Myles Allen: 1.5C Global Warming “will not feel like Armageddon”

Myles Allen
Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science, Oxford University

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate scientist Myles Allen is worried the 12 year time limit until the end of the world has been taken out of context.

Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric
April 19, 2019 12.06am AEST

Today’s teenagers are absolutely right to be up in arms about climate change, and right that they need powerful images to grab people’s attention. Yet some of the slogans being bandied around are genuinely frightening: a colleague recently told me of her 11-year-old coming home in tears after being told that, because of climate change, human civilisation might not survive for her to have children.

My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading.

But an additional quarter of a degree of warming, more-or-less what has happened since the 1990s, is not going to feel like Armageddon to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers (the striving taxpayers of 2030). And what will they think then?

So please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

So here is a conversation young activists could have with their parents: first work out what the parents’ CO₂ emissions were last year (there are various carbon calculators online – and the average is about seven tonnes of fossil CO₂ per person in Europe). Then multiply by £200 per tonne of CO₂, and suggest the parents pop that amount into a trust fund in case their kids have to clean up after them in the 2040s.

If the parents reply, “don’t worry, dear, that’s what we pay taxes for”, youngsters should ask them who they voted for in the last election and whether spending their taxes on solving climate change featured prominently in that party’s manifesto.

Read more:

I guess we should thank Myles Allen for providing such a simple solution. All parents have to do to calm the fears of climate obsessed children is work longer hours, so they can give their kids more money.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 20, 2019 10:06 am

Why is it always the two countries….that have done the most to reduce emissions….and the two countries that reducing their emissions would have the least effect….that have to pay?

There is never one word about this in China and India news……..

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Latitude
April 20, 2019 10:44 am

The Socialists started this Climate Crusade of course back in the late 1980’s, with the help of Dr. James Hansen and his realization that the 70’s Global Cooling scare was over, and natural warming phase of the 60-75 year cycle would run its course for the next ~30-35 years.

And then as the the first two IPCC AR’s came out in the first half of the 90’s, no one still foresaw the rapid rise of China’s industrialization and resulting CO2 emissions. And now India is getting in on the fossil fuel party and playing catch-up to China. We can expect India’s path to followed China’s with about a 20-30 year lag behind China in terms of emissions.

China’s and India’s rise and CO2 emissions were of course the Black Swan event that no one before ~1995 could see coming.

So what to do if you are a Western Marxist-Socialist using climate alarmism for your totalitarian purposes?
1) You keep a cooperative media ignoring China’s emissions as best as you can.
2) When you occasionally have to admit to the impossibility of Western Democracies attempts to limit CO2’s emissions as having meaningless effect, with China’s emissions now much larger and will continue to outgrow Western emissions faster than they can cut them, you point to how wonderful the Capitalist-Communist hybrid model of China and how they can command their economy in a top-down fashion.
China is ruled by a Central Committee with a singular figure head. The Great Wall of China now more frequently refers to the internet censorship they impose to enforce suppression of dissent than that big wall of rocks. Chinese capitalist billionaires and multi-millionaires are allowed to rise becasue such greed-driven business organization brings efficiencies and rapid improvements to people’s lives that no central bureaucracy can deliver. Entrepreneurs like Jack Ma are okay as long as they remain loyal to the Party. But make one wrong move though, and you’ll find your company stripped of it assets, your accounts frozen, and you’ll disappear.

Russia’s Putin essentially runs this way too, although Russia’s economy is oil and gas driven. Billionaire Petro-oligarchs in Russia are okay, as long as they remain steadfastly subservient to the Putin and his cronies. Russia today is run like a huge organized crime enterprise with a mix of modern capitalism, not really much different than 100 years ago in Russia under the Czar.

Of course, Chinese hybrid communism is exactly the model the Western Socialist want for the US and Europe. The Leftists in the US admire it. A central authoritarian control and massive bureaucracy, with allowance for entrepreneurial development through elites allowed to own vast sums in order to maintain an efficiency in management and development.

The bottom line, is none of this Climate Change scam is or ever has been about about Climate. It has always been about control by a few over the many. The Western Socialists now just have to try and manage to the awkward position that unforeseen China’s rise has now presented.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 10:52 am


Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 10:52 am

2 errata:
1. “meaningful effect”, not “meaningless effect”
2. I meant “Putin’s Russia” of course.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 11:09 am

Don’t forget all the other countries which are already or will become significant contributors. No one outside of Europe, the US and a couple of others are stupid enough to pointlessly limit economic growth.

It’s full steam ahead!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Adam
April 20, 2019 12:52 pm

This is all being enabled by fossil fuel, mainly oil and gas, and its continuing affordability as a energy source for the masses. India is of course ramping up coal, but the West Socialists thought they could control smaller countries “going coal” by not letting them get the financing they need to build coal plants and the infrastructure to import coal. China to some extent is stepping in with its BRI lending (that’s another long story).

What was supposed to stop the Party from going “full steam ahead” was Peak Oil, and it widely held projection to hit the world sometime just after the start of the Millennium. Oil by bbl was supposed to far above $250 USD (in Y2K dollars) by 2020. That was to be the economic factor to stop the oil party from starting in those developing countries.

So the other Black Swan the Climate Socialists didn’t foresee in the mid-1990’s (no one saw it coming until about 2007, around AR4) was the technological revolution related to extracting what they thought was economically unrecoverable tight oil and tight gas. The thin layers of shale around the world that contained many times the easy oil and gas (that Dave Middleton has frequently documented over the years here at WUWT) was supposedly going to remain out of reach. The 3-way convergence/mash-up of 3D seismic imaging technology, horizontal drilling technology, and fracturing technology of course has now pushed Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas to some time post-2030, or 2040 maybe.
For natural gas, there may never be a Peak Gas if pipelines and transport infrastructure can be built to preclude wasteful flaring and transportation to markets (via LNG), and used in a ground transportation role as CNG fuel.

So that is two Black Swans no one saw coming: 1) the rise of China’s emissions which will continue to accelerate for at least another 10 years to 2030, and 2) the Shale-Frac’ing revolution to keep oil and natural gas in play as affordable energy sources for at least several more decades to 2040.

Is there a Third Black Swan coming to thwart the Global Socialists?

– Maybe nuclear power revolution via small modular nuclear reactors could be a Black Swan?
— the only big problem with nuclear is that the US’s high-level radioactive waste disposal is still a massive political problem (not a technical one).
— So I think that one is not likely to happen, as unlike shale-fracking revolution, the Leftists can and will continue to fight tooth and nail nuclear waste disposal. Not because it is a complex problem, but EXACTLY becasue it would enable a zero-emissions nuclear power revolution. Remember, Paul Ehrlich called giving the world cheap affordable nuclear power like giving a monkey a machine gun.

But by definition, a Black Swan is the Unforeseen event that is usually only recognized after it has washed over us and we are dealing with it’s consequences.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 21, 2019 8:19 am

Is there a Third Black Swan coming to thwart the Global Socialists?

– Maybe nuclear power revolution via small modular nuclear reactors could be a Black Swan?

It would sure be great for America’s socio-economic development, like so:

There is this:

Over 140 ships are powered by more than 180 small nuclear reactors and more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operation has been accumulated. Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers.
Read more here

And this:

Current U.S. naval reactors are all pressurized water reactors Reactor sizes range up to ~500 MWt (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships. The French Rubis-class submarines have a 48 MW reactor that needs no refueling for 30 years.
Read more here

And then this:

One megawatt (MW) is roughly enough electricity for the instantaneous demand of 750 to 1,000 homes.

And a typical coal plant is about 600 MW in size, whereas a typical naval reactor is 500 MW in size, ……. and either one is capable of providing roughly enough electricity for the instantaneous demand of 375000 to 500,000 homes.

So, do you want a 40/50 acre sized dirty, noisy, particulate spewing, CO2 emitting coal or natural gas fired generator somewhere within 50/100 miles of “your backyard”, ……. or would you prefer a ½ acre sized clean, quiet, H20 vapor spewing nuclear generator somewhere within 50/100 miles of “your backyard”?

john mcguire
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 24, 2019 6:06 am

great summary

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 1:24 pm


You make •THE• key point here beautifully.

Because of the certain levels of CO2 emissions in Asia, all the Western emissions reduction efforts are futile (within the UN Framework) Anyone can see this by doing some simple back of the envelope 4th grade math. Emissions going forward will continue to rise regardless of how much emissions are reduced in the West.

It is then very enlightening to note that the NeoMarxist Alarmists continue to proclaim that the world will be saved if only we all become indentured slaves to their cause…switching to renewables and forking over ~$50Trillion to the UN for redistribution. This, even as emissions continue to rise rather than fall to 1950 levels.

This proves THAT IT AIN’T ABOUT THE FRIGGIN CLIMATE. If they were really “Climate Believers” they would by fomenting a crusade to force China, India, and Southeast Asia into compliance. If the world is really doomed….we must get Asia to comply. • Instead, there is silence….you all should just ignore that ugly black swan•

If more proof is needed that IT AIN’T ABOUT CLIMATE…the NeoMarxists are strongly against Gen 4 Nuclear. The only way to meet global emissions targets (short of total world economic collapse) is Nuclear Energy (and we’d have to give ~5000 of Gen 4 plants to Asia and Africa to even accomplish that !!). They DON’T WANT A TECHNICAL SOLUTION. That would ruin their real plans. The NeoMarxist plan IS the political and economic subjugation of the USA and the EU….it’s got nothing to do with climate. Their behaviors prove it.

It is a brilliant political plan that might still work if we all ignore the increasing emissions from the black swans of Asian hyperdevelopment.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 22, 2019 3:07 am

Wasn’t centrally controlled “Capitalist-Communist” politics once called “Fascism”?

Joseph Campbell
Reply to  Russ Wood
April 22, 2019 7:45 am

Mr. Wood: EXCELLENT observation! Thanks…

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 22, 2019 6:09 am

That’s exactly right, Joel. I have always seen alarmist rhetoric on this subject (and, for Myles Allen’s benefit, certain politicians who will not be named here are the ones who are saying “we’ve got 12 years or we are gonna die,” and they are usually talking about the IPCC as an authority on their point) as nothing but a blow to seize power and control from the rest of us.

Reply to  Latitude
April 20, 2019 11:02 am

The Climate Changers are all part of a HUGE cult! That’s all it is! They have changed their crises standards over the past few decades, but it’s always the same result: the END OF THE WORLD! So far, NONE of their fear tactics has come to fruition! A half a degree is insignificant in the over all scheme of things. The Earth, in recent times, has been a LOT warmer than it is now, and it will ‘normally’ become a lot warmer in the future, humanity notwithstanding. We will likely see a new Ice Age before the ‘warming’ has much effect! That will likely begin sometime in the next few thousand years! What they are calling climate change is nothing more than weather!

Reply to  IAMPCBOB
April 20, 2019 11:20 am

And the best part of this newest religious cult (CAGW), is that adherents can pay INDULGENCES to be absolved of their sins against the climate.
(and just like in times of yore in the religion capers, it’s the high priests who get to be the material beneficiaries of the moolah paid as indulgences. The more things change . . . )

Reply to  IAMPCBOB
April 20, 2019 2:47 pm

Re: CAGW as a Religion.

Do not underestimate the CAGW leadership. The leaders are way more dangerous than a bunch of CAGW cultists. The leaders are high level insider politicians and government agency executives and ultra-wealthy postmodern NeoMarxist individuals and leaders in Media, Academia, Science, and Business.

These leaders have their eyes wide open and know exactly what they are doing. They are not CAGW believers (quick proof: because of Chins and India, global CO2 emissions will never fall below UN targets and the CAGW leaders don’t care about that — they didn’t see Asian hyper economic growth coming…but they see it now and still don’t care). CC/CAGW is just a plan to acquire more power. It’s a good plan.

You will easily observe if you are paying any attention that the Fake Media, Academia, Fake Science and Democrat politicians all speak with with a single voice about the Climate Crisis (using the same catch phrases…like “climate deniers”…JUST LIKE THEY ALL DID AND ARE STILL DOING WITH THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION FRAUD. (How many million times have you heard the same catch phrases…”Russian Collusion” and “Obstruction”. Every single day for two and a half years.

The “useful idiot” (their words not mine) climate cult pawns in the Climate Alarmism crowd are mostly just civilian Democrats and University students. They are cultish to be sure. And most of them are TRUE BELIEVERS in Climate Catastrophe. They do worship at the CAGW altar. But don’t worry too much about them. They were aready going to vote against American interests. We can’t change their minds…they’ve already sold out.

The political job at hand for real Americans is to get all real Americans out to vote…and also to get them to scoff at the useful idiots when they go on strike or lie down on railroad tracks…or whatever it is the useful idiots do.

We might not win this CC/CAGW battle. It is a very elegant political plan with most of the essential pieces already in place…from a century of petsistant political maneuvering. A century during which real Americans were busy building this great civilization. The civilization that the anti-American socialists aim to plunder.

Reply to  Latitude
April 20, 2019 11:30 am

I think it may have something to do with the difference in police tactics in China and India: mass demonstrations in those city centres don’t tend to turn out well.

Reply to  Susan
April 20, 2019 12:18 pm

Susan, I don’t know about India…but I have friends in China that tell me it is never in the news…no one talks about it ever….and they think it’s just a America/EU/West problem…and not their problem at all…
..and actually blame us for destroying their weather

Reply to  Latitude
April 21, 2019 5:13 am

All of the people in China, are part of the more than 2.5 billion people (1/3 of humans), that live at an average real absolute temperature of +15.0 degrees Celsius, or lower.

The “average” human lives at an average real absolute temperature of +19.7 degrees Celsius.

So the Chinese are about 4.7 degrees Celsius BELOW the average human temperature.

1.0 or even 2.0 more degrees Celsius of global warming, is unlikely to worry the Chinese.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Latitude
April 20, 2019 4:35 pm

There will be NO effective action on “Climate”inspite of, and even because of the crescendo of hysteria. The naievity of the movement in announcing only 12 yrs left to solve the problem shows they have no idea of the magnitude, cost and planning horizon of much simpler, much smaller projects that don’t include yanking civilization and economies out from under our feet.

This hysteria and moving hell on earth closer, is a ‘tell’ that they are fighting off a niggling feeling that the game is over. They are terrified that there is a good chance it could become cooler over the coming decade or two and they want policy enacted so they can take credit for it. Its a race to get to the front of the parade. It won’t happen. The alternative is suffer it out to see if their careers and lives were totally wasted or not. The stress must be horrible.

I admit I was worried that Trump wouldnt make it and that, with the next minions of brainwashed children reaching voting age and tens of millions more illegal immigrants, the Republicans were done for good. But it was like magic. Trump simply pulled their plug out, revived the economy and manufacturing, created a record employment rate, made the US number one in energy all in a dozen months! That’s how a real new deal is made.

Without the US on board, the lights went out on the Eurocentric marxbrothers fantasy, and the EU itself is now disintegrating. The Man of Steal from Gotham saved the whole world.

Reply to  Latitude
April 20, 2019 7:31 pm

Because the UN is based in New York not Shanghai or Mombasa. The parasite must continually convince the host that the parasite has some value and needs to be fed and kept around, to save the world from nuclear war, climate-change and globular stinction.

Duck ‘n cover.

John Bell
April 20, 2019 10:11 am

They need to be taught that we already passed 2.0 C as someone (Willis?) noted recently. Things are going well, I like the greening, the grains (cereals) and all.

Reply to  John Bell
April 20, 2019 11:00 am

2 degree limits and all the rest, refer to long term climatic average, not how hot it was at lunch time last Tuesday !!

April 20, 2019 10:14 am

It will feel just great. In London yesterday and today temperature was nearly 10 degree C above seasonal average, and it felt just great, everyone was happy to enjoy great weather, even that hypocrite the old Emma Thompson appeared to enjoying herself despite not managing to get arrested.

John in Oz
Reply to  Vuk
April 20, 2019 3:37 pm

CAGW only causes BAD weather. When we are comfortable in whatever climate system we live in, this is GOOD weather and what we expect and deserve.

I make it a point to annoy all around me by saying ‘Thank (a) god for climate change’ whenever they say the weather is good.

Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 10:15 am

“If the parents reply, “don’t worry, dear, that’s what we pay taxes for”, youngsters should ask them who they voted for in the last election and whether spending their taxes on solving climate change featured prominently in that party’s manifesto.”

Ah, yes. Spending OPM, the Liberal way. When has more involvement in managing the affairs of peple ever worked out well? Unless they like the idea of government intruding on their lives and confiscating by force of the State most of their wages.

Those parents should be teaching their children the benefits of hard work and keeping most of what they make. That is what built the society in which they lounge in comfort after school playing video games. They’ll need jobs and careers, not feel good platitudes and manifestos of Marxist-Socialism.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 10:29 am

I think it’s a great idea for parents to calculate their tonnes of CO2, put X dollars per tonne in the bank, and then tell their children that the money is no longer available for cell phones, internet access, clothes, entertainment, travel, etc. Then they should go through their children’s belongings and confiscate everything made with or by fossil fuels. To follow that up, they should send the children out into their yards (or wherever there’s a patch of ground) to grow food so as to avoid having to consume food produced or transported with the use of fossil fuels. No doubt the children will be thrilled to give up social media for planting, weeding, harvesting, and preserving food. They will also be thrilled with having to walk to school instead of getting a ride or taking the bus, figuring out how to stay warm in the winter, weave their own naturally grown and harvested cotton into their own clothes, etc.

Reply to  JustTheFactsPlease
April 20, 2019 11:33 am

You are cruel.

You destroyed their activism in 30 seconds and actually made them learn an important lesson.

Janet L. Chennault
Reply to  JustTheFactsPlease
April 20, 2019 12:41 pm

Hugs reaction was mine as well, though I stopped at just the economic level: show the kids that by staying home from Space Camp, they were contributing that money towards the L200; the parents can go on vacation (which they have earned) and leave the kids behind – same rationale. Ask the kids what they, as individuals, think they (not someone else eg parents or society) should do and then help them implement that plan.

In jujitsu, this is called ‘helping your opponent’.


Reply to  Janet L. Chennault
April 20, 2019 8:15 pm

A child may even turn skeptical after a bit and verbally flay their teacher with first-hand tests, experience, observation, derived logical implication and errata remarks about the yawning-gulf between conceited bloviating ideological hypocrisy they were taught and a truth-as-lived version of civilization derived without the rose-colored blinkers.

J Mac
April 20, 2019 10:24 am

Climate Change Derangement Syndrome manifests itself in so very many ways, from the criminal actions of Extinction Rebellion terrorists to terrorized 11 year old girls crying because they were told they won’t be able to have children because of man made ‘Climate Change’.

The world has a severe environ-Mental problem…..

Reply to  J Mac
April 20, 2019 10:33 am

The women too scared of climate change to have children
Blythe Pepino and Alice Brown say they are so scared about the future of the planet they do not want to have children. They are part of a group called BirthStrike

Reply to  Vuk
April 20, 2019 11:11 am

Come back in 5 years, I guarantee both of them will have had a “happy accident”.

Reply to  Vuk
April 20, 2019 11:51 am

Dodo Dynasties. Still, it could be worse. At least their babies… fetuses are not “planned” (i.e. selected, cannibalized) with a summary judgment and sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment.

J Mac
Reply to  Vuk
April 20, 2019 12:24 pm

Perhaps these women aren’t really as afraid of ‘Climate Change’ as they are of familial commitments and responsibilities.

Reply to  J Mac
April 20, 2019 12:39 pm

Neither, I would think, they are either attention seeking or just plain stupid.

Michael Jankowski
April 20, 2019 10:29 am

“…a colleague recently told me of her 11-year-old coming home in tears after being told that, because of climate change, human civilisation might not survive for her to have children…”

Apparently that school hasn’t taught this 11-year-old anything on reproductive health, either.

April 20, 2019 10:38 am

“But an additional quarter of a degree of warming, more-or-less what has happened since the 1990s, is not going to feel like Armageddon to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers (the striving taxpayers of 2030). And what will they think then?” They won’t think, they’ll know they’ve been duped because fossil fuels aren’t going away. The scammers/alarmists are pushing the Armageddon narrative harder and harder because they know eventually the climate will start cooling and they want fossil fuel use to be on the decline so they can take credit for it. Unfortunately for them it will continue on the rise as population increases and more people are welcomed into the modern world. Wind and solar energy additions won’t come close to negating the rise in fossil fuel use, they know it, and they are panicking. Stay tuned for an alarmist turnabout to promote nuclear energy but it will be too little, too late, and too expensive for most countries to make a difference by mid century if even to the next century. Until we exhaust our resources fossil fuel use is here to stay and all the screaming and arm waving won’t change that fact.

Reply to  markl
April 20, 2019 12:52 pm

Yes, preemptive damage control for the coz when the predictions fail again.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  markl
April 21, 2019 9:29 am

to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers (the striving taxpayers of 2030). And what will they think then?” They won’t think, they’ll know they’ve been duped because fossil fuels aren’t going away.

But learning that they were “duped” on CAGW CC ….. won’t bother today’s striking teenagers one iota because they are used to being “duped” into believing supernatural and/or imaginary “thingys” at least 3 or 4 times before reaching teenage status. Such “thingys” as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and a Creator God.

So, learning that they have been “duped” by their mentors that they worshipped is not good enough reason to disband from their “group” of striking teenagers and go their separate ways alone. Camaraderie among teens is a “force” that is hard to reason with.

April 20, 2019 10:39 am

Two hundred pounds sterling per long ton of CO2.

The average American produces twenty long tons per person. link The parents would have to cough up around 10,000 USD … every year.

So darling, we can put a bunch of money in a climate change trust account, or we can send you to school. It’s your choice.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  commieBob
April 20, 2019 11:08 am

That money put into a Climate Trust Fund is money that would never been seen again by the “savers.”

Sort of like the US’s Social Security Trust Fund or California’s carbon trading revenue spent on a abandoned train line. It still exists out there somewhere on paper, but the money itself might as well have been thrown onto a burning fire pit. It’s gone.
It was all spent as fast as it came in by the politicians to buy political support.
And like any Pyramid Scheme, a Climate Savings Fund would need new money to keep arriving to replace it to give the illusion to the ignorant masses that its all still there, ready for them when they need it.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 11:50 am

It looks like the Social Security Trust fund has a solvency problem. link

It’s like an aircraft slowly losing altitude. The pilot is at the controls but it’s probably classified as an uncontrolled flight into terrain.

In Canada there is the socialist NDP which the other parties accuse of “tax and spend”. So far, that’s been mostly true. The problem is that the other parties often engage in “Don’t tax but spend anyway” policies. Surprise!

Money doesn’t grow on trees. If you’re going to have a social security program, you have to pay for it. The trouble is that the Democrat and Republican politicians who caused this train wreck will never be held to account.

Reply to  commieBob
April 20, 2019 11:56 am

Social Security, less progressive costs, has a fixed outlay, is slightly underfunded, has diverse but addressable waste, fraud, and abuse, and is therefore manageable. The problem is principally in the grossly underfunded Medicare, unfunded Medicaid (e.g. Obamacare), and progressive costs in the medical sector.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  commieBob
April 21, 2019 9:52 am

Don’t forget about the Indian Trust Fund that had been held (kinda permanently) “in trust” by the US federal government for the past 122 years, ….. since 1887.

Government Settles Indian Trust Fund Suit

Attorneys’ and administrative fees will be paid from the fund, and individual account holders can each expect to receive approximately $1,000 for leases that the plaintiffs and scholars have estimated were worth anywhere from $47 billion up to hundreds of billions of dollars. A full accounting of the amount owed was deemed impossible since Department of the Interior officials lost or destroyed many of the records.

Same as the Social Security Trust Fund, ……. the Indian Trust Fund monies have already been spent by our Politicians,

Larry in Texas
Reply to  commieBob
April 22, 2019 6:27 am

And, of course, how much is “20 long tons” in comparison to the rest of the atmosphere, by weight in tons? As I understand it, the atmosphere weighs about 7 SEPTILLION tons. That is a “7” with 15 zeros behind it. What percentage of the total atmosphere, just in sheer weight, does that 20-long tons emission comprise? It is .000000000000003%!! And of course, what is the current atmospheric measurement of CO2 and its relation to the gases composition of the total atmosphere? Is it 427 ppm (forgive me if I’m off a bit, but I don’t have the current numbers in front of me)? That is approximately 0.427% of the total atmosphere.

Explain it to your kids that way, and then they will begin to understand the perspective around what individual emissions actually mean in the overall scheme of things.

Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 10:57 am

Another question from a Yank:
Why do all the British elitist socialists come from Oxford, yet the honest seem to come from Cambridge?
Or more to the point:
Does one have to have card-carrying Socialist Party membership (Labour Party) to be affiliated with Oxford?

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 11:32 am

27 Prime Ministers were educated at the University of Oxford (including 13 at Christ Church, Oxford), and 14 at the University of Cambridge.
20/21 century PMs
Seven Oxford Tories :
Theresa May
David Cameron
Margaret Thatcher
Edward Heath
Alec Douglas-Home
Harold Macmillan
Anthony Eden

One Cambridge Tory:
Stanley Baldwin

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Vuk
April 20, 2019 1:00 pm

Maybe it’s a self-selecting population problem.
Conjecture could be: Cambridge men and women are smart enough to mostly avoid politics? Afterall Sir Isaac Newton was a Cambridge man.

son of mulder
Reply to  Vuk
April 20, 2019 1:54 pm

Our spies for the USSR go to Cambridge.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  son of mulder
April 21, 2019 9:44 am

Is that a reflection of the institution or of Russian insight into which institution gives the most Bang for the Ruble?
Were the spies already Commies coming into the institution?
– The Manchurian Candidate scenario.
Or were they turned to the Dark Side at Cambridge?
– The recruitment scenario.

son of mulder
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 21, 2019 2:50 pm
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 20, 2019 9:27 pm

Joel Cambridge produced most of the prominently spies for the Soviet Union in its heydays.

April 20, 2019 11:04 am

So here is a conversation young activists could have with their parents: first work out what the parents’ CO₂ emissions were last year (there are various carbon calculators online – and the average is about seven tonnes of fossil CO₂ per person in Europe). Then multiply by £200 per tonne of CO₂, and suggest the parents pop that amount into a trust fund in case their kids have to clean up after them in the 2040s.

To which the parents reply, fine. We’ve set up the trust but we are having to made some hard choices to find that money. You will have to buy your own iPhone now, and the Nikes are on hold, the games console … sorry.

You do understand dear, don’t you? It’s to save the planet.

April 20, 2019 11:11 am

Where does the “additional quarter of a degree of warming” come from? According to HadCRUT4, smoothed recent temperature with the El Nino spike excluded is about.9 degree C warmer than the 1850-1900 average.

Brian Johnson
April 20, 2019 11:23 am

When the Vikings colonised Greenland and grew barley it was warmer than present conditions.
Greenlanders can’t grow barley even now!

Climate Change/Disruption/Disaster/Whatever has as much reality as Witches did in Medieval times.

Eco warriors are thick as planks if they think Carbon Dioxide is a Poison or Pollutant. Carbon footprints are as relevant as Tulip Trading/Fools Gold/ Papal Indulgences…….

Mother Nature rules – as always.

Accurate data not computer jiggery pokery is what counts.

Reply to  Brian Johnson
April 20, 2019 11:58 am

BJ, You missed ‘climate weirding ‘
Thomas L. Friedman in The New York Times:
“Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird.”

D. Anderson
April 20, 2019 11:44 am

When I was their age we expected nucs to start falling any day. At least that was a rational fear.

Christopher Simpson
April 20, 2019 11:53 am

Most sinister in all this is the continuing and ever-growing message that the children need to be teaching their parents about life rather than the reverse. This is one of the most insidious themes running through our present age. I witnessed it firsthand while teaching college, where teachers often expressed the idea that we had more to learn from our students than they did from us, and it’s an essential element in virtually every message aimed at youth whether it be in the form of TV shows, movies, “educational” materials or any other form of propaganda.

It’s collaroy, of course, is that when adults disagree it’s because they are “afraid of change,” “not in touch,” “science deniers,” or (the most damning indictment of all) old white males (with the old white females unable to break away due to being in thrall to their old white males).

D. Anderson
Reply to  Christopher Simpson
April 20, 2019 12:12 pm

Teacher Who Learns More From Her Students Than She Teaches Them Fired

Christopher Simpson
Reply to  D. Anderson
April 20, 2019 12:42 pm

Oh, and how many times I was tempted to retort: “Then quite teaching you incompetent moron!”

HD Hoese
Reply to  Christopher Simpson
April 20, 2019 3:27 pm

It would have been child abuse to do anything like this during WWII, to which I can testify did not happen. This is from one their links–“And so on this occasion we adults ought to humbly realise that it is no longer for us to tell our children what to do. We ought rather to take up the role of supporting them in their uprising, asking how we can help them in their struggle for survival. They are inspiring us, now.”

Yes , you can learn from students, but this is mentally criminal.

John in Oz
Reply to  Christopher Simpson
April 20, 2019 3:43 pm

Pedant alert!!!!

It’s collaroy, of course,

Collaroy is a suburb in northern Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, Australia.

Corollary – a practical consequence that follows naturally

I am in agreeance with your other points.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Christopher Simpson
April 20, 2019 9:31 pm

Christopher, not new. This right out of socialists handbook. Tell on your parents and neighbors, pressure your parents to follow the rules or else.

Jeff Alberts
April 20, 2019 11:58 am

“teenagers are absolutely right to be up in arms about climate change alarmism

Fixed it for you Doc.

April 20, 2019 11:58 am

Ah, we’re back to Global Warming. Progress. Still hesitating to identify it with a catastrophic and anthropogenic label. Baby steps.

ferd berple
April 20, 2019 11:59 am

Imagine you wanted to build a house for your children. You went to a builder, and they said: Give me $20,000 a year, and in 12 years I will give you a house for your children. This is exactly what Myles is proposing. Any sane person realizes that in 12 years the builder will vanish and you will be out of pocket $240,000 plus interest.

How about instead I put $20,000 a year into my own tax free savings account. If in 20 years the Paris Agreement has cut CO2 emission to 1990 levels, I will sign the money over to my children, and the government can get the deferred taxes. If however, the Paris Agreement has not cut CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, I get to keep the $240,000 and the government gets no tax.

After all, what will the government need my $240,000 plus taxes if in 12 years they have not cut CO2 levels? They keep telling us that CO2 is an existential threat. So if they don’t cut CO2, they have in effect killed my children, so why should I cooperate? In the final analysis, the angry mob is all that stands between the population and the politicians when the chips are down.

If everyone did this. Only paid the government for result, rather than promises, we would see a lot less political promises and a whole lot more results. Or we would see a lot less politicians. Either way, it would be a win.

April 20, 2019 12:10 pm

I think Myles Allen is just hedging his bets. He knows the 12 year time limit has no legs. He’ll say, “Alarmist? Me? No I was just erring on the side of caution. It was those guys in that David Attenborough programme in 2019 who were the alarmists. Never could stand that bunch!”

April 20, 2019 12:38 pm

“Every half a degree matters”…from the guy that admits 1.5 degrees won’t kill us.

I agree. Every half degree makes things better:

• Fewer strong hurricanes due to the lower Arctic-to-Tropical temperature gradient…that thermodynamics thingy.
• Tornados…ditto
• Severe Storms…ditto
• The equivalent of at least 5 Montanas added to food producing land area in North America (more for Asia)
• Fewer cold weather deaths and morbidity
• Billions of fewer lost work days per year from icy roads and bad weather
• Added pleasure from a Milder Climate (further from Little Ice Age conditions)
• Less than 500 microns of added SLR (sea level rise) per year…tops
• Less winter misery to suffer each winter.
• Lower national transportation costs (less wasted wealth)
• Many Gigatons of more vegetation growth…enhancing crop yields.
• Winter vacations won’t be as far away.
• Lower heating costs without rising heating costs, since most warming is during in the Arctic at night.
• (I could add at least a few dozen more $MultiBillion benefits…but I can’t come up with any negatives for such minimal levels of warming… since I don’t believe the beer shortage thing)

The downside:
• We Deniers will have to waste lots of time imploring everyone to NEVER BELIEVE WHAT A CLIMATE ALARMIST POSTMODERN NEOMARXIST SAYS…about anything.

That will require lots of time since these ultra liberals will never ever go away. There will always be another big lie for them to tell…in their neverending quest to accumulate more illegitimate authoritarian totalitarian power.


To counter the lies about “Worsening Weather Events”, it would be really helpful if we Deniers had a “go to” information source (that the President’s National Security Climate Panel should be putting together right now)…a resource that reports the data showing that severe weather events are not getting worse…and also that chronicles the benefits of some warming.

Trump will have to Tweet the URL to the public because the lying propaganda press will try their best to ignore it. It has become very obvious that the press is not into the truth. Truth is not the currency they operate in…its all about power.

David S
April 20, 2019 1:13 pm

Well if the temperature of Detroit increased by 2C it would be about the same as Columbus Ohio or Indianapolis Indiana.

OMG we’re all gonna die. /sarc

son of mulder
April 20, 2019 1:38 pm

Oh he’s just realised that putting the fear of death into children is not a morally good idea, particularly when it’s a lie. Here in the UK we are subjected to lies over Climate Change and Brexit. It’s pathetic and so sad that governments use such control processes over their people.

Joz Jonlin
Reply to  son of mulder
April 20, 2019 2:27 pm

I’m sorry I haven’t taken the time to learn about the Brexit issue. I understand there was a vote to leave the EU and the British government has yet to follow through on the will of the people. I don’t understand why that is. I’ve even heard people speak of holding another vote. This seems like insanity to me. Then again, there was grumbling of people wanting another election because of Trump. I don’t understand it, but these ideas are out there.

son of mulder
Reply to  Joz Jonlin
April 21, 2019 12:05 am

To them it’s only democracy if they win. There is a lot of anger here over the failure to heed the democratic will of the people. Referenda are rare and the results should be implemented.

Reply to  son of mulder
April 21, 2019 7:28 am

The UK Parliament have stood foursquare in the way of Brexit, not the UK government, though I’m suse some of the government knew this would happen and wanted it to be so.

son of mulder
Reply to  Pumpsump
April 21, 2019 2:59 pm

Yes the government as well by agreeing a deal wit the EU that essentially keeps us in the Customs Union and many aspects of the Single Market. We have been sold down the river by our Government. many of those in parliament who voted against the deal are leavers who realise what a terrible deal it is. It is certainly not the Brexit that was voted for ie taking back control of our money, borders and laws.

The EU is travelling towards being an orwellian Superstate as defined by its founding father Jean Monnet in his quote,

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

Reply to  son of mulder
April 20, 2019 9:35 pm

“Oh he’s just realised that putting the fear of death into children is not a morally good idea, particularly when it’s a lie”

I doubt morality has much to do with it. I suspect it’s more that they’re realizing that they can’t control the monster they created, and the increasingly insane claims of the end of the world coming could collapse the entire scam.

Not to mention the backlash from those who they’ve terrified when it turns out the end of the world doesn’t happen.

Walter Sobchak
April 20, 2019 2:19 pm

“But an additional quarter of a degree of warming, more-or-less what has happened since the 1990s, is not going to feel like Armageddon to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers (the striving taxpayers of 2030). And what will they think then?”

They will thank that you are a ninny. And they will be right.

Joz Jonlin
April 20, 2019 2:23 pm

I have a son who’s nearly 16 and another who just turned 17. They hear these things at their school and marvel at the gullibility of the students and teachers alike. My 17 year old had an astronomy class this year for a semester. The teacher spoke mostly about weather and climate which is only tangentially related to what you would expect from an astronomy class. I don’t remember learning about weather at all in my astronomy class in the early 80’s. Of course, my son’s teacher spoke about the coming climate apocalypse. After I sat him down and properly explained climate modeling in a way he could understand, as well as some other areas of a high degree of uncertainty, he understood that current climate messages are merely propaganda. I’m not teaching my child what to think, but to utilize critical reasoning skills to evaluate the world around him. Unfortunately, many children today are only taught what to think like good little automatons.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joz Jonlin
April 20, 2019 5:52 pm

” I’m not teaching my child what to think, but to utilize critical reasoning skills to evaluate the world around him.”

This is the way kids have to be prepared for this world.

In figuring out the world, the kids of today have a much harder time than their parents or grandparents had just because there is an order of magnitude increase in what is coming at them and what they have to figuret out. A huge amount of input and a huge amount of misinformation to sort through, and some of that misinformation is very convincing on first glance, and then add in social pressure in school.

I sometimes wonder how I would manage if I were a teenager today Would I see through the misinformation or would I buy into it? I think I would see through it, I think logic and common sense will find the truth, but you never know.

I got fooled by Leftwing reporters during the Vietam war. At the time I thought reporters played it straight and reported the facts without bias. At one point during the Vietnam war, every report out of there was negative and told how the U.S. military was being defeated and was barely hanging on in South Vietnam.

I thought to myself, that can’t possibly be right. North Vietnam can’t be defeating the U.S. military. If that were the case, then my whole worldview was wrong. I went to Vietnam to see for myself, and found out that the situation was just the opposite of what the reporting was saying. The U.S. was winning the war and had just crushed the largest attack by the North Vietnamese of the entire war, the 1968 Tet Offensive.

That was when I realized the Leftwing News Media did not report the truth, instead they had an agenda. In the case of Vietnam, it was an anti-war agenda, and they gave every report a negative spin in an effort to undermine the war effort.

I think the Vietnam war was when the Leftwing News Media threw in their lot with the Leftists and the socialists. They have been biased in favor of the Left since that time, getting more and more blantant about it over time, until it has hit its peak with the dishonest, lying attacks on President Trump.

So I was fooled when I was younger. I wouldn’t have known I had been fooled about the war unless I had gone over and seen it for myself, so that makes me wonder how I would do if I were a kid today.

Btw, my worldview remained intact. It was the worldview of the anti-war Leftwing News Media that was false.

April 20, 2019 2:50 pm

Most people in Canada would love to have the temperature range that Vancouver enjoys.
And they would soon learn how locals judge the weather.
‘If you can see the mountains, you know it is going to rain.
If you can’t see them, then you know it is raining.

April 20, 2019 3:24 pm
Professor of Geosystem Science, Leader, Climate Research Programme, Fellow, Linacre College

His list of authored and co-authored publications demonstrates his perspective and the names of several of the “1.5 degree team” are also present.

He claims that cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide largely determine global mean surface warming, which implies that a substantial fraction of current fossil carbon reserves cannot be emitted into the atmosphere if warming greater than 2 degC is to be avoided. He is a proponent of the Carbon Budget theory, and there is a website with a dramatic countdown clock heading towards “The Trillionth Tonne”,

He is effectively saying that all anthropogenic CO2 ever emitted is still in the atmosphere and causing warming and catastrophe occurs when the cumulative figure, [from his perspective] hits a trillion tonnes.
He has been pushing “climate litigation” for some time.

In 2003 he told the BBC that:
“The vast numbers affected by the effects of climate change, such as flooding, drought and forest fires, mean that potentially people, organisations and even countries could be seeking compensation for the damage caused. “It’s not a question we could stand up and survive in a court of law at the moment, but it’s the sort of question we should be working towards scientifically,”

He was present at the 2012 meeting at La Jolla, when the Union of Concerned Scientists, led by Peter Frumhoff, constructed a strategy to bring prosecutions against fossil fuel companies in the manner of the tobacco class action. A co-strategist was Naomi Oreskes, who has repeatedly attacked non-conforming scientists as “Merchants of Doubt”. Blogger, Shub Niggarath, revealed the story a couple of years ago, complete with photo of the group:

They produced a “Climate Accountability” report,
“Myles Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University, suggested that while it is laudable to single out the 400 Kivalina villagers, all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are victims of climate change. “Why should taxpayers pay for adaptation to climate change? That is a sound bite that I don’t hear used. Why should taxpayers bear the risk? Perhaps that question alone can help shift public perception.”

In 2017, Allen was proclaiming in the Guardian:

Big Oil must pay for climate change. Now we can calculate how much

He was a witness in the abortive case against Exxon-Mobil in March 2018;

There is more background on Professor Allen here, especially his Climate Prediction Distributed Computing Group:

Martin Howard Keith Brumby
Reply to  dennisambler
April 20, 2019 5:53 pm

Great, Dennis.
Saved me some time.
Just to underline the point, Allen is one of the UK’s leading archpriests of the Climate Cult.
Now, I guess he is getting a little twitchy in the underpants region. The Frankenstein’s Monster he has so lovingly helped to create is running a little ahead of him.
He’ll not want to endanger his gorgeous index-linked pension if his project crashes and burns too soon.
And will his pension be worth anything if the eco-loons he has created and emboldened destroy the economy?
What a dilemma!

Russ Wood
Reply to  dennisambler
April 22, 2019 3:45 am

On “climate litigation”: just HOW does one sue a volcano?

April 20, 2019 3:45 pm

So when we are asked by the young Green activates, “What are you going
to do about Climate Change ?””, we should reply, “What are you going to
do about India and China ? ?”

Anything that the Western countries do is wiped out in just a few days by
the CO2 emissions from both of those countries, so why wreak our
economy and standard of living trying to save the World. It is after all just
the one world, although the Greens seem to think otherwise.


April 20, 2019 3:48 pm

What do 100% of climate scientists and countries have in common? They are all literally blind to temperature. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did not pass on science advancements that allow sight of temperature with non invasive radiology. Trudeau and MP Stephen Fuhr were given qualified science by energy professionals with credentials recognized across Canada by all levels of government.

Myles Allen was not informed that solar EMFs were interacting with absorbent exterior finishes generating heat as much as 92 deg C on a 35 deg. C day. That is super heating the atmosphere 55.5 deg. C more than the
1.5 deg. C Myles refers to.

Thermal equilibrium is this hot energy transferring that energy, should children and students be worried now? Urban heat islands are heat generators first. Mid 20’s C is sub optimal to lethal for spawning fish, what is the domino effect losing fish?

This science is lectured in accredited medical education for education credits required for ongoing medical licensing and applicable to health professionals in North America.

There are real reasons they white wash or shade buildings. Here are 2 time time-lapsed infrared videos showing solar impact at sunrise and the domino effect into the building. In regards to accuracy, we were within 1/10th a deg. C imaging moving water from the air when tested by Hydrologists and forestry.

Mark Pawelek
April 20, 2019 4:49 pm

Who does he think is listening to him?

Not the liberal media, nor NGOs. Certainly not the parents of terrified children. Published in the Conversation too; which no one reads.

April 20, 2019 6:43 pm

Perhaps it would be a smarter idea for the kids to start paying their own way. Don’t calculate the cost of the parent’s “emissions”, but the kids. Then, they could stop it with the TV, iPhone, designer clothes, etc. Or else pay for their own “pollution”.

No, didn’t think so, either. Demonstrates what today’s children really care about, which is protesting for any cause, no matter how pointless.

nw sage
April 20, 2019 8:18 pm

I don’t think Myles Allen understands what ’12 years’ means. It means:
in 2019 it is 12 yrs
in 2020 it will be 12 yrs
in 2021 it will be 12 yrs
in 2022 it will be 12 yrs
in 2023 it will be 12 yrs
THAT is the meaning of 12 yrs in the context of climate change.

April 20, 2019 9:07 pm

Myles Allen suggests: “So here is a conversation young activists could have with their parents: first work out what the parents’ CO₂ emissions were last year (there are various carbon calculators online – and the average is about seven tonnes of fossil CO₂ per person in Europe). Then multiply by £200 per tonne of CO₂, and suggest the parents pop that amount into a trust fund in case their kids have to clean up after them in the 2040s.”

Eric sarcastically writes: “I guess we should thank Myles Allen for providing such a simple solution. All parents have to do to calm the fears of climate obsessed children is work longer hours, so they can give their kids more money.”

In the US at least, those parent should be paying higher employment taxes (Social Security and Medicare) to cover the cost of the benefits those parent will receive while their children and grandchildren are working. The discretionary portion of the budget (the part left over after entitlements and interest on the debt) as a fraction of GDP has already shrunk by a factor of two due to the squeeze from unfunded entitlements. Unfortunately, the fraction of GDP going to labor has dropped about 5% over the past several decades (and has double profit margins and the value of the stock market based on a constant P/E ratio). Many middle-class parents haven’t personally benefitted from our growing GDP. However, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to ask many of them to work longer to fund their longer retirements.

The net present value of the damages our children are likely to suffer from warmer climate in the 2040’s certainly isn’t £1,400/year/person. It might not even be £14/year/person. However at the warming rate experienced for the previous HALF-CENTURY (almost 0.2 K/decade) it will be about 0.5 K warmer than today. And things don’t look so optimistic if that trend continues for another half-century.

Eric’s frivolous comments about serious issues simply promote partisan warfare and gridlock.

Martin Howard Keith Brumby
Reply to  Frank
April 21, 2019 1:09 am

I don’t think Eric’s comments are frivolous.
And I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything Myles Allen has written that I take seriously.
Except in the sense that my tax pounds are being paid to venal, dishonest charlatans like Allen and his colleagues who are responsible for filling the heads of gormless arts-graduate politicians with pseudoscience and exhorting them to waste Billons of pounds on ‘solutions’ that don’t work, to problems that don’t exist.
I take that exceedingly seriously.

Reply to  Martin Howard Keith Brumby
April 21, 2019 9:21 am

Martin: Myles Allen is correctly telling parents to take seriously the debts they are leaving their children. Eric is telling parents they don’t need to work harder to GIVE their children more money – that they have no obligations to be fair to the next generation.

I personally think the unfunded liabilities we are passing on to the next generation are a bigger problem than any environmental liabilities from rising CO2. However, the correct approach is to take seriously the problems we are leaving behind and have a sensible discussion about them. Is £1,400/year/person the right cost for the net present value of the future damage that will be caused our emissions of CO2? What will happen to economic growth if we made such an investment in the future? Won’t that reduce economic growth and make our descendants poorer than they would be otherwise?

Myles Allen is merely one in a long line of Malthusians who have questioned man’s ability to deal with the problems created by ever-growing prosperity. Living in an ivory tower shaped by radical environmentalist, he sees a future where his children are going to be much poorer than he is and feels a moral obligation to do what he can to avoid making their problems worse. He doesn’t understand that the best way to help his future descendants is private investment in future economic growth, not fiscally imprudent investments in low carbon energy.

Eric seems to think that parents are already doing too much for their children.

Gary Pearse
April 20, 2019 10:22 pm

Sarcasm is justified, but scaring and manipulating children is not. It is reprehensible to burden a child with these fears. Teach them to read write calculate and think. During the Cold War it was necessary to a degree because we knew the danger was real. I advise parents and granparents to reverse this stuff and tell your child that these concerns are not justified.

Tell them that projections had been running 300% too hot and every 5 years they have to fiddle the temperatures and move the goalposts. In 2013, the threshold worry was 2C above 1950 by 2100. The totally unexpected 2 decade Pause (except for the 20-20 hindsight they cobbled together post hoc) caused a massive rethink and they pushed the 1930s highs down over half a degree C because they couldn’t live with all the warming in the 20th Century having occurred before 1940! Then they pushed the starting gate back to 1850 so they could put the 0.8C of warming from the Little Ice Age on their warming ledger and add 0.7C onto that – 1.5C by 2100. The worry we are supposed to have the in reality is 0.7C above 1940 – the increase in a 160 years.

Also tell your children, climate scientists were badly mistaken about the polar bears – they’ve trippled in numbers since the 1970s and the penguin population which was supposed to be alarmingly declining turned out to have moved to another part of Antarctica (probably to get away from the researchers who killed a bunch by harnessing cameras on their bodies and ruining their ability to fish.) A little humor helps – one Australian specialist (C. Turney) on Antarctica was moved to tears when he came across thousands of dead penguin chicks that he thought global warming had killed. It turned out they had died hundreds of years ago and since no animals or carrion- eating birds live there they accumulated frozen solid. It is normal for many chicks to die each year after hatching.

Give them a project. Tell them to copy the temperature series that was used up to the 1990s, then compare the same with today’s to see how the researchers invented data.

I think it would be great for a clever writer to prepare a book for children that countervails all this stuff. It could be interesting: settlers on Greenland, the warming periods through the Holocene, today’s exciting “Great Greening” of the planet, the periodic swings into glacial maxima, etc. Give these ugly people pushback.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 20, 2019 10:28 pm

Miles Allen, pretending to aleviate the scaring, is really looking to harness them against the parents, contributing to this Ugly Age’s malicious destruction of families so the little dears can be guided by our betters. Shame on you Miles.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 21, 2019 5:44 pm

Gary writes: “Tell them that projections had been running 300% too hot”

This is incorrect. Based on the warming and forcing, Lewis and Curry (and others) calculate a TCR (the transient warming from a forcing) of about 1.3 K/doubling, while the IPCC’s models project an average of 1.8 K/doubling (with a range of 1.3 to 2.4). The models are 40% higher than observations, not 300%. You can go back to the UAH Version 5 warming rate and get a different answer, but the UAH Version 6 warming rate is DOUBLE that of Version 5 and the current RSS warming rate is TRIPLE. The surface warming rate has only been modified slightly. You can cherry-pick different starting and finishing dates and get different answers for shorter periods. If you data ends with the Pause, you’ll miss the 0.2 degC of warming over the past five years. Over the last half-century (which has seen more than 60% of the forcing, 0.9 degC of warming, and far fewer adjustments to station data), the warming trend was been nearly 0.2 degC/decade.

The idea that the 1930’s warm period has been pushed down is only true in the US, where time of observation corrections were made (needed corrections IMO). The total adjustment added 0.2 degC of GLOBAL warming, mostly before the 1970’s.

Gary writes: “Give them a project. Tell them to copy the temperature series that was used up to the 1990s, then compare the same with today’s to see how the researchers invented data.”

A group of skeptics got funding from the Koch brothers and took on this project. They collected five times as many temperature records as used in the past, used a superior method of assembly all of the data and found basically the same amount of warming as activist scientists.

When you compare warming in the last half century to the proxy record for climate variation in the previous 140 half-centuries of the Holocene (the LIA, MWP, RWP, Minoan WP), remember that you are usually looking at local records from Greenland. You won’t find ANY of these warm periods in Antarctic ice cores, nor globally in ocean sediment cores. And everyone agrees that changes in polar regions are amplified (doubled) compared with change at lower latitudes. Everyone also agrees that there was a LIA (possibly caused by a weaker sun and more volcanos), but how much colder than 1900 was it? Less than 1 degC? And there was a warm period before the LIA – but one that peaked in different CENTURIES in different places. It was nothing like the near global warming of the last half-century.

Activists have greatly distorted many other things about our climate: extreme weather, polar bears, hurricanes. They often don’t deserve our scientific respect. However, it is essential to determine what is and isn’t true, and some of the information you’ve cited above is as bogus as the propaganda from activists.

April 21, 2019 5:58 am

Oh, sure. Launch the “we’re all gonna die in 12 years” hysteria, then quietly walk it back once the fire is blazing. All the while accepting the accolades and $$$ the Green Blob supplies.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights