Claim: Just three years left to ‘save the planet’ from climate change

From the “flexible deadlines department” and the World Economic Forum. Prince Charles said back in 2009 that “we have 100 months to save the world”. That deadline looked like it wouldn’t happen so in 2015 he extended the deadline 35 more years. You’d think these people would talk and get their stories straight.

Six scientists and diplomats have published a letter urging governments, businesses and others to address climate issues.

A planet devastated by climate change may seem like a distant future. But Earth is already experiencing effects today.

Globally, the mean rate of sea level rise increased 50% in the last two decades. In 2017, temperatures have already reached their highest levels in history in some areas, from California to Vietnam. And the past three years were the hottest on record.

In a new open letter, six prominent scientists and diplomats, including former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, wrote that the world has approximately three years before the worst effects of climate change take hold. Published June 28, the letter urges governments, businesses, scientists, and citizens to address the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions now.

If emissions can be permanently lowered by 2020, global temperatures will likely avoid reaching an irreversible threshold, they wrote. Impacts would include rapid deforestation, floods from rising sea levels, and unpredictable weather shifts that could ravage agriculture and affect life on the coasts, where the vast majority of people live.

Their plan includes six goals for 2020:

Increase renewable energy to 30% of electricity use.

Draft plans for cities and states to ditch fossil fuel energy by 2050, with funding of $300 billion annually.

Ensure 15% of all new vehicles sold are electric.

Cut net emissions from deforestation.

Publish plan for halving emissions from deforestation well before 2050.

Encourage the financial sector to issue more “green bonds” toward climate-mitigation efforts.

The letter’s goals are at odds with the priorities of the Trump administration, which has signalled that climate change is not on its agenda. In early June, President Trump announced that, in 2019, the US will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which sets national benchmarks for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions.

The authors call for cities and businesses to fight emissions and meet the Paris accord goals, even without the help of the US government.

“We stand at the doorway of being able to bend the emissions curve downwards by 2020, as science demands, in protection of the UN sustainable development goals, and in particular the eradication of extreme poverty,” Figueres said in a press release.

“This monumental challenge coincides with an unprecedented openness to self-challenge on the part of sub-national governments inside the US, governments at all levels outside the US, and of the private sector in general. The opportunity given to us over the next three years is unique in history.”

Advertisements

174 thoughts on “Claim: Just three years left to ‘save the planet’ from climate change

  1. I predict we have just 104,000 weeks until the next Ice Age.
    I may well be correct but no one is interested in such a useless speculation.

    • a couple of months for the Armageddon. Those that preached the Dooms Day and the arrival black of the Messiah, had an audience. Why? Because they predicted the day and the hour, based on the Book of Daniel. Then, people should predict the end of the world for a few months later, or not one would pay any attention to them. That is what this people cacophonic is doing.

    • On the day that they can PROVE something is going on which is clearly and unequivocally outside the historic record of normal variation, and that it is harmful as opposed to beneficial, they ~might~ get some traction. Until that time, they should put on sandwich signs and funny robes and walk around town screaming their nonsense–they might get more attention. Too many people know the facts nowadays.

      It’s becoming more and more obvious if you read the headlines of various “news” sources that leftists nearly always frame their “arguments” in emotional and hyperbolic terms–while people who subscribe to the conventional version of reality mostly don’t. There is a reason for this, and “newspeak” it is indeed.

    • I like this part

      “We stand at the doorway of being able to bend the emissions curve downwards by 2020, as science demands, in protection of the UN sustainable development goals, and in particular the eradication of extreme poverty,” Figueres said in a press release.

      How in the heck are “WE” going to curve emissions downward in 3 years with the largest emitter, China, and 4th or 5th largest emitter India, slated to RAMP UP emissions until 2030 or 2035??

    • Manufacturers, notably gray a.k.a. “green” energy, and service industry, including the welfare industry, which has been highly lucrative for the 1%.

      • …. with funding of $300 billion annually.

        I’ll see your $300 billion and raise you another $500 billion . BTW the other difference is that you give me the $500 billion instead of the other way around.

        Ensure 15% of all new vehicles sold are electric.

        And what exactly is that supposed to achieve? Electricity production is massively powered by fossil fuels. Electric car = CO2 car.

        Compare : burn fossil fuels : make engine turn, make wheels turn;

        burn fossil fuels, make steam; make generator turn from steam ( inefficient conversion ), transmit electicity long distances, convert to low voltage DC; charge batteries; discharge batteries into electric motor ; make motor turn; make wheels turn.

        Which sounds to be the most efficient use of the chemical energy available?

        Non technical people may also guess and would likely be correct. You do not need the details.

      • Going from the batter to the motor requires a regulator, unless you want to run at max speed all the time.
        That regulator has losses, the the best ones can approach 99%. Less expensive ones can be as low as 95%.

