New wealth distribution scheme: “Temperature Equivalence Index”

You’ve heard of the “Wind Chill Factor”. This is a lot like that, except is based on temperature and income.  From the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD and the “it’s not the heat, it’s the humanity” department comes this inane study that defines a “temperature equivalence index” that aims to make the effects of increased temperature impacts between low-income nations and high-income nations more “equitable”. It’s another SJW extortion scheme hiding under a veil of a statistical construct.


Who shares similar experiences of climate change in a 1.5°C world and beyond?

A new framework to understand how uneven the effects of a 1.5°C world are for different countries around the world has been published today in Geophysical Research Letters, led by researchers from the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at the Oxford University Department of Geography.

It has been long understood that climate change will affect some regions more severely than others. However, quantifying these differences in a consistent way across many indicators of climate change has proven difficult in the past, mainly due to differences in how these metrics of climate change are defined.

Lead author Dr Luke Harrington, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the ECI, explains: “Our paper takes a different approach, by looking at what changes are expected for one specific region after a certain amount of global warming, such as the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold above pre-industrial levels. We then use climate models to identify how much global temperatures need to rise for different locations around the world to experience an equivalent level of change. This is what we refer to as the Temperature of Equivalence Index”.

As an illustration of the framework, the authors find changes to the severity of extreme heat events for low-income nations after 1.5°C of global warming would not be seen for regions of the world with high-income populations until after a global temperature rise twice as high. ‘Our example of low-income nations experiencing more extreme heat earlier than their high-income counterparts is already well-known within the scientific community,” says co-author Dr Andrew King, from the University of Melbourne. “But the novelty here lies in how these results are framed. We can develop an equivalent statement about changes to other types of physical climate hazards, such as extreme rainfall for example, and compare these results side-by-side’.

The authors are now working to expand the TE framework to more impact-relevant metrics of climate change, such as changes to crop yields and exposure to coastal flooding with continued sea level rise. “Eventually, we hope to develop a tool whereby local decision makers could choose which measures of climate change are most relevant to their individual circumstances, and then identify which other regions around the world are projected to have shared experiences of these same indices under future warming,” says Professor Dave Frame, a co-author from the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute.

“The devil in the detail for this work is what choice of climate change metrics should be used. This is a decision that should not be made by scientists, but instead by local decision makers”, says co-author and the ECI’s Deputy Director, Dr Friederike Otto. “Our job is to provide the TE index for an array of climate change indicators as wide as possible, and then let adaptation planners decide for themselves which of these are most useful.”

###

Here’s the load of garbage paper:

How uneven are changes to impact‐relevant climate hazards in a 1.5°C world and beyond?

Abstract

In the last decade, climate mitigation policy has galvanised around staying below specified thresholds of global mean temperature, with an understanding that exceeding these thresholds may result in dangerous interference of the climate system. UNFCCC texts have developed thresholds in which the aim is to limit warming to well below 2°C of warming above pre‐industrial levels, with an additional aspirational target of 1.5°C. However, denoting a specific threshold of global mean temperatures as a target for avoiding damaging climate impacts implicitly obscures potentially significant regional variations in the magnitude of these projected impacts. This study introduces a simple framework to quantify the magnitude of this heterogeneity in changing climate hazards at 1.5°C of warming, using case studies of emergent increases in temperature and rainfall extremes. For example, we find that up to double the amount of global warming (3.0°C) is needed before people in high income countries experience the same relative changes in extreme heat that low income nations should anticipate after only 1.5°C of warming. By mapping how much warming is needed in one location to match the impacts of a fixed temperature threshold in another location, this ‘Temperature of Equivalence’ (TE) index is a flexible and easy‐to‐understand communication tool, with the potential to inform where targeted support for adaptation projects should be prioritised in a warming world.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL078888

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “New wealth distribution scheme: “Temperature Equivalence Index”

  1. The more they beat the drum….the less people listen
    …liberals never seem to know when they have overplayed their hand

  2. I am confused. I thought much of the heating observed was in the polar regions, and in polar winters. I guess there are some poor, indigenous people in the Arctic. I think they may benefit from this warming.

    • Mohatdebos
      CO2 warming,
      assuming it happens,
      will be mainly at night
      in colder, drier climates,
      such as the Arctic.

      Daytime temperatures
      in the humid tropics
      will be least affected —
      possibly too little change
      to be measurable.

      People living in those climates
      will not mind slightly warmer nights!

