Have we reached peak alarmism on climate change?

The question occurs after the muted reaction last week to the latest forecast from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In case you hadn’t heard we’re all doomed, yet the world mostly yawned. This is less complacency than creeping scientific and political realism.

The U.N. panel says the apocalypse is nigh—literally. According to its calculations, global carbon emissions must fall 45% by 2030—twice as much as its earlier forecasts—and the world must wean itself entirely off fossil fuels over three decades to prevent a climate catastrophe that will include underwater coastlines and widespread drought and disease.

These reductions are “possible within the laws of chemistry and physics,” said the report’s co-author Jim Skea, and that’s a relief. But he added: “Doing so would require unprecedented changes,” and the report said some methods “are at different stages of development and some are more conceptual than others, as they have not been tested at scale.”


Also not tested over time are the panel’s climate models, which are sensitive to forecasts of population growth, ocean currents and radiative forcing, among myriad scientific variables that are not well understood. The IPCC’s forecasts keep changing because climate models are still in an early stage of development.

Amid the Paris climate conclave of 2015 the IPCC predicted that two degrees of warming over pre-industrial levels would prevent Armageddon. Now after further study the IPCC has lowered its safety line to 1.5 degrees.

According to the IPCC, two degrees of warming would destroy all coral reefs while a 1.5 degree temperature increase would wipe out around 90%. About 80 million people could be affected by rising sea levels if temperatures rise by two degrees versus 70 million with 1.5 degrees of warming. Some 350 million city dwellers could experience a water shortage if temperatures increase by 1.5 degrees and 411 million if they rise by two.

In other words, humanity is doomed under the IPCC’s models no matter what we do. Nonetheless, the IPCC is urging immediate, drastic and large-scale economic changes that would affect everything from the kinds of cars people drive to foods they eat. Millions of acres of farmland would have to be converted into forests or plastered over with solar panels.

Some $2.4 trillion in annual investment in climate mitigation and adaptation—about 2.5% of world GDP—would also be needed over the next two decades. Yet as economist Bjorn Lomborg noted in these pages last week, the IPCC estimated a few years ago that unmitigated global warming in 60 years would cost between 0.2% and 2% annually of world GDP. So we’re supposed to spend more as a share of GDP now than the problem will cost in 60 years when the world would have far more resources to cope with it?

Perhaps the sheer implausibility of these remedies helps to explain why the reaction to the U.N. report was so muted. Why turn the entire global economic system upside down if we’re all doomed anyway?

The IPCC also recommends a carbon tax to spur more investment in renewables and embryonic and expensive technologies to capture carbon from the atmosphere. On cue, Exxon Mobil last week pledged $1 million as political penance to promote a carbon tax, which the company knows would be passed onto consumers.

A carbon tax is in theory the best way to combat the climate externalities of fossil fuels. And we might support a carbon levy if it were offset by the elimination of other taxes—such as the income tax. But the left wants a carbon tax in addition to all current taxes to control more of the private economy.

This explains the frequent political backlash to carbon taxes where they’ve been tried. After Australia’s Labor Party implemented a $23 per ton carbon tax in 2012, conservatives rode to power on a campaign of repeal as electricity and gasoline prices soared. Canadian provincial governments including Alberta’s New Democratic Party Premier Rachel Notley are protesting Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax proposal.

Not that these carbon taxes would make an iota of a difference according to the IPCC’s models. Most carbon taxes are around $20 per ton. Yet the panel estimates a global carbon price of between $135 to $5,500 per ton—which would increase the cost of gas by between $1.20 to $49 per gallon—would be required to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Europe is also proving the limits of its carbon sacrifices, as renewables fail to meet expectations and even the green believers in Germany increase their use of coal.

Full story here

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
M Courtney
October 17, 2018 1:13 pm

The fact is that the stock markets did not move. Nor did Government bonds.

If anyone believed that the dangers were real in that timescale they would have collapsed.
If anyone believed that the Governments were going to regulate in case the dangers were real they would have collapsed.

The fact is that everyone knows this is all a bit silly now. But no-one wants to be shot down as the first to say so.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 17, 2018 1:33 pm

M Courtney

There are lots of ambitious young politicians looking for a campaign platform.

It only takes one to light the fire and I suspect Trump has encouraged them all to work an angle on the politics of the failure of climate fear.

Mind you, this blog is littered with the imminent demise of climate fear.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 17, 2018 8:19 pm

Great point.
The dogs ain’t barking.
There is no climate wolf at the gate.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  M Courtney
October 17, 2018 9:54 pm

I’m reminded of the collapse of the South Sea Bubble. Almost overnight, the largest Ponzi scheme in the world collapsed. The cause? The instigator, John Blunt, out of money from earlier deals, offered a stock dividend of 30% annually. Instead of causing a stock buying push like he hoped, the result was that people realized that this was too big to be true and started offloading their stock. As South Sea had no income aside from additional stock sales, everything quickly fell apart.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
October 17, 2018 11:26 pm

Interesting, didn’t know that but you are right, this is exactly like the lack of confidence in CAGW today. It is dead. All that remains is to laugh at those still clinging to the corpse.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
October 18, 2018 5:15 am

The Tulip Bubble! Tulips were worth a fortune! Ever hear of “The Black Tulip”? People invested everything in tulips, and then one day, the entire thing collapsed.
Bubble economics…. the housing bubble, 2004-2008.

