WE WERE WRONG, CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CONCEDE
- Ben Webster, The Times
Catastrophic impacts of climate change can still be avoided, according to scientists who have admitted they were too pessimistic about the chances of limiting global warming.
The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found.
New forecasts suggest that the world has a better chance than claimed of meeting the goal set by the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The study, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the world has more time to make the necessary changes.
Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.
He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015:
“All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.
“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”
Professor Grubb said that the new assessment was good news for small island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.
“Pacific islands are less doomed than we thought,” he said.
Professor Grubb added that other factors also pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore wind farms falling steeply in the UK.
He said:
“We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”
The study found that a group of computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid temperature increase than had actually occurred.
The global average temperature has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.
Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said:
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”
He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.
He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.
According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean the world could afford to emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the current rate of emissions, this so-called “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years’ time.
Under the new assessment , the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.
“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said.
Full story h/t to The GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Finally after years of predicting catastrophes and unspeakable horror not working… on to plan B.
I’m sorry. “Settled Science” has no room for a “Plan B”.
Mike Grubb makes his political beliefs clear in the first quote
CO2 isn’t the boogey man…Democracy is
If delivering 1.5C is incompatible with Democracy, then it would also stand true (in his beliefs) that Democracy isn’t compatible with delivering 1.5C
Democracy must go
Exactly.
The buffoons admit alarmist projections were off by more than 300% but assure us that their calculations are now reliable… There is no connection to reality- or sanity- in CO2-driven climate modeling.
There go the goal posts again
“There go the goal posts again”
They are trying to prepare for the cooling period that is coming.
So much egg on face, many, many omelettes
Keep their Grubby hands off the goalposts.
That loud thump you heard was me falling off my chair, laughing myself silly.
Someone please let me know when these control freaks are going to wake up and smell the burnt coffee? Thanks!!!
What are the ramifications of this 300% error for the insurance industry that was cashing in on the alarmist projections? They were organized under the U.N.
http://www.unepfi.org/insurance/psi/
Ahh, so let’s gloss over the “we’ve got n years to have the planet” statements from n++ years ago. We can now state categorically that we have another n squared years to save the planet. Phew! I’m sure they’ll be far more accurate this time. I’m glad they cleared that up.
That`s right Ian, even though the models failed miserably to predict reality, they have some fudge-factor that allows a correct adjustment, instantly, to make everything right on. We`re both glad they cleared that up. So now I suppose we don`t need the Political Scientists/Climate Modelers anymore? What?
The goal posts can now be moved more years into the future to keep their alarmism and grant monies alive.
They’ll just push it further out when it doesn’t hit the goal post the next time.
I’d say that by the time the ice sheets are crunching their houses into rubble, they still won’t admit they’re completely off the mark.
No, rather they will blame man for causing the growth of the glaciers and ice sheets -anthropogenic climate change being so much more complicated than we simple deniers could possibly contemplate…
Good comment Sara. Even if the ice is crunching their houses, they will still run around like Chicken Little screaming it is CO2 it it CO2 that’s causing the problem.
If they do that, Leonard, they should just their mouths sewn shut. In fact, that would solve the problem right now, wouldn’t it?
Next time it won’t be n-squared years. It will be n^n years…
We’re only up to three threads on this story. Such a monumental event certainly deserves five or six threads! Or just one George Carlin skit… (warning, lots of F-bombs)…
Thanks David.
Enjoyed that!
Plastic!
I miss people like George Carlin – a lot!
The late, great, lamented Dr. Michael Crichton was a more polite, academic version of George Carlin.
Dr. Michael Crichton was brilliant. He wrote scientific fiction, rather than science fiction. Unfortunately, the AAPG decided to give him an award for State of Fear, a great novel… loaded with graphs. The backlash caused the political animals running the AAPG to disengage from the climate change debate and tone down the society’s position statement.
There, I fixed it.
Yep, 10 years from now, we only have 20 years to prevent .25 degrees warming!!
They are throwing poor old james hansen and neil degrasse tyson under the bus?
While I say this only metaphorically, “Gee, I hope so!”
Not to mention our own N. Stokes, who has been showing charts and insisting models are NOT running hot vs. observations.