  2. “The End is Nigh’ derives from a man who could often be seen walking up and down London’s Oxford Street wearing a sandwich board, or carrying a placard on a pole, ”
    Wiki

    For some reason I keep imagining the faux Nobel Prize winner with the bald head, as the man with the sandwich board. Or perhaps Prince Charles the clown prince would be better.

    • Down in Oz, our land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’ as one of our most famous poest put it, another poet ‘John O Brien’ whimsically but now eerily echoed these evangelical nuff nuffs with a poem about that proto climate scientist ‘Hanrahan’ where every development in the narrative ended with “We’ll all be rooned, said Hanrahan”

      See the whole thing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_Hanrahan. It’s very ship of fools meets Al Gore meets Oz’s very own latter day eternal pessimist Tim Flam Flannery. Although things are looking up for Tim, he has discovered seaweed no less as THE FUTURE.

      SOLAR UH AKHBAR!

      • M Seward. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if Tim Flam Flannery was really doing what the Flim Flam Man in the George C Scott movie did. He (the Flim flam man) told his assistant that he was an educator. He scammed people out of their money. The scams would only work on dishonest people. The money he received was his fee for their education. You can’t get something for nothing was the lesson.

  3. Let’s hope that Trump is re-elected and we get 8 years free of official US support for this kind of climate nonsense. After 8 unprofitable years in the wilderness, the wind may have left their sails.

    • this money is expended by the congress, not by the president. You must blame the congress of US.

    • Maybe what they mean is ‘three years until Trump gets re-elected.’

      And ‘save the planet’ means preserving their own little worldview.

      • I automatically file anyone who goes about pontificating about “The Planet!” TM as an ignorant asshat.

  4. Our planet is, literally, in the fifty-ninth minute of its eleventh hour. Most scientists would say three years is optimistic—which is a well-known form of denihilism.

    The above post isn’t even news to scientists: we’ve known how little time we have left ever since we discovered the radiative properties of CO2 and Arrhenius did his groundbreaking work on the greenhouse effect.

    I know some people can be slower learners, but I really have to ask you denihilists point blank—is it going to take another two and a half decades for you to finally accept what the latest science has been saying all along:

    That we’re looking at months here, not years?

    • Somehow I think that the money you used to buy that particular bridge might have been better spent on diapers.
      so sad!

    • Brad,

      please explain to me why, since Arrhenius did his ”groundbreaking’ work, there has not been one credible, empirical study into CO2’s effects on the climate successfully undertaken?

      In all that time, and particularly over the last 40 years or so, there should be hundreds, if not thousands of studies but there are none.

      You might also consider that John Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.

      • Yes but one can observe. No one has been able to show that CO2 is having a significant effect on earth temperature. Negative feedbacks control it or the West Side highway would be under water after 10feet of sea level rise by 2008 (J Hansen prediction in 1988. He later argued he said 40yrs not 20yrs).

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

        So how high has sea level risen after 30yrs… wait for it… from tide gauges ~3 inches! We’re on track at this rate to reach the West Side highway surface in 900yrs!

        Now Ron, this prediction was made my a very mathematical climate scientist, the background for which is the CO2 effect equations on temperature rise and ice melting. A reasonable person would unequivocally conclude that the equations they still stubbornly adhere to run orders of magnitude too hot. Now there is an observation that should help predict only modest and, from other observations on planet greening, harvests, etc, beneficial effects.

        OH, and we can’t put the solar system in a laboratory but we can predict planet locations in the sky centuries ahead.

      • I thought I’d heard the mythbusters doing a global warming episode. I find it curious and suspicious that they don’t reveal the levels of CO2 and methane they ended up with to get almost 1 degree of warming. Move along, nothing to see here

      • Ron

        Nobody put me in a Cat Scanner, but my doctor once diagnosed me with Chicken Pox, by accurately observing my symptoms.

    • Thanks for giving us all a really good laugh Brad!
      If you want to avoid giving us another one, read the serious articles on this site for a year then come back and tell us the end is still nigh due to global warming.

      • Ian,

        Thanks for giving us all a really good laugh Brad!

        Oh, very droll.

        You actually appear to think chuckling at my science is somehow funny. ROFL! Excuse me while I wipe two nose-plosions of strawberry milk from my monitor.

        Your laughable refutation of the data isn’t remotely amusing, and the fact that you presume to be able to undermine the last 500 years of science (plus large chunks of radiative physics) with a supposedly “witty” riposte is… well, hysterical.

        My colleagues plus a couple of grad students are deriving great mirth from your attempt at “comedy” as we speak.

        I find your sense of humor, frankly, comical—or I would if it weren’t so terrifying.

        They warned me this wasn’t a safe space for science, and I blame myself for exposing myself to this intimidation. If any of you think you have the science it takes to laugh at real science, in a science-supportive environment, you’re welcome to give it your best shot on a pro-science comment thread like this.

        Fair warning, though: Eli is a serious scientist and his moderation makes a mockery of many a voice of wouldbe dissent. As you can see from the zany trail of ridiculous corpses I’ve already in my wake in that forum, many comers came, I saw them off, and they went. They thought they were sooooo hilarious, but were laughed off the stage (or bridge) in short order.

      • Eli,
        Reading your website of self parody is greatvreminder of how fanaticism reduces climate true believers.

      • Once you saw them off, how are they able to leave? It sounds like they don’t have a leg to stand on.

      • You still drink strawberry milk, Brad?

        And haven’t you learned not to eat at your computer–or have all those old pizza boxes relegated your dining table to a trash repository?

        Spraying your monitor with any nasal effluent demonstrates an intolerably low level of self control.

        But when it comes to invective, you have it down pat–too bad you’re neither convincing nor objective; like much that the Left promotes, your brand of “science” is not science at all–it’s self-promoting religion.

        Consequently, you should repent of your sins.

      • As a young father I remember finding out sarcasm is lost on little kids, they either don’t understand it at all or take it as direct criticism.

      • Randy

        As a young father I remember finding out sarcasm is lost on little kids, they either don’t understand it at all or take it as direct criticism.

        It’s supposed to be the lowest form of wit.

        So at what age does it stop going over their heads? That’s what I wanna know.

    • Brad

      Sorry, I should add that the single, empirical, scientifically (NASA) demonstrated manifestation of the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on the planet is that it has greened by 14% in 30 years.

      That is equivalent of two continents the size of mainland USA of extra vegetation.

      • [I]s it going to take another two and a half decades for you to finally accept what the latest science has been saying all along:

        That we’re looking at months here, not years?

        I’m wordless with this. Keep on, we have so much to learn on word art.

    • “59th minute of 11th hour”?
      “Literally”?
      And “we’ve known it”?
      …For over 100 years yet….
      Denihilust indeed.
      Thanks for the tucks.
      Great satire.

      • Since the day has 24 hours, 59th minutes of the 11tn hour is almost noon and the planet is its middle age. No wonder it is so warm.

    • Brad it would carry a little more weight if all the other “We only have….” predictions came true. What usually happens with climate doomsday predictions is that the opposite occurs

    • Even when you italicise “two and a half decades” and “months” people still don’t spot the joke.
      The internet cannot do satire.
      Too many people are even more ridiculous.

    • Brad,

      Your words are not entirely wasted. They are encouraging me to read more books on psychology to try to understand belief systems that ignore the need for evidence; to understand how people who use words like denihilism are the ones most likely to exhibit symptoms of denial; and to understand how people who appeal to the latest science show very little sign of being familiar with it. Don’t despair, when the truth dawns, as surely it will, you can fall back on the fact that you did some good to somebody.

      • Steve,

        I commend you for your determination to further your own education about the psychology of ostrichism. Just be aware that, sadly, the psychology field appears to attract a disproportionate number of what doctors call nutcases, and what the FCC call mountebanks (old-fashioned legalese for ‘Chaucerian frauds’).

        To reliably and credibly understand the psychology of science avoiders, you can’t go past the work of the world authority Stephan Lewandowsky, who’s probably spent more time running away from them than anyone else in the field.

        His name, admittedly, is a bit hard to spell, so it’s probably easier just to do a Google Image Search on this glamor shot:

      • And just what is your CV, Brad Keyes? What constitutes or supports your authority regarding the topic of “climate science”?

        (You seem to think nobody here has any scientific acumen, so please, kind sir–impress us with your educational accomplishments.)

      • Brad,
        I need to ask…
        Your post is indicating that “the Psychology field appears to attract a disproportionate number of what doctors call Nut Cases” Then you inserted an image of Dr Stefan Lewandowsky who is, without argument, one of the most prolific conspiracy ideationists in the field today. Lately, it seems that the majority of his papers are a blatant attempt to smear Climate Realists by labeling them at “Denialists” and “Moon Hoax Believers”
        Now I have yet to meet any Doctor in the field that refers to patients as “Nutcases” as you have so aptly stated (that would be similar to referring to Afro-Americans using the “N” word or climate realists by using the “D” word) but if your intention was to indicate that Dr Lewandowsky falls in the category of one of those Nutcases attracted into the field of psychology, then I am certain that most every regular to this blog would happily agree with you.

    • “Brad Keyes September 6, 2017 at 12:41 am

      That we’re looking at months here, not years?”

      Ok. So we have less than a year for you to be proven right?

    • Jesus Brad, calm down. You’re scaring the goldfish in Mrs. Crump’s third floor apartment.

      • Trebla,

        To get to the other side? No? I give up.

        Sorry, I’ve never been very good at jokes—which is probably where my interest in climate change came from. The science is a real comfort zone for humor-challenged people like me, because with all the mass graves and what-not it’s “no laughing matter,” as they say!!!

        No pun intended.

        Or made.

    • I am a believer, but to believe it, I must wait some 30 or 40 years. If the temperature keeps going up, I would believe it. But if a Little Ice Age starts, I would be glad if the cacophonist would had been right and we would had a global warming. I think global warming must be a lot better than the next Ice Age.

      • Amen. And did it ever occur to those spreading the gospel of OO2, that a warmer climate brings about a more stable climate with fewer storms (like the past decade), where as creating greater temp differentials between the poles and the warmer, equatorial areas creates more? Somehow a theory of a jet stream displacement (from CO2!) is accepted, though unproven, while the known connection between that same jet stream and the magnetosphere is ignored. With decreases in solar activity the magnetosphere weakens. This is commonly know and no one currently disputes that both of these events are happening and happening more rapidly than at any time in at least a century. It’s the magnetosphere and NOT some phantasmagoric hand of CO2 that constrains the jet stream. There are ample recorded episodes in historical accounts of the Mini Ice Age era, where dramatic weather patterns that greatly altered crop growth and food availability -and which result in societal instability. These crazy swings, similar to much of what we saw this past spring corresponded with the current weakened solar output/magnetosphere, just as it likely it did in similar periods, centuries ago. So, the kind of weather Brad and the faithful are freaking about will likely be around for a while, and should even intensify as these cycles drop lower…AND THE ZEALOTS WILL USE IT AS EXAMPLES OF CO2 THEORY, WITHOUT A SHRED OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SHOWING A DEMONSTRABLE, TESTABLE MECHANISM THAT IS MORE COMPELLING THAT THAT OF THE MAGNETOSPHERE-JET STREAM CONNECTION. This should serve as evidence to thoughtful, courageous people that those called “experts” are truly clueless. But it won’t. Sigh.

      • Yes…30 years. Last week here in California we had a record-breaking heat wave, and some Facebook posters tied it to “climate change”. One poster commented “But there is no climate change, right?” I, being a luke-warmist, responded “Yes, there is, but it’s small and probably net beneficial. This current heat wave is a major WEATHER event. CLIMATE is defined as weather averaged over 30 years.” The poster replied that she was attempting to be sarcastic (as I suspected), and was actually a big believer in climate change. She thanked me for the definition of climate…she had not known that.
        So she “believes” in climate change not knowing the definition of climate…..some similarities there to a religious belief?

      • MarkW,
        be careful what you wish for: all that missing warming is “in the pipeline,” to use the scientific parlance.

        What this means is that—far from being a good thing—the relative lack of warming so far simply increases the amount of warming the planet is “on track” for (in technical terminology).

        I have to laugh when science evaders gloat over how little warming we’ve experienced to date, utterly oblivious to the untold international bloodbath they’re “locking in” for their own children’s world every time they crow.

        If you ask me, or most scientists, the tragic thing about mankind’s imminent mass suicide is that so many of us will never live to see our anti-science neighbors’ kids grow up, get married and burn to death on the altar of fossil-fuel addiction.

        [*A term atmospheric physicists use for “in the pipeline.”]

      • It’s hidden, and just like all of the ferocious hurricanes were hidden for 12 years, it will suddenly pop out and go, ‘TA DA!’ just like they did during the hideatus

      • Sorry, sloppy wording. Better – “just like they [the hurricanes] did after the hurricane hideatus.”

        Don’t beat me! I promise I’ll pay my syntax…

      • “Brad Keyes September 6, 2017 at 6:36 am

        ‘MarkW,”

        be careful what you wish for: all that missing warming is “in the pipeline,” to use the scientific parlance.

        What this means is that—far from being a good thing—the relative lack of warming so far simply increases the amount of warming the planet is “on track” for (in technical terminology).”

        Utter BS!

        Brad is all specious claims without evidence or proof.
        All phrased as fearful occurrences without ever noticing that all of Earth’s warm periods have been beneficial to life.

        “Fourth Edition”
        What? You’ve rewritten your book four times? Already?
        Must be filled with tenuous stuff to need rewriting so often.

      • I wish denihilazis would buy my book, now in its 4th edition: Portmanteau Isn’t A Harbor In Egypt.

        Oh well. As they say, you can lead a wh0re to culture, but you can’t make her think.

      • Or maybe, ‘You can lead a whore to culture, but can you really afford to not take a culture from that whore.’

    • Well, the last two and a half decades hasn’t produced much to support that 59th minute BS. My guess is that the next two and a half decades wont either.

      That’s the whole point of moving the end of the world goal posts.

      • Joel,

        I’m a bit tone-deaf when it comes to humor, as I may have mentioned, so don’t take this the wrong way. It’s not a rhetorical question, I just need to check: was that the punchline to Trebla’s set-up?

      • Yes, Joel, he is a bit limited to the notes L, M, F, A, O, and only L, M, A, O if F goes flat. Hemorrhoidal flaring will cause M, A to go sharp, and then it’s just LOL, or KEK if there’s a whiff of non-PC in the air.

      • I’m not surprised that you lack a sense of humor. Last season’s puritan sour-pusses are today’s stuck-up, pious climate alarmists. Back in the day, they were the witch-burners.

        Today, these are the sort of tight-assed control-freaks who think they can (and SHOULD!) micro-manage the planet’s for-God’s-sake climate by micro-managing the human race’s C02 output, with justifications based on the threat of a little more water in the air and a possible slight expansion of tropical areas – whatever a 3% contribution to C02 gets you.

        And you couldn’t have made your position or your intention any more clear with your slurs, and alarmist talking points, and, of course comments about how ‘they’ told you this site is ‘not friendly to science’.

        So who is this ‘they’? My guess is either academic peers, or activist support groups.

        A second guess is there is not an open mind among them. Yet a third guess is that they don’t even realize it because they exist in a micro-society of almost blanket conformity.

        This, in a nutshell, is why you Progressives have lost the Independents. I’m not a conservative, but a conservative never called me ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, told me I didn’t have the right to set my thermostat where I wanted, or compared me to a Holocaust denier (or perpetrator) because of my opinions on how a degree or two of (potential) warming over a hundred years (or so) will destroy the entire planet.

        My own views are based on listening – and more importantly remembering – the alarmist tripe I’ve been hearing since the seventies, and then watching as one hyped-up target date for the end of the world (or some other x-disaster), comes and goes, and then the perpetrators of these myths change their stories, and/or move their target dates.

        So – real world, versus programed virtual reality.

        So, you can sit on your 59th minute pins and needles and fret over phantoms. They only thing I worry about is people like you, and what they will force upon the rest of us…. to ‘help’.

      • Goldrider,

        If this post is not satire, please go back on your meds.

        Let me tell you what the Ephors told Philip II:

        αɩκα!

        Hope that wasn’t too laconic for ya :-)

      • And how, Brad Keyes, does that support your contention that “Climate Change” (it used to be “Global Warming” but due to lack of warming, the label had to be changed) is going to be catastrophic?

        Perhaps the justification for changing “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” obviates the need for claiming catastrophic consequences.

        But we’ll know in a few years and then you can move the goal posts. Again.

    • I really like your use of the term denihilist. You either are a fantastic at using farce as an art form, your spell checker does not work, or you are simply uneducated in the English language.

      Nihilist definition: a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.

      If I am a denihilist, then you must be a nihilist. As a nihilist, why do you even seem to care so much?

    • “Brad Keyes September 6, 2017 at 12:41 am
      That we’re looking at months here, not years?”

      Hahahahaha!

      Riiight.

      Then why are you not enjoying your last hours somewhere else, before bending over to kiss your butt goodbye?

      Of course not!
      The alarmists are either religious devotees, paid or malicious misinformants.

    • if you’ve known for a long time “how little time we have left” why do we keep blowing past the time you predict? So tired of “the end is near”- –

      • Leo,

        if you’ve known for a long time “how little time we have left” why do we keep blowing past the time you predict?

        Uh, because that’s how denihilism *works*?

        You adamantly refused to accept the science telling us that we were walking towards a cliff. Well, congratulations: we kept somnambulizing and ran out of cliff, just like the science said.

        Five minutes ago.

        All that’s holding society together at this point is the fact that you haven’t looked down.

        Please don’t.

        [???? .mod]

    • Congratulations, Brad, at eliciting responses that so clearly distinguish which readers can actually read from those who are just a little, well, slow on the uptake (to be as kind as possible). Your posts are gems!

    • “It’s supposed to be the lowest form of wit.

      So at what age does it stop going over their heads? That’s what I wanna know.”

      Pardon me, I don’t post much – I seem to be not able to reply in the thread.

      With my girls I found it safe to use sarcasm when they started to use it, around age 12 or so. There were a couple kids I ran across that seemed to be taking lessons from Don Rickles.

      Brad, I always enjoy your comments.

  5. In today’s sophisticated world it is insufficient to merely don a sandwich board declaring ‘The end is nigh’
    ‘Nigh’ is far too nebulous a concept. Do we mean ‘nigh’ as on a geologic timescale? Or ‘nigh’ as in ‘tomorrow’ or ‘next week’?
    What the average homo sapiens in the street needs is certainty.
    But the average man only lives 78 years so it is fruitless to claim the world will end in anything exceeding 78 years. Nobody will give a toss. We all (well most of us) will be dead.
    Equally fruitless is to use a period that is so short that even an imbecile will remember what has been claimed, so what we are looking for is what has been dubbed the ‘Climatastrophic Goldilocks Zone’’…..a period of time sufficiently far away that most of us will forget what was originally said yet not too far away for us all to be dead!
    That sweet spot of that zone (presently at least) is therefore roughly 35 years away….2050!
    Simple really.

  6. Any person in authority who believes “climate” is a worldwide danger issue is basically admitting their incompetence.

  7. What I like most with these short term predictions, is that I probably will be around to see them fail badly.

    • They have all failed badly.
      I have lived long enough to see so many predictions of doom get pimped, and fail.

      • Brad, you pegged it perfectly, as usual.
        In modern post normal science, one can make failed predictions, have to tediously readjust the data, have failed models, and still have the confidence that one’s science is not only correct, but unassailable by mere mortals.
        The glory of climate science stands tall in this post normal world, and is buttressed by the great Lewandowsky and Oreskes, showing how mentally fit and historically correct it all is.

      • It gets the two sides talking to each other, but that’s it. Climate will change regardless of the Left’s claim on the term, and governments will continue to pose taxes to satisfy people’s insecurities.

      • ” Just because your prediction is wrong, doesn’t mean your hypothesis is wrong, surely?”

        Well yes actually, that is precisely what it means. It is a cornerstone of the scientific method that you make predictions based on your hypothesis and, if those predictions turn out to be accurate, your hypothesis is one step closer to becoming a scientific theory. If your predictions fail however, that means that your hypothesis has been falsified and hence should be discarded or modified. This is pretty basic stuff.

  8. Quote: six prominent scientists and diplomats, including former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and physicist Stefan Rahmstorf

    The two parts of that sentence are inconsistent. Neither Figueres nor Rahmstorf can be classified as scientists or diplomats.

    Now if you’d described them as hysterical self-interested alarmists I’d agree.

  9. Here in Norway we have election in five days, and (one of) the Climate hysteric parties will stop everything related to oil and gas. They will instead ‘create’ ‘green’ jobs (have now idea how….).
    Using numbers from the climate model MAGICC this will reduce global temperature by year 2100 With 0,0005 degrees C. (Yes: that’s zero point zero zero zero five!)
    The comment about them using Orwells 1984 as a manual seems legit…..

  10. The man with the notice board who used to walk up and down Oxford Street ( sadly he must be long dead now) was a harmless eccentric who believed, if I remember rightly, people were eating too much protein and that we needed to revert to a more balanced diet to avoid ill health. I think he blamed too much protein for inducing too much passion. This was long before diet fads became so widespread. The old chap never insulted or hurt anyone and became a bit of a feature of the street

    Unlike the ever more dangerous and lunatic alarmists who daily it seems insult and abuse the intelligence of everyone on the planet with their lies and falsehoods, lining the pockets of the already wealthy with more money stolen through hidden and regressive taxation from the poorest on the planet. I know who I have more respect for.

  11. If we undertake these actions and temperatures drop, no doubt they will claim success even though solar studies show temperatures are going to drop anyway. With the media so unwilling to undertake their primary role of sceptical investigation I’m ordering my sackcloth.

  12. They’re all completely mad, of course, but at least Chuck seems to have calmed down a bit with the ultimate prize nearly within his grasp. I wonder if he still talks to his trees?

  13. IMO, it is less a matter of getting their story straight, and more one of please stop insulting us all with made up pronouncements and deadlines.
    There are no deadlines, because nothing bad is occurring to incur a deadline.
    And if there was some time or level or anything else that made some action imperative, the people making these pronouncements have never given anyone to believe they have any special insight, or that they alone or privy to some knowledge of some cryptic timetable of doom.
    They should just completely shut the hell up, and stop pretending they know sh!t from shinola.

  14. All the usual suspects , including Stefan Rahmstorf, whose scientific approach includes lawsuits and heckling the media and apparently producing misleading graphs, a specialty.
    I love the “irreversiible” claim. They have demonstrated zero ability to predict temp increases, yet claim to know that the warming is “irreversible.” I wonder how they know so much about something they know so little about? And those “hottest years in history” (albeit a pretty abbreviated history) in a couple of places. I’ve got news – there is always someplace where they are experiencing the hottest/coldest years on record. Those hot California and Vietnam temps are irelevant if you are talking global temps. I mean, this is a third grader’s argument. And a bad one.
    I reject the claim about sea level rise – not to mention the fact that the sea levels were not rising very fast in the first pace- in the thousands of years after the last ice age the sea levels would routinely rise a hundred feet per century or more, making our rate of rise look pretty insignificant, even in the unlikely event that it actually has increased 50%, which I seriously doubt. Just a few years ago were claims that the rate of sea level rise had decreased, not increased. Because of the size of the error of measurement and the small amount of rise, you need more than just a few year’s worth of measurement to be able to make any claims about sea level rise.

    • If they say no lies, nobody is gonna listen. That was their purpose. They had other reasons quite beside the climate question.

  15. “We analysed the tide gauge records from SE Florida and detected decadal scale acceleration rates of sea level rise. Our analysis indicates that significant changes in flooding frequency occurred after 2006in which ….. tide induced events increased by more than 400%. The average pretty 2006 rise is 3+/-2 mm/yr wears the average rate in SE Florida rose to 9+/- 4 mm/yr.
    ref:
    Oceans and Coastal Management volume 126 Jun 2016 p1-8

    To quote private Frazer “We’re doomed, we’re doomed, we’re doomed “

  16. Actually the letter is even more deranged and counter factual than its firstvresding might suggest.
    The development of natural gas as a fuel large scale widespread power plant use has actually cut emissions.
    Not Paris, not the EPA.
    And certain my not the climate consensus.
    Windmills, destroying our environment with ridiculous delicate undependable machines, do nothing for their claimed goal.
    Solar, the same.
    Both are vast wastes of money and resources.
    And the explicit call to have states and cities waste money on so called emissions reductions only hurts the poor bybsqyandering money on useless energy programs and high prices electricity.
    All of which begs the question:
    Where is the climate crisis?
    The letter opens with a lie. Sea level is not rising faster.
    And despite this year’s hurricane weather,
    There is no dangerous trend in extreme weather. No matter how many times climate extremists claim otherwise.
    And finally, for over 30 years we have been told we only have a few months or years to save the world.
    As others have wisely pointed out, it is odd that for decades we keep being told we only have years to save the planet.

  17. “Brad Keyes September 6, 2017 at 12:41 am

    Our planet is, literally, in the fifty-ninth minute of its eleventh hour. Most scientists would say three years is optimistic—which is a well-known form of denihilism.”

    How utterly depressing it will be for you to wake up the morning after, and the following morning after ad infinitum to find the world is just how you left it. May even be slightly cleaner than you left it. What a monumental disaster that will be for you. Still, you have less than months to be proven wrong. I just like you to know that when I was young and growing up, the world was going to end in about 2000.

      • Very subtle satire at times. So much so, that he has made me wonder at times if he was really just stark raving mad. It can be a fine line.

      • Brad is a gifted skeptic who specializes in satire.

        And he’s definitely been at the medicine cabinet today…..

        A good laugh is just what I needed.

  18. 2020. Hmm. What they really mean is, “We have three years to virtue-signal before the next US election cycle”.

  19. These predictions of “years left” remind me of Henny Youngman, king of the one liners:
    “I went to the doctor and he gave me 6 months to live. I couldn’t pay the bill so he gave me another 6 months.”

  20. The poor citizens of Ontario whose premier bought into this clean energy fiasco are now paying the price. After seeing their electricity bills double and industries leave the province, the electric utility is about to borrow billions to reduce consumer rates. This money will be paid back with interest by the same consumers in ten years time when the current government will no longer be there to take the blame. Green economics.

  21. Excerpts from this article, with my comments in CAPS:

    “the world has approximately three years before the worst effects of climate change take hold. Published June 28, the letter urges governments, businesses, scientists, and citizens to address the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions now.
    ACTUALLY, WE HAVE THREE YEARS TO END GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM BEFORE AN ENTIRE GENERATION IS LOST TO EXTREME STUPIDITY.

    If emissions can be permanently lowered by 2020, global temperatures will likely avoid reaching an irreversible threshold, they wrote. Impacts would include rapid deforestation, floods from rising sea levels, and unpredictable weather shifts that could ravage agriculture and affect life on the coasts, where the vast majority of people live.
    THERE IS A MUCH GREATER PROBABILITY OF GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING, COMMENCING IN THE NEXT DECADE.
    EXTREME WEATHER CORRELATES BETTER WITH GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING.

    Their plan includes six goals for 2020:

    Increase renewable energy to 30% of electricity use.
    EXTREMELY STUPID AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE – INCREASES ENERGY COSTS AND REDUCES GRID RELIABILITY.

    Draft plans for cities and states to ditch fossil fuel energy by 2050, with funding of $300 billion annually.
    EXTREMELY STUPID – RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT ECONOMICALLY REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.
    FOSSIL FUELS NOW PROVIDE ~86% OF GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY, AND RENEWABLES PROVIDE LESS THAN 2%, DESPITE TRILLIONS IN GREEN SUBSIDIES.

    Ensure 15% of all new vehicles sold are electric.
    NONSENSE, UNTIL BATTERY TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES AND COSTS ARE GREATLY REDUCED.

    Cut net emissions from deforestation.
    THE MAIN CAUSE OF DEFORESTATION HAS BEEN CLEAR-CUTTING OF RAINFOREST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BIOFUELS – THANKS TO IDIOTIC GREEN EXTREMIST POLICIES.

    Publish plan for halving emissions from deforestation well before 2050.
    SEE ABOVE – THANKS AGAIN TO GREEN EXTREMISTS FOR CLEAR-CUTTING THE RAINFOREST. SCOUNDRELS AND IMBECILES!

    Encourage the financial sector to issue more “green bonds” toward climate-mitigation efforts.”
    SINCE MOST GREEN POLICIES HARM THE ENVIRONMENT AND DAMAGE ENERGY SYSTEMS, TAKE YOUR “GREEN BONDS” AND LIKE SOLAR ENERGY, STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE!

  22. Ive consulted the fortune teller , done the tarot cards and studied the entrails of dead animals and they all say I’m going to live a long life , which is great cause I’m 101 !

  23. First (and only) check I’ll need: does Al Gore still have a place on the ocean? Yes?

    Then we’re good.

    When (if?) he sells, I MIGHT start to worry.

    As Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds says, I’ll believe there is a climate crisis when the people who are telling me there is a climate crisis ACT like there is a climate crisis.

    And no, Leo, that doesn’t mean taking a commercial flight once (after alerting the media).

    And yes, scientists, that means fewer “conferences” at exotic locales. Try Skype.

  24. Any day now we will get the news that all AGW skeptics are part of hate groups and silicon valley will respond appropriately with swift enforcement. I’ll give it six months max.

    • You don’t have to wait – they’ve already been calling for Nuremberg trials, racketeering charges, and comparing us, not only to Holocaust deniers, but actual perpetrators (not to mentions Mosher’s smart-ass remarks about David Duke) – all when it’s their own methods that parallel everything that Hitler did.

      So, oh yeah, they’ll do it the moment they think they can.

    • Enron was at one time the agreed on genius company of America.
      And they invested huge in global warming as well.
      Do you have a point hidden away somewhere in your post?

    • Reminds me of what my mother used to say when I said “but all my friends are doing it!” Either the CAGW conjecture is correct, or it isn’t. Doesn’t matter what Mars or anybody else does. Popularity and consensus are not scientific concepts. My mother was right.

      • And how do they know they are wrong?
        Obviously, they disagree with the “consensus”, that’s all the proof we need.

      • ivankinsman: Here’s the problem as I see it for the “97%” (which is not an indication of the true scientific opinion since you won’t get grants if you aren’t following orthodoxy). They believe that CO2, a weak optical gas (water in the atmosphere is stronger) is responsible for the moderate amount of warming seen since the US started its temperature records. Yet we know that the climate has been much warmer in the past and cooler in the past when there was no anthropogenic release of CO2. So what caused this far greater variation? Could the cause (or causes) of climatic variation still be operating today and that [CO2] is a correlate with temperature, not a driver? A lot of CO2 will be released from the oceans as they warm. Has this been taken into account in the 20 odd disparate models commonly used by the 97%? Good theories have to be universal in the sense that they have to explain all occurrences of the phenomena they seek to explain. Causes and effects cannot just pop up into existence by whim even if theories can.

      • Mars doesn’t waste money. It is a highly successful company. It knows what is happening and is investing accordingly. How would their senior execs. approve $1 billion of wasted money. Are they stupid incompetents?

  25. The authors call for cities and businesses to fight emissions and meet the Paris accord goals, even without the help of the US government.

    Let me know how that goes, especially the $300 billion per annum part.

    • If all it takes is $300 billion per annum to “save the world”, why don’t we just have everybody in the US write themselves a $1,000 check and bingo–the problem is solved!

  26. Correlation is not proof of causation, so we need someone to determine if increased atmospheric CO2 is causing more people to suffer from the climate change (aka global warming) delusion. Are we reaching a tipping point where the majority of people are crazy?

  27. “Their plan includes six goals for 2020:

    Increase renewable energy to 30% of electricity use.
    Draft plans for cities and states to ditch fossil fuel energy by 2050, with funding of $300 billion annually.
    Ensure 15% of all new vehicles sold are electric.
    Cut net emissions from deforestation.
    Publish plan for halving emissions from deforestation well before 2050.
    Encourage the financial sector to issue more “green bonds” toward climate-mitigation efforts.”

    Oh!?

    Which of these stops global warming cold?

    Obviously, none of them.
    Specious rationale and fakery coupled with violent hand waving.

    Must be salaries and funding troughs are in danger.

    Cut all funding to any agency, initiative, project or grant that these disaster predictors are anywhere near or associated with, no matter how distantly.

  28. Increasing renewables to any percentage by 2020 impedes the goal of high renewables by 2050. Don’t waste money on a small short term goal, and instead try to develop cheaper renewables that countries will flock to.

  29. In the 1970’s, the political scientists and MSM were spewing how smart they were and how the planet was going to turn into a snowball. Now they brey like “muted-mules” because it is more apparent than ever before that crying wolf no longer works.

  30. I might still be alive in 35 years so I’m making this post into a time capsule to reply to when they’re wrong again…

    So future me, did the world end?

  31. They should have a 7th goal:

    Eliminate all international gatherings of climapocalypsers as there is only 3 years left and no decisions made at those boondoggles will have any effect.

Comments are closed.