Reply to  Sara
October 18, 2018 6:24 am

And now the mother of all bubbles, corporate debt after QE. Anything could burst this, why Trump scolds the FED. Glass-Steagall is back on the agenda – let private firms blow bubbles BUT no bailout!

George Lawson
Reply to  M Courtney
October 18, 2018 1:10 am

“Everyone knows this is a bit silly now” Except the silly BBC who gave the ridiculous report across the TV and radio network as if the end of the world was imminent. Their science reporters will look back with embarrassment in a few years time and ask themselves ‘how did we get sucked into this global warming stupidity’.

Andy in Epsom
Reply to  George Lawson
October 18, 2018 4:52 am

The BBC reporters won’t give a damn in a few years time as they will have moved onto the next scare story.
Salmonella from Eggs
BSC (mad cow disease)
4 flu epidemics to end the world.
They also have a field day about the potential spread of the African diseases that someone might occasionally bring back to the UK.

They will run any story to keep the people scared and malleable for the government.

Reply to  Andy in Epsom
October 18, 2018 5:20 am

It’s entirely possible that the BBC, like the Guardian, simply won’t be in existence by the time their predictions are finally falsified (again).

Reply to  Graemethecat
October 18, 2018 9:05 am

I really hope you are right.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 18, 2018 3:20 am

The fact is that the stock markets did not move.

Stock markets react on new information. Not on something that’s just some old stuff reiterated. IPCC wasn’t actually saying much new; just putting together rather an alarmistic report with no much surprise.

M Courtney
Reply to  Hugs
October 18, 2018 4:52 am

Hugs, You mean the markets had already realised that Governments weren’t going to take this report seriously?
Good point.
But, as others point out, many in the media haven’t worked it out yet.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 18, 2018 8:25 am

That’s how I read it. The climate risk / subsidy is already baked in stock valuations.

Reply to  Hugs
October 18, 2018 1:59 pm
Steve O
Reply to  M Courtney
October 18, 2018 4:41 am

I should start an investment fund to buy land in the Canadian tundra, and maybe in the Northern Ukraine.

October 17, 2018 1:16 pm

Al Gore was buying lunch that day.

October 17, 2018 1:17 pm

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change? Yes.

Catastrophic Climate Change? Probably. Nature operates with extraordinarily limited variance, on average, over observable periods.

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  n.n
October 18, 2018 12:09 pm

‘variance, on average’. What on Earth are you talking about?

October 17, 2018 1:18 pm

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

The more the evidence contradicts them the more desperate the believers become to convince others.

Reply to  BillP
October 17, 2018 2:12 pm

From the wiki article:

The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual’s commitment to the belief.

Based on that, I know no CAGW true believers. In fact, I have done much more than any of my friends and family to conserve energy. I’m not alone, I know of several skeptics who have taken significant energy conservation efforts. The alarmists don’t seem to be technical enough to be comfortable with saving energy.

Those pushing CAGW mostly don’t believe their own propaganda. They’re just using it as a false flag and convenient excuse to further a political agenda.

Reply to  commieBob
October 17, 2018 7:19 pm

In Australia, if you own a roof you are financially disadvantaged if you do not have solar panels on it. Most people just do it because it makes economic sense at household level given the generous transfer payments from the disadvantaged. Some who could do it do not because they see that it has adverse economic impact nation wide with particular strain on the poor. Others know it has adverse impact on the national economy and particularly on the disadvantaged but rationalise it through their belief in the church of Global Warming.

I suspect the latter group is not particularly large. Out of the 1.5m households in Australia with solar panels only 28,000 could be mustered to sign a petition in support of the RET in 2014.

In Victoria, as the State election approaches, there are well funded advertising campaigns to take up a State subsidised loan for solar panels that the incumbent government is using to bribe households. This free loan, combined with the federal RET scheme, covers 60% of the capital cost. Payback for a system will be around 4 years. People take up this offer because it makes good economic sense to their household. They are not members of the GW church and few have any idea how intermittent power generation annihilates the economics of a power grid designed for coal fired generators.

Javert Chip
Reply to  RickWill
October 17, 2018 8:07 pm


Here in FL, USA, I got 90% subsidy ($32,800) and a 1.5 year pay-back of the unsubsidized cost ($3,200) for an 11 kilo-Wattt system.

Reply to  Javert Chip
October 18, 2018 1:56 am

Be interesting to see how the ‘trade war’ plays out on this stuff.

Reply to  Javert Chip
October 18, 2018 7:15 am

And insurance companies are basically not covering the rooftop solar systems, as I understand it.

Reply to  RickWill
October 18, 2018 5:09 am

Add to that many folks have observed that every big storm produces power outages from failure of the grid. They know the sun only shines during the day. They know wind mills can’t produce power when there’s no wind. They know what a car battery costs. They know a deep discharge battery for the trolling motor on the boat costs twice as much.

