Mike Hulme: Climate Deadlines are Politically Dangerous

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate Scientist Mike Hulme has stirred a hornets nest by suggesting setting climate deadlines is counterproductive, because when the deadlines are missed people point and laugh.

Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous

The publication of the IPCC Special Report on global warming of 1.5C paved the way for the rise of the political rhetoric of setting a fixed deadline for decisive actions on climate change. However, the dangers of such deadline rhetoric suggest the need for the IPCC to take responsibility for its report and openly challenge the credibility of such a deadline.

Shinichiro Asayama, Rob Bellamy, Oliver Geden, Warren Pearce and Mike Hulme

This rise of ‘climate deadline-ism’ is, in some ways, a product of long-standing scientific (and political) endeavours to quantify what is ‘dangerous’ climate change. First articulated as a peak temperature target, this was then converted to a finite carbon budget and is now expressed as a fixed deadline after which policy interventions are deemed to be ‘too late’. This discursive translation of danger may help to increase a sense of urgency, as evidenced by the recent emergence of a youth climate movement. However, it also creates the condition in which a climate emergency is being rashly declared, a move that could lead to politically dangerous consequences.

A more fundamental problem with deadline-ism is that it might incite cynical, cry-wolf responses and undermine the credibility of climate science when an anticipated disaster does not happen. The imagery of deadlines and countdown clocks offers an illusory cliff-edge after which the world heads inevitably to its imminent demise. It promulgates the imaginary of extinction and the collapse of civilization. The impacts of climate change are more likely to be intermittent, slow and gradual.

Read more: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0543-4 (Free access available from the link on Mike Hulme’s website)

The response from the climate alarm community has been less than enthusiastic. For example, from Think Progress;

We don’t have 12 years to save the climate. We have 14 months.
The deadline for protecting our children from a ruined climate is close at hand.
JOE ROMMJUL 26, 2019, 8:00 AM

Into this discussion over rhetoric comes a new article in journal Nature Climate Change, “Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous.” In it, scholars from Japan, the U.K., and Germany argue “a 2030 deadline arises from political (mis)use of science in setting an artificial deadline.”
The article is deeply flawed. For instance, the authors write of the IPCC’s “estimate of the remaining time to reach 1.5°C — a likely range of 12–34 years from 2018. This is where the ‘12 years’ rhetoric originates.”

But that’s not accurate. The ’12 years’ rhetoric does not originate from the fact that we might hit 1.5 degrees Celcius in 2030. It originates from the fact that if we don’t make very deep cuts by 2030, we have no possible chance of keeping below 1.5 degrees — and if we don’t make deep cuts by 2030 we are going to blow past 2 degrees.

ThinkProgress asked Dr. Mann to comment on this new article about deadlines. “We should of course be as clear as possible about what we mean when we talk dangerous warming limits and pathways for limiting warming below them,” he wrote in an email.

“But saying there should be no targets or timelines at all is really just giving a free pass to polluters,” he added. “It’s a welcome message to the forces of denial and delay.” And those forces currently control the highest office in the land.

Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/we-dont-have-12-years-to-save-the-climate-we-have-14-months-71401316dbc4/

Deadlines have been a feature of climate politics since 1989, when the UN predicted disaster if global warming is not checked by the year 2000.

Deadlines make great theatre.

But as Mike Hulme points out, deadlines can come back to haunt you, when the alleged terrifying consequences of ignoring the deadline fail to manifest.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 27, 2019 10:14 am

sorry people…too much water over the dam already

once you make a total idiot out of yourself…..it’s really hard to convince people you’re not

Reply to  Latitude
July 27, 2019 3:57 pm

If you’re doing something people appreciate, they will forgive you no matter how often you’re wrong. Paul R. Ehrlich would be Example ‘A’.

CAGW is too useful to the Democrats and the postmodern Neo Marxists for them to give it up easily. However, it should become much more difficult for them to browbeat the rest of the population into acquiescence.

Why is nobody trumpeting the fact that all this wailing about deadlines is pointless until China and India can be made to come along in a meaningful way. Empty promises and half measures won’t do.

Bill Powers
Reply to  commieBob
July 27, 2019 4:32 pm

I understood Ehrlich to be confused when first I encountered him and confused is a polite way of saying something entirely different.

The one big mistake that the ideological left wants skeptics to make is to get into whataboutism over china and india.

That is folly and should be avoided at every turn. Better to stand up against the politically motivated hypothesis that CO2 is the flash-point for Man Made global warm…aahhh we really meant climate change all along.

There is no there to their there, just faith based marching, screaming and name calling with a whole lot of handwringing over dire predictions without substance.

We need to stand up to their Inquisition and push back, rather than argue that first they must convert China and India in order for the rest of us to all play along obediently. Nuts to that.

Reply to  Bill Powers
July 27, 2019 6:41 pm

If it really is actually a crisis, then everybody must immediately cut their CO2 emissions.

If the catastrophists aren’t demanding that everyone immediately cuts their CO2, that means they don’t really believe it is a crisis.

It boils down to a question of credibility. It shouldn’t be hard to convince the public that the catastrophists can’t be believed.

Reply to  commieBob
July 28, 2019 7:37 am

If the “danger” of CO2 was credible, the entire West would be forcing iron-clad trade treaties with China and India, mandating that we build them next-gen nuclear plants everywhere in their countries in place of coal. That is the ONE thing that would make a serious dent in worldwide emissions. Since the West is instead tilting at windmills, and standing by as China and India increase emissions exponentially, one must conclude that the whole thing is political/financial/globalist, not environmental. Which truth its actual authors have in fact stated on the record. See “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” for the rest!

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2019 1:59 pm

You really could have gotten another ‘there’ in there.

“There is no there to their there, THEY’RE just a faith based marching…

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Bill Powers
July 28, 2019 3:43 am

I agree. In the context of the comment, the question of ‘why should we reduce our CO2, when China and India are running amok’? is indeed the wrong way to argue the merits and benefits of CO2, in the first place. It implies that reducing our emissions is still the right thing to do, just a bit futile given the Asian element.


Reply to  Eamon Butler
July 28, 2019 8:16 am

Goldrider spot on!

The true test of seriousness for the climate apocalypse projectors is whether they are pushing nuclear energy, the “evils” of which under even worst projections are never more than local (eg Chernobyl or Fukishima) and therefore pale before the destruction of the world they project.

John Bell
July 27, 2019 10:23 am

We skeptics should encourage more climate deadlines from the alarmists. they work in our favor.

Michael in Dublin
July 27, 2019 10:31 am

RIP: Dead deadlines!

Mark Broderick
July 27, 2019 10:35 am

…CO2 is not “pollution”…..Period….

July 27, 2019 10:37 am

The AGW fraud will be totally exposed in 3 years and 4 months.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  leitmotif
July 27, 2019 11:27 am


George Daddis
July 27, 2019 10:38 am

It is time to again bring up Stephen Schneider’s 30 year old remarks which undoubtedly influenced generations of “climate scientists”, especially those in the self named group “the Cause”.

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

It is my opinion that his acolytes took the last sentence as seriously as a Monty Python “Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.”
I printed this in full because a lot of his apologists claim the sentence had been taken out of context.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  George Daddis
July 27, 2019 11:56 am

Not to mention this old gem that he co-authored.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. Rasool, S. H. Schneider
Science 09 Jul 1971: Vol. 173, Issue 3992, pp. 138-141
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138


Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  George Daddis
July 27, 2019 1:28 pm

“… the right balance is between being effective and being honest …”
The implication is that the alarmist movement cannot be both honest AND effective! Thus, those who are activists, are implicitly admitting that they knowingly engage in untruthfulness. As if that wasn’t obvious to those of us that monitor and critique their pronouncements. And, can a person really be considered a scientist if they knowingly engage in lies?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 27, 2019 9:25 pm

I didn’t know that “honesty” could be “balanced.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  R2Dtoo
July 28, 2019 10:53 am

I have it on good authority that balancing honesty is taught in the first course of Environmental Studies.

Harrow Sceptic
July 27, 2019 10:48 am

Maybe we should start circulating the list of failed predictions. If nothing else it would give people a laugh. And in the UK at the moment we are in desperate need of something to laugh about

Gerry, England
Reply to  Harrow Sceptic
July 28, 2019 3:16 am

That would take a lot of paper. A list of what they have got right would be much shorter but you would need an explanation to say that it being blank was not a mistake.

John Robertson
July 27, 2019 10:50 am

A deadline,especially a near term deadline is almost as valuable as a falsifiable theory.
So Hume is basically saying no replicable science and no short term deadlines,as either will expose us.
Shades of Vroomfondel & Majikthise.

However these learned gentlepersons are too late, the entire meme of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change,AKA Global Warming is already a comedy.
People already point and laugh.
The 30 years of weather equals climate is being quietly buried.
The hysterical claims of “extreme heat” are alienating ever more citizens.

The desperation of the Cult of Calamitous Climate is growing daily, the weather is not cooperating,the cries of “Wolf” are old.
The Emperors parade daily in their obese nakedness.12 months to Doomsday.

This attempt to stampede the masses for profit and power is fading away,it will not end well as the mob is vindictive and quite capable of revenge.
The “Frightened Scientists” may discover that they were not frightened enough.

Hume will live in infamy,if history remembers his empty prattlings at all.

Dan Sudlik
July 27, 2019 10:52 am

When you have indoctrinated the several young generations, they are too ignorant to understand that all these past deadlines have come and gone without any matching results. Then you get this Greta kid and all the young people swoon and begin having mental disorders caused by this blatant nonsense. And it goes downhill.

Reply to  Dan Sudlik
July 28, 2019 2:28 am

Greta is our modern version of Saint Bernadette who had the wondrous revelation of the Virgin Mary. No doubt a shrine will be built so Greta’s acolytes can come to worship her.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
July 28, 2019 5:31 am

We need to bring all these people, starting with ALGORE, Mann, Hansen, et al., up on charges of child abuse for the damage done to their poor under developed psyches.

July 27, 2019 10:55 am

So when will the MSM list all the failed CC deadlines? Not enough time or print space?

July 27, 2019 10:55 am

So many people set so many deadlines for so many things the public doesn’t remember them. The public also knows from long experience that deadlines come and go without much consequence, either in terms of disaster or impact on deadline-setters. The only exception might be for cult leaders who predict the end of the world, but their publicity is meant for mockery not serious consideration.

Joel O'Bryan
July 27, 2019 10:57 am

A rift is clearly developing between the nervous climate scientists who still want to salvage their reputations, and the carnival barking “jornalists” and their bedfellow liar pseudo-scientists who long ago chucked to the trash heap their honesty and science ethics as unnecessary baggage.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 27, 2019 1:46 pm

It must be embarrassing for the academics when a 16 year old school girl is given the same credibility as climate “experts”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 27, 2019 2:12 pm

Exactly. Prof Richard Betts of the Met Office in UK was the first some months ago to broach this subject. This, of course, after having heard the outrage of skeptics over the silence of all CO2-worry scientists in the face of utterly ridiculous alarmist orgs and broadcasters hype over cliff edge predictions.

There definitely is a differentiation going on, sorting out the rabid, all-in who’ve sold their souls and those who want to back out and come across as reasonable and honest. Betts soft peddled a lighter concern for a +2C future but then turned around and importuned the outgoing incompetent Prime Minister May to rob the treasury of a trillion for funding the same shameless zero carbon economy sham.

Peter Morris
July 27, 2019 11:06 am

Oh no I hope they don’t ever stop making deadlines and ridiculous predictions.

It’s one of the best ways to convert thoughtful fence sitters out of scientism and into actual science.

Rudolf Huber
July 27, 2019 11:14 am

Those deadlines always remind me of some apocalyptic cults that predict the end of the world to the day and then find all kinds of flimsy excuses why it did not happen. Cry Wolf too many times and people are not going to listen to you anymore. Why does it still work in Climate Change? Well, so far people had a feeling that they could have the cake and eat it. Now they start to find out that this crap is really expensive and their lives go to the dumpers as a result. Expect more of a backlash.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Rudolf Huber
July 28, 2019 3:29 am

“I love deadlines, I love the wooshing sound they make as they go past.”

Douglas Adams – Author of The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

Reply to  Rudolf Huber
July 29, 2019 11:06 am

The Millerites were one of those doomsday cults. Miller was a prophet of doom who repeatedly predicted the exact date for the end of the world. The church that he founded is still with us and is now known as the Seventh Day Adventists.

Tom Gelsthorpe
July 27, 2019 11:21 am

It was always a bad tactic to allow science (meteorology) to be upstaged by a doomsday cult driven politics and by self-promoters like Gore, McKibben, Hansen, etc.

Now they’re shedding crocodile tears about credibility?

July 27, 2019 11:27 am

Missed deadlines and bad predictions don’t carry a heavy price because they are directed at low attention span audiences to begin with. Add to that a near monopoly in the media for running cover up operations and cold shoulder news blackout on missed calls. We are dealing with political long shot snipers here and one win out many is more valuable to them in over reach policy deals and bad leadership set in motion than hundreds of misfires.

Can anyone name the groups, communes, and leaders of groups that predicted end of world doom (mostly on the west coast)? That’s not counting Jim Jones but he did come out of California.

July 27, 2019 11:34 am

So, around 1850 at the end of the LIA, average world temperatures were 1 to 1.5C lower than today. As we rebound from the LIA we have recovered approximately 1 degree C of warming. Why is this considered to be unusual or alarming? Within the context of climate change and the current climate hysteria I simply cannot understand why a moderately warmer climate after the LIA ended is of any great concern. Surely, it is mostly beneficial? Data tells us that the MWP was warmer than today and so was the Roman Warm Period. I am nor a scientist or a mathematician but I can only conclude based upon logic that this is a manufactured crisis.

James Francisco
Reply to  Robert
July 27, 2019 1:39 pm

Great comment Robert. I like you can’t check the math or physics but I can understand history and logic. The tough part of this question is why would people who should be able to do the physics and math say we need to destroy our way of life when they don’t change theirs. I think most of those who can do the math are lying in the hope that nuclear power will not be opposed. I would bet that those who have done this knew they were risking their reputations and are appalled that instead of allowing nuclear power they went with the unworkable wind and solar power. They will never be able to admit it because they will get a lot of the blame for the wasted trillions, as they should.

July 27, 2019 11:44 am

If the climate hasn’t got 1.0°C warmer by 2025 Climate Change is over!

Only 6 years to Save the Hypothesis!

Michael Jankowski
July 27, 2019 11:52 am

“…But as Mike Hulme points out, deadlines can come back to haunt you, when the alleged terrifying consequences of ignoring the deadline fail to manifest…”

They just say that the alleged terrifying consequences are in the pipeline…

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 27, 2019 6:32 pm

Agreed. There are no consequences for outrageous claims of pending doom.

July 27, 2019 11:58 am

The phrase …. “Hoist with his (their) own petard” is a phrase that comes to mind on reading this. William Shakespeare used it in Hamlet and it is still proverbial.

Juan Slayton
July 27, 2019 12:05 pm

It promulgates the imaginary of extinction….

I suppose he intended to repeat imagery, but somehow he got it right. :>)

Tom Halla
July 27, 2019 12:07 pm

The Climate Change community, just like the other parts of the green blob, have been making doomsday predictions since the early 1970’s, with the scenario changing from cooling to warming. Mostly, the predicted changes have not exceeded the range of temperatures before 1940, at least in the US.

July 27, 2019 12:12 pm

Well, it’s bad news in the UK for climate change alarmists and their 2030 apocalypse rant but good news for the rest of us. Andrea Leadsom has been appointed Secretary for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

In 2011 Leadsom wrote in a highly-critical article for the Conservative Home think-tank: “Whilst I accept that onshore wind has its part to play in generating renewable energy, I conclude that the benefits of onshore wind have been hugely exaggerated by the developers who stand to make huge sums from the taxpayer incentives.”

She added: “It used to be the case that criticising onshore wind energy led to being denounced as a ‘climate change denier’. I sincerely hope those days are over …”

Leadsom is familiar to the UK sector after completing a stint as energy minister in 2015 and 2016, when she helped steer through legislation taking onshore wind out of the national support mechanism, and championed the role of fracking-based gas extraction.

She has previously claimed turbines are inefficient and have an unacceptable impact in local communities.


Oh, Happy Days!

Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 27, 2019 7:02 pm

Eric, we know his father Stanley is/was an environmentalist and his partner, Carrie Symonds, is also of that persuasion so why appoint Andrea Leadsom to replace green blobber Michael Gove?

Andrea Leadsom is a climate change solutions sceptic by any other name. Anti onshore windfarms, pro fracking.

I reckon the disturbance that was reported to the police between Boris and Carrie was about green issues not about wine stains on the settee. 😀

We’ll know by the end of the year, maybe. Love your input here, Eric (Wozza), as I did on the Telegraph. My old poster pal Lincoln Rhyme also agrees.

steve case
July 27, 2019 12:28 pm

Leo Smith …
If the climate hasn’t got 1.0°C warmer by 2025 Climate Change is over!

It will get 1.0° warmer on “paper”. NASA’s GISSTEMP alters 20-30% of it’s monthly Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) every month. From May to June of this year, of the 1674 monthly entries since January 1880, 566 were changed. Here’s an example of what that looks like:
comment image
That chart is nearly four years old, but it hasn’t changed much. All the changes to 1980 data and later have been upwards. Most of the older data has been decreased. This goes on every month. Here’e the Link to the latest LOTI release:

Michael Hammer
Reply to  steve case
July 27, 2019 4:10 pm

Steve what you have posted giss changes aug 2005 to oct 2015 is clear evidence of fraud!!! It represents an increase of almost 0.4C in the temperature rise between 1930 and 2000 reported in 2015 vs that reported in 2005. What possible new evidence arose between 2005 and 2015 to justify such a large change in adjustments. It used to be accepted wisdom that when that sort of thing occurs and worse when all the changes are in the direction of better supporting the theory being expounded it was clear evidence of fraud.

How is it possible that our society has become so blind as to ignore such a clear red flag of fraud? This is societal positive feedback to the point of blindness. How long till the bubble bursts and what happens then?

steve case
Reply to  Michael Hammer
July 27, 2019 8:09 pm

Michael Hammer July 27, 2019 at 4:10 pm

Some time ago I emailed the folks at GISSTEMP to ask them about this. Here’s their answer:

Your main concern seems to be why data from 1880 get affected by the addition of 2018 January data and a few late reports from the end of 2017. To illustrate that, assume that a station moves or gets a new instrument that is placed in a different location than the old one, so that the measured temperatures are now e.g. about half a degree higher than before. To make the temperature series for that station consistent, you will either have to lower all new readings by that amount or to increase the old readings once and for all by half a degree. The second option is preferred, because you can use future readings as they are, rather than having to remember to change them. However, it has the consequence that such a change impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station record.

Somewhere else on their website
they say they say:

Q. Do the raw data ever change, and why do monthly updates impact earlier global mean data?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.

These occasional corrections are one reason why monthly updates not only add e.g. global mean estimates for the new month, but may slightly change estimates for earlier months. Another reason for such changes are late reports for earlier months; finally, as more data become available, they impact the results of NOAA/NCEI’s homogenization scheme and of NASA/GISS’s combination scheme due to the presence of data gaps (see also the answer to the previous question).

I suppose it depends on the definition of “occasional”

At the end of the day, it looks like the rate of global temperature increase has slowly but surely been made to increase over the last two decades.

Michael Hammer
Reply to  steve case
July 27, 2019 10:25 pm

Ahh yes; almost all the stations pre 1960 read too hot and all those post 1980 read too cold compared to modern stations. That is of course ignoring UHI which would have made the stations pre 1960 read too cold relative to modern stations. Then again the readings pre 1960 would have been with slow analogue thermometers so they recorded an average whereas modern digital thermometers can record even a short transient peak. Opps that would make the earlier thermometers again read too cold not too hot. Maybe modern sites are more rural than the earlier ones, you know decentralisation and all that. Or maybe its all just bias . So many maybe’s but I have little doubt about the probable cause.

Reply to  steve case
July 29, 2019 2:04 pm

What they say is correct. But when all the changes are in the same direction, and in the direction that helps their cause, it reeks of fraud.

Bruce Cobb
July 27, 2019 12:30 pm

“Climate deadlines” are silly, political theater whose sole purpose is to ramp up alarm amongst the clueless, brainwashed and brainless sheople, in a last-ditch effort to prop up a dying, extremely dangerous to all humanity ideology.

Ron Long
July 27, 2019 1:51 pm

Prof. Mann refers to essential plant food as “pollution”? Hey Mikey, how about focussing on some real pollution, like where rivers catch on fire? Or people burn carcinogenic garbage? No payoff there? Hypocrite!

Reply to  Ron Long
July 28, 2019 4:31 pm

We fixed that stuff. But the environmentalists didn’t fold their tent and go away. It’s almost as if they really didn’t care about the environment, and just wanted to use it to get people to accept socialism.

Go figure.

July 27, 2019 2:25 pm

Surely if the science is settled and it’s CO2 what done it, then the objective should be to stop CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaching 4xx ppm. Answer please: How many more ppm of CO2 will be catastrophic, end of the species etc.
If, back in 1850 CO2 was 300 ppm, and now it’s 400 ppm, and temperatures have risen by 1 degree C, has that increase been catastrophic? Was the world a better place back then? Can someone please explain how a further 0.5 C of warming warrants the declaration of a climate emergency? If it’s a true global emergency, then emergency actions should commence now: no more flying, driving only on alternate days, cancel nighttime sporting events etc.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robber
July 27, 2019 6:32 pm

“If, back in 1850 CO2 was 300 ppm, and now it’s 400 ppm, and temperatures have risen by 1 degree C, has that increase been catastrophic? Was the world a better place back then? Can someone please explain how a further 0.5 C of warming warrants the declaration of a climate emergency?”

If that one degree C increase is measured up to Feb. 2016, the last current temperature highpoint, then we have to subtract 0.5C from that figure because the temperatures have cooled about 0.4C since Feb. 2016. Global temperatures have cooled for over three years even though CO2 has increased. So the last three years have moved us farther away from this so-called climate disaster, and have also shown us a period of time when the CO2 levels are increasing but the global temperatures are decreasing.

The UAH satellite chart:


Gary Pearse
July 27, 2019 2:49 pm

“…First articulated as a peak temperature target, this was then converted to a finite carbon budget and is now expressed as a fixed deadline after which policy interventions are deemed to be ‘too late’.”

This from the paper is an autopsy of a failed theory. They had a holistic theory with math and science. Shredded by nature’s whimsy, they abandoned the science and clung to the political part where Western civilization and its economic might have to be destroyed by shuttering fossil fuels, killing democracy and ushering in global governance. Now its employment of naked terror – a last ditch effort as foundations of the Plan crumble.

Conspirators who want to salvage reputations by backing away from the spittle-flecked end-of-worlders are definitely a ‘tell’ that time has run out. Any policy change will do so they can step ahead of the parade to take credit for a cooling world that certainly is a 50-50 proposition left to its natural fate. Very soon, the first papers will be coming out from these guys decentralizing the CO2 control knob.

Bruce Robertson
July 27, 2019 3:00 pm

The climate alarmists set short deadlines for a very good reason — they themselves have figured out the climate will soon cool for the intermediate future. By calling for immediate and drastic measures, a cooling climate will only confirm their original global warming message.

The parade has made a turn, so they are frantically trying to get back in front.

Rod Evans
July 27, 2019 3:12 pm

The alarmists are getting desperate now check this latest new piece of fear mongering from one of their prime alarmists again from Hollywood.
The old adage bulls*** baffles brains was never more in evidence than in this speech from Harrison Ford.
What a pathetic world of virtue merchants we have allowed to evolve, simply because no one called them out until now.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2019 12:39 pm

Not only do these celebrity sermons connect unconnectable dots they connect and reconnect dots all over the page until the page looks like the vapor trail of a golf ball teed up in a ateam filled tile bathroom. These sermons from some of the worst offenders of carbon based fuel usage is enough to dull the sensiblities of the most patient among us. It makes sane people want to scream STFU and SitTFDown.

Rod Evans
July 27, 2019 3:18 pm

A better link to the Harrison Ford sermon for extinction rebellion.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 27, 2019 9:15 pm
Scott W Bennett
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 27, 2019 10:24 pm

Reminded me of the same thing:

“Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs… Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. – Matt 23:29 NLT”

Scott W Bennett
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 27, 2019 9:44 pm

hypocrite. A hypocrite preaches one thing, and does another.
The word hypocrite is rooted in the Greek word hypokrites, which means “stage actor, pretender, dissembler. – Vocabulary.com”

“The Greek word took on an extended meaning to refer to any person who was wearing a figurative mask and pretending to be someone or something they were not. This sense was taken… to refer to someone who pretends to be morally good or pious in order to deceive others. – Merriam Webster”

steve case
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2019 3:20 am

Rod Evans July 27, 2019 at 3:18 pm

Did you read any of the comments under your You Tube link?

Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2019 9:39 am

Harrison Ford owns 10 aeroplanes including at least one private jets.

Says he spends more time flying than driving.

July 27, 2019 3:23 pm

Writing on The Conversation On April 19 last, Dr. Miles Allen tried to wind back the Extinction Rebellion hysteria-
“ Why Protestors should be wary of ‘12 years to climate doom’ rhetoric.”
He stated that whether the publications warned of 12 years to prevent disaster or that disaster would occur after 12 years, both were wrong.
As Dr. Allen and Mike Hulme and others are now observing, the genie is out of the bottle.
Dr. Allen noted that when young activists reach 2030 and there is no cataclysm they will be left with bitterness for being hoaxed.( that last expression is mine but that is the point he makes).

July 27, 2019 9:28 pm

The shorter Mike on Public Admin 101:
The last thing you want to start talking about in the public circus is deadlines and meeting KPIs guys.

July 28, 2019 5:50 am

Won’t the USA be in the midst of a presidential election in approximately 14 months? These people of the green blob aren’t even trying to look non-political anymore.

July 29, 2019 11:19 pm

The global warming industry is a for profit business designed to steal peoples money with hopes of no resistance .
The climate crisis deadlines follow the same logic of a business plan falling behind schedule .
The ring leaders get frustrated and increasingly impatient eventually producing utter nonsense claims like
the science is settled , the arctic will be ice free in 10 years and a whole list of climate Armageddon fiction .
There has been a ton of money stolen by the lead con-men but their greed just can’t be squelched
because they are sociopaths .
The lies just get more careless and the media laps them up . We went from earth has 12 years to 18 months in weeks .

July 30, 2019 5:15 am

When I read:

“by the recent emergence of a youth climate movement”

I immediately thought of the Hit1er Youth Movement. Is it just me or do others feel history repeating itself with the rise of authoritarian viewpoints and politics?

The Hit1er Youth movement turned a generation of children in Germany into N**zis. As my son has pointed out to me, his generation of millenials has received continual indoctrination in climate change propaganda throughout his education, with MSM and governments now churning out more at after increasing levels of hype.

The similarity of the Hit1er Youth Movement with ever more radical organisations such as Extinction Rebellion is starting to become quite evident and I think quite worrying. Rational thought and debate are now impossible – sceptics are “deniers” and believers are now on the road to saving the planet, for which any action is permitted and nothing is forbidden it would seem.

%d bloggers like this: