicism. Tends to destroy it, unfortunately.

Mark from the Midwest

You’re right, it’s just the numbers, but the thing that drives ratings, more than anything, is a good old fashioned “train wreck,” or the alternative “opportunity of a lifetime.” From a financial standpoint it’s possible to infer that they’re reporting on a “fiscal train-wreck in the making.” However, CNBC is not news for people that are serious investors or actors in the market, it’s just a dog-and-pony show for the wannabe high-roller. Sticking with a narrative of the promise of renewable energy would drive better numbers for CNBC than honest reporting.

Latitude

naw….they are just throwing a bone….so they can point back to it later

SMC

“naw….they are just throwing a bone….so they can point back to it later”
Entirely possible. Hope you’re wrong.

JohnKnight

“Sticking with a narrative of the promise of renewable energy would drive better numbers for CNBC than honest reporting.”
I’m not at all sure about that, what with recent polling showing the people have about as much faith in the MSM as they do in the Government. Just pumping out the same old “official” narratives might be tantamount to corporate suicide at this point.

MarkW

When you are saying the same thing as anyone else, it’s hard to stand out.
CNBC is going down the tubes financially. They need to do something to stand out.

Old'un

Prof. Micheal Kelly has been questioning the UK’s ‘strategy’ of reducing CO2 output for some time, in particular the drive for renewables at any cost. He is a breath of fresh air amid the blinkered alarmists of academia in the UK and it is good to see his arguments getting international exposure.

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.
CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney
ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary
ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood
CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
And now you know why it is no surprise the media is in Obama’s pocket. Think there might be a little bias in the news?
This may also explain the cover up of Benghazi , etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,……..
Isn’t it interesting that every place you look in Obama’s administration people fill positions because of who they know, not what they know or how competent they are.

John Robertson

I suggest we are entering Stage Four;”And then they surrender”.
Hysteria must be an exhausting life style.

Gunga Din

I don’t know CNBC’s headquarters are located but I bet it’s not California. 😎

SMC

CNBC is headquartered in New Jersey. It is owned by NBC Universal, headquarters in NYC, NY. So, nope, not California. Still a left wing bastion, just very slightly to the right of Cali.

Tom Judd

Only on a map.

Steve Fraser

In ‘North Pole UP’ orientation…

mike

which are now owned by Comcast in Philadelphia

Russell

CNBC’s Joe Kernen: “Climate Change Is ‘Like Witchcraft’ http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x35hdj9

Russell

Hugh McNeal, chief executive of RenewableUK, made the admission
He said farms could still be built in other parts of the UK, like Scotland
Over 4000 wind turbines are currently powering 4 million homes in the UK
Conservative government has ended controversial wind subsidy system http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625874/Wind-turbine-boss-admits-no-built-England-isn-t-windy-enough.html

Gamecock

‘Over 4000 wind turbines are currently powering 4 million homes in the UK’
Maybe. Changes every hour.

When they are running they produce a few watts but in the depths of winter with clear skies and deep frosts when there are big demands on the power grid, the air is still, and the 4000 turbines can’t keep a light bulb on.

Diogenese2

Unfortunately only for 5 hours a day!

Stephen Richards

Over 4000 turbines So how many is it. 5000, 10000. What ever it is they are not powering 4million homes Nuclear, coal, gas are doing that and there are near 28million homes in the UK. Millions of businesses and so on. These green lies just keep coming.

MarkW

chemengrls: Worse, when the wind isn’t blowing, those windmills actually consume power as first they have to be kept turning (slowly) so that they don’t distort the bearings, and secondly they have to be kept de-iced in case the wind does start blowing.

So, I was painting too rosy a picture.

Russell

Does this make sense one thousand wind turbines per household in the UK: say what.

DC Cowboy

I think that’s 1,000 households / wind turbine, but, even so I suspect that is based on the rated capacity of the wind turbines, not their actual output.

Europe invest 1 Trillion Euros building 410 GWs of Nameplate capacity…they only get 38GWs output….

I think this story needs a 6th star for up voting, and a designation more than merely excellent. Outstanding comes to mind.

I wonder how long David will last at CNBC, or if it is real policy change by the network on CAGW.

SMC

I doubt a story like this could be published, by CNBC or similar news organization, without approval.

Stephen Richards

Joe Kernan has been criticising global warming for years on CNBC.

H. D. Hoese

Not too long ago CNBC, best I remember, had a show on Fast and Furious confirming and adding what was much earlier on Univision in Spanish. It ended with an ex-marine who owned a gun shop and had cooperated with the government, now fearing for his life, stating that he would “Die for his country, but not walk across the street for his government.” This needs to be checked out.

Owen in GA

This is not surprising. CNBC has been less looney toons than the rest of the NBC family because their focus has always been on economic and business cycle interests. They have their loons to be sure, but their analysts are split between hard-core Keynesians (Looniest of loons) and Austrian school hard-nosed numbers guys. For me, they are the only watchable member of the NBC family. (Though I still rarely watch them as I pulled the plug on cable quite a while ago.) Fox Business is better because the skip the Keynes methodology.

MRW

the Keynes methodology.

What is that?

Keynesian Economics:

1. Adjective
of or relating to the economic theories, doctrines, or policies of Keynes or his followers, especially the policy of maintaining high employment and controlling inflation by varying the interest rates, tax rates, and public expenditure.

“Public Expenditure” = Big government is the answer to all problems economic.
I would like to ask a Keynesian what he thinks of a $17 Trillion national debt.

I am surprised at this. After all, it has only been about 20 years without any warming and many think we are going into a new 20 year (or more) cooling phase. These things should not have caused this surprising news article.
I figured it would take a glacier covering NYC to do that.

SMC

For the die hard idealists, I doubt even a glacier covering NYC would change their minds. For the more pragmatic businessman (even if he’s a left wingnut) whose trying to make a buck, and getting pasted by the competition, a little thoughtful reconsideration might be in order.
I don’t think the socialist’s cause has been helped by the violent protests against Trump, when it gets reported in the MSM 24-7. Especially when an official like the Mayor of San Jose tries to justify the violence. I think that kind of coverage is causing many people to reevaluate where they stand on issues. And that is part of what is driving the apparent reconsideration, or at least sending up trial balloons like this article, of the MSM… Of course, money is still the primary consideration.

John Harmsworth

You’re probably right about the diehards. I’m Canadian so I’ll stay out of your politics. We have our own issues there. Your comments make me wonder though, what the kool aid drinkers think when they read this kind of thoughtful, rational assessment by someone with credibility. Makes me wonder.

AJB
TG

CNBC ? Where is my heart attack medication!
The bank is empty, the worlds economy is starting the slow tail spin with no backup in site – Possibly time for another major war distraction!!
The Trillions of dollars that have been diverted from the economy’s of the world, have taken there toll. Look at the crumbling infrastructure IE: bridges, roads, water and sewer lines, airports Ect… America and many places throughout the world have the same problem. The over regulation and the mindless green agenda has cause more fees, higher taxes, electricity and power cost in general to skyrocket, for what end? This is the money that rewards the Green machine fanatic’s and leave very little for sensible expenditures listed above.

SMC

” Possibly time for another major war distraction!!”
Already in the works. It’ll essentially be China, Russia, Iran vs. USA.

John Harmsworth

Not gonna fix that infrastructure, are ya? Concrete’s a no-no for CO2! Saddle up the plow horse if you really, really have to go to town. Stay off the main road-its full of starving people.

This is not the first time Prof Kelly has stood up against the more outrageous claims of the Consensus scientists:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/cambridge-professor-michael-kelly-on-deniers-and-climate-change-science-has-been-consistently-over-egged-to-produce-alarm/
IIR Prof Kelly also participated in the investigation EAU ordered for itself and issued an interesting minority opinion. Unfortunately, Google seems to have lost any record of that.
Prof Kelly also participated in the dinner meeting our host had in the UK Sept 2014.
The surprise is that the media has picked up his thoughts.

What is MSM?
Please define your shorthand.

SMC

Main Stream Media.
Organizations, like NBC, ABC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, etc.

Gamecock

CBS, ABS, NBS, CNNBS

R.S.Brown

Don’t forget BBC, NPR, Yahoo, and their ever present, silent conduit, the Associated Press.

Reuters, AFP, Al Jazeera.

TCE, I believe that msm = main-stream media (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.)

Bubba Cow

main stream media

Alan Robertson

MSM is also an acronym in the Main Stream Media playbook, under the heading of “What to do when caught lying to support your agenda”… Mumble Something Meaningless (as an apology, then back to business as usual.)

Gunga Din

MSM = “Main Source of Misinformation”? “Main Source of ManagedInformation”? 😎

Tom Judd

It’s means either:
My (older) Sister’s Mean
or
Main Stream Media

I suspect that the Rich and Powerful have started to realize they will no longer be rich, and some of the Limousine Liberals have just learned the big chassis Lincoln used to make new limos is no longer made due to their own rules … so they can’t buy a new one.
GM Cadillac brand sales were off something like 20% after a disastrous move to smaller more “green” sizes… Just sayin’…
They can learn, if way too slowly…

Gunga din

How often has the tune of the “idle rich” changed when the song lessen’s their personal riches?
Some try to manipulate to increase their own riches or power. Many of the “newly rich” (think Hollywood stars) are just pawns of the cause. If the cost of energy goes up a dollar or two, no matter. They can afford it. They can be sold on CAGW-based policy because they can afford to pursue a dream.
The rest of us have been sold out.

Not too surprising. Paris, climate and renewables are not favored among investors and the world of high finance. Just check some stocks: scty, fslr, etc

Esther Cook

[Note: I usually post under my heroine name Lady Life Grows, but my WordPress account did not come up in several minutes, so I will just type in my legal name.]
There were TWO major agreements at Paris, neither enforceable. One was the usual anti-Life nonsense about fossil fuels (carbon fuels that increase the carrying capacity of the planet for Life).
The delegates felt a certain euphoria about the other agreement: to sequester the carbon in the world’s soils. This can be done right, increasing the fertility of the world’s soils. Best of all, this is DOABLE! After decades of frustration, they can finally make a difference. Our side should have felt the same euphoria–the fossil garbage wasn’t enforceable anyhow, and the soil sequestration part is ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL.
I am a little mad at WUWT readers for missing that when I have pointed it out 3 times, I think. Partly, this is because most of you are physical scientists and engineers, and this is a Life Science point. And part of it is a moral failing: you have known for certain that you were right according to the actual data and that the other side was factually wrong. Some of you also knew the pre-hysteria definition of “climate optimum.”
You want these fools (narrow definition–persons who were fooled) to admit that they were gulled. That you were right and they were wrong. Such admissions are improbable because they are extremely difficult.
The biosphere is at stake. Good, tasty food is at stake. So knock it off wanting somebody else to make you feel good by admitting you were right and they were wrong. Really, why such craven desire for approval from the gullible? I give you permission to feel good about yourselves already for being factually right.
Now add biological right to that by joining WITH your local environuts on gardening and soil carbon “sequestration.” Richer soils mean happier, more energetic life. We can ALL get behind that.

Alan Robertson

Lady L G,
I think you are largely mistaken about the “rah rah for our side” attribution of motives to the readers, here.
Would it be fair of us to ascribe a “holier than thou” attitude to you?
As far as soil sequestration of carbon goes, make a post, start a thread!
You might be surprised at the result.
Many of us here are interested in the topic and some of us have even taken up late- in- life studies of soil sciences, as result of what we’ve learned at WUWT and such places as CO2 Science.
Ps Nice to meet you, Esther.

Tom Judd

In all due respect (I mean that), wouldn’t the CO2 be more beneficial in the atmosphere rather than sequestered in the soil?
Nice real name – and nice handle name, by the way.

Soil carbon is highly important to soil fertility and tilth. Soil, good soil, is not a dead mineral, it is a living system full of bacteria, worms, fungi, and more. Many trees, for example, use a symbiote fungus to extend their roots fine structure.
Read, too, about charcoal benefits and lifetime in tera preta soils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
Personally, I hesitate to call it sequestration, though…

I have said dozens of times that I believe more CO2 in the air is highly beneficial to human and animal longevity. To find that out for sure, we need real science, where the results can be published whatever they are.
“Sequestration” in the soil is not my favorite term, but if it turns the greenies from death-dealing monsters into life-enhancing people, I will use whatever term works. The old-fashioned term would be “fertilization” or ” manuring.” Even today, most everyone knows that organic matter in the soil enhances its fertility.
I want more CO2 in the air AND the soil.

Steve Fraser

Sequestration… No. Enrichment… Better.

Well, I’m a gardener that missed that point from Paris… I’m all for composting, and “sequester” a batch each year. Also did a posting or two about biosytems sucking down CO2 like crazy.
Not sure how the Paris folks think that interacts with coal power and gasoline cars, though…
My general impression of AGW Alarmists is that they want to remove carbon from the carbon cycle, into mineral sequestration for millions of years…rather than build good tera preta…

+ many E.M. When we put CO2 in the air, it ends up in plants and in the soil. I pile manure every spring and spread it on my fields after the bacteria have done their job. Plus my trees provide my winter heat and a bit of CO2 for my pastures … 😉
I think the satellite analyses suggest we are doing a good job of re-carbonizing the world.

Klem

Sequester CO2 in soils? OMG, what a waste of time and effort that would be. It would be completely insignificant with respect to GHG emissions and it would not change the weather.
And based on what we are seeing in Alberta, the left would find a way to hand out fines and prison terms to citizens for not gardening (or something equally draconian).
If you want to garden to save the planet, go ahead. If you want to build wind farms, go ahead. If you want to drive outdated electric cars, knock yourself out. Just don’t write laws to make me pay for it. Ok?

Alan Robertson

Klem,
Those rich black prairie soils of your Alberta home are some of the most productive on the planet, because they incorporate a very high Carbon content. Early settlers discovered North American prairie soils as much as 20 feet deep in places. Those soils are black because of their Carbon content.
Perhaps it’s some expensive Greenie- proposed methodology which is your real objection, but building carbon in the soil is one of the most beneficial things we can do. It’s mainly a natural process, as deep roots die back and decay and surface litter is consumed by the micro beasties and incorporated into the soil.
A great many people are studying methods to increase man’s (and Nature’s) contribution to carbon content of soil and with good reason.
You made good points about government mandates and taxing everyone to fund some scheme.

John Harmsworth

Happy to welcome your insight and controlled passion, Esther! I have to admit I was only vaguely aware of the Paris soil sequestration initiative. I assumed when I heard about it that they were talking about “Terra Pretta” or some such, which I have been interested in for some time. I may well be guilty of dismissing this as I thought it was either too expensive or not significant in extent. Any info contrary to my initial assessment? I’d appreciate hearing it.

AndyG55

“The biosphere is at stake.”
Too right it is..
The biosphere works because of the CARBON CYCLE.
That cycle has been dangerously low in its main ingredient form hundreds of thousands of years.
With a bit of HUMAN HELP, de-sequestering buried carbon,, it is now starting to flourish again.
We must NEVER allow the atmospheric CO2 level to drop down so perilously low again,
We should be AIMING to increase it.

We should be AIMING to increase it.[CO2 levels]

Amen brother, amen.

AndyG55
Correct – this graph shows that we are at the low, not the high, end of the (very wide) range of safe atmospheric CO2 levels. And that over this range, about 500-50,000 ppm, the slope indicating the effect of CO2 on temperature is not distinguishable from zero.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_RXGJAF_XL5V0Y0eU1ya3E2UTA/view

Correction – safe range covered by data in this graph is about 300-7000 ppm.

Steve Fraser

So should I be mixing my fireplaces ashes into my garden soil? And if so, would I do that after the garden is done for the season or just before planting?

I have been spreading my fireplace ashes on my pastures for years.
Here is a good article on where and where not to use wood ash:
http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/articles/frederick/2004/ashes.htm

Latitude

It’s all signs of the apocalypse…
First it was CNN, then MSNBC, then NBC
Now the chief executive of wind industry trade body…says there’s not enough wind in England for windmills
…so no more windmills
England not windy enough, admits wind industry chief
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/04/england-not-windy-enough-admits-wind-industry-chief/

John Harmsworth

Can’t they run a pipeline from Scotland? I suppose the Socialists would demand their wind back or claim it was killing jobs for the Union of Part-time Windmill Turners.

Even his estimate of costs is way low. He finds $9 Trillion for electrical power and only $6.4 Trillion for everything else. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry has 806 million cars and light trucks on the road. Using a low $20,000 for replacement cost, that is $16 Trillion alone.
Transportation is something like 90% oil driven, so to ruduce oil burning it requires trashing all those cars and replacing them with what? Teslas at $80, 000 each? To deliver things to markets and factories? This is even with ignoring ships and Diesel trains…
The average car lifetime in America it approaching 12 years. That is 2028 for cars made today. We simply can not eliminate oil burning without fleet change, and we can’t change the fleet fast enough to meet the “goals”. We don’t have the money to do it, or the time to get it done, even if we were buying non-oil cars today, and we are not.
I suspect the article is reflecting the link to a comment by Jack Welch (linked in the article) that the cost is too high … Prior CEO of GE that owns NBC… so likely a safe view there, now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch

H.R.

@E.M.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

H.R.

… which we don’t have.

Is this a problem?
How would you feed, clothe and transport people without the cars and trucks and businesses today?
Phrasing it differently, how many people do you want killed in squalor and poverty and illness just so the world “feels” the way “you” want it to feel so YOU feel good?

TA

Of all the Leftwing tv channels, I would think CNBC (the Business Channel) would be the most likely to challange the Alarmists CAGW theory.
The people who work for CNBC do, after all, have to look at the actual numbers when reporting on a subject. Not all of the reporters on CNBC are leftwing.

Note that their Dear Leader Emeritus, Jack Welch, said it was too expensive… they now have organizational top cover of a sort…

Tom Judd

Geez; Trump’s not even elected yet and he’s starting to have an effect.

Marcus

…Arrrg ! I mentioned his name and I got SNIPPED !! LOL

spaatch

“Michael Kelly in fact accepts the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, in 2014 that human-generated CO2 has been responsible for more than half the globe’s warming since 1950.”
“In 2010,Michael Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.The panel concluded that there was “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.”
Michael Kelly has no qualifications in climate science nor is he an economist…

Bob Lyman

Michael Kelly is an engineer who teaches at Oxford University. Challenge the man’s analysis, not the letters behind his name.

gnomish

Because you are so honest and pure, spaatch, I know you want everybody to apply your argument to everything you just said so as to avoid any taint of hypocrisy.
Pwn3d.

MRW

Michael Kelly has no qualifications in climate science.

Nor did anyone who graduated before 1979, the first year a climate science PhD was created at the University of Wisconsin.
Climate scientists traditionally had hard science degrees like physics, astronomy, geology, mathematics, chemistry.
This is M.J. Kelly’s bio: http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/network/michael-kelly/

Prof Kelly was appointed to the panel as one of four “unbiased” members of the Oxburg Panel (NOT the e-mail Panel. Steve McIntyre highlights Prof Kelly’s notes (that were excluded from the final report) here:
https://climateaudit.org/2010/06/22/kellys-comments/
Can we please stop the circular firing squad that aims at those in agreement with our skepticism?
Prof Kelly is and has been one of the good guys:

“Up to and throughout this exercise, I have remained puzzled how the real humility of the scientists in this area, as evident in their papers, including all these here, and the talks I have heard them give, is morphed into statements of confidence at the 95% level for public consumption through the IPCC process. This does not happen in other subjects of equal importance to humanity, e.g. energy futures or environmental degradation or resource depletion. I can only think it is the ‘authority’ appropriated by the IPCC itself that is the root cause.”

Bill Treuren

The big story is that the business based CNBC are starting to understand that there may be a big story in CO2 reduction through coal to natural gas usage.
leaving coal in the ground even for the US could be largely neutral if not regionally.
Secondly oils strength is market mobility gas less so but with massive LNG development this issue is less of an issue.
The oil majors would see this as a great way of shifting the supply center from the Middle East to more favorable regions. Yes the US or us.

John Harmsworth

Nat gas is in over supply right now. In a more normal price environment it sucks horribly compared to coal. There’s nothing wrong with coal in modern plants if it’s mined responsibly.

John Loop

I may be stoopid, but I could not find the story anyway shape or how going to cnbc.com until I searched for the author…. Not exactly very visible? I could not find “environment” and nothing came up when I searched environment. I can see when I get there that it is cnbc.com/environment, but it looks like a hidden link to me. …I do see it popped up on their “most popular links” HOW did it ever get there?

The wheels of the CAGW bandwagon are beginning to fall off around the developed world. Germany limiting the rate of wind turbine additions, UK looking at laws to reverse the excesses of mindless green tariffs, and so on.
The physical laws and economics of electric power production cannot be changed by political fiat. The “inertia” of those beautiful systems have been carrying on despite “watermelon” assaults, increased consumer costs notwithstanding. We do, however, reach inevitable tipping points where the poor freeze in the dark and die in heat waves because they cannot afford electricity and power grids exceed their system stability limits, which will result in massive blackouts. Those hard facts are now coming about in first world economies.
Power grid operators are desperately juggling their remaining assets, going to the extreme extent of actually paying huge excess tariff rates to conventional generation sources. You and I are paying for phony climate scientists and politicians’ high-flying junkets to the vacation spots of the world to pat themselves on the back for their superior “enlightened understanding.” Will we see them around to accept responsibility for their actions?
Dave Fair

UK is in serious difficulties. I suspect the politicians who supported the strangling Climate Change Act of 2008 will shortly be held to account.

Analitik

Denmark, too.They’re finally acknowledging that wind farms are driving up the cost of their electricity and are looking to remove one of the major subsidies. As you’d expect, the wind industry is bleating.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-05/denmark-scares-off-investors-after-energy-agenda-is-jettisoned

Unfortunately, in the UK, all but 2 or 3 politicians supported the CCA act!

Tom in Florida

“Surprising Story Coming From CNBC says Paris Climate Accord is “irrelevant” and cuts would “impoverish the world””
Well, it all started when the Eagles got back together.

pat

24 May: CambridgeUniversityPress: Cambridge professor says much of the effort to combat global warming is actually making it worse
As part of an open discussion on the critical issue of energy, sustainability and climate change,MRS Energy & Sustainability–A Review Journal (MRS E&S) has published a paper in which Cambridge engineering professor M.J. Kelly argues that it is time to review the current efforts to reduce carbon emissions, some of which “represent total madness.” This paper is one of a series of articles in MRS E&S that, with varying opinions, address this controversial topic.
In his peer-reviewed article, Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability (LINK), Kelly considers the lessons from global decarbonization projects, and concludes that all combined actions to reduce carbon emissions so far will not achieve a serious reduction. In some cases, these efforts will actually make matters worse.
Central to his thesis, which is supported by examples, is that rapid decarbonization will simply not be possible without a significant reduction in standards of living….
For a counter viewpoint to this article, see Energy and sustainability, from the point of view of environmental physics (LINK), by Micha Tomkiewicz…
http://www.cambridge.org/au/about-us/news/cambridge-professor-says-much-effort-combat-global-warming-actually-making-it-worse/
2 Jun: CNBC: Matthew J. Belvedere: Jack Welch says Obama’s ‘wacky’ climate-change agenda hurts the US economy
Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, said Thursday the Obama administration’s heavy focus on combating climate change is “radical behavior” that’s holding back the economy…
The result, he said: “You get an economy that won’t move. You get ozone regs that are wacky.” …
Welch said he’s not a climate-change denier, just pointing out the “cost of doing it; it’s got to be more balanced.”…
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/02/jack-welch-says-obamas-wacky-climate-change-agenda-hurts-the-us-economy.html

pat

24 May: CambridgeUniversityPress: Cambridge professor says much of the effort to combat global warming is actually making it worse
As part of an open discussion on the critical issue of energy, sustainability and climate change,MRS Energy & Sustainability–A Review Journal (MRS E&S) has published a paper in which Cambridge engineering professor M.J. Kelly argues that it is time to review the current efforts to reduce carbon emissions, some of which “represent total madness.” This paper is one of a series of articles in MRS E&S that, with varying opinions, address this controversial topic.
In his peer-reviewed article, Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability (LINK), Kelly considers the lessons from global decarbonization projects, and concludes that all combined actions to reduce carbon emissions so far will not achieve a serious reduction. In some cases, these efforts will actually make matters worse.
Central to his thesis, which is supported by examples, is that rapid decarbonization will simply not be possible without a significant reduction in standards of living….
For a counter viewpoint to this article, see Energy and sustainability, from the point of view of environmental physics (LINK), by Micha Tomkiewicz…
http://www.cambridge.org/au/about-us/news/cambridge-professor-says-much-effort-combat-global-warming-actually-making-it-worse/
2 Jun: CNBC: Matthew J. Belvedere: Jack Welch says Obama’s ‘wacky’ climate-change agenda hurts the US economy
Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, said Thursday the Obama administration’s heavy focus on combating climate change is “radical behavior” that’s holding back the economy…
The result, he said: “You get an economy that won’t move. You get ozone regs that are wacky.” …
Welch said he’s not a climate-change denier, just pointing out the “cost of doing it; it’s got to be more balanced.”…
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/02/jack-welch-says-obamas-wacky-climate-change-agenda-hurts-the-us-economy.html

CNBC’s Javier E. David reported,
“”” In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the “immense benefits” of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world’s quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is “only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.” ’’””

Kelly’s reasoning and observations provide the necessary and sufficient intellectual anti-venom against the poisonous Malthusianism advocated by intellectual leaders who are supporting the CAGW movement. Those Malthusian advocates are trying to achieve the end product of a near term drastic reduction of human population and also advocating termination of any human technological advancement which has any impacts on ‘nature’. Their planned means of reducing the population and removing technology is to use government force; government force that cannot avoid being highly lethal in effect.
The Malthusian advocates supporting CAGW movement are legion and they have been clearly identified by those climate focused intellects having a well-developed and rational skeptic skill set
John

Buck Wheaton

The fact that every single demand by every one who advocates that humans are destroying the climate all seem to converge on imposing socialism. So, this is not driven by science, it is driven ideology. Socialism is evil, and in its extreme forms it cost some 100 million lives in the last century.

John Harmsworth

The Socialists would have you dig up the corpses for autopsy and then argue the results.

Say John – I am not sure where in Saskatchewan you are but I am curious if you know if the experimental vertical axis turbine on the edge of the Qu’Appelle Valley near Lumsden is still running or if it has been decommissioned. Haven’t been through that way in years but it was always an attention getter – giant eggbeater on the valley rim. (I searched on the Internet but didn’t find it.) Just wondering.

gnomish

guys- that article has 1446 Comments so far.
and a number of familiar voices are ripping up the warmists.
you should see it.
they’re down and getting the boots put to em
it’s nice!
i signed up for disqus just for this article.

Bob Lyman

$9 trillion over 40 years! Where in the world did he get that figure? According to the estimates prepared by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucci, et. al., the authors of the Water, Wind and Sunshine (WWS) Vision that is the basis for most of the claims that the world can achieve 100% renewables energy by 2050, the global cost will be a round $100 trillion. The G20 Finance Ministers meeting in February, 2016 announced their commitment to “mobilize” (i.e. raise taxes and force private industry to invest) $6 trillion per year for the next 15 years to meet the 2030 goal. That $90 trillion would just be a first instalment. $9 trillion would not even cover the U.S. costs of transition. One has to really stretch one’s imagination to comprehend the magnitude of the economic insanity being conte,plated here – all to avoid a potential problem in 2100 the evidence for which lies in shady climate models.

Ian H

At this point if we are honest we should admit that there is going to be no real problem caused by CO2 for the next hundred years or so, and therefore the best thing to do is simply to do nothing and put a reminder on the global calendar for our descendants to revisit the issue in the year 2116.
Any warming before then is likely to be slight and beneficial. The sea level continues to do as it has always done and in any case reacts extremely slowly so there is likely to be no real change over the next 100 years. Arctic sea ice is not a real problem and seems to be going up anyway. Polar bears are thriving. Coral bleaching is now understood to be a natural response of coral to change. Ocean acidification has turned out to be a mythical threat. Ocean organisms like coral are tolerant to saturation levels of CO2 in water as evidenced by the fact that CO2 is bubbled through aquariums to promote coral growth (it is where the coral gets its carbonate from). CO2 is absorbed by the biosphere in the oceans just as it is in the air. So far the benefits of CO2 fertilisation seems to be the largest observable effect.
Meanwhile as a species we have much higher and moire urgent priorities, like eliminating poverty, war, superstition, ignorance, terrorism, and disease; and keeping the instruments of mass destruction out of the hands of fruitloops and nutjobs.

Snarling Dolphin

I see. So we shouldn’t do anything then. Please.

Zenreverend

Snarl all you like. Just read, learn and get the picture.

Richard

It’s a fluke. Heads will roll, then those responsible will be replaced with proper, right-thinking, unbiased journalists.

Dr. Strangelove

Cow fart can easily break the emission cuts of Paris accord. 87x more potent than CO2, atmospheric methane increased 3x faster than CO2 since 1800. While world leaders struggle to keep the Paris commitments, the cows are happily farting their way to global warming. It’s futile world leaders, the cows win.

There is only Ippm of CH4 in the atmosphere – the cows can go on farting till the cows come home and still not have any effect.

Brian H

Methane oxidizes rapidly into H2O and CO2 in the presence of free O2. Of which there are 200,000,000 ppbn in the atmosphere. Trivial.

I’ll be surprised if .Javier E. David still has a job at CNBC tomorrow…

gnomish

that article probably got more eyeballs than any 10 other ones today.
he’s fed the bottom line better than anyone else there today
i notice, too, that the usual gang.green is virtually absent from the comments.
that suggests that the money for astroturfing may be drying up too.
i may be excessively optimistic but it appears the curtain is coming down- from which i infer they have shot their wad as far as propaganda to justify taxing your breath prior to the act.
it may be that they will now focus on palliative propaganda after the act – or it may be they’ve given up for the season until the election sorts out a new bunch of players.
but there have been no more nobel prizes for dismantling america’s economy since gore and obama and ipcc.
perhaps they are unwilling to risk more on speculation or they just don’t care if you don’t like it any more.

Sleepalot

It’s called “Agenda 21” for a reason: there’s still 80 years to go, during which a great deal of history revision will be done.

John West

Is that a tolling bell I hear?

Gary Pearse

When CNCB finds it’s making more money, the rest will jump in with all their clothes on.

Amber

Congats to the CNBC for not being intimidated . Yes climate changes , yes it is warming and yes humans
have some roll . BUT … A warming planet is over beneficial to plants ,forests and animals. It is not the big scary that promoters like to pitch . Wasting $$Trillions in a vain attempt to set the worlds thermostat is the height of human arrogance and self importance . The world is greening as NASA pictures prove . Why are Greens promoting policies that would reduce the greening of the earth ?
1. Scary global warming propaganda has given them free advertising and helps fill those cash registers .
2. Scary global warming acts as cover to impose other beliefs . For example They know if the planet is more habitable population will grow and that is a very big problem for extreme green .
3. Green Parties can’t compete because they are seen as single issue and unelectable. Trying to galvanize
the public like rounding up cattle is a lot easier with the real or pretend threat of an evil external force .
Look at those pretend drowning polar bears and other pure fiction stories whipped up to throw a lasso around their target market .

Brian H

role

Climate Realism breakout day.
#1 FT Renewables conference, most delegates, stood up and said we are on a fantasy path – see NotAlot
“Today, June 1, we will consume the equivalent of 270 million of oil, and most people imagine that you can replace that pretty quickly and seamlessly with wind, solar, electric cars whatever. But of that 270 million, 75 million is coal, 65 million is gas, and 95 million is oil. Nine million of that is wind and solar, and biofuels. So before we delude the world that it is going to be easy to replace it we’ve got to have a realistic debate about the cost.”
#2 Mainstream US Media CNBC has picked up Kelly’s ‘CC policies actually cause more damage report’ see WUWT (Kelly’s report in Climate Etc)
#3 Jack Welch (GE mega business oldtimer) spoke up against the myth that GW is priority #1
also on CNBC video : Jack Welch says Obama’s ‘wacky’ climate-change agenda hurts the US economy