So it doesn’t take much thinking to realize that nobody knows how to build a power grid that will give power on demand using intermittent power.

Javert Chip
Reply to  RickWill
October 18, 2018 5:21 pm

My FL insurance co (Tower Hill) insures the rooftop solar PV…

Reply to  commieBob
October 18, 2018 12:47 am

Based on that, I know no CAGW true believers.

Yes. Based on that, I also know no CAGW true believer governments.

Classic sign of a moral panic. Something is proclaimed as true, any contradictions are furiously attacked, and then

(a) no-one does or even advocates doing what the theory supposedly requires
(b) what is advocated most strenuously would have no effect, under the theory, on the problem.

The great thing about the recent IPCC paper is that it comes clean. It actually quite correctly specifies what the world will have to do, if the theory is correct. The thing that is clear as a result is that no governments and no policy advocates actually believe in the theory or have any intention of doing it. Or even thinking about doing it.

One classic sign of this: even the fanatics at Ars Technica are not covering page after page of comments with, lets get on with it then and tax carbon somewhere in the mid-range of the IPCC estimates, and have China and India do it too, and save civilization. No, its all Trump denunciation and Paris membership and China is leading the world. But no calls for quadrupling the price of gas or heating oil.

Nor is the BBC devoting any time to the IPCC prescriptions. Only to the alarm.

Nor are the fanatics in the Guardian columns and comments spending any time on realistically implementing the IPCC proposed taxes. No, the Guardian’s reaction is, like everyone else, lets all get good and scared and demonstrate against fracking in Lancashire! What about raising the tax on gasoline? Well, what about it?

Stop Lancashire fracking, that will save the planet? No, but it will make us feel good. And its a great organizing issue.

Reply to  michel
October 18, 2018 4:33 am

Sadly I think you are wrong.
The climatocracy is seeking to use their alarmist claptrap to induce blind fear.
In blind fear (they hope) that the gullible will accept their anti-scientific climate “cures”.

Steve O
Reply to  commieBob
October 18, 2018 4:35 am

I believe you are exactly right on the mark.

Calls for wind and solar power are not logical if CO2 emissions are an immediate threat because adopting those technologies results in an immediate and substantial increase in CO2 emissions, and then a slight decline over the long term.

It’s all window dressing for the proposed wealth transfers.

Bruce Cobb
October 17, 2018 1:21 pm

The end (of Climate Kookalooism) truly is nigh. The Climate Ruse has run its course, and is in its death throes, though the holdouts will put up a brave front, fighting to the last. Perhaps Katowice will be their Waterloo.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 17, 2018 2:24 pm

Well, the US Govt is still handing out tens of $Billions annually to Universities for “Climate Related” research (like how AGW negatively affects the libido of Spotted Thrushes). Republican Reps like being able to siphon off $$ into their districts, so that Avenue for defunding is out (now that its ongoing).

Universities take about 40% of these “research” funds off the top. So, the fix is in “in perpetuity” unless we can get about 200 more non-Deep State House Representatives specifically to cut off the funding.

97% of our Universities are culturally way left of center, so they will press on with this fraud gleefully until the $$ is cut off.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 17, 2018 5:04 pm

Do the true believers expect Katowice to result in: 1) The West will agree to give more money, or 2) Third World countries will agree to CO2 reductions?

Do pigs fly? [NB: IPCC has been putting lipstick on such (CAGW) pigs.]

October 17, 2018 1:23 pm

Judging by the reaction here in the UK; the BBC is peddling the latest IPCC report on TV, radio and online as though it were the most important thing on earth, whilst the rest of the MSM are devoting the front pages to the announcement of Prince Harry and Megan’s pregnancy announcement.

It may not seem like much, but when the red tops get fed up flogging a dead horse, the BBC eventually follows and, lagging behind like a two legged horse, comes the Guardian, eventually.

The British public are wise to the fact that global disasters are only in their living rooms because communications technology is so good compared to 50 years ago. They are also media savvy now, unlike in the past, and realise that what the camera see’s is not usually what’s happening, because drama makes a story.

Hopefully the IPCC has finally shot itself in both feet with its, frankly, utterly ridiculous predictions/demands/expectations/emotional blackmail.

I suspect most of the fence sitters haven’t moved relative to climate change, they know it’s happening, as do we. The difference is they aren’t interested in the official party line of climate catastrophe any longer.

We are now nearly two full generations into the AGW scam and we have our second generation of adults having experienced no perceptible change in the climate despite the hysteria. The third generation, the early millennials (snowflakes) are now beginning to see no meaningful change and in ten years they will be scoffing at the party line as well.

I don’t imagine this is the last roll of the IPCC dice but I can’t imagine them coming up with anything more than more scare tactics. They have painted themselves into a corner because they can’t back down.

Beginning of the end?