      One “CO2 puzzle” is why Antarctica
      has had insignificant warming
      since the 1970s, except for a few
      areas near undersea volcanoes.
      There is no way CO2 would only cause
      warming near undersea volcanoes,
      while most of the continent
      did not warm at all

      • What % of global warming average temp rise is nighttime chnage and how much is daytime change?

    • Heresy. Nobody benefits from warming. Anyone. Anywhere. Ever.

      It’s written into the religious doctrine, a la IPCCC.

      • All assumptions the climate change goes only in one direction is a bit myopic or naïve. Prudent view would be to provide for both warming AND cooling, as Earth history indicates is the case. The latest warming peaked in 1998 and the onset of Maunder cooling cycle is upon us in almost full its severity, slightly if any, ameliorated by increase in CO2 content from whatever sources it is coming. At CO2 current content of 412ppm, the fertilizing impact of CO2 upon globe vegetation is visible and measures at 30 to 45% increase over the 280ppm CO2 base level. Temperature sensitivity appears to hover at 0.5 deg C level, with influence of CO2 raising to the double level of 560ppm. There is more to be continued in this dialog.

  3. So long as Other Peoples’ Money is available (OPM), this kind of waste and nonsense will continue. And, since OPM comes from politicians’ buying votes with tax revenues and from foundations funded by gullible, guilt-ridden, science-challenged philanthropists, there will always be OPM.

    • As long as the masses continue to buy the lie that taxation isn’t theft, there will always be OPM.

  4. I would reword this phrase:

    Here’s the load of garbage paper:

    To this…

    Here’s the paper load of garbage:

    • I would take that further and be even ruder: The comment “this ‘Temperature of Equivalence’ (TE) index is a flexible and easy‐to‐understand communication tool, with the potential to inform where targeted support for adaptation projects should be prioritised in a warming world.” should be changed to: “this ‘Total Excrement’ (TE) index is fabricated twaddle aimed at getting more funding”.

  5. Re: “…this ‘Temperature of Equivalence’ (TE) index is a flexible and easy‐to‐understand communication tool, …”

    Translation: “Comrades, We can use this ambiguous ‘tool’ to claim huge reparations to poor nations, for climate crimes perpetrated by rich countries. It’s the best-est wealth redistribution scheme evah!”

  6. The earth is a lucky planet with two types of the greenhouse gasses:
    1. Which are lighter than nitrogen and oxygen – methane, water vapor.
    2. Which are heavier than nitrogen and oxygen – carbon dioxide, nitrogenous oxide, ozone, and many others even heavier greenhouse gasses. Please, compare their molecular weight: methane – CH4=16, water vapor – H2O=18, nitrogen – N2=28, oxygen – O2=32, carbon dioxide – CO2=44, nitrogenous oxide – N2O=44, ozone – O3=48…
    The molecular weights of gasses are playing the crucial role in nature:
    1. A smoke from a chimney of power plant in not windy condition is going up ~ 500 meters after that is a horizontal, despite a temperature in an oven ~1,000 degrees C. It is cooling with height and, as it full mostly with molecules of heavy gasses, forces of a buoyancy can’t lift it.
    2. At the same time, the billions of molecules of water vapor are making any parcel of air lighter, than other parcels with lesser numbers of molecules of water vapor, and forces of the buoyancy are lifting it up. When with a height air in a parcel is cooling, part of a water vapor condensed, released energy, which heats air in this parcel and recreates the convection forces. Step by step all molecules of all gases in this parcel together with their kinetic, latent and trapped infrared radiation energy are coming to upper troposphere, where energy is going to space easy, than from ocean (land) level.
    The properties of water: As water vapor is lighter than most molecules in air they help transport huge amount of energy of all gasses from an ocean (land) level to the upper troposphere and helps cool the atmosphere, despite water vapor is a greenhouse gas. (Methane is doing the same).These properties cover 1/3 of the earth by clouds, which reflect to space direct sun radiation. Properties of water cover all Antarctica, most of Arctic, most of the mounts on the earth, and huge territories in the winter time by ice and snow. These ice and snow also reflect to space huge energy of direct sun radiation.
    PROPERTIES OF WATER HELP COOL THE ATMOSPHERE, DESPITE WATER VAPOR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
    How after understanding roles of these properties of water we can agree with scientists about specific role of greenhouse gasses on the earth; about their claim that water vapor and methane even more powerful greenhouse gasses, than carbon dioxide?
    Exactly opposite in South Hemisphere less continents and more evaporation of water vapor and it cool South Hemisphere more than North Hemisphere.
    The real reasons for climate change during industrial revolution are:
    1. A population of the earth in 1800 was 1 billion, today more than 7.3 billion. To feed the growing population mankind activities created around the world 4,000,000,000 acres of fields of potato, corn, wheat, etc. (area ~ equal of two areas of the USA). These fields were created instead of the former forests and the virgin steppes. It reduces evaporation of water from a soil over all continents with arable land, reduces the humidity in the air and the probabilities of rains – a real cooling mechanism in the nature.
    2. As we use mostly a fossil fuel for our energy needs, a black carbon and a dust from it cover a fresh snow, which reduces a reflection back to the space of the direct sun radiation.
    Human activities using mostly fossil fuel to create all changes in the world. Of course it increase amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
    But they are only indicator of human activities in wrong directions: fields evaporated less water vapor, than as was before 1800 year – forests and steppes instead of fields.

    • Nicely explained Michael, but I don’t think farming or fossil fuel ‘soot’ changes the climate at all. The natural mechanisms are much stronger.

      • Mostly correct, but at sea level, there is high enough water vapour content to increase convection effects. I do not know if climate models take this into account, although engineers must when designing tall stacks.

  7. …global temperatures need to rise for different locations… Spit my coffee out on that one! That anyone with any kind of higher level of education could write or say something so – – – stupid?!? Illogical?!? Circular?!? Unscientific?!? Boggles the mind. And I got’a get me one of those BS buttons… to save on coffee.

    • I think they just said that people in low income countries are more stupid backward and unevolved………..

      • I thought they said that people in low income countries just need to raise their standard of living and they will be much less affected by any climate change. They’re just fixated on the wrong problem, they should be asking how to raise living standards. And fossil fueled energy is a good way to get started – just ask the Chinese about how well that works.

    • I should add: Warning to true believers of climate change – the above mentioned link contains disturbing images, reflecting the reality and severity of AGW.

    • It snowed in early June in Denver in 1973. But Newfoundland is a lot lower elevation and June 26 is a lot later in the year.

    • “Welcome to Climate Change. It’s called extreme weather. We predicted it. It’s in the models” So sayeth Saint Mann, whenever confronted with a weather event.

  8. Anyone really interested in the subject should read at Climate Etc. the most recent post “Of Boundary and Initial Conditions” — its a tough slog — but it lays out the true mathematical reasons why long-term (50-100yr) climate model predictions are not possible.
    https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/25/of-boundary-and-initial-conditions/

    My essays on Chaos cover the same ground in a more approachable way (though not as technically sophisticated as the current CE piece).

    • The physics/maths is beyond me, but no model of anything can get anything right if it does not get initial conditions right. And the more chaotic, complex and non-linear a system is, the quicker and further models will deviate from reality if initial conditions are wrong. I simply cannot see how GCMs can get anywhere near initial conditions in any run ever.

      We see to be locked into a world where people produce hugely detailed models that they use to make all sorts of claims, without standing back and examining what they are doing.

    • If CO2 was the ‘climate controller’
      and had a large effect on
      the average temperature,
      as IPCC claims,
      then the “models” would work.

      We don’t need a complex article
      to know that humans have
      a sorry track record
      for predicting the future.

      Combine that problem with an incorrect
      physics model of climate change,
      included in the models,
      and we get the nonsense predictions
      we have been hearing for the past 30 years!

      After 30 years of grossly inaccurate
      predictions, it is obvious CO2
      is not the ‘climate controller’.

  9. “…it’s not the heat, it’s the humanity” department comes this inane study …” +emphasis
    Suggested spelling change: for inane read “insane”

    “We then use climate models…”
    …well, shoot there’s your problem right there!

  10. Just when you think you’ve seen and heard it all …

    Can’t wait for the alarmists who proliferate this blog to chime in. Speaking of alarmists, whatever happened to Griff?

  11. An “index” based on a model of a hypothetical situation created from models, yeah you nailed it by calling it a load of garbage.

  12. Skepticism without the political motive acknowledgement is functionally counter productive. It was never “science” first and that has to become the “consensus” among anyone claiming to be AGW skeptical.

    “Science only” skepticism usually becomes the equivalent of RINOs in the GOP, fakes and fifth column useful idiots. They should be shamed if they insist AGW is a science “only” debate. A nonsensical supposition and all over WUWT to this day. At least hardline political skeptics get space here but SINOs (skeptics in name only, science only provocateurs) remain over represented and over valued in the debate.

    Why is there anything surprising about new inventions about collectivist redistribution? Climate (AGW proponents) was always a socialist front operation from academia to align with crony interests and political hacks of the similar kind.

  13. So poor nations are going to benefit twice as much from climate change as the developed ones.

    Is that not what the left wants?

  14. Don’t you JUST FEEL SO EMBARRASSED TO BE AN AUSTRALIAN AT THE MOMENT !!!
    “OUR” CRICKET TEAM PERFORMS DISMALLY …..NOW…….THIS !! HOW MUCH CAN ONE TAKE ?
    .
    ” ‘Our example of low-income nations experiencing more extreme heat earlier than their high-income counterparts is already well-known within the scientific community,” says co-author Dr Andrew King, from the University of Melbourne.”
    REALLY ??? DOES THIS MEAN THAT THEY ARE WEARING LESS
    CLOTHING and THEIR POOR , THIN , MALNOURISHED BODIES
    will BE UNABLE TO ADAPT TO THE HEAT ?
    No …hang about…….that’s COLD that’s a threat in those circumstances isn’t it !
    Well……I guess they can take off their few ragged clothes then and cool down a bit !
    It’s not as though they can turn up the COOLING on the ducted air conditioning system
    since they ran out of “dried cow dung” to power it AFTER the “CLIMATE KNOW-ALLS”
    had COAL and OIL TOTALLY BANNED as power sources……..and the “WIND-MILL” has
    never functioned because there’s no wind anyway !
    .
    QUOTE: ” “Eventually, we hope to develop a tool ……”
    THEY ALREADY HAVE……..AND HIS NAME IS ANDREW KING !!!
    .
    ps……..HE LOVES A GOOD HORROR STORY………MUST RUN IN THE KING FAMILY !!

  15. whereby local decision makers could choose which measures of climate change are most relevant to their individual circumstances

    Typically, local decision makers have actual problems to address, such as keeping the streets repaired and keeping the weeds controlled. Some have homeless folks to deal with.
    Local elected officials don’t need to be told that some street intersections flood when it rains, or a “protected” tree came down over the power lines. Citizens alert the officials to these “individual circumstances.”
    Besides, most officials would not understand, or even care to understand, what this says:
    . . . how much warming is needed in one location to match the impacts of a fixed temperature threshold in another location, this ‘Temperature of Equivalence’ (TE) index is a flexible and easy‐to‐understand communication tool, . . .

    Say I go to a city meeting and address the Mayor: “The ‘Temperature of Equivalence’ report indicates your city is better able to deal with this warm weather than is Bamako. Will you draft a proclamation suggesting to your citizens what their response should be?”
    That would not end well.

  16. Any paper that starts off with the assumption that all points on the globe will warm by the same amount has proven that they don’t know what they are talking about and should be ignored, if not ridiculed.

    Any paper that starts off by assuming that climate models can forecast regional changes (even the guys who run these things admit they can’t do that) has proven that they don’t know what they are talking about and should be ignored, if not ridiculed.

    • Too bad I can’t “upvote” more than once. This should be screamed from the rafters every time another piece of twaddle like this emerges from the Eco-Nazi camp.

  17. The obvious conclusion to this piece is that we should endeavor to assist low income regions to beome high income regions. I think that is not what the authors intended however. Because their paper leans heavily on speculation, opinion, one-sided risk analysis and models, it is more likely the authors wanted to demonstrate by example why traditional academics is now a realm of inclusion and diversity that would be equally welcoming to palm reading, astrology, metaphysics and the occult as it is sceptical of the basic hard sciences.

  18. This study should never have been published because it makes use of models that have never been validated.

  19. It lost me when small increases in temperature became “extreme heat” and a bit more rain became “extreme rainfall”.

    I am completely at a loss to explain what the point of this would be, even if there was any kind of data that wasn’t just made up involved.

    • I keep waiting for someone to show me where this “extreme heat” is happening. A lifetime of living in Houston has sort of dulled the extremes for me, but really – where is it?

      If the answer is at the poles or someplace where no one lives, I a) don’t necessarily believe it and/or b) don’t really care.

      And as to sea level rise, I’ll let the economics of ocean/beach front properties speak for themselves.

  20. “We find that up to double the amount of global warming (3.0°C) is needed before people in high income countries experience the same relative changes in extreme heat that low income nations should anticipate after only 1.5°C of warming.”

    That’s certainly counterintuitive, given that income isn’t a known forcing in creating “extreme heat” (with the exception of UHI effects).

    As a matter of policy, finding that +3.0C is as harmless for rich countries as the much touted +1.5C would be in other parts of the world doesn’t seem like a finding that should motivate rich countries to care too much about +1.5C.

    • Nor does it suggest that the “solution” is anything but allowing the poor countries develop (as in, use their fossil fuel resources) and BECOME just as “climate resilient” as the rich countries in the process.

  21. I think the easiest first approximation for what weather would be like in a warmer world would be to find a warmer place of the differential magnitude. For example, the average annual temperature in Atlanta, GA is 16.95C. The county seat to the county to the north of Atlanta is Cumming, and its average is 14.85C. Moving from Cumming to Atlanta (same metro area) is the equivalent of a rise *over* 2C.

    • “According to any textbook on dynamic meteorology, one may reasonably conclude that in a warmer world, extratropical storminess and weather variability will actually decrease.” – Richard Lindzen

      The “climate models” fly in the face of this reality. Warmer climate is BETTER climate, NOT worse climate. Every warm period in human history tends to have a “climate OPTIMUM” label attached to it at some point. Why do you suppose that is?!?!

  22. There is a huge need
    for a “College of Common Sense”
    where college graduates go to ‘unlearn’
    all the nonsense they were taught
    by their liberal professors!

    Our planet has warmed AT LEAST
    + 2 degrees C. since the late 1600’s
    Maunder Minimum period,
    which was one of the few times in history
    when a lot of people complained
    about the climate (too cold for decades
    at a time).

    Here is a list of all the bad things
    that have happened as a result of
    that warming, of at least +2 degrees C.,
    and probably more than that,
    from the late 1600’s to 2018:
    (1) Nothing bad happened !

  23. It seems the “Temperature Equivalence” of these academic brains has become somewhat overheated.

  24. Wow! A new level of stupid every day. I’m boggled and amazed at how truly dumb these highly educated people are!!

  25. It would be a much more “robust” index if they included living wage, north-south wealth transfer payments, and gender pay equalization in the Index. …..and some tree rings

  26. Now all they need is some measurable actual global warming to test their theory. Or they just could just plot GDP versus average, high or low (or all) annual temperature of a few hundred countries to see if it works. No need to wait.

    • “Now all they need is some measurable actual global warming to test their theory.”

      Love it! 🙂

  27. All anyone ever needs to remember about the political Left (and it is the political Left that ultimately stands behind the CAGW meme in whatever its guise), is that the default position of the Left/liberals is tyranny. Why?

    Because it is only the Left/liberals who believe they know what’s best for you, and that only they know what is justice for everyone.

    Thinking for oneself is the ultimate heresy for the Left. And they will root it out however they may cf this latest effort….

    Watch this utterly nonsensical approach now gather momentum in all the usual forums and support from all the usual suspects.

  28. “It has been long propagandized that so-called “climate change” (i.e., blamed on human fossil fuel burning) will affect some regions more severely than others, so that we can play race cards and invoke other emotional responses among the ill-informed. However, quantifying this nonsense in a consistent way across many purely speculative indicators of such so-called “climate change” has proven difficult in the past, since the imagined catastrophes aren’t actually occurring, mainly due to differences between reality and how these bullshit metrics of such so-called “climate change” are defined.”

    There, fixed it for them.

    “Our paper takes a different approach, by looking at what changes are expected for one specific region after a certain amount of global warming, such as the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold above pre-industrial levels. We then use climate models to identify how much global temperatures need to rise for different locations around the world to experience an equivalent level of change. This is what we refer to as the Temperature of Equivalence Index”.

    So, basically they examine what wild speculation they are making based on their BS models, as more supposed justification for the ridiculous assumption that the “solution” is more CO2 management, rather than allowing the “developing nations” to actually develop, thereby making their “climate experience” more favorable (i.e., similar to the “high-income nations”) no matter what the climate does.

  29. ” According to conventional wisdom, these agreements likewise ended hopes for a ‘New International Economic Order,’ under which wealth would be redistributed from rich countries to poor.”

    Source: http://admin.cambridge.org/academic/subjects/law/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-and-new-international-economic-order-oligopoly-regulation-and-wealth-redistribution-global-knowledge-economy#55PduVKD7bXQrCDM.97

    Sustainable development, on the other hand, as the successor in many ways to the New International Economic Order [NEIO] is seen as promoting a more equitable global system, where trade preferences and dif- ferential treatment are an intrinsic feature of sovereign equality.”

    Source: http://www.cbd.int/doc/articles/2002-/A-00088.pdf

    It’s 100% obvious that sustainable development is just another (but on a massive global scale) socialist scheme for wealth redistribution and people control (and a few other unmentioned leftist goals).

    And in fact, “Sustainability” became mainstream in 1987 from the report “Our common future”. The person who chaired this report is a VP in socialistinternational.org (Gro Harlem Brundtland).

    In 1983, one of the Rockefeller foundations called for the creation of a global sustainable society. No surprises here because this wealthy family often funds ultra-left wing causes.

    Do the Koch bro’s have anything close to these left-wing billionaires whose tentacles of NGOs and think tanks and media influence shape and drive public perceptions and views?

  30. “Eventually, we hope to develop a tool whereby local decision makers could choose which measures of climate change are most relevant to their individual circumstances, and then identify which other regions around the world [are best able to pay the cash they demand!],”
    .
    It’s Dial A Subsidy!!!

    • >>
      It’s Dial A Subsidy!!!
      <<

      It’s more like “Dial a Redistribution,” but I like your thinking.

      Jim

  31. …and the “it’s not the heat, it’s the humanity” department…

    Great line!
    If it weren’t for “humanity”, there’d be no stupidity.

  32. It’s not wealth redistribution, it’s “Theoretical Change Equivalence National Balancing”
    Exxxxcellent.

  33. I was at university with Prof Frame. He was definitely not left wing back then. After his phd he got an analyst position at Treasury in NZ. Then back into postdoc in the UK. A paper in Nature and a bit of politicking got him an early professorship back in NZ. If you ask me he saw which way the climate winds were blowing back around 98 and has made a successful run at the academic career. Maybe he has come to believe in it all, but I don’t really think so.

  34. Since when is 1.5 degrees ‘extreme heat’?

    It’s gonna be 39 C in Beijing today. It was 37 C yesterday. That’s a difference of 2 C which is 33% more than ‘extreme’.

    The humidity today will be really low. So low, that the ‘feels like’ temperature will be 37 according to the humidex formula.

    So does the extreme heat come with feelings? If the promised drought conditions accompanying global warming are manifest then the temperature will not be feeling any warmer even if it shoots up 2 degrees.

    Perhaps these guys didn’t think of everything that happens in the real world. Last night at 8PM it was a lovely 34C. I just love these urban heat islands. The additional heat dries out the air so quickly you can feel the temperature drop as it rises.

  35. While Universities should be doing future studies in Climate this would seem to be technically indefenceible when it uses failed GCM’s, in a regional setting for which they were not designed to make predictions for the future. The IPCC didn’t ‘develop thresholds’ it adopted the eeconomist Nordhaus’s guess of 2 degrees and then got to the 1.5 on the basis of shared ambition, totally unscientific. Now we are expected to believe any garbage that comes out of this reseach is based on science and therefore should be given some form of credence. Pull the other one. Governments must stop funding the universities to produce this Alice in Wonderland pseudo science that scientifically illiterate bureaucats at national and regional level will vacum into legislation and local bylaws that will increase poverty for no benefit to the climate or humanity.

  36. Actually, for California I support a sort of comfort/survival balancing. The coastal areas are wealthy, leftist and constantly supporting programs that increase energy costs. In the summer they can often cool a home by opening a window. By contrast, the Central Valley farm communities endure very high temperatures and need air conditioning throughout the summer, paying ruinous electrical bills. Why not have the suppliers, like PG&E significantly raise rates for coastal, low usage, areas so the rates can be proportionally lowered for the farming communities? In other words, balance the rates so the cost of comfort (or survival) is roughly the same wherever one lives.

  37. I do not think these people understand the damage they do to their university’s reputation by their failure to communicate properly with, and to respect the skills of, academics outside their own field.
    They should consult their own university’s engineering department and have them assess the temperature data critically and honestly using the most up to date and highest standard quality control methods and get a figure for the likely error range.
    A talk to historians about climate variation references might just open their eyes to the sloppy, self centred, self righteous and self indulgent mindset of climate department world wide.

Comments are closed.