Moving those goalposts again. Must be nice.
maybe it’s the ‘bargaining stage’ …lol
Looks like I was late to the party on the stages of grief comment…
nothing about grief-
threaten, bargain, suckerpunch
rinse and repeat for each generation.
Might as well just put ’em on wheels, they have to move ’em so much!
This is more reminiscent of the old Gilda Radner Saturday Night Live character “Emily Litella”. Never mind!
Less doomed? Is that similar to The Princess Bride and Wesley being mostly dead?
You beat me to it. I was going to say it’s like being a little bit pregnant.
Gives you an idea of their mindset. “Less doomed” rather than ” not in immediate danger”.
Okay.
I’ve been saying for, oh, 10 years now that climate sensitivity is likely close to zero, or perhaps even a small negative number. And without a high multiplier for climate sensitivity, the problem becomes a long term nuisance, rather than a global crises.
It appears I have been proven right.
What bothers me is this – The data was crystal clear 10 years ago that climate sensitivity was very low, if not negative. I sat down with a few basic measurements, the geologic record, and a calculator and figured it out. It wasn’t especially hard. Because I publically dared to state facts and logic I have endured endless verbal and written abuse and possibly damaged my professional career.
So? So what happens now? In a just world, the abusers and flim flam men who have led the hysteria would be tossed on the ash heap of history. Will they? More than likely they will be rewarded for their foresight, or at best, told they committed a sin of overenthusiasm. I mean, being extreme in defense of mother Earth is no crime, right?
No one will note the tremendous waste of time and money that went down the climate change drain, pocketed by these liars and thieves.
Nice post.
You have the gratitude of us all.
That’s the beauty of consensus- no individual or small group can ever be held responsible.
“No one will note the tremendous waste of time and money that went down the climate change drain, pocketed by these liars and thieves.”
I can’t agree with that. Someday there will be an accounting. We have wasted TRILLIONS of dollars on this CAGW boondoggle. That’s hard to overlook.
Well they don’t want to put a deadline on when the money rolls in till, do they?
New money will throw cold water on existing claims. Gradually, if the “scientists” want money from the USA they will have to “review” their “mistakes”.
Just back of the envelope stuff here, but I reckon zero warming X say 100 years means…..Nope! Can’t seem to do the math. I keep getting Zero Worries!
Let’s use some direct languuge here. Leading scientist admits it was all just bullshit!
Something’s happening. It seems that nobody has wanted to build refineries for a while. link You’d think the Province of Alberta would build a refinery as a market for their heavy crude since they are having so much trouble getting it to tide water … but no … well maybe.
commieBob,
Alberta has refineries in Edmonton and they do refine some of the oil sands but the local market cannot use all the oil sands produces. It is easier to ship crude to the market and refine it there rather than ship all the different products. A lot of the heavy crude is already being refined somewhat and shipped to Aberta as light crude with sulfur removed. They know the economics, it is only he politicians who screw it up.
Sulfur train passing through downtown Calgary.
I’m still waiting for the warming. Been a miserable summer where I am in the UK.
I live in WI and the 2 weekends at the lake in August were the coldest in my 30 years of memory. We wore jackets. No swimming or boating. It is most likely an anomaly, but what an awful August.
WI – nine months of great snowmobiling, and three months of not so great snowmobiling
/snark
Remember the 4 seasons in WI: Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter and Construction
This morning snow levels were down to 4500-5000 feet in Oregon and Washington State. Cold air aloft was -26C.
Heard something similar about a certain Canadian Provence
There are four seasons…
Cold
Damn Cold
Still Cold
June 26th
Gee, no need for me to run the air conditioner for at least four years now, dropping my electric bill considerably. What’s to complain about? Northern Illinois with chilly summer weather is fine by me!
The certainty , despite this revealing insight, is galling re: 240 billion tons of CO2 can be emitted.
240 billion tons of CO2. Three significant figures. Not “about 2-300 billion tons”, no, it’s 240 billion tons. Not 239 or 241. This guy is a scientist? He is implying a level of accuracy that is clearly not there given his initial prediction of 70 billion tons.
The first thing I was taught as a Chemist was to be careful with the figures you quote because they imply a level of accuracy or precision. And that is one of my biggest gripes with climate science. The implication that the results are accurate when they are dealing with a chaotic system. A simple admission of the uncertainty would gain my respect. After all, they are proposing a massive upheaval of the modern economic world.
But saying 240 billion tons +- 250 billion tons wouldn’t sound too good
“The first thing I was taught as a Chemist was to be careful with the figures you quote because they imply a level of accuracy or precision. And that is one of my biggest gripes with climate science.”
I agree. The Alarmists are way too loose with numbers (because they have to be in order to push the CAGW narrative). They imply an accuracy and confidence that is not in evidence.
Tons or tonnes?
“The certainty , despite this revealing insight, is galling”
Was thinking the same thing richard M.
Reducing the sensitivity based on what has been increasingly obvious the past 15 years(when we heard that the science was settled and debate was over) is a good thing.
Keeping the “science is settled” frame of mind………very bad.
Will another 20 years of observations and studying help us to understand climate science even more……or, this time, we really do know enough and we know with certainty, that(unlike last time) what we don’t know is not much.
We certainly know much more than we did 20 years ago and learned MUCH more than we thought that we would learn during that time frame.
Is this the basis to assume that, because there is less to learn than before, the amount to yet learn is not still great?
One should actually be more scientifically humbled when shown to be WRONG about something and with a response more open minded and objective, with honestly about a confidence level in predicting something that you just busted the forecast on and are years late acknowledging……….. because of overconfidence in the first place.
It’s worse than we thought has backfired because that only works to motivate people short term…….. until they realize that its actually better than what you told them it would be based on the real world they live in.
Let’s give the guy a great deal of credit though for telling us it’s better than we thought. This is the truth. However, when people hear and/or embrace that truth and appreciate that its better than what they were told, it might cause them to respond to a less than predicted threat with a less inspirational call for actions.
Possibly, this brings them more in tune with reality and achievable goals vs hyped, catastrophic results and impossible goals that were always going to backfire when people realized the predictions were busted.
However, the treatment of Harvey and Irma shows how an atmosphere that holds 4% more moisture at 1 Deg. C warmer and an ocean that is +.5 Deg. C in the last 150 years, that can cause hurricanes to be slightly stronger……can be twisted into a perceived reality of being the cause of these events and/or certainly taking them to a new, unprecedented level because of human caused climate change.
Not stronger yet. One year does not make a trend.
Pacific is still having a calm year as well. The global increase in tropical storm strength or intensity is simply MIA.
“David A September 19, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Pacific is still having a calm year as well.”
It’s not called the Pacific for nothing y’know?
Anthropogenic or natural climate change?
Modern scientists, or the journalists employed to publish, have developed (evolved?) an unfortunate habit of conflating domains, terms, concepts.
I’m of two minds on this development.
1), Well, yeah! Duh! About time, but
2) Archalarmists necessarily claimed that it was already too late to do anything, so we were all doomed. But now the sc@m can be dragged out indefinitely.
Better just to admit that the second coming of the supposed warming is never, ever going to happen.
Maybe it will. Depends on the sun.
Sort of like a desert mirage of an oasis. It’s always just over the next sand dune.
I should have said won’t come again until after the current cooling cycle. If cycles average 30 years, then the late 20th century warming which began with the PDO shift in 1977 and ended during the so-called “Pause”, c. 2006, will be followed by cooling until c. 2036 and warming from c. 2037.
So “never, ever” overstates the case, but was meant to indicate in a time frame which could validate the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of CACA, ie the coming two decades. The Pause isn’t a pause in warming but the beginning of the early 21st century cooling cycle, interrupted by a natural ENSO swing.
“… less doomed than we thought, … ”
“we” should be capitalized, as in the royal “we”, or majestic plural, – – We, meaning I.
As the phrase is written, ask who “we” might be?
Personally, We (meaning me) think Professor Michael Grubb is still clueless.
““… less doomed than we thought, … ”
His weasel-talk needs work. This is like saying “She’s not as pregnant as she thought.”
If the computer models are now admitted to be wrong a little bit, how do they know they are not wrong a lot more than that?
It’s like in accounting — if a company’s books are off by one dollar, it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a one dollar error somewhere — it could mean there are dozens of million-dollar errors positive and negative which happen to total $1 when added up. Similarly, if a model simulation is known to be off by at least a little bit, it could mean it is riddled with many errors piled on top of each other, and can’t be trusted at all.
“All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
What exactly is meant by this?
Does that mean in a democracy of informed voters they can’t sell the bullshit?
Seems they’re losing “All of the people, some of the time.”
Well, at least they’ll convince “some of the people all of the time.”
Erm, I believe he thinks we need a non democratic form of World government. Basically, he is advocating some kind of anarchist dictatorship, in the interest of saving us all, because we are too dumb to do as ge says.
Yeah, interesting chap.
It means you cannot trust a free people to willingly hand over their money to these charlatans. They need to be forced to do it.
The main thrust of this article is that the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases in atmospheric temperature, basically slowing done the rate of increase. Good news for solar, wind, hydro etc. which are not only taking on Big Oil but undercutting it.
The scourge in renewable energy use is having a huge impact indeed.
the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases in atmospheric temperature, basically slowing done[sic] the rate of increase.
By the “surge” do you mean the replacement of 1% (or less) of fossil-fuel energy so far? That’s having a “huge” impact?
Yeah, pull the other one.
It must be having an effect – look at all the windmills!!!
Just not the effect that the mathematically challenged virtue signalers thought they would have.
Big Oil is in for a bunch of law suits. Share prices will drop and investors will start to pull out, choosing to put their money into clean energy. It’s all just a matter of momentum. Andrew Sachs is right on the nail here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinions/climate-justice-is-coming-sachs/index.html
Ivan,
That is a total fantasy, devoid of reality.
Without fossil fuels, there would be about seven billion fewer people on earth.
Wow. Ivankinsman’s delusional take on reality is so odd. All those twirling wind turbines that killed raptors caught in the turbine’s moving vortex, don’t count for anything. And all those twirling wind turbine farms that lost bunches of turbines to motor fires – really, really bad fires – in high windstorms must have escaped his notice.
I have fantasies, too. It’s just that mine are ore attainable than Ivankinsman’s perfect world.
Yeah, right with a massive 2.6% of the worlds energy needs satisfied by wind, solar and biomass in 2016. Wow!!
Give it a chance my friend. The electric vehicle showing similar stats
… but that is going to be changing big time over the next decade. Same with green energy – just wait and see.
The green blob has been making predictions for all my adult life, forty plus years. They are quite reliable in being wrong.
Ivan says. ” … but that is going to be changing big time over the next decade. Same with green energy – just wait and see.,
But Ivan, you spoke in current tense about having a big affect now.
WUWT?
Ivan, you can run an electric car on power from coal or gas. I note the greens are accepting hydro to fatten the picture after half a century of vilification. Nuclear is even becoming respectable. Soon, to obfuscate, they will divide energy provenance into fossil fuel and non fossil fuel. That will fatten the green ledger, even though most of it will be nuclear as fossil fuels eventually do peak later this century. This isn’t even a prediction. Power from the atom is a no brainer.
Why I like debating with the sceptic community is that it forces me to look for the evidence that counteracts some of their statements that they are too lazy to research for themselves.
Here is see “a massive 2.6% of the world’s energy” which is nothing but a blatant lie.
“For 2010, the share of renewable energy in the global energy consumption was estimated at around 16.7 percent (… Within the European Union, renewable energy had a 24.3 percent share of the total energy produced from all sources)
Source: https://www.business.com/articles/the-impact-of-green-energy-on-the-economy/
In terms of future energy scenarios, many commentators have been again too lazy to check this out for themselves, going with the old mantra “fossils fuels good, renewable energy bad”. Here is an OECD report that shows how renewable energy is set to take a larger share of the global energy market – the relevant pages are 15-19, and I am running with the ‘450 Scenario’.
Summary of the report:
Global demand for energy is increasing rapidly, because of population and economic growth, especially in
emerging market economies. While accompanied by greater prosperity, rising demand creates new challenges.
Energy security concerns can emerge as more consumers require ever more energy resources. And higher
consumption of fossil fuels leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), which
contribute to global warming. At the same time, the number of people without access to electricity remains
unacceptably high.
But such challenges can create opportunities. A sustainable energy future will require new thinking and new
systems – essentially a transformation in the way we produce, deliver and consume energy. If our goal is to raise
living standards, provide access to modern energy services, use energy more efficiently, protect the global
environment and ensure reliable energy supplies, green growth must play a key role.
The OECD and IEA are actively supporting the transition to a greener model of growth. At its 50th
Anniversary Ministerial Council Meeting in May 2011, the OECD launched a Green Growth Strategy to help
policy makers and stakeholders to address the major environmental challenges of today’s world, while expanding
economic opportunities. The Strategy encompasses both policy recommendations to make economic growth
“greener” and a set of indicators to monitor progress towards green growth. The Strategy is first and foremost about
implementing change and achieving a common purpose: a world that is stronger, cleaner, and fairer.
This report highlights the challenges facing energy producers and users, and how they can be addressed using
green growth policies. Because energy underlies the global economy, the decisions made today in the energy sector
will be critical to achieving greener growth. We have a window of opportunity for establishing a policy framework
to enable transformational change in the energy sector, including by facilitating technological innovation and the
creation of new markets and industries, to reduce the sector’s carbon-intensity and to improve energy efficiency.
Source: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-energy/49157219.pdf
Here you like a challenge, water vapor controls cooling. Co2 change is irrelevant, water vapor just compensates. It’s why the models, which are programmed to warm with increasing co2 are a failure..
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
The GHG effect is just a light noncondensing background flux, plus the large varying daily water cycle. Air and ground store energy during the day. At dusk the cooling rate is very high, but it includes all the noncondensing ghg, and some from water vapor. But once it’s cooled near dew point the amount of water vapor in the atm that condenses/re-evaporates increases, and a lot more water vapor starts radiating, this latent heat, is the source of a large flux 35W/m^2 increase in GHG emmission at the surface in this example. In the chart in the link it’s the net rad that shows this.
But, it only starts after any excess warming has radiated to space, nullifying most to all excess warming.
But I don’t think you’ll get it. Not many do, but it is what’s controlling climate, and it’s driven by the ocean cycles.
If the IPCC gives this some credence then so will I, but it seems it hasn’t.
Why would they? It’s never been about science to at least some of them. It’s redistribution of wealth.
But why is it that you can’t understand the science I present. If you did, you’d see I was right, physics demands it.
But what about liking to show us how we’re wrong?
Of course, that is utter nonsense. The only thing the scourge of renewable energy use has done, or ever will do is raise the cost of energy, in addition to being a blight on the landscape, amongst other environmental insults.
Think I would prefer to see some nice gleaming wind turbines and live near them than a filthy oil refinery polluting the atmosphere in the local neighbourhood.
Start looking out for the law suits against the Big Oil companies seeking compensation for AGW. Investors will start running for the hills.
“Start looking out for the law suits against the Big Oil companies seeking compensation for AGW.”
And start looking at these cases being LAUGHED OUT OF COURT !
The AGW scam ONLY exists in un-validated junk models.
Produce a paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
Waiting
“main thrust of this article is that the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases”
Good One! Thanks for snicker.
Nice toss in of ”’potential”’
So – while C02 levels were soaring over the last two decades – a time frame predominantly, dominated by ‘The Pause’ – your ‘renewables’ were forcing back Climate Change?
You’d have to be kind of an idiot to buy that one… but Yeah, that’s what they’re trying to sell.
Of course, the primary rule of selling anything is that the mark wants to be sold.
This is simply more damage control now that it’s fairly unequivocal that the models have been demonstrably wrong.
And they’re changing their story.
Again.
Joel, to get the true facts about this so-called ‘Pause’ that I know likes to be quoted by many sceptics, here are the true facts:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4896046/The-slowdown-global-warming-warns-Met-Office.html
Ivan,
That is their assertion. There is no actual evidence that the tiny amount of power generated by “renewables” has had any effect whatsoever on global average temperature.
Pollution from Indian and Chinese coal plants has undoubtedly lowered global temperatures much more than all the renewable energy bird and bat murdering, environment destroying facilities on earth.
Sixto that is complete rubbish and you know it in your heart. You’ve got to get of the 19th and 20th century mindset that our civilisation is dependent on fossil fuels. First the internal combustion engine is going to disappear and green energy is going to play a much bigger role in the energy mix.
Liberal logic: twisting or spining the truth or facts to fit their ideologies and narrative to push their agendas when the opposite is apparent.
Check this out. If you were living in the country where water is a scarce resource I think you would have a very different perspective my friend …
http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/14/water-management-at-the-heart-of-cop22-climate-change-discussions
Poor Ivan.. ….. did you know that YOU and EVERYTHING YOU DO, is totally reliant on fossil fuels ?
The civilised world CANNOT function without fossil fuels.
And it CERTAINLY functions better WITHOUT unreliables.
Sixto, you need to take a look at what is going on around the world in terms of renewables instead of thinking just about the US scenario.
Here is the perspective from India:
http://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/videos/renewables-to-account-for-entire-new-power-capacity-in-10-yrs-ajay-mathur-dg-teri/58031325
And here is the perspective from China:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/18/technology/china-us-clean-energy-solar-farm/index.html
Ivankinsman,
It becomes easier to see if you regard reliable coal based electricity supply as a requirement of contemporary Life. Another is clothing. Clothing is carbon-intensive and wasteful, but for a variety of reasons, we have come to expect it to be there to use. Just like electricity.
We have activism trying to tax the air we breathe. In 1975 I wrote an opinion piece about how silly it was to go green, with the ultimate prospect of a quite stupid proposal to tax our air, like how ratty can you get? Then years later it happened, at least as a demand.
One year in the future, activists might make a case to ban clothing because of its carbon footprint, but until now we tolerate it. And we tolerate coal powered electricity. Same argument. Same hopes for the future.
The future would be much more nice if we cut back on green propaganda.
Geoff.
No windmills within several hundred miles of my domicile, Ivankinsman. No solar panels, either, but somehow, my electric bill has dropped at least 10%. No renewables were used in the reduction of my monthly power bill.
“ivankinsman
September 19, 2017 at 10:09 am
The main thrust of this article is that the surge in renewable energy usage is having a huge impact on potential increases in atmospheric temperature, basically slowing done the rate of increase.”
Huge impact on *potential* increase but slowing down the rate of increase at the same time? You talk rubbish!
Let me put is as an equation for you:
A per annum increase in renewable energies uptake = a per annum reduction in the rate of increase of atmospheric temperatures.
Got it?
The main thrust of this article is:
Oh Bugger! We’ve been Trumped.
I think the British Prime Minister agrees with you. He cannot even keep his own close allies on side when it comes to climate change. This just shows the huge gap between Europe and the US on this issue – and I am a European:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/20/theresa-may-speaks-out-against-trump-climate-change-stance-at-un
well….look on the bright side
At least they admitted they don’t know crap and have been lying all these decades
One guy has said he was the wrong. He hasn’t admitted to knowing nothing and he certainly hasn’t said he was lying. “they” meaning all of them minus 1 are still deathly silent and admitting nothing. Most of “they” will slip away quietly and beg for grants on some other potential cash cow. And no-one will be held responsible.
This goes beyond sheepishly admitting they overstated their case previously. They go so overheated that they were finally singing “We’re all gonna die! and there’s nothing to be done”. Wait, nothing to be done? Well good we can stop worrying and ignore you. “Wait, no, that’s not what I meant! I mean, look there’s still a chance to save the world, pleeeeeeease pay attention to me!”
That’s what we have here.
You left out the part about ‘give me yer money’ , D. J. Hawkins.
Translation: “You still have time to do what I say.”
Translation: You still have time to go Green (and fill our pockets with cash).
THERE IS STILL TIME ……….BROTHER
No surprise that this story isn’t getting any ink, while this one is:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-apos-scandal-apos-rep-204158786.html
yahoo = huffpo
Also CNN. The Yahoo article is based upon Tyson’s interview with CNN’s usual liberal suspect Fareed Zakaria.