Reply to  HotScot
October 17, 2018 1:35 pm

let’s hope HotScot. They have a lot of money riding on this ruse.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Derg
October 18, 2018 9:12 am

The Alarmists do have a lot of money riding on CAGW. Something like $330 billion per year expended on windmills and solar and universities, is what I read the other day. That’s a lot of momentum, and a lot of incentive to keep the scare going..

Reply to  HotScot
October 17, 2018 2:26 pm

I think the latest doubling down counts as jumping the shark.

Jumping the shark is crossing the point at which something that was once popular no longer warrants the attention it previously received, particularly when attempts at publicity only serve to highlight its irrelevance. link

It’s pure desperation.

October 17, 2018 1:27 pm

Well, the AMO, solar cycle, and PDO say yes. The Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctica will weigh in shortly.

October 17, 2018 1:33 pm

Have we reached peak alarmism on climate change?

It is possible, but its going to be a fine thing.

The argument for it being peak alarmism is that the leaderships’ warnings get more and more extreme and the actions demanded get correspondingly more extreme. And this has two consequences, one that its clearly politically impossible in the West to get what is demanded through any legislature.

But two, that even if you did, it would not be enough, so the alarmists can no longer continue the pretence that China can carry on growing and the West cut back, and everything will be fine.

They have now reached the point in their demands that they have to demand that China cut back as well. They are not going to do that, and China is not going to do it anyway.

This is the contradiction which you might think will sink them. They have lost any rationally justifiable policies that they will be prepared to advocate and that will meet the problem they claim to believe in. And their claims have gone way beyond anything they themselves likely believe.

This, you might think, is the definition of an unsustainable ideology and movement.

The counterargument however is rather darker and less optimistic. It would be that they are positively pleased by the impossibility of their demands, and the fact that implementing them is impossible. They are pleased by the fact that they are too contradictory to command the assent of the political class.

Because they never believed in the catastrophe theory in the first place, they just wanted something to organize around. They never wanted to see the remedies tried, because they know they are ineffective remedies for an imaginary problem. So much the better, then, because this means that the issue can be kept alive for another 10-20 years, complaints, accusations, prophecies of disaster, all excellent for organising around.

If this is right, the fury will carry on, the measures proposed will be more and more draconian, the complaints will be more and more personal and accusatory.

It is possible however they are losing control of the movement to the grass roots.

As the prophecies fail, you usually see more and more cognitive dissonance. Belief will be strengthened by the failure, not weakened. Read When Prophecy Fails for an insight into the likely course of events. What will happen is that the leadership will back off, sensing the coming disaster of failing prophecies, only to be replaced by more and more ultra elements from the movements’ grass roots, who will prophesy bigger and better disasters happening sooner and sooner. Because they, to the leaders’ dismay, do actually believe it all.

Maybe that is where we are now. The leadership may have gone too far, got itself a grass roots of true believers, and is being driven willy nilly into more and more extreme demands for actions they do not in the least want to see met? Riding the tiger.

I don’t know. it seems ridiculously conspiratorial. I think on balance it probably is peak alarm. But there can be an awful lot of violent thrashing around before this becomes clear and the thing dies. Something this big will not die without quite alarming death throes. Hold on then, we might still yet see a terror phase to it. Just because its peak does not mean it will have a calm and graceful decline.

Reply to  michel
October 18, 2018 3:21 am

I’m not quite so cynical as to believe the “deceiving political actors” scenario. I think the (scientific) deception was started by a few such as Mann and Hansen and Gore who had a theory to promote, and then went out looking for evidence to confirm this. Other scientists followed and the public uncritically went along.

Recent special on eugenics on US PBS; same thing happened then.

Honestly, I hear a lot of people talk the talk but few walk the walk. My guess is that intuitively a lot of people know this is crap, even if their rational brain has them convinced otherwise. Our climate is just doing what it has always done.

October 17, 2018 1:45 pm

The IPCC has ‘jumped the shark’ with this latest report. Their doom-saying rhetoric has gotten so over the top, their recklessness is even becoming apparent to those who might support them for political reasons alone.

Alan Tomalty
October 17, 2018 1:45 pm

In Canada the top 620 emitters only put out 37% of the CO and GHG emissions. If they all pay the tax the same out of CO2 gets put into the air and if they all switch to a non carbon fuel source like hydro electricity, the resultant lowering of world temperature in a 100 years will be 0.0003375 of a degree C. Does anybody have a thermometer that can measure that? I checked with an industrial supplier of highly accurate thermometers and they said the best accuracy they sell is 0.05 degrees C. All the highly accurate thermometers used in government astrophysical labs are specially made. So since global temperatures are measured with commercially based thermometers, the IPCC cant measure Canada’s contribution to the reduction in global temperature.
I checked Roy Spencer’s UAH site. One major criticism is that UAH never seem to give their error/uncertainty range with each anomaly. I did find one mention of uncertainty being + – 0.04 which is not much better than commercial industrial thermometers. So I repeat; Canada is attempting to lower the world’s temperature by 0.000375 of a degree and nobody is measuring with that accuracy. Absolute madness.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 17, 2018 1:46 pm

Should be CO2 instead of CO.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 17, 2018 1:53 pm

…and that assumes the plankton are ambivalent.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 17, 2018 5:14 pm

But Canada’s demise will be a “good” example for the rest of the world in cutting CO2 emissions.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 17, 2018 10:14 pm

Here is a video that touches on the moral superiority that Canada will be able to hold over others as its demise proceeds. But many will be happy anyway… cannabis became legal today.

Jacob Frank
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
October 19, 2018 5:45 am

I can assure you smoking pot isn’t a liberal hippie C02 hysteria causing habit. Please put this meme back in your sock drawer.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 18, 2018 5:46 pm

I’m thinking we go to millennial snowflakes with the following two choices:

Option A) World continues to spend $750B-1T/year saving the world from CO2;


Option B: World lowers college tuition by $750B-$1T/year so snowflakes can eat pizza, drink beer, puke, and get degrees in digital basket weaving.

I have no doubt which option our little snowflakes will pick.

October 17, 2018 1:50 pm

Actually, the central committee of the greens are still in agreement with the party leaderships to continue on no matter what evidence turns up. The beauty of climate change is that the real story does not come into focus to call their bluff, at least not in a career context or budget plan.

October 17, 2018 1:50 pm

The cost estimates are insanely stupid, in my view. You are looking at removing carbon based electricity and
replacing gas and diesel powered vehicles by electric. The latter will happen without any need to spend any govt money. The former requires, by my estimate, no more than roughly $3 trillion to build molten salt nuclear reactors to replace fossil fueled power generators, which have the added advantage of being able to load follow, or act as peak power generator.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  kent beuchert
October 18, 2018 7:57 am

How many molten salt nuclear plants are in existence, functional, and economically self-sustaining?
Until that number is more than zero, no long term plan should include them. We have let the greens dictate our plan with feel-good plans based on science fiction for too long.

Ronald Chappell
Reply to  Ben of Houston
October 19, 2018 7:38 am

China has set about settling the LSR development question and should have the rudiments of a prototype in 2020 time frame. In the next decade the rest of us can set about buying our reactors from them.

October 17, 2018 1:51 pm

people have developed a tolerance to ‘alarming’ but scienticks are working hard to develop phobias that are hyper-alarming.

it will take a lot of testing and there will be failures
one example is the testing of ’10 gang rape parties’ and ‘raped a 4 yr old child’ that were tested when a 30 yr old suppressed memory failed to induce panic.

but the money is there for the research and the best minds are on it. we may see a cure for joie de vivre in our lifetimes.

Alan Tomalty
October 17, 2018 1:58 pm

Anthony Watts said

“Canadian provincial governments including Alberta’s New Democratic Party Premier Rachel Notley are protesting Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax proposal.”


The NDP implemented a cap and trade system which they still have. What Notley said was that because Trudeau couldnt get the pipeline through BC built; Alberta would not participate in Trudeau’s eventual $50 /ton carbon tax on CO2 equivalent emissions. Alberta is still gouging the industry with the cap and trade system. Notley approves of Trudeau’s carbon tax but she was trying to use a bargaining chip for the pipeline. So Trudeau bought the old pipeline for 4 billion and is now figuring out how to build a new one but private industry doesnt want to touch it anymore. So Notley is left holding the bag with no way of getting the extra oilsands oil to the west coast.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 17, 2018 10:11 pm

In Alberta, a carbon (dioxide) tax is applied to large emitters like fossil-fueled generators at source. It is also applied to the fuel we put in our vehicles and the natural gas with which we heat our homes. All of which will reduce the world’s temperature by an immeasurably small amount (as noted by others above). It is not a cap-and-trade system.

Reply to  Randy Stubbings
October 18, 2018 4:40 am

Not is it rational.
It is merely theft dressed up as virtue.

Reply to  Randy Stubbings
October 18, 2018 7:20 am

This is the pot-o-gold revenue source that drives U.S. policy proponents in NY and CA. A new revenue source however nonsensical in basis is like an untapped gold mine of massive proportions for use as political power base. It just requires a lot of script repetition and occasional attack on science process and common sense. In other words the cost is not that high to maintain the drum beat. But adding such a tax on top of recently raised gas taxes in some states will not go well even with well rehearsed speeches for explanation.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 18, 2018 11:43 am

Is rescinding the new gasoline tax still on the CA ballot? What a hit to politicians if they lose that money!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 19, 2018 4:43 am

“Is rescinding the new gasoline tax still on the CA ballot?”

Yes, it is. 🙂

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 19, 2018 11:03 am

As CA voters come to believe that they can remove the various and sundry taxes imposed willy-nilly on them by their far-left masters, the faster CA will implode.

CD in Wisconsin
October 17, 2018 2:07 pm

Isn’t it interesting that the UN’s IPCC and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, seem to have at least one thing in common: They both believe we are all doomed if we do not change our ways. They believe it (or at least are trying to sell us the belief) for different reasons of course. But hey, prophesy is prophesy.

I have done some reading on doomsday cults, and some of them (as we have seen) set doomsday dates for the fulfillment of prophesy. Some end up checking out from life (Jonestown, Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate). The setting of doomsday dates goes back to the Millerite Movement back in the 19th century. Sad to see people sucking it up every time it is done.

Seeing the IPCC setting a doomsday date would be funny if it weren’t for the deadly history of some cults.

October 17, 2018 2:07 pm

With SR15, the IPCC has truly become “Incompetent Political CarCasses”

James Beaver
October 17, 2018 2:21 pm

One of Aesop’s fables is the story of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf”.
The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking wolves are attacking his flock. When a wolf actually does appear and the boy again calls for help, the villagers believe that it is another false alarm and the sheep are eaten by the wolf. In later English-language poetic versions of the fable, the wolf also eats the boy. “this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them”


The IPCC and the warmunists are in the position of the boy: even if they start telling the truth, no one will believe them anymore.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  James Beaver
October 17, 2018 8:49 pm

It is an unforgiveable sin that I can never trust government agencies again especially when it comes to climate matters. I grew up trusting in my government but I have sadly learned that evil individuals who are in power in some of these agencies can lead us all astray. How will government ever get back the trust of the people? I am not a Trump supporter but Trump never spoke a truer sentence than when he said THE SWAMP MUST BE DRAINED.

Reply to  James Beaver
October 18, 2018 4:47 am

Please show widely published articles pointing out the irony of an allegedly science based UN commission becoming an anti-scientific alarmist hype machine.
Show the world leaders lined up rejecting the report.
Show the comedians making fun of the alarmist hype.

Johne Morton
October 17, 2018 2:23 pm

The claim that even a 1.5°C temperature increase will kill off most of the corals leads to so many questions, such as what did they do when alligators lurked in what is now Alaska. Listening to the warmists, you could get the impression that we have a mass extinction every few hundred years or so.

October 17, 2018 2:25 pm

It appears (according to Google’s number of hits) awareness of climate change appears to be high, the anthropogenic factor is well down, while catastrophe and armageddon are long,long way behind.
“climate” 468,000,000
“climate change” 134,000,000 
“anthropogenic climate change” 521,000
“climate change catastrophe” 81,000
“climate centre armageddon” 7,950
Doom-sayers need to get of their backsides and put lot more effort, else in no time its going to be too late, no one will listen.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 17, 2018 2:33 pm

typo “climate change armageddon” 7,950

October 17, 2018 2:37 pm

Seems like many people, particularly alarmists, think that the “2 degrees” and “1.5 degrees” thresholds
are measured from NOW, and not pre-industrial times.
So the IPCC is predicting “almost armageddon” from a little over half-a-degree increase from now?

Reply to  Tony Price
October 18, 2018 12:29 am

That’s my take that it is measured from pre-industrial…but who knows what the accurate global temps were pre-industrial? And when did the industrial era actually begin. And most of that warming happened between 1850 and 1950 anyway, long before the ‘carbon’ ruled the forcing of the temperatures doctrine.
What amazes me is that two people with identical educations and upbringing, status etc, one will be a skeptic, and another a true believer. Truly a religion now…and a sick one at that comparable to a doomsday cult.

October 17, 2018 2:46 pm

I expect the alarmism well continue to escalate to the point of hysteria, but the impact will continue to decline. The world eventually tires of the Chicken Littles and looks the other way, and eventually they go quiet and we all pretend it didnt happen. At least this has been the trajectory for the end of oil, the 70s ice age, global famine etc.

The purveyors of these fantasies retained credibility, I hope the same is not the case for the climate alarmists. The opportunity costs of their scam have been too great.

Gerard O’Dowd
Reply to  yarpos
October 17, 2018 7:22 pm

I think CACC hysteria will continue as long as George Soros and Tom Steyer and other Progressive billionaires remain alive and their fortunes stay intact, West Coast Liberal politicians think they have an issue to raise campaign money from the Liberal billionaire donor class, until alumni of Penn State and Stanford demand the resignations of Michael Mann and Paul Erlich et al for past scientific fraud or ignominious predictive failure, and as long as taxpayers fail to ask their representatives “Is CO2 a pollutant?” And be able to explain to them why it is not. Or until “What is the financial return on tax dollars spent on academic climate research?” is asked; And the answer is 0.00. It will continue as long as environmental lobbyists in Washington,DC make campaign contributions to Democrats and Warmulistas write the next EPA regulation for their Blue State House or Senate Congressional Representatives and they hold onto their seats in sufficient number to contend for congressional control. As long as this political class remains in power the CACC hysteria will continue.

Coeur de Lion
October 17, 2018 2:57 pm

I think we should all have a go at ridiculing the Beeb. Use the complaints box and ask for a reply. You will only get boilerplate back, but it may hit home occasionally

October 17, 2018 3:00 pm

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

October 17, 2018 3:27 pm

Only by counter properganda will we see a end to the lies from the W armers lobby, but most politicians would rather sit on the fence than tell the truth.

The Media with its mostly built in left wing bias is no help, with the possible exception of the Murdock papers, and even they like scary stories.

Hopefully what we here in Australia say that it would not pass the Pub test, i.e. “”Common sense” may finally kill or at least mute this rubbish, but expect to hear again and again that the GBR is still in great danger.


Reply to  Michael
October 17, 2018 11:50 pm

The Great Barrier Reef has been on the verge of collapse for assorted reasons every few years for my entire adult life (usually aligned with elections or an alarmist event like an IPCC meeting). Thats 46 years and counting but people still seem to be enjoying it today.

I cant fathom how 1.5C (if it happens) would change much , given its less than a third of the temperature gradient the reef experiences along its north south axis.

Reply to  yarpos
October 18, 2018 2:11 pm

The Great Barrier Reef
has been pronounced
as “dying”
66 times during
the almost 65 years
I have been alive,
(apparently twice,
in one of the years)
and, amazingly,
the Reef is still here,
so scientists
can announce
it is dying again
in 2019,
and 2010,
and 2021 !

This is an annual event
in Australia, sort of
like the US’s Groundhog Day,
except without the groundhog,
— a national day of mourning,
in Australia a day “celebrated”
by drinking beer
and singing Waltzing Matilda,
in memory of the Reefs.

Just ask anyone from Australia
— I’m not making this up!

October 17, 2018 4:52 pm

Until the gravity model is replaced with the electric universe model, climate science will be stuck in the past.
“Sir Isaac Newton was an English mathematician and mathematician and physicist who lived from 1642-1727. The legend is that Newton discovered Gravity when he saw a falling apple while thinking about the forces of nature”
Step out of the dark and into ELECTROMAGNETISM

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  jmorpuss
October 17, 2018 9:31 pm

The Big Bang is a BUST
There is no cosmic background radiation. What the researchers thought they found was in reality IR from the world’s oceans.
There are no black holes
There is no dark energy
There is no dark matter.
Einstein was wrong. Space cannot be curved nor deformed because to curve or deform something; that something has to be either matter or energy. Space is neither. At most the near vacuum of space is composed of a ground level of energy of virtual particles which come in and out of existence in less than a pico second.
Therefore gravitational waves are impossible and the LIGO experiment was a fraud.

Until physics recognizes that nobody knows what gravity really is, then it can’t march forward.
Physics has gone down the same path as climate global warming theory with mathematics and models which are not based on reality. Mathematics can lead you down rabbit holes and computer models then take you into the world of Alice and Wonderland.

To top everything off the editor of Lancet said in 2015 that 50 % of all medical studies had false conclusions. A subsequent study found that 70% of all false conclusion studies were actually fraudulent false conclusion studies. At least if the patient dies, we have a clue that the diagnosis might have been wrong.

Also the engineering field is in much better shape. If a bridge or building falls down, that proves that the engineer got something wrong. Alas; not so in the social science, climate studies, and astrophysics fields. Unfortunately they are contaminating everything.


Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 18, 2018 3:34 am

The Big Bang is a BUST
There is no cosmic background radiation. What the researchers thought they found was in reality IR from the world’s oceans.

You really can’t make this BS up, can you?

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 18, 2018 4:52 am

Seek help.

Reply to  jmorpuss
October 18, 2018 3:35 am

I wonder was this electric universe stuff welcome here, mods?

Reply to  Hugs
October 18, 2018 6:10 am

…the IPCC claims there will be major collapses in vital environmental systems because of small changes in temperature.
That is an apocalyptic outcome.
It is so much fun when climate true believers run and hide from their own side’s reports.

Reply to  jmorpuss
October 18, 2018 7:04 am

Newton was not a scientist, rather the last Alchemist – see Biographer Keynes. Kepler discovered gravitation. Einstein showed the Kantian (Chacun à son Kant à soi) failure of Newton’s. Anyway spacetime will never be the same again. While electric univ. have a great plasma approach we are not going back to absolute space, sorry. Planck upended any such dreams.

October 17, 2018 8:22 pm

The ridiculous anti-scientific claims of the IPCC should be high lighted.
The claim that coral will die worldwide over a trivial temperature increase should be an easy place to start.
Whoever wrote that false claim should be publicly ridiculed.

October 17, 2018 9:49 pm

Science Corrupted And Manipulated (SCAM) aimed at Intentional Political Country Control (IPCC)

October 17, 2018 10:20 pm

“In other words, humanity is doomed under the IPCC’s models no matter what we do. ”
No where in the IPCC report did it say humanity is doomed. I’m wondering who the real fear mongers are here?

Reply to  Simon
October 18, 2018 4:57 am

…the IPCC claims there will be majir collapses in vital environmental systems because of small changes in temperature.
That is an apocalyptic outcome.
It is so much fun when climate true believers run and hide from their own side’s reports.

Reply to  hunter
October 18, 2018 11:14 am

I am unsure how you couldn’t understand the question but clearly your answer demonstrates you have no idea. Please tell me where the IPCC say “humanity is doomed.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  hunter
October 18, 2018 11:36 am

Media reporting is only the fear mongering part of the report; not the things the report proposes people do about it. That is designed such that reasonable people are not aware enough to shout “B.S.”

October 18, 2018 2:40 am

They little choice but to double-down in the hope they get something or at least keep the ‘party going ‘ as the alliterative is a a total bust .

October 18, 2018 4:42 am

Sadly as the reader said about bridges and buildings falling down, we will have to wait until the lights and the factories fail. No electrricity and civilisation as we know it will cease. Then we will have another lot of politicians offering to “Save Us”, if only we will just vote for them.

Perhaps it will take the military to take over for a while, to save us.


Reply to  Michael
October 18, 2018 6:24 am

That is an alternative that is no solution.
It may be the only thing worse than this emerging Platonic state of (allegedly) wise Kings.

October 18, 2018 6:56 am

Before the IPCC:
World Climate Programme – International Conference on the Assessment of the Role of Carbon Dioxide and of Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations and Associated Impacts, VILLACH, AUSTRIA, 9-15 OCTOBER 1985

“As a result of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century, a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history. The role of greenhouse gases other than CO2 in changing the climate is already about as important as that of CO2.

If present trends continue, the combined concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases would be radiatively equivalent to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels possibly as early as the 2030’s. The most advanced experiments with general circulation models of the climatic system show increases of the global mean equilibrium surface temperature for a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, or equivalent, of between 1.5 and 4.5°C.”

Move on to 1990:
“Targets and Indicators of Climatic Change” edited by F.R. Rijsberman and R.J. Swart
The Stockholm Environment Institute 1990

The executive summary for WG2 of that report was written by a couple of familiar IPCC names, Per Vellinga and a certain Peter Gleick, of Heartland documents fame.

“Principal Conclusions and Recommendations”

A maximum rate of rise of between 20 and 50 mm per decade.
A maximum sea-level rise of between 0.2 and 0.5m above the 1990 global mean sea level.
Limiting sea-level rise to a maximum of 0.5m would prevent the complete destruction of island nations, but would entail large increases in the societal and ecological damage caused by storms.

The “new” target of 1.5 degrees C is not new at all but is a fudge between the 2 degree meme and the desired 1 degree from this group.

A maximum rate of change in temperature of 0.1 °C per decade. The rate of temperature change target refers to realized warming.

Two absolute temperature targets for committed warming were identified. These limits entail different levels of risk:

(i) A maximum temperature increase of 1.0 °C above pre-industrial global mean temperature.
(ii) A maximum temperature increase of 2.0 °C above pre-industrial global mean temperature.

Temperature increases beyond 1.0 °C may elicit rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear
responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage. [Judith Curry says we have already passed 1.5 degrees]

An absolute temperature limit of 2.0 °C can be viewed as an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly.”

October 18, 2018 7:24 am

In the ridiculae section, the CBC is always one of the top contenders.
Their “journalists” claim independence but their editorial bias is obvious. Now, they have removed any doubt with this new initiative worthy of a Ignobel prize!

Anxious about the environment? Our new weekly newsletter is here to help
From devastating wildfires to massive storms, the extreme weather this year has been a reminder that climate change is already happening — and we think that’s worth talking about.

With that in mind, CBC News is launching a weekly environmental newsletter called What on Earth? — delivered to your inbox every Thursday afternoon.

Here’s what readers will get every week: A smart, snappy, constructive take on the state of the environment. We will highlight trends and solutions that are moving us to a more sustainable world, as well as what each of us can do, individually, to be more green. (…)

What on Earth? will draw on a variety of CBC journalists, including science reporters Emily Chung and Nicole Mortillaro.

There you have it… Two propagandists -hum, pardon me science reporters- at work and Canadian tax dollars being used for Big Green agitprop.
And in case you did not get the message…

The first issue will be published later today. In the meantime, here are some on-topic stories CBC has produced in the last year to get you in a green frame of mind:

The oceans contain metals that could save the planet, but there’s risk in getting them out
‘Embracing decay’: Why some people think it’s time to talk about recycling humans
Striking photos of eroding N.W.T. coast slowly sinking into the sea
Rethinking recycling – a special report

How about defunding the freaking CBC?

October 18, 2018 7:54 am

The Cult of Climstrology will never give up on its alarmism, because this has little to do with science and almost everything to do with politics. They have to scare people into giving up their liberty, their free choice, and their money.

When the climate flips into a cool period, the CoC will blame that on ‘climate change’, and will still be trying to scaremonger.

Bent Andersen
October 18, 2018 9:33 am

We haven’t, it would seem, i.e. “reached peak alarmism on climate change”. The proponents of Gorebal Warming now more than ever desperately needs to show that the looming decline of temperature anomalies will match a decline in CO2. They must do so in *very* few years. This of course is a battle that simply cannot be won, since it implies controlling the processes taking place in our Sun.

October 18, 2018 10:20 am

Peak? It depends on the ad budget.

Peter Plail
October 18, 2018 1:20 pm

Only snowflakes are melted by global warming.

October 18, 2018 5:38 pm

Yawn!! I feel really apathetic about the end of the world.. … oh,no!!! that makes me worse than a denier

%d bloggers like this: