DOOM HEADLINE: ‘Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don’t Fix Climate Change by 2023’

Yes, we’ve heard this before, again, and again, and again. Further, I’m not sure this fellow qualifies as a “Top Climate Scientist”.

From some website called GritPost:

Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don’t Fix Climate Change by 2023

A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.

In a recent speech at the University of Chicago, James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University — warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole. Anderson says current pollution levels have already catastrophically depleted atmospheric ozone levels, which absorb 98 percent of ultraviolet rays, to levels not seen in 12 million years.

Anderson’s assessment of humanity’s timeline for action is likely accurate, given that his diagnosis and discovery of Antarctica’s ozone holes led to the Montreal Protocol of 1987. Anderson’s research was recognized by the United Nations in September of 1997. He subsequently received the United Nations Vienna Convention Award for Protection of the Ozone Layer in 2005, and has been recognized by numerous universities and academic bodies for his research.

While some governments have made commitments to reduce carbon emissions (Germany has pledged to cut 95 percent of carbon emissions by 2050), Anderson warned that those measures were insufficient to stop the extinction of humanity by way of a rapidly changing climate. Instead, Anderson is calling for a Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years.

Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industry—an acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth’s poles.

This has do[sic] be done, Anderson added, within the next five years.

“The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.

Anderson’s prediction of Arctic sea ice disappearing by 2022 may be closer to reality than a lot of us would hope. In 2016, University of Reading professor Ed Hawkins compiled global temperature data dating back to 1850, prior to the Industrial Revolution of the early 20th century and the oil boom, and turning the data into a time-lapse GIF. The most alarming part of the data showed that temperatures began rising exponentially faster at the start of the 21st century and show no signs of slowing down:


Full story here if you want to bother with it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 27, 2018 1:26 pm

Never mind that! It’s worse than ever imagined. Europe is on the brink of ‘peak beer’! And this time CO2 is (as always) to blame, but now because of shortage:
But maybe (just) we can avoid it:

Only two more working days, and then 3 weeks (!) holiday!!!

Have a great summer everyone (or winter, for you at the other side…. 🙂 )

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
June 27, 2018 2:00 pm

Very funny!

Helge Ankjær
Reply to  Stephen Heins
June 27, 2018 2:33 pm

No it realy isn’t funny.
Fresh water treatment plants, drinking water is dependent on steady supply of CO2 for purification. Soon you must start to boil water at home before it is used. Very few Norwegian are used to it, especially in the capital. The possibility that many may become ill is “great.” Think many will miss such alarming news if it comes.

Reply to  Helge Ankjær
June 28, 2018 12:53 am

Are you sure they use CO2 , most countries use chlorine !

Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2018 1:09 am

Yes ! BUT wouldn’t it be BETTER if they used CO2……..then you
would just have to add the CORDIAL and everything would be

Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2018 1:14 am

Or UV-radiation.

Russell Johnson
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
June 28, 2018 4:30 am

Try O3, ozone is a powerful sanitant for drinking water, bottled water too.

Bryan A
Reply to  Helge Ankjær
June 28, 2018 10:03 am

News flash James EtAl Humans will go extinct regardless though no one alive today will live long enough to see it happen.
Nor will their Kids or Grand kids nor their
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G Grand Kids
More than 250,000,000 generations will pass before we go Extinct. The most that will happen is we loose a minute amount of real estate and make adjustments. Of course the next Ice Age will be a far more devastating event on current society with the loss of northern territories to vast fields of ice.
With the amount of civilizations that have already retreated from and lost buildings to rising waters it is something we are well adapted for. Even Venice holds back the seas.
Spending Thousand$ of Trillion$ up front (through wealth redistribution schemes)so we don’t have to spend Ten$ of Trillion$ later makes very little sense

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
June 27, 2018 3:25 pm

So, because Europe has jumped on the CAGW / CCC bandwagon, and is doing it’s best (!) to reduce carbon dioxide, Europeans will be deprived of one of life’s necessities. I suggest that you ensure that the leadership (!) in Brussels doesn’t slap any duties on beer imported from America. And, after Europeans have to drink Coors Light and Budweiser (the American version) for a couple years, they’ll finally get their politicians to drop this anti-CO2 warfare.

Reply to  Retired-Engineer_Jim
June 28, 2018 1:11 am

Mirco-brewing and craft beers are booming in Europe. They use the natural gas of fermentation and do not need an external source of CO2.

Any “brewery” that needs to buy in CO2 is probably not even brewing ( ie fermenting ) anything. Anyone venting off CO2 and then buying it in a bottle from somewhere else deserves to have problems. Completely dumb.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
June 27, 2018 4:30 pm

Pardon my ignorance, but do they actually add CO2 to beer?!? I thought the fermentation process made more than enough.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 27, 2018 5:00 pm
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 27, 2018 7:19 pm

The breweries that I have visited all claimed that they sell CO2, a by product of making beer.

Brian R
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 27, 2018 9:35 pm

Because many large breweries filter and pasturize their beer it loses any “natural” carbonization. They then must re-add the carbonization back when bottling.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 27, 2018 10:01 pm

I thought American beer was made without fermentation, by some sort of purely chemical process. They would need to add CO2 after the flavouring was added.

Reply to  Hivemind
June 28, 2018 12:56 am

probably explains why american beer tastes like fizzy dish-water.

Reply to  Hivemind
June 28, 2018 1:04 am

Monty Python had a skit where aussies compared american beer to making love in a canoe : ”it’s f….ng close to water!” 🙂

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 28, 2018 1:29 am

CO2 is used to “push” the beer out of the barrels and into your glass. Nitrogen can be used, but primarilly for Irish type beers.

honest liberty
Reply to  Frank
July 2, 2018 12:04 pm

as someone who makes all sorts of alcohol, I’m amazed at the ignorance regarding the process displayed here:
To extremely simplify:
1. sugar + water + yeast +(hops for beer) = wort(beer)/wash(spirits)/must(wine)
2. yeast eats said sugar = alcohol + co2 (co2 by product of digestion by yeast cells) beer
The co2 escapes mostly escapes and fermented wort (beer), however, whatever co2 remains suspended in the final fermented product is preferred to be de-gassed (with wine and mashes)
There is not enough co2 in finished beer to produce fizz, and if there is I have never found it to be noticeable.

flat beer, as you all know….sucks. Yes, the gas is used to push the beer through the lines, but that isn’t the only purpose. Beer needs carbonation to be enjoyable. Cask conditioned beers were hand pumped using neither added nitrogen or carbonation, but the potential for contamination necessitated another delivery method.

you can cask condition or bottle condition (add a very small specific amount of fermentable sugar in the bottle or cask after fermentation is completed, and the remaining dormant yeast will eat it, and, depending on your percentage of sugar will create a specific co2 concentration. )

most breweries I have seen and worked at don’t sequester their co2, they just have massive tubes that funnel down into 5 gallon buckets filled with sanitized water, usually on the floor. co2 is so cheap it is not economically viable to sequester it (to my knowledge), so they just buy it in large quantities and force carbonate, and they have to do this because of volume and distribution. not force carbonating would take way too much time for the product to get to the correct concentration.

now, before someone finds some random example of this not being the case, NOT ALL breweries are created equal and not all breweries follow that same pattern. But I’m quite certain that would be the exception not the rule.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
June 28, 2018 1:06 am

NorwegianSceptic !!!
“ALL” ( and there are quite a few ) of MY CAGW-TENDING FRIENDS and
CONTACTS ….with a few additions and variations…….and am awaiting their
various reactions ! SOME WILL LAUGH and SOME WILL “SEND ME TO
COVENTRY” ( until their sense of humour kicks back in ! ) and OTHERS
Thanks for the laugh !!

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
June 28, 2018 6:05 am

Update: crisis avoided (for now), a ship with the glorious gas has arrived in my home town:
It has been filling tank trucks all day just a few hundred metres from the office where i work..

June 27, 2018 1:30 pm

They’re just going to have to get in line like everyone else, after NK, Iran, China, Putin, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Putin contractors, Iran puppets, Pakistan, etc. PR jostling is standard stuff for the group so get over it.

June 27, 2018 1:32 pm

A climate of catastrophic anthropogenic planned parenthood.

Peter Morris
Reply to  n.n
June 27, 2018 3:35 pm

Oh you comment over here, too? I see your posts on Legal Insurrection all the time! I only lurk there, though. I was never able to get the system to let me in.

Tom Halla
June 27, 2018 1:32 pm

How can that be. I died of starvation sometime in the 1970’s (according to Paul Ehrlich). So how can I die again in five years?

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2018 1:37 pm

Tom Halla

You must atone for your sins against climate alarmism twice.

Standard practice I believe.

Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 1:55 pm

If you can vote after you’re dead, you can die after you’re dead.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  DonK31
June 27, 2018 2:23 pm

But you can still vote, right?

Joe Civis
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2018 2:28 pm

yes but the 2nd death means you get a 2nd vote.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2018 4:02 pm

multiple times

Reply to  DonK31
June 27, 2018 10:21 pm

You must live or be interred in Chicago, home of the cemetery vote.

Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 2:47 pm

I really wish I hadn’t started this.


Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2018 2:26 pm

The only thing that will have gone extinct by 2023 is James Anderson’s credibility.

Relegated to ignominy with the likes of Malthus, Erlich and the rest of the doomsday deplorables.

Alice Thermopolis
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 27, 2018 7:20 pm


Too hard on poor old Malthus, methinks.

Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) re-ignited debate in 1798 with his controversial first book: “An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects The Future Improvement of Society.”

Malthus argued the rate of human population growth would stall progress towards a more “perfectible” society:

“The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the Earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, if unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetic ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.”

For him, this Principle was a law of Nature, divinely imposed to ensure virtuous behavior. The greatest obstacle to social progress and ‘human happiness’ was humankind’s awesome procreative power, its tendency to grow faster than the means of subsistence – or what today could be called a country’s rate of socio-economic development or ‘improvement’.

Such heresy attracted a firestorm of abuse from many of his contemporaries – especially Enlightenment revolutionaries – and continues to this day. The French epithet ‘malthusien’ became one of the worst insults of the time. Karl Marx and his followers were unhappy with him too.

Many still see him at best as an apologist for global social inequality and injustice. Others claim his disciples support coercive state control of population growth.

With two centuries of hindsight, it is clear there were flaws in his Principle. Malthus did not expect science to have such a dramatic impact on agricultural productivity, health and society, or modern birth control. Yet in one important sense he was right. He drew attention to some factors that influence humankind’s rate of growth. With the prospect of a global population of at least 11 billion by 2100 – about 11 times what it was when he wrote his first Essay – perhaps it is time for a revaluation.


Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2018 3:22 pm

He didn’t say we’d go extinct in 5 years, just that we’d go extinct if we didn’t follow his lead in the next 5 years. He is, of course, right. The human race will go extinct. Just not sure when. And I think it’s pretty inevitable, whether we follow the good professor’s direction or not.

Bruce Cobb
June 27, 2018 1:33 pm

They need new tea leaves.

June 27, 2018 1:34 pm

Good grief.

Never mind. Ta Ta Arctic, can we have the perma frost wastelands of Canada and Russia back, for a return to agriculture, after you’ve gone please.

Oh! And thanks, we can call another ship the Titanic without having gruesome movies made about it.

Oh! OH!……..I almost forgot. Pretty graphic. Is it supposed to scare us, or reassure us that the planet is finally escaping an ice age?

Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 4:04 pm

If the Arctic ice disappears, that just means it will be easier to get at all the oil up there.

Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2018 5:04 pm


Good point.

Reply to  HotScot
July 1, 2018 6:28 pm

Pretty sure I’ve seen that graphic here before Scotty. Funny how it stops at the 2016 super El Nino, just cherry-pickin’ convenient.

June 27, 2018 1:38 pm

Psychotic delusion… Indigenous humans have thrived in every harsh environment without modern technology. I see he is a lead author for AR6. Insanity masking as science forthcoming…

Reply to  gyan1
June 27, 2018 1:47 pm


Sorry mate. Not possible without a computer model.

The experts have spoken. What can I say ~shrugs~.

Roscoe Pilsner
June 27, 2018 1:47 pm

Humans will go extinct no matter what…all animals eventually do.

Reply to  Roscoe Pilsner
June 27, 2018 2:07 pm

Roscoe Pilsner

That’s a bit of a bummer on a cheery blog like Anthony’s.

Who knows, we might invent an eternal life elixir, discover the font of youth, enjoy resurrection. Who knows again?

Perhaps space travel to transport us off this beastly planet, indeed, just where did the dinosaurs go, leaving us with birds, crocodiles, and sharks? All the good bits, just whisked away. Aliens?

Nope, I’m giggling too much, can’t keep it up.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 2:25 pm

If we travel through space fast enough we can loop waaaaaaaay out there and back as the Earth ages hundreds of years and we come back only a few years older.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2018 3:01 pm

Tom in Florida

Aaaand…everyone else is dead.

Nah, I don’t like that idea.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 5:20 pm

But then those returning would rule the World!

Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 2:29 pm

The font of youth: would that be wingdings?

Reply to  Andyd
June 27, 2018 3:03 pm



I’ll take my chances with four score years and ten.

Frankly, I’m getting bored with the whole thing now. Going to sleep for a few billion years sounds quite attractive.

Roscoe Pilsner
Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 5:33 pm

I wonder how many times an eighty year old would have to wake up to pee if he slept a billion years…

David Chappell
Reply to  Roscoe Pilsner
June 27, 2018 7:55 pm

About every 4 hours. I speak from experience…

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 9:39 am

I’ve been to Scotland a few times, and the elixir in mention exists there already. Shame about Ferintosh though…. 😉

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 11:15 am

We know what happened to the Dolphins, now, don’t we?

old construction worker
Reply to  Roscoe Pilsner
June 28, 2018 5:50 am

No, not with AI and brain computer chips implants. Of course they may not be consider “humans”.

Robert W Turner
June 27, 2018 1:47 pm

These are the best types of predictions. Laughable ones. Hold them up and parade them as evidence that the man-made climate cult is insane.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
June 27, 2018 1:55 pm

Robert W Turner

I take your point, but I would rather he was right. The ice melts and the only ones to suffer are the Al Gore’s, Leonardo DiCaprio’s, and their ilk who have spent millions on beachside properties despite the inevitability of rising sea levels.

Except of course, that Arctic ice is largely sea ice.

Riiiigggghhhhht…….I’m getting it now. They whip up a scare, cash in on the carbon trading, knock down the price of their beach-side investments and make bundles from dystopia movies the public gobble up as truth cos Al and Leo present it on screen.

Man, that’s clever.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 3:00 pm

They are sneakily selling land at a premium prices thats destined to be waterside properties after the 50meter sea level rise. Probably you could sell it to the Demsels.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 27, 2018 3:06 pm


sorry, but what’s a Demsel?

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 8:16 am

“The ice melts and the only ones to suffer are the Al Gore’s, Leonardo DiCaprio’s, and their ilk who have spent millions on beachside properties despite the inevitability of rising sea levels.”

Strange, somehow you forgot the 3B people that live in Africa and South Asia.

Reply to  Chris
June 28, 2018 10:25 am

“…you forgot the 3B people that live in Africa and South Asia.” Well it’s Arctic ice that’s melting, they’re safe.

Reply to  Paul
June 28, 2018 10:38 am

Arctic ice melting won’t affect Gore or DiCaprio’s house either. But Greenland and Antarctica will. These kinds of joky points are just dumb distractions from the author’s main point, which is that once CO2 levels get to a certain point, it’s game over due to inertia and built in warming in coming years. Not game over in 2023, not game over in 2050, but game over on a long term basis – 100, 200, 300 years out. Maybe no one on WUWT cares about that, but that is the point he is making, not that the world will come to an end in 2023.

Chuck in Houston
Reply to  Chris
June 28, 2018 11:05 am

Hi Chris.

When do we reach the game-over point? How will we know? What might our technologies be like in 100, 200, or 300 years? Do you think people are just going to stand around and watch the water (slowly) rise?

Catastrophe seems unlikely given current trends. Unless things start cooling down, of course – then we’ll be in big trouble (albeit slowly).

Reply to  Chuck in Houston
June 29, 2018 12:57 am

Hi Chuck, there are only 2 conceptual possibilities. One would be a cost effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The other would be geoengineering to reflect more solar energy (atmospheric seeding, if you will). The latter is very, very risky. CO2 removal is nice in concept but will be very tough to do at scale and economically.

Reply to  Chris
June 28, 2018 12:18 pm

the “author’s main point”? That 2023 is the break point for “change”? So never mind that 2 decade pause in warming we recently experienced, the next 5.5 years are going to ruin us forever? Lol.

I just don’t see CO2 as the big control knob of Earth’s climate. The same scientist who model 300 years of climate can’t even explain the root cause of ENSO, why not? And even IF CO2 was a dominate driver, Man’s CO2 contribution is minimal compared to Nature. I’d be more concerned about feeding 7.5 billion people if/when the climate goes cold for a decade or so. I’d take displacement over starvation any day.

Reply to  Paul
June 29, 2018 1:00 am

Man’s contribution to atmospheric is not trivial. Taking it from 280ppm in pre industrial to 410 is an increase of almost 50%. How is that trivial? Tell me, what are the specific mechanisms you see as being possible causes for a decade long cold climate?

Reply to  Chris
June 29, 2018 3:19 am


My understanding is that man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is around 2 ppm per year.

Being that the industrial revolution began between 1820 and 1840 (say 1840, 178 years ago) if man was solely responsible for increased atmospheric CO2, we should be around 636 ppm about now.

I also understand CO2 has a life of between 50 and 100 years in the atmosphere, so lets say man is wholly responsible for the 400 ppm we’re at now, in which case, does nature have no say in fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 whatsoever?

I would suggest it does play a considerable part, so taking my thumbnail calculations as read, nature is doing one of two things.

1. It’s contributed to atmospheric CO2 and man’s contribution isn’t as much as we estimate or;

2. Man’s contribution is counteracting natures efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2. In other words, had the industrial revolution not occurred, far from 280 ppm being maintained, we may have been heading towards less than 200 ppm. At which point, things become very scary indeed.

Reply to  HotScot
June 29, 2018 11:29 am

Hot Scot, it hasn’t gone up at 2ppm per year, that is only true in recent times. At the start of the industrial revolution, global CO2 emissions were far, far lower. Global CO2 emissions in 2011 were 150 times higher than they were in 1850.

Reply to  Chris
June 29, 2018 2:44 pm


First off, the assumption is, CO2 is the mechanism that controls global temperatures, which is preposterous to me, and should be to you.

At 0.04% of the atmosphere, with water vapour at 3%, Tyndall himself stated water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Meanwhile, the entire scientific community agrees, no one understands clouds in the climate change equation. If there was ever a consensus, that’s it; 100% of scientists don’t understand clouds.

So we now have a scientific assumption that CO2 is the culprit of climate change, utterly ignoring that clouds might have an effect, because they don’t know how they work.

That’s like examining every aspect of your car engine whilst completely ignoring that the air filter is blocked, because you don’t understand what an air filter does.

This is such simplistic nonsense I really don’t get why serious scientists are even engaging in the debate.

As for the numerical fluctuations, or increase in atmospheric CO2, seriously, ignore the symptom, get to the cause, which appears to be clouds. At the very least, eliminate them as a factor in the equation before blaming a trace gas.

Reply to  Chris
June 28, 2018 11:37 am

somehow you forgot the 3B people that live in Africa and South Asia.

I wasn’t aware that 3 Billion people in Africa and S Asia lived under 5 meters above sea level.


Reply to  Schitzree
June 29, 2018 1:01 am

There are things called heat waves and droughts.

Reply to  Chris
June 29, 2018 3:20 am


No evidence of them being any worse than in the past.

June 27, 2018 1:50 pm

Too funny….and way too sad
Reminds me of when they figured out the Arctic wouldn’t really be “ice free”….so they concocted some story that I million km/sq would be ice free…
…That’s the size of Egypt….Egypt is 1 million km/sq…or like saying no one in Africa would miss Egypt if it disappeared

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Latitude
June 27, 2018 2:23 pm

That is only part of the definition of “Nearly Ice Free Arctic” that was put forth in the IPCC AR4, 2005. The other part was ‘for 5 consecutive Septembers in a row’. For that report, the ‘Likely’ period was before mid-century, IF RPC8.5 was used, and it was of ‘medium confidence’.

So, if the condition requires 5-consecutive years, 2022 is not gonna be “Near Ice Free Arctic” unless THIS year is, which is looking highly unlikely at the moment. It is, though, as testable hypothesis, and fairly close-in at that.

I wonder what the extinction mechanism is? Guess I will have to read the paper.

Reply to  Steven Fraser
June 27, 2018 2:51 pm

“I wonder what the extinction mechanism is?”

The extinction method will be exploding heads because by 2023 it will be obvious that their “projections” won’t come true and nobody will be listening to them anymore. Of course, only the heads of part of the human population will have exploded but since they are the important part, the human species will be declared to be extinct leaving the rest of us to get on with our lives.

Reply to  Steven Fraser
June 29, 2018 1:02 am

He said free of permanent, long term ice, not ice free all year long.

June 27, 2018 1:54 pm

““The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,”

Wait, isn’t the chance that there has never been any “permanent” ice in the Arctic pretty much 100%?

June 27, 2018 2:01 pm

And what will happen with my 15 year mortgage?

Reply to  Urederra
June 27, 2018 2:08 pm

Dunno – are you “under water” now?

Reply to  Urederra
June 27, 2018 2:09 pm


If there was ever a stupid question, on the planet of stupid questions, this is it.

You’ll have to pay it off, there will be a clause in your mortgage for it.



Tom in Florida
Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 2:18 pm

If there was ever a stupid answer, on the planet of stupid answers, this is it.
If we all die, who is going to foreclose on the property if he doesn’t make the mortgage payment?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2018 2:56 pm

Tom in Florida

The greens of course, they’re slimy little critters, they’ll just crawl out the primordial soup and invoke their divine right of retribution, and poor old Urederra will be summoned by God to cough up what he owes.

Imagine that, in the land of paradise, and in debt, again!

Honestly, Tom, haven’t you learned anything by now?

Silly Billy.


Reply to  Urederra
June 27, 2018 2:13 pm

Out of respect for the future return of Arctic ice, lenders will freeze interest rates at 0%, until Arctic ice returns. This will be in protest of human failure to take needed action to prevent a 2 C rise in globull temperature, and to give home buyers a break during this dreadful, catastrophic time, where we need to muster all the hope we can.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 27, 2018 2:52 pm

And, as Tom in Florida noted, if we are all going to die, who is going to foreclose? Maybe a better idea is just stop paying it and enjoy the free ride to doom.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 27, 2018 5:23 pm

But the reality is that you have hit the nail directly on the head as to why the government is claiming Apophis will miss the Earth in 2036 when they know there is a good change it will hit.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 27, 2018 2:58 pm

Robert Kernodle

It’ll be a cold day in hell before the lenders freeze their rates at 0%.

Reply to  HotScot
June 27, 2018 5:26 pm

Yes, you’re right, and this would be done to celebrate the coming ice age that causes warmistas’ heads to explode. (^_^)

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 1:32 am

Yes Robert ! NOT WHILE I HAVE CAVES and CLUBS to sell THEY WON’T !!
Get your Cave now……there is NO ICE to build IGLOOS……….or even IG’s
( an IG is one without a toilet ! )
And YES …American Beer is like making love in a canoe !!

kent beuchert
June 27, 2018 2:04 pm

Where are the specifics? WHY are humans going to become extinct?

Reply to  kent beuchert
June 27, 2018 2:08 pm

Do you really want to live in a world without ice for your bourbon?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  JohnWho
June 27, 2018 2:21 pm

Hancock drank his whiskey straight out of the bottle, no ice needed. But then he was an a destructive individual wasn’t he.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 28, 2018 1:35 am

John Who :
We’ll all just use “DRY-ICE” which will be in abundance….apparently !
Either that…..or get on YOUR TARDIS….and go and get some !!

Reply to  kent beuchert
June 27, 2018 8:28 pm

Simple – We will be too busy with all that beautiful warm sunny weather to bother procreating. That’s something you do on those freezing long winter nights when there is no other entertainment.

June 27, 2018 2:06 pm

My version of the spiral graph provides more context…

comment image

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 27, 2018 2:25 pm


Seriously good.

I just discovered that Loch Lomond was populated 7,000 years ago. It seems it was much warmer then.

The Vikings invaded Scotland (well, arguably, some say it was mostly peaceful) and that’s something, considering we kicked out the English and the Romans.

The Vikings also occupies parts of Greenland I believe, when it was warmer. So I guess warm isn’t bad.

Onward, to Valhalla!

Flake news
Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 12:30 am

The English left in search of vegetables, the Romans were eaten by midges.

Reply to  Flake news
June 28, 2018 3:25 am

Flake news

No shortage of vegetables in Scotland, they’re called the SNP.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 12:52 am

“I just discovered that Loch Lomond was populated 7,000 years ago. It seems it was much warmer then.”
May well have been. It was called the Holocene Optimum. …. Because of greater solar energy incoming northern climes, due favourable orbital mechanics.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 28, 2018 12:56 am

From Eric’s link ….
“On a 10,000 year timescale the spiral graph does emphasise how cold modern temperatures are, compared to the rest of the Holocene – at least with regard to temperatures on the Greenland Ice Sheet.”

Again very probably … for the above reason.
Cant control how the the Earth orbits however.

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2018 2:02 pm

Mead and roasted porc! (How’s that for political uncorectedness….)

June 27, 2018 2:07 pm

Anderson is correct, all of the world needs to take extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years or all humanity will be wiped out (become extinct). Of course, if we do or don’t transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years or all humanity will be wiped out eventually anyways sometime in the next few million years or so.


Reply to  MJPenny
June 28, 2018 1:47 am

M J Penny :
Question 1 : Surely NOT “The Miss MoneyPenny” of James Bond fame !!??
Question 2 : Why have you not decimalised ? ………It makes “cents” !!??
Question 3 : Why not use the English word “from”
instead of the ugly grunt “off of” !!
( which is OK if you are PREVENTING making love in a canoe on the water !! )
Question 4 : Or do you just love the “f” words ??? (e.g.” off of fossil fuels ).

June 27, 2018 2:10 pm

I guess the guy who said he was time traveller was lying then?

Must be even worse than we thought.

Or we do fix the climate by 2023

Reply to  Jones
June 27, 2018 2:59 pm

Maybe the time travellers rescue their ancestors by transporting them forward in time until after the Earth’s climate has settled…

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 27, 2018 3:12 pm


According to our betters, the greens, the planet is hell bent on self destruction. So transportation to the future would achieve nothing.

There will be too much atmospheric CO2 which will ruin the planet, not that it did before, it’s heating effect will ruin the planet, not that it did before, and life itself will die off, not that it did before.

Oh! OK, I take your point.

Richard Wakefield
June 27, 2018 2:11 pm

End of the world cultism at its worst. I wonder, is Anderson completely off fossil fuels now?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Richard Wakefield
June 27, 2018 2:28 pm

He’s off his rocker. Does that count?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Richard Wakefield
June 27, 2018 3:04 pm

He’s off or on something.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 27, 2018 9:39 pm

Off the boring pills, on the fun ones.

Jimmy Haigh
June 27, 2018 2:13 pm

What a pile of shite!

Joe Civis
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
June 27, 2018 2:33 pm

when shoveling BS it is important to shovel it high and shovel it fast!!! 🙂

June 27, 2018 2:18 pm

warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole.
This is the most silly claim, especially when considering the evidence….about and in regard of “no ice on either pole”…completely silly, as far as I can tell.


June 27, 2018 2:25 pm

“climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole. ”

Sigh. He can’t even get the simplest things right. 33 million years ago was Early Oligocene, not the Eocene and the Earth was in the grip of the first major glaciation (Oi-1) which covered almost the entire Antarctic continent. As a matter of fact there was more ice there than there is now.

Not that the Eocene was ice-free at both (or either) poles either. There were tidewater glaciers both in East Greenland and East Antarctica.

However it definitely was a lot warmer in the Eocene than now. And life flourished on Earth like it has never done since.

I agree with one thing though, humans will go extinct someday. All species do.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  tty
June 27, 2018 2:41 pm

Well, the plot thickens, too.

The text of the article with ‘Author’ Scott Alden, is remarkably similar to one published in Forbes the month before, by Jeff McMahon, a ‘contributor’ to Forbes. He works at the U of Chicago, and is also involved in the podcasts of the ‘Energy Policy Institute of Chicago’.

The link to Jeff’s article is at, the following link, for comparison.

Coeur de Lion
June 27, 2018 2:43 pm

Anyone remember On The Beach – Gregs Peck Ava Gardner? Tragic and touching. End of the world. Greg looked at the sky, shut down the conning tower hatch and took his boat below crushing depth.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 27, 2018 7:17 pm

Ah yes, that was when we weer all gonna die from nuclear radiation.

Dontcha miss those cold war times?

When all we had to fear was Russians – and fear itself?

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 28, 2018 6:46 am

Hi Coeur,

Indeed, one of the great movies, albeit a bit morose.

Not to nit-pick with you (I had it on VHS for a long time, and watched it about once a year, along with “Dr. Strangelove”), but the book and the movie differed very slightly in their ending: viz

In the book, the crew elected to ‘end it all’ there in Australia, scuttling the sub off the coast;

In the movie, the crew voted to head back to a U.S. port, and spend the few days before radiation poisoning would cause them to succumb, on their ‘home’ turf. Ava is standing on the shore, as the sub sails out towards open waters; presumably, after that, she goes and gets her dose of the pill that causes, ” … euphoria, then … … … nothing … … “.

What was always most interesting to me is that the sub used in the portrayal of the “nuclear-powered” sub was actually a diesel-electric (watch the opening scene, where the sub is heading into the Australian port — — behind it you can easily see the faint smoke trail of the diesels as it comes towards the camera).

And, while we’re on the subject, I bet everyone has noticed this little tid-bit on Dr. Strangelove:

The “bomber” (a B-52D or E, I believe) is blue-screened against a background, supposedly showing it flying at very low-level (“tree-top”), but if you look at the background, you can see the shadow of the classic outline of a B-17 that actually did the filming of the “low-level” flying sequences. Even as a kid, in the ’60’s, I noticed these things; at the time, they made me laugh, and today they are even more hilarious.

And, yes, I have actually experienced a low-level overflight by a -52. Back in the days of the OB missions (originally called “Oil Burners”, then morphed into “Olive Branch”), I was directly under a -52 when it came over on a practice/training mission, at “sage-brush” level. This was near Bill, Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin. Yes, the hot exhaust gasses of the engines could be felt (lasted barely a second). If you ever want to be totally impressed with the U.S. military, get a -52 to fly over you. It is an awesome experience, and one I’ll never forget (unlike making love in a canoe … … … )


Reply to  The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
June 28, 2018 8:15 am

I went to an air show at the old Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth back in 1981. B-52’s were still based there at the time. While the Thunderbirds were between shows, they did an in-flight refueling demo with a KC-130 hooking up to a B-52 in low level flight across the runway. After the planes flew out of sight, the KC-130 came back, made a tight turn over the runway and demonstrated a short landing… like they might have done at Khe Sanh in 1968. A couple of minutes later, there was this loud roar as the B-52 came back and performed a somewhat similar maneuver. The turn wasn’t nearly as tight as the KC-130, but watching a plane that huge maneuver like that was really awesome.

John Cherry
Reply to  The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
June 28, 2018 10:46 am

Don’t forget the book “On the beach” was written by Nevil Shute, otherwise Nevil Shute Norway, who was Barnes Wallis’s assistant on the design team of the R101 airship (the private enterprise competitor to the R100 which tragically crashed at Beauvais). He was a fine novelist, very knowledgeable about aviation, and his book “No Highway” was based on the then-new phenomenon of metal fatigue.
As to the end of permanent ice in the Arctic, that seems to me to be a rather odd way of putting it. Does Anderson mean an ice-free summer Arctic? If so, we’ve been here before with Hansen. Anyway, 2022, or rather 2023, isn’t so far off, so there is a fair chance I shall be around to see this one proved wrong, although I suppose Ken Rice will be popping up to say he didn’t really mean it…..

Reply to  John Cherry
June 30, 2018 1:02 am

It was actually R101 that was the guv’mint airship that crashed at Beauvais. The R100 was a much superior design, but was scrapped after R101 crashed.

Gary Pearse
June 27, 2018 2:52 pm

Impossible to initiate, plan and complete a project 1% this size in ten yrs. And guess what the main factor is to do this particular one in 10 times this amount of time. Energy for production of steel aluminum, glass… and fabrication and installation at ~25 kWh/kg and at present only coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas and petroleum could do the job. Were talking 100s of billions of tons of fossil fuels burnt to achieve it.

These energy installations alone take more than 5 years per to build and the mines more than 5 yrs to build and the ore more than 5 yrs to mine it. Then the nanufacturing plants for renewables more than 5 years to build and the manufacture more than 5yrs to fabricate and installation multi decades.

For an engineer, this is the most profoundly stewpid proposal I have ever read. Climate Scientists not only have to upgrade their statistics skills a couple of hundred percent (or, horrors consult a real statistician). They need to also reinstitute courses in logic at a very basic level (actually anyone needing this upgrade should consider a non- scientific pursuit) and they should consult an engineer on whats possible in their speculations (although a middle range highschool kid could have advised our Dr Anderson to throw in the towel and let the planet go if all we got is 5 yrs!)

Bruce Cobb
June 27, 2018 2:53 pm

The question is a) what meds has he been on, and has apparently stopped taking, and 2) should the doseage be increased?

John Bell
June 27, 2018 2:53 pm

I bet he drives a car, and flies, and heats, and cools, and consumes, and is a hypocrite.

June 27, 2018 2:59 pm

Any of you ecowackadoodles care to make a bet as to whether homosapiens will still be here in 2023?

June 27, 2018 3:03 pm

He is kind of right. About 150,000 humans go extinct every day, so in 2023 it is expected that around 55 million humans will go extinct.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Javier
June 28, 2018 5:57 am

The truth is that nobody gets out alive.

Scott Manhart
June 27, 2018 3:03 pm

Wow…… how underwhelming

Tom Abbott
June 27, 2018 3:20 pm

I would bet the farm that Professor Anderson is wrong. 🙂

June 27, 2018 3:30 pm

The more the alarmists wail into the wind – the better it is.

Overall ozone has not depleted to any great extent. Sure it has seasonal variations since the start of the satellite era. Seasonal Ozone dilution is a key metric in measuring the transition from cool into warm periods and vice versa.

Last year on this site I forecast after extensive research and throwing the CFC out the window (forecast – not guessed, and I cant find that forecast, still looking) that 2017 would be very similar to 2012, it was just below and the second lowest on record. The first and only prediction since the so called ozone hole was identified, and it was correct. My forecast for global ACE was also close to the mark.

Lets have some fun. This year if El Nino conditions stay away and similar conditions prevail, the ozone hole will be in the same vicinity as last year. Lets say some where around 2012 to 2017.

Global ACE will be about the historical mean with an East Pacific bias rather than Atlantic.

Normally the forecast would be made in the first week of July, and I reserve the right to fine tune at that point. By all means make your own forecast.
With regards

Reply to  Ozonebust
June 27, 2018 3:32 pm

PS, I will make the Arctic sea ice extent forecast in the first week of July.
They are all connected.

Alan Tomalty
June 27, 2018 3:39 pm

“James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University”

Can anybody explain to me what the difference is between Atmospheric Physics and Atmospheric Chemistry ? It seems that Anderson has swallowed some hallucinogenic drug that he concocted in his lab. He should stick to Atmospheric Physics. Atmospheric Chemistry is too dangerous for him.

Robert B
June 27, 2018 3:40 pm

Not seen in 12 million years? What was the proxy? What were the error bars? Twice the size of the plot? Did they hide the incline?

June 27, 2018 3:44 pm

This section was enough for me as I was LAUGHING hard!

“In a recent speech at the University of Chicago, James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University — warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole.”

Polar ice began growing 34 million years ago…….

Formation Of Ice Sheets 34 Million Years Ago Changed Ocean Acidity

June 27, 2018 3:59 pm

Hmmm…. Anderson’s “Arctic sea ice disappearing by 2022″… I’ll take that bet.

Then there’s Anderson’s “Climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.” Guess we’re doomed, as — unless our alien overlords assume planetary control over Earth — there’s no way on God’s green Earth that fossil fuel use is going to stop, or even reduce from current levels, within five years… or fifty years… or perhaps 150 years.

Zero fossil fuel use by 2023?… I’ll take that bet, too.

June 27, 2018 4:00 pm

Cue trolls to once again proclaim that nobody is predicting catastrophe.

June 27, 2018 4:01 pm

“at the University of Chicago, James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University — warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch”

Yeah, lets not just ignore this.

Reply to  zazove
June 27, 2018 4:48 pm

The ignoramus doesn’t even know when the Eocene was.

Reply to  zazove
June 27, 2018 5:08 pm

Why not ignore it? There isn’t a shred of evidence to support the notion that CO2 is even a problem, much less one that is going to kill all of us.

Reply to  zazove
June 28, 2018 5:27 am

Ignore it? I’m laughing my fracking ass off at it!

In a recent speech at the University of Chicago, James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University — warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole.

comment image

comment image

We aren’t even pushing Earth back to the Pliocene Epoch…

comment image

June 27, 2018 6:04 pm

What Anderson means by a WWII-type Marshall plan is that the USA must cough up a whole lot of money. If the ozone levels are depleted to the what he claims wouldn’t life on earth already be dying at unimaginable rates?

John F. Hultquist
June 27, 2018 7:54 pm

James was born in 1944, same as me.
James was from Spokane WA. I now live in WA State.
James and I have both made stupid statements in our lives.
I quit that when I turned 14.

Roger Knights
June 27, 2018 8:06 pm

If he’s so concerned, why isn’t he (I assume) advocating nuclear power?

June 27, 2018 8:17 pm

How many idiots will be incited to violence by this nonsense?

Gerald Machnee
June 27, 2018 8:36 pm


Pop Piasa
June 27, 2018 9:23 pm

This story reminds me of one of my earlier verses:

Coming Out on Climate

Authority figures, foretelling
Hot doom (and our “myths” dispelling),
Cast great dispersions
On skeptical versions
(Which keep carbon credits from selling)!

Now, shriller and louder they’re yelling,
To drown out the doubters’ rebelling!
New taxes are “just”
When you’ve gained public trust,
So “the questioners” (quickly) they’re quelling.

I’ve arrived at this realization;
Our industrial civilization
Can only be sin
If the ‘green’ Marxists win-
On their platform of demonization!

Reply to  Pop Piasa
June 28, 2018 2:00 am

Pop Piasa : RE LINE 3 :
Cast great dispersions
would read better as “Cast great aspersions”
to my mind ! Regards , Trevor.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Trevor
June 28, 2018 11:11 am

Thanks Trevor! I must have had an eggcorn brainfart again. (at least I didn’t say “cornegg” this time)
This is a wonderful learning place indeed for old dogs to learn new tricks.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
June 28, 2018 12:59 pm

Okay, line three is now
“Cast foul aspersions”
(with credit to Trevor) Good editors are rare these days.

Brian R
June 27, 2018 9:42 pm

James Anderson is in his mid-70’s. Me thinks he’s just looking for “one last hurrah”.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Brian R
June 28, 2018 12:41 pm

Or some sizable supplemental income…
Plus, he’s old enough he won’t be around to face ridicule when proven wrong.

Paul Barrett
June 27, 2018 10:55 pm

It’s amazing to me that this is coming to the fore on a day when the inestimable father of climate alarmism James Hansen actually said in a Boston Globe OpEd that: “The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries. Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.” Shocking I know but true!

June 27, 2018 11:11 pm

So this guy discovered a lack of ozone in the stratosphere above the Antarctic, hasn’t predicted anything accurately in his life but that somehow means his “assessment of humanity’s timeline for action is likely accurate”.

June 27, 2018 11:46 pm

We have a natural experiment here, and it will be instructive to observe the results. What Anderson is reported as saying is that

Instead, Anderson is calling for a Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years.

If you take this seriously, this means among other things China going from 10 billion plus tons a year, and more than half the world’s coal, to zero, and no coal. Or only coal if the CO2 is captured. By 2023.

Obviously this is not going to happen. But the interesting natural experiment is whether any of the activists who pick up this story stay with the ‘all of the world’ element. Will they advocate China going from 10 billion to zero by 2023?

My prediction is that the story will be picked up, and that local activists will use it only to justify unilateral action by their own countries, US, the UK and Australia.

China and the developing world will vanish from view. Anyone suggesting that the diagnosis requires China to go to zero will be met with a chorus of abuse and denial.

And so a prediction that if the world does not go to zero emissions by 2023 humanity will go extinct will metamorphose into a demand by US activists that the US unilaterally go to zero emissions by that date, that is, eliminating its 5 billion tons a year, while the rest of the world carries on emitting and growing their 32 billion tons.

Watch for it, because it will happen, as it has in the past. This is part of the recent history of climate activism. The advocacy of local expensive measures which fail to address an allegedly global problem, and the refusal to advocate the global measures which are required by what the activists claim to believe.

And then ask why, if they were really concerned about global climate, and believed Anderson’s predictions, anyone would behave like this. Hint: maybe its not global emissions they are trying to change.

Alan Tomalty
June 28, 2018 1:12 am

I started to read the IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report of 2015. They have a diagram pg. 48 of Contributions to observed surface temperature changes over period 1951 to 2010. The observed warming according to the IPCC has been 0.64 C or about 1.1 C per century . In the graph they give range estimates of all the different factors that could have caused this based on degrees C. Of the non human causes they give two. 1) Natural forcings and 2) Natural internal variability However they give each one of those two factors exactly the same range of -0.1 to +0.1 C. This shows me that they did not do any science What they did was calculate the pause rate of warming from 1998 to 2012 as 0.15C and prorated the pause length of 15 years to the total period of 60 years and observed that without the natural causes of pause the rate of warming would have been 0 .15C. Since it showed 0.05 C according to their combined sea and temperature data; so that the difference is 0.1 which is what they say the natural forcing is. They don’t even bother to combine the two natural causes into 1 temperature range unlike what they did for the different AGW forcings.

Another gem in the report is on age 73. I quote

“Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios
except RCP2.6. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant
at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation
of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions (see Section 2.2.5 for the relationship
between CO2 emissions and global temperature change.). A large
fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions
is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial timescale,….”

Did they have a time machine to find this out? Oh I forgot the computer model says so. The IPCC is a junk body practicing junk science with junk scientists.

June 28, 2018 1:17 am

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” — George Orwell
Harvard students brainwashed/educated by delusional intellectuals. Heaven help them!

Alan Tomalty
June 28, 2018 1:28 am

Since Feynman died in February 1988, the world has been at the mercy of junk scientists like this guy. Witness the 2 big scams of the UN 1) Ozone hole scam 2) Global warming scam. I listed them in chronological order.

June 28, 2018 3:13 am

“Anderson’s assessment of humanity’s timeline for action is likely accurate, given that his diagnosis and discovery of Antarctica’s ozone holes ”

Hahahahahahahaha! How ridiculous! Just because he discovered a hole in the ozone layer doesn’t mean he can predict the inability of man to adapt to a degree or two of warming, especially given the fact man inhabits environments encompassing +50C to -50C.

June 28, 2018 4:31 am

Well if humans are going to be going extinct by 2023, I fail to see why anybody should bother giving Proffessor Anderson any more funding, particularly if his proposals for further funding extend beyond say 2020.

The waste of money and wealth in providing any further finance to Anderson seems completely unjustified if we will all be extinct by 2023.
So save the bother and the money by defunding him as he himself is claiming , he along with the rest of us won’t be around at all after 2023 to take advantage of any future funding .

Of course his findings are also irrelevant as there won’t be anybody around to read and study them. Although why anybody would bother to even give a quick glance at his claim is open to question.

old construction worker
June 28, 2018 5:42 am

“James Anderson — a professor of… “? I wonder what he was saying when back in the 70’s about the pending “Ice Age”? Maybe he is not old enough to remember.

Steve O
June 28, 2018 6:59 am

What a relief! We’ve been given another five year extension! Oh, this is wonderful news. It’s almost as surprising as the last five year extension. And the one before that. And the one before that…

June 28, 2018 7:31 am

Why even give light and oxygen to Alarmageddon crap like this?

June 28, 2018 7:41 am

Kicking climate straw dog again. Anderson’s obvious target is the Marshall Plan itself, and any new manifestations very likely to appear. Smearing this with green slime is the oligarchy’s game.

Right now we need a Marshall Plan for Africa – urgent development of the Chad region. The EU is smearing this right now with greenie “small is beautifull” concentration camps , sorry sustainable detention centers.

China’s BRI is a super-Marshall Plan , busy in Africa, Central America, everyone invited onboard. Trump likes big ideas, and with Putin, Xi Jinping could very easily spread massive development.

Trumps US infrastructure was blocked not by Obama’s greenie holdovers, but Wall Street.

Enter the green slimeball again. Ozone, CO2, plastic, whatever, only to grab the future and attempt to bury it.
The sheer hysteria of 5 years shows the desperation – they are loosing the plot.

Mickey Reno
June 28, 2018 7:44 am

Sigh, a planetary savior’s job is never done. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. First, the ozone hole, now CO2 emissions. He takes credit for former, only to be slammed to the turf by the latter. It’s like a horse that wins the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, only to lose by a nose in the Belmont Stakes. I mean, 2/3rds of a Triple Crown is damn good, but no one remembers them because they didn’t win the biggest enchilada- oh, sorry trigger warning, cultural appropriation of a Mexican food euphemism.

June 28, 2018 8:13 am

Another communist 5-year plan?

Their predictions are becoming annoying!

June 28, 2018 8:53 am

I love how the guy blames only American companies at the end and not the actual largest contributors in China and India. Also why do the comments on the article buy this shit up? Are people really that depressed?

June 28, 2018 10:28 am

We gladly accept cash, check, or bitcoin for all your indulgence payments.

Joel Snider
June 28, 2018 1:11 pm

Near as I can tell human extinction is what they’ve been shooting for. Or at least 95%. Leaving only the elites and a few serfs to serve them.

Derek Colman
June 28, 2018 4:38 pm

Isn’t it marvelous how scientists like to propose physically impossible solutions to their imaginary problems. Just exactly how can 80% of the world’s energy usage be replaced by carbon free sources in 5 years?

June 28, 2018 4:58 pm

“Full story here if you want to bother with it.”

Umm…No thanks!!

June 29, 2018 9:32 am

Let’s see… Pre-humans evolved before the last glacial maximum and the resulting Homo sapiens (that’s us) evolved during the last glacial maximum reaching over a million of us bipedal animals that stopped dragging our knuckles on the ground. Yet, by the end of the last glacial maximum we were reduced to around half a million because the majority of other plants and animals were dying off from the lack of carbon dioxide to feed the flora that the fauna eats. Along came the solar maximum cycles to start melting the ice that had covered nearly half of the northern hemisphere’s land mass. A large amount of the carbon dioxide was sequestered in the ice and cold water covering nearly half of the earth – only around the equator was warm during summers and where most of the flora and fauna had survived – started slowly being released back into the warming climate. For the past 10,000 plus years the Earth had been recovering from mass extinction and the exponential increase of flora and fauna due to this Global Warming is because the sequestered carbon dioxide is still recovering too. The carbon dioxide is only a third of what flora needs to flourish and 57 (+/- percentage points) degrees Fahrenheit is still cold for most life forms. it has been those few global cooling spells like the little Ice Age that have prevented Earth from recovering faster. And because there is still Polar Ice… we are still living in the Last Ice Age. So people like those hacks that use scare tactics of the evils of carbon dioxide, global warming and climate change are ignorant idiots.

Reply to  JOHN S CHISM
June 30, 2018 1:09 am

The “mass extinction” (actually only megafauna and species directly dependent on the megafauna) was mostly due to human hunting, not climate.

D Cage
July 5, 2018 4:45 am

We had a hundred months to fix CO2 emissions or we were doomed. We did not do so and are still here. If a supplier fails to provide a working product and in this context the scientists are a supplier of a danger warning, there is no reason we should be expected to take any notice of any further output and certainly not to base any of our actions on the supplier’s information.

July 5, 2018 3:33 pm

Academics at it again!
They forgot to mention the drastic “bushfire” effect that puts huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, certainly a lot more than what is otherwise man made.
Perhaps time to stop all bushfires and burn offs!
Yes there are some changes taking place and no doubt would be as the normal course of events.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights