“DON’T ASK HOW TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. ASK WHO”… Shouldn’t we ask why first?

Guest smack-down by David Middleton

HENRY FARRELL
SCIENCE
08.02.1909:00 AM
DON’T ASK HOW TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. ASK WHO

LAST WEEK, CNN announced plans to host a climate crisis town hall with the Democratic presidential candidates on September 4. MSNBC scheduled a multiday climate change forum with the presidential hopefuls later that month.

In both venues, some version of the perpetual question will undoubtedly be raised: “How will you pay for the costs of dealing with climate change?”

Despite its pervasiveness, this is a profoundly wrongheaded line of inquiry. Asking how to pay for the impact of climate change implies that these costs are a matter of choice. The reality is that global warming will impose massive costs, regardless of whether policymakers respond or not. Thus, the real question is not “How would you propose to pay?” but instead “Who is going to pay?” and “How much?

[…]

Wired

The political science professor goes on to more or less blame everything bad that has ever happened on climate change and asserts that the “Climate Wrecking Industry” should foot the bill, right after we’re put out of business. Then he concludes with…

To fight global warming, we need to organize a broad public counterweight against the sectoral interests that are trying to block action. Building an effective “Green New Deal” will require financial resources to unite a coalition in favor of climate action, and to split the counter-coalition. Such policy will also need to remake the international political economy to build both cross-national solidarities and domestic alliances.

Yet before all of this can be done, it is crucial to change the terms of debate and acknowledge reality. We are going to have to pay for global warming, one way or another. The key question is who will pay—and how we can distribute those costs fairly.

Wired

Volume I of NCA4 (Climate Science Special Report) features this nifty image of projected global temperatures (°F) for several Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios.  RCP2.6 is a drastic mitigation scenario, RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario, RCP8.5 is bad science fiction and often described as “business as usual.”  All the really bad stuff happens in an RCP8.5 world.

Figure 1. Figure 1.4 from NCA4.

Figure 1.4 shows the projected changes in globally averaged temperature for a range of future pathways that vary from assuming strong continued dependence on fossil fuels in energy and transportation systems over the 21st century (the high scenario is Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, or RCP8.5) to assuming major emissions reduction (the even lower scenario, RCP2.6). Chapter 4: Projections describes the future scenarios and the models of Earth’s climate system being used to quantify the impact of human choices and natural variability on future climate. These analyses also suggest that global surface temperature increases for the end of the 21st century are very likely to exceed 1.5°C (2.7°F) relative to the 1850–1900 average for all projections, with the exception of the lowest part of the uncertainty range for RCP2…

Chapter 1: Our Globally Changing Climate, Figure 1.4

Back in November 2018, I downloaded HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0 from our friends at Wood For Trees.  After converting to Fahrenheit and applying static shifts to match NCA4’s baseline, I overlaid the real data on the NCA4 image and projected UAH 6.0 to the end of this century.

Figure 2.  HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0 overlaid on NCA4 figure

Looks like the forecast for 2100 is slightly warmer than RCP2.6.  RCP2.6 is a world in which atmospheric CO2 tops out at just over 400 ppmv and the world runs out of oil…

Figure 3. Energy sources under RCP scenarios. The Grauniad.

Most of us look at temperatures on thermometers.  A thermometer at the same scale as a typical temperature anomaly plot would be about 64′ tall.  So, I took the liberty of reducing the temperature anomaly plot to the same scale as a thermometer, a genuine Texaco thermometer…

Figure 4.  Scary? Huh?

We are going to have to pay for global warming, one way or another. The key question is who will pay—and how we can distribute those costs fairly.

Henry Farrell, professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Well Hank, the IPCC’s SR 1.5 indicated that it would take a $240/gal tax on gasoline and $122 trillion to fight the Global War on Weather in order to stay below the arbitrary 1.5 ˚C warming limit. Which is basically where we are now without wasting $122 trillion and destroying the Free World.

Furthermore, if you apply a real world discount rate to what they say Gorebal Warming will cost…

As a default position, OMB Circular A-94 states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/15/discounting-away-the-social-cost-of-carbon-the-fast-lane-to-undoing-obamas-climate-regulations/
Figure 5. Figure 3 from Nordhaus (2017), modified by author. A linear extrapolation of Nordhaus’ discount rate plot implies that a 7% discount rated would zero-out the social cost of carbon.

No one in their right mind would spend much money now to avoid nothing in the future.

Conclusion

A “real world” discount rate zeroes out all of the economic benefits of carbon emission regulations.  The simple application of a 7% discount rate to the social cost of carbon would falsify the EPA’s endangerment finding and obviate the agency’s court-imposed obligation to regulate CO2.

Thus, the real question is not “How would you propose to pay?” but instead “Who is going to pay?” and “How much?

Poly-Sci Professor

Dean Wormer has the answer:

In the meantime…

Figure 6. It’s a fossil-fueled world.

References

Jay, A., D.R. Reidmiller, C.W. Avery, D. Barrie, B.J. DeAngelo, A. Dave, M. Dzaugis, M. Kolian, K.L.M. Lewis, K. Reeves, and D. Winner, 2018: Overview. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH1

USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I[Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp.

Nordhaus, William D. Revisiting the social cost of carbon. PNAS 2017 114 (7) 1518-1523; published ahead of print January 31, 2017, doi:10.1073/pnas.1609244114

Advertisements

92 thoughts on ““DON’T ASK HOW TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. ASK WHO”… Shouldn’t we ask why first?

  1. Given that the generally accepted number is a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Abe Lincoln wore high heeled shoes, and the urban heat island effect is about 1.7 degrees, where is this “warming” hiding?
    Surely one does not have to explain the measurement errors in weather station siting, instrumentation , purposeful manipulation. Where is the information that the temperature now is any different than it was in 1659? If we don’t know of any warming and only cooling in the last 9,000 years, what reason is there to expect that it will behave any differently; that is, until our 10,000 year interglacial period has expired.

  2. Who should pay?
    On previous experience it will be the average Joe/Josephine Soap.
    Maybe it would be an idea for the foundations that made their vast wealth from fossil fuels, who now seem to be stirring the pot, to dip their hands into their pockets.

    • Stephen, are you saying all those investors in oil/gas, the pension holders and so on, those who rely on Oil and Gas businesses for their incomes, should now be disenfranchised and their incomes from a lifelong saving and securing to pay for their old age, must now be handed over to a bunch of bureaucrats simply because the bureaucrats demand it.
      Oil companies don’t have vast unused wealth, they have assets mostly fossil fuel reserves and they have workers and investors. They have working capital and lots of it but there is no spare cash to fund up imaginary catastrophe provision.

        • That’s how they get to make the claim that even the founders of ExxonMobil back the GND… The inbred descendants of John D. Rockefeller.

  3. How do these people consistently continue to getaway with hiding the incredible high temperatures of the 30’s? It’s almost as if even though they have been proven, time and time again to be hiding that warming, they simply don’t give a tinker’s damn and insist on running with temperature scales they KNOW for a FACT are a flat out lie.

    I know the scientists on here don’t care for that kind of talk because it is specifically accusing the man made climate change alarmists of willful fraud and collusion to commit fraud in order to achieve their ultimate goal which is the destruction of western civilization and anything that even remotely resembles capitalism, democracy and/or our constitutional republic. I know you want to soft peddle this, wanting to give these people the benefit of doubt that they are sincere and aren’t engaged in the most critically harmful SCAM to be foisted against humanity, a SCAM that will harm, no a SCAM that will cause the deaths of millions if not hundreds of millions but come on folks! These alarmists have decided to go on a full court press, as if it’s now or never, and if this fails, their attempted coup and their chance to destroy western civilization will be gone forever. They have made their obviously hysterical final push at this SCAM so abundantly clear that anyone with an ounce of integrity needs to call this FRAUD and SCAM out for what it is.

    If you, the scientists out there who want to soft peddle this, not calling these FRAUDS, SCAM artists and CHARLATANS out for who and what they are, willing to take the fight to them, a fight for life and energy to make life the world continue as we know it… If you are unwilling to take the gloves off and call a spade a spade, why the hell are you even here? Why are you wasting your breath, your energy responding to every new outrageous claim which everyone knows is a bigger and bigger LIE, built on the LIES they told before, yet they never have to answer for any of it because you want to keep it civil and not flat out accuse them of the FRAUD and SCAM you know they are committing. So why are you here?

    If you the highly educated scientists, mathematicians, engineers and physicists aren’t willing to call these alarmists out for their obvious LIES, FRAUD and COLLUSION to commit FRAUD, why the hell are you here? Good GOD! Some of the groups pushing these LIES are telling us in their internal documents what they seek to accomplish. They aren’t hiding their intentions.

    When will you finally take the kid gloves off and fight these people, calling them the names they need to be called? James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and all the rest of these top players in the SCAM have used and published temperature graphs that were far more accurate and correct, reflecting the REAL temperature record yet you refuse to call out NOAA, NASA, GISS etc., out for the FRAUDS they are.

    They keep using the Overton window to move the accepted new normal, and you keep trying to defend from that new point, fighting the wrong fight. The ENTIRE argument that catastrophic man made CO2 based global warming is a SCAM and a FRAUD yet you keep trying to stay civil when all you need to do is use their own published historical temperature graphs, and historical published news articles, but even Tony Heller and Tim Ball seem reluctant to call these alarmists the collective colluding FRAUD and SCAM that they are.

    In 15 to 20 years of this FRAUD and SCAM being perpetrated, they’ve managed to drive up energy prices to insane and unsustainable levels and they aren’t stopping. Here in the US they’ve implemented much of the same although we haven’t yet started to feel the pain of having to pay for the insanity, but rest assured, that painful expense is coming because the utilities that were mandated to build stupid wind and solar were guaranteed recovery of their investment via guaranteed rate hikes that the regulators cannot prevent. All based on a damn LIE! If you won’t fight their claimed root cause of this alarmism, demonstrating these people are colluding to commit FRAUD by willfully and intentionally using false historical temperature records, when they themselves have published the real historical records, how the hell do you think you can win?

    Stop being neutered soy boys and start fighting this fight as if your kid’s and grandkid’s lives depended upon you winning this fight… because they do. My life, my wife’s life, our 3 son’s lives, their children’s lives ALL depend upon YOU, the highly educated scientists, mathematicians, engineers and physicists fighting this fight like humanity depends upon it.

    If you are unwilling to fight this fight like it is a fight for your grandkid’s lives, we’re all doomed to you wanting to remain polite, civil and unoffensive.

    • KS_Referee…I feel your pain! I have often been frustrated by the polite way skeptics respond to the diabolical shenanigans of the other side. It really seems that we are not doing enough to protect our ‘grandkids lives’, for that is truly what is a stake. The other side is obviously insane, and we continue to respond to their craziness with facts and politeness. Is this really the best we can do?

      Maybe. I don’t know.

      I think that most of us believe nature will take care of this problem with an extended period of global cooling, and we just have to be patient. We also do not want to stoop to the level of our opponents, believing that truth and civility are indeed the best way to combat the mad ravings of the fear-mongers. I also like Jordan Peterson’s observation that people may go along with the lunacy when it is all talk, but they will not give up their Iphones, or pay a fortune for electricity. The yellow-vests of France are a testament to that.

      Perhaps all of this is wishful thinking, and we should be doing a lot more, but what do you suggest we do? What would be an effective strategy against this juggernaut of ill-thinking. How do we overturn a growing paradigm whose supporters in academia, bureaucracy, politics, the media and activism immediately benefit with greater prestige, income, fame and power, while fighting it brings ridicule, hardship and a threat to one’s well-being?

      Who among us is willing to be a martyr? There is never a long line of applicants for that job opening, even when it is the right thing to do!

      • Thanks for the reply. I suggest we call each and every study, published paper, etc., out which uses bad temperature data, data that hides the incredible and unmatched warming of the 1930’s, making them answer for why they are hiding that warming. The unmatched warming of the 1930’s completely disproves their claim of runaway warming. It, along with the irradiated CO2 created during our period of testing nuclear weapons (C14 I believe) disproves that warming (which is non-existent because it still hasn’t surpassed the warming of the 1930’s) is NOT based upon CO2 levels.

        Then every single time each of these supposed scientists attempts to use these corrupted and factually inaccurate temperature graphs which our long held and published historical temperature data and graphs proves to be false, call these supposed scientists out for the FRAUDS, SCAM artists and CHARLATANS that they are. We have documentation proving even Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, NASA, NOAA, GISS, respectable science journals etc. have all published historical temperature graphs which showed that unmatched warming of the 1930’s. Tony Heller shows video after video of the SCAM and FRAUD on his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos where he presents the current used fraudulent temperature graphs and actual historical temperature graphs including their own published historical graphs which they no longer use. Every single time they attempt to use these corrupt historical temperature graphs to create their Michael Mann based FRAUDULENT hockey stick graph, call them out for COLLUSION to commit FRAUD.

        Post the published words of self professed socialist Maurice Strong. A simple search of “Maurice Strong corruption” will tell a person everything they need to know about the origins of this CORRUPT, FRAUDULENT SCAM on climate change.

        Openly challenge their honesty, integrity and intentions, each time they publish ANYTHING with these altered temperature graphs which hide the unmatched warming of the 1930’s, calling them out for their willful FRAUD, SCAM and COLLUSION to commit FRAUD.

        Openly accuse them, using their own words from the Climategate emails, their OWN internal emails where they are caught colluding including “Mann’s nature trick”, “hide the decline”, etc.

        Just because these SCAM artists have surrounded the wagons, protecting their own as they proclaim utter BS like, these are statistics terms and really mean something completely different than what you think it means, or that you’re just taking the words out of context, does NOT mean that we can’t use their own published email communication, along with their blatant attempt to destroy the email communications trail, etc. against them.

        If they are using their corrupted historical temperature graphs in their new papers and models, call them out each and every time for their FRAUD, SCAM and COLLUSION to commit FRAUD. These actions on their part are WILLFUL. They are CALCULATED. They are INTENTIONAL. Call them out. Quit trying to be the respectful, polite person, merely attempting to disprove the new LIE which is based on an ongoing COLLUSION to commit FRAUD. Publicly denounce them and their SCAM. Call them the names they deserve because those names are based in FACT. Those names are deserved. They are FACTUAL.

        Stop allowing them to manipulate the narrative further and further when the ENTIRE FOUNDATION of this is a FRAUD, a SCAM, an intentional and willful attempt at COLLUSION to commit FRAUD.

        This isn’t rocket surgery. Show the same foundational lies upon which this house of cards has been built and repeatedly call them out for it. THAT’S how we can defeat this lunacy. Or… we can continue to try to be the “nice person” who doesn’t want to stoop to their level, even though that isn’t what we would be doing. Rather we would be showing the entire world who each of these people are, each and every time these FRAUDS and SCAM artists try to further their FRAUD and SCAM based upon willful and intentional COLLUSION to commit FRAUD.

        Have I made it clear enough? Do we want to win this war… a war designed to destroy western civilization, capitalism, democracy and our Constitutional Republic? Or do we just want to look like the nice people, the good people the polite people in the room?

        • KS_Referee

          I Agree with you,

          and

          you sound like a conspiracy nut!

          Respectfully, we lose the argument when we suggest that there are hundreds of thousands of people in all of these walks of life; academia, government, media and so on, who are actively participating in a huge CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, SCAM…secretly COLLUDING to bring down Western Civilization. That would be impossible. Humans have never demonstrated that level of integrated agreement about anything! No average person is going to be convinced by that argument, and they would be right to dismiss you if you made it.

          We cannot get people to see the truth by accusing, or even implying, that millions of average people are part of a giant conspiracy to scam humanity. The falseness of that argument is so glaring that it ends up invalidating our side and supporting the global warming crisis narrative.

          That is the heart of our dilemma. We are not battling people or individual scientific studies, although we need to point out the errors when we see them. We are not battling Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although that can be a lot of fun. We are battling a narrative, a story, a paradigm! The people we think of as enemies are simply under the control of the narrative, and in the context of that narrative, they are doing the best that they can. They may have an inkling that something is wrong, like Neo in the Matrix before he takes the red pill, but they are mostly enthralled by the narrative, and would not believe the truth if you told them. (“There is no spoon!”)

          The secret to controlling humanity lies in controlling the story.

          The climate change crisis narrative is not a particularly good story, but it was grown somewhat organically. By that I mean that it builds upon existing stories that already had widespread acceptance; from the notion that humans are harmful to nature, to Western Civilization is the Great Oppressor. It also draws upon a huge victim story. We humans are more addicted to victimhood than any other known substance, and are easily controlled by a good victim story.

          If we are to create a new narrative, we have to tap into the traditionally accepted stories as well. We have to create a villian that is more frightening than climate change, which should not be difficult as ‘3 degrees warmer’ is simply not that scary! And we would have to tap into the immense power of victimhood. Fear of the State is perhaps the most logical choice.

          How do we change the narrative? How do we rewrite the story so it not only fits the facts, but captures the hearts and minds of the people?

          How do we clone Michael Crichton?

          We are a bunch of scientifically minded people handicapped by our false belief that the average person is compelled by facts alone, and by our inability to tell a good story.

          (Personally…I like the story where CO2 is just awesome for carbon based life forms, but big government is extraordinarily deadly and dangerous! I am guessing that story will resonate with far more people than a battle over legitimate statistical methods for weighting widely-spaced tree ring proxies.)

          • I guess I should thank you because it’s nice to know where my opinions stand with the skeptics.

            I’m a retired electrical engineer from a fairly large electric utility in the plains states. I worked in the Transmission Substation Protection and Controls engineering department for a lot of years. I was tasked with and trusted to design, implement, manage and control protection schemes to reliably protect well over a billion dollars of assets inside the fences and walls of my former company’s transmission substations including critical infrastructure protection but my opinions on the subject are viewed as those of a conspiracy nut. Like I said, it’s nice to know where my opinions stand with the skeptics.

            My wife and my 3 sons, their families and kids, those kid’s eventual families and kids etc., our way of life and maybe even our survival, our very lives lie in the hands of people whom I believe should be fighting a battle because they know or or at least should know that this catastrophic man made climate change narrative driven by the IPCC, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and all the others driving this narrative are doing so based upon proven falsehoods, lies, deceptions, even proven collusion in their own emails and appear to be at war with western civilization but instead of fighting a battle, they should be above the fray?

            Should I apologize for caring? Should I apologize to a man I admire, one who live a very green life and a retired meteorologist who reported the weather for years… yet he had questions because he had difficulty understanding how the official reported temperatures near him didn’t seem to jive with his recollection so he started investigating temperature stations and what could possibly be causing these discrepancies in the official temperature record? Should I apologize to Anthony Watts who while investigating these anomalies found himself being denied entry to property because the people in charge figured out what he was doing with his investigation? Should I apologize to him for a lot of the smear campaign he received after he started his investigation, being accused for years and years of being funded by big oil and groups like the Heartland Institute which he thankfully finally partnered with?

            Should I apologize to Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick because in your opinion I come across as a conspiracy nut? Should I apologize to Mark Steyn, Tim Ball, Tony Heller or any of the others because in your opinion I come across as a conspiracy nut?

            Should I apologize to Judith Curry who was welcomed with open arms into the abyss, that is until Climategate happened and she started to ask simple questions. Questioning things a little here and there. Then she had the nerve to start asking skeptics questions about what they found or think. Judith Curry is now branded as a climate denier and a heretic.

            Every damn last one of you knows what I am saying is true. You just don’t want to be the one to put all those pieces together and calling them out for what they are because you don’t want to look like some conspiracy nut.

            I am fortunate to be old and in poor health so I likely won’t see much of the result of this war you are unwilling to fight. Unfortunately my family will depend upon you to fight this war when you don’t want to sully your pristine reputations, dirtying your hand if it means slinging a little mud, much less actually fighting a war.

            All across the western civilization our youngsters are being indoctrinated right now to believe that fossil fuels are bad and that humans are destroying the planet by using fossil fuels. Government funded and run indoctrination centers (K-12 schools and colleges) are teaching this insanity to kids, people who will one day run our nations. We may not like how bad this sounds but we know it’s true… yet you’re afraid that you may appear to be a conspiracy nut if you call it out for what it is.

            I am sorry for wasting your time and for offending your good senses. Just know this… if you are our best defense, we’ve already lost not only the battle but the war for western civilization as we know it.

            My sincere apologies to all I’ve offended. It won’t happen on WUWT again… at least not by me.

          • KS_Referee,

            You haven’t offended me. I think you just go little overboard on the conspiracy angle. Your points are certainly at least in the right direction.

            Every damn last one of you knows what I am saying is true. You just don’t want to be the one to put all those pieces together and calling them out for what they are because you don’t want to look like some conspiracy nut.

            There are a lot of systemic problems with how the climate data are handled… It’s just that there’s no need to invoke a grand conspiracy regarding the vast majority of the scientists. Politicians, on the other hand, are all about power and has little to do with science.

            You are 100% correct here…

            All across the western civilization our youngsters are being indoctrinated right now to believe that fossil fuels are bad and that humans are destroying the planet by using fossil fuels. Government funded and run indoctrination centers (K-12 schools and colleges) are teaching this insanity to kids, people who will one day run our nations. We may not like how bad this sounds but we know it’s true… yet you’re afraid that you may appear to be a conspiracy nut if you call it out for what it is.

            However, I routinely call out the politicians and bureaucrats for their efforts to undermine our economy.

            I am sorry for wasting your time and for offending your good senses. Just know this… if you are our best defense, we’ve already lost not only the battle but the war for western civilization as we know it.

            You haven’t wasted my time. I’ve looked into the various data adjustments and the best I can say is that there’s just no evidence of a conspiracy. Most of the adjustments have to do with time of observation. The best I can come up with is that the “crisis” is of about the same magnitude as the adjustments. As such, it’s not much of a “crisis.”

            While the 1930’s may have been warmer in the US, there’s just no evidence they were warmer globally.

            I am fortunate to be old and in poor health so I likely won’t see much of the result of this war you are unwilling to fight. Unfortunately my family will depend upon you to fight this war when you don’t want to sully your pristine reputations, dirtying your hand if it means slinging a little mud, much less actually fighting a war.

            We are fighting the “war” at least here on the Internet and at the ballot box. But the science is what it is. This will slow me down in my efforts to find and produce more oil & gas… because, the same science (geology) that informs me that the greenhouse effect is real; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; all other factors held equal, more CO2 will increase the bulk temperature of the atmosphere; and fossil fuel combustion is the source of at least half of the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years… also informs me that this is, at worst, a minor long-term problem that can be economically solved gradually… and not some sort of existential crisis.

          • “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
            I heard that once long ago.
            To paraphrase another one I heard long ago, “Few people will think beyond what they’re taught.”
            The “war” is being won one person at a time.
            If I recall Anthony’s story correctly, he believed Hansen’s testimony. Then an older fellow meteorologist whom he trusted took on a tour of some of the sites used to measure temperatures. That data went into the records.
            Eventually, the result of that one-on-one was a man who was NOT convinced against his will.
            And…
            The Surface Station Project. (Hope I got the official name right!)
            This site, WUWT.
            The paper on the sidebar examining temperature site data’s validity. (Better than BEST)

            It would be interesting to hear how many “lurkers” who believed the caGW/Man-made Climate Change meme changed their mind because of what they read here and on other blogs.

          • KS_Referee,

            I am not at all offended by your posts. And I don’t think you are a nut. You are legitimately upset by what you are seeing and you want to see more action against it. I do to. We are on the same side. The only difference between us lies in the method of attack. I have tried your method and came off sounding like a nut as well, even though I knew my reasons were sound.

            Ten to fifteen years ago I discovered that those arguments didn’t work. No one could believe in the grand conspiracy idea, but I had no other way to explain what I was seeing. It turns out that there is a more reasonable explanation for the crazy climate change movement, and has played out many times in the course of human history. That is the power of the paradigm, the grand narrative, the archetypal story.

            The human brain is exceptional at pattern recognition, and those patterns are most easily remembered and integrated in the form of stories. In short, he who controls the story, controls the person.

            We are fighting people who understand the power of the narrative extremely well. They understand that they do not have to enlist people into their conspiracy, because the narrative draws them in to being an accomplice without any need to enlighten them on what is actually going on. In fact, it is essential that the followers never see what is going on, least they decide it is immoral.

            You have seen through the falseness of the paradigm. That makes you more observant and rational than most. Now you want something done about it, just like I do. I am only warning you that the story that you wish to create is not one that people can except. A grand conspiracy involving millions of people is simply not feasible. But there are many accounts through human history of how vast populations were compelled to action by narratives that turned out to be false. There are any number of accounts of whole populations willingly agreeing to horrible things by a compelling story that was not true. That is what is happening with climate change, and that is an explanation that people can at least accept as a possibility.

            I really appreciate your passion and would be honored to charge up the hill with you and fight this battle. I am just suggesting that we charge up the hill that brings the best chance of winning the war, and doesn’t result in us being massacred.

            The sooner we drop the idea that we are fighting a grand conspiracy and pick up the idea that we are opposed to a false narrative, the more we will resonate with the masses and gain converts to our side.

          • ‘3 degrees warmer’ is simply not that scary!

            There’s your problem right there. You just don’t understand the biology. A rapid 3C rise IS biologically catastrophic. “But its been hotter in the past”. That is true but irrelevant, its the rate of change that is catastrophic. No “narrative” is going to redeem an abrupt 3C rise.

            (I know David, you aren’t expecting any black swans.)

          • They wouldn’t be “black swans” if they were expected… but there are no climatic black swans… outside of RCP8.5-induced MSLSD trips.

            If 3 °C changes over short periods of time are biologically catastrophic, life life on Earth is wiped out on a diurnal time scale.

            The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was the antithesis of a biological catastrophe. The only significant “extinctions” were some benthic foraminifera, many of which recovered from their “extinctions”.

            The PETM was not a black swan. Meltwater Pulse 1a was not a black swan… and its modern cousin Marine Ice Cliff Instability recently died a peaceful death, at home, in bed, in Greenland.

            An asteroid impact, that escaped detection before it hit our atmosphere would be a black swan…

            What is a Black Swan?
            A black swan is an unpredictable event that is beyond what is normally expected of a situation and has potentially severe consequences. Black swan events are characterized by their extreme rarity, their severe impact, and the practice of explaining widespread failure to predict them as simple folly in hindsight.

            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blackswan.asp

            The closest thing to a climatic black swan is the utter failure of the Earth’s atmosphere to warm as much, or as quickly, as forecasted by the climate models.

          • KS_Referee

            Thank you for your comments. Truth will not burn.

            This planet is full of brainwashed windmills. If all this, what a thinking person can see, is not a conspiracy against humanity, please tell me what it is?

            If I am a conspiracy nut, then ok I am. If this worldwide communist revolution is going to have free ride, because politeness is more important than fight for humanity, then so it is.

            This is war against propaganda and everybody should stand for their rights, or even fight. This war is just a sophisticated form of third reichs methods to confirm whole world to believe and love big brother.

            I really really hope to see LIA comeback.

          • Loydo.

            Your problem is in your narrow mind. We don´t have rapid 3C rise. We had exactly same kind of rise in the beginning of last century. We have not reach those temperatures yet.

            We don´t have anything to worry. We, the humankind are masters to adapt to mild warming. Cold is killer, warm is heaven.

            And Loydo, you are idiot.

          • “While the 1930’s may have been warmer in the US, there’s just no evidence they were warmer globally.”

            Tmax charts aren’t evidence? Regional unmodified surface temperature charts are not evidence? What do they all show? Answer: It was just as warm in the 20th century as it is in the 21st century. There is no unprecedented warming today. That’s what it shows. How do you ignore these facts?

          • It’s not a matter of ignoring them.

            Tmax charts are evidence that most of the warming is due to higher low temperatures because the greenhouse effect doesn’t add heat to the system. It retards heat loss from the system. Even with all of the adjustments, U.S. summer temperatures are not significantly different than they were in the 1930’s.


            NCDC Climate Data Online

            If the “regional unmodified surface temperature charts” haven’t been properly corrected for time of observation, they are wrong.

            Schaal, L.A. and R.F. Dale, 1977: Time of Observation Temperature Bias and “Climatic Change”. J. Appl. Meteor., 16, 215–222, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1977)016<0215:TOOTBA>2.0.CO;2

            The fact that the “anomaly” and the adjustments are of about the same magnitude, simply makes the “anomaly” insignificant.

            The difference between the early to mid-20th century and the late-20th to early 21st century is certainly not a big deal, falls within the margin of error and claims of unprecedented warming are clearly not supported. Since we’ve only had global satellite coverage for about 40 years, all comparisons of recent warming and past warming periods have to be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when the comparisons are with pre-instrumental proxy-derived temperatures.

          • “The difference between the early to mid-20th century and the late-20th to early 21st century is certainly not a big deal, falls within the margin of error and claims of unprecedented warming are clearly not supported.”

            Well, we are on the same page then. The differences fall within the margin of error and unprecedented warming is clearly not supported.

            So if the differences fall within the margin of error for the 20th century versus the 21st century, why do many people refer back to the Midieval Warm Period as being as warm or warmer than today, as determined by proxies, while ignoring the Twentieth Century Warming where we have actual temperature measurements that show the recent past was as warm as today?

            We don’t have to go back very far in history to show that today’s warming is not unprecedented. Not that people should ignore the MWP, it’s just that we have much better data for the TCW and that data demonstrates the same thing: That it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past when CO2 was not a significant issue.

            I think we should dicuss the TCW a lot more because it goes to the heart of the debate.

          • “If the “regional unmodified surface temperature charts” haven’t been properly corrected for time of observation, they are wrong.”

            Who determines when and how the raw data is corrected? I think this is a little too subjective for me.

            I prefer the raw data. The actual temperatures recorded. Changing these numbers using a computer looks like a scam to me.

            Considering that the world did just fine before “corrections” came along, I’ll put my faith in those human temperature readers rather than putting any faith in computer-generated corrections done by unscrupulous people.

            The people who read the thermometers in the past didn’t have a conspiracy to fix the temperature record so it would read a certain way. The people who “correct” the historic temperature records are involved in a consripacy to make the temperature record read a certain way.

            I don’t think anyone should trust the “corrected” temperature data. That leaves only the raw data, and the raw data says it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today which means there is no unprecedented heating going on today which means there is no CAGW.

            David, you mentioned: “pre-instrumental proxy-derived temperatures”

            You are not talking about the 1930’s here are you? I ask since thermometers are instruments.

          • “but there are no (climatic) black swans”

            Thats what they thought until they got to Australia. Certainty is a delusion that can only end in tears.

    • KS_Referee
      You said, “I know the scientists on here don’t care for that kind of talk …” Not all of us! Your brush is too broad for the task.

  4. The Green New Deal proposals and various offshoots will sap the Western economies of all their strength.

    Now which countries would like to see that happen?

    You only get two guesses – maybe three!!!

    • “On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement. 175 Parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first date it was open for signature.”

      Apparently the whole world would like to see Western economies sapped of all their strength, including the western economies.

  5. Projections to 2101 wow we should really care because so many scientists have got stuff right over 100 year periods.

    Lets take a look back over the last 100 years at the really solid beliefs

    Newtonian Gravity invalidated and replaced by Einsteins GR
    Conservation laws proved to be only valid under specific conditions by Emmy Noether
    Quantum Mechanics invalidates the parts of Classical physics outside gravity
    Universe is found to be expanding
    Bohr atom model overturned to a Quantum model
    Artificial Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cells created proving no special conditions are needed for life
    Traces of Water found on Mars and on meteorites highlighting there is nothing special about Earth.

    However don’t worry Climate Scientist are special and we can really know that there 100 year predictions are spot on.

    • Quantum physics didn’t invalidate classical physics; it augmented/expanded classical physics.

      No advances in science will invalidate the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

      The advances in science will likely continue to do what they have done over the past 10-20 years: 1) “Fine tune” and reduce the magnitude of climate sensitivity estimates. 2) Better quantify natural variability and cycles, further minimizing the impact of fossil fuels. 3) Continuously reduce the carbon intensity of fossil fuel combustion. 4) Improve the economic viability of nuclear power. 5) Improve the performance of solar and wind power in geographically viable locations. 6) Gradually reduce the carbon intensity of our transportation system.

      Unfortunately, the Democrat/RINO-Academic/Government Scientist-Lamestream Media Enviromarxist-Industrial Complex will continue to push Mannian pseudoscience, RCP8.5 junk science and fake news catastrophism; enabling the continued push for economically destructive Green New Deals and perpetrate the myth of 100% renewables if we just give them our money and surrender our individual liberty.

      The fact that some members of the Academic/Government Scientist community have begun to realize that 30+ years of “crying wolf” hasn’t worked out so well, provides some hope that these tangentially United States can navigate the climate propaganda crisis without any fatal self-inflicted wounds. The fact that many RINO’s have bought into some level of “climate crisis” makes at least a few, hopefully minor, self-inflicted wounds a near certainty.

      • >>
        Quantum physics didn’t invalidate classical physics; it augmented/expanded classical physics.
        <<

        Some quotes from Dr. Feynman:

        “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” –Richard P. Feynman

        “It is possible in quantum mechanics to sneak quickly across a region which is illegal energetically.” –Richard P. Feynman

        Let’s see . . . classical physics can’t explain heat capacity–especially of diatomic gases; classical physics can’t explain cavity radiation and black body radiation; classical physics can’t explain quantum tunneling; classical physics can’t explain the photoelectric effect (Einstein received his Nobel for explaining the photoelectric effect); classical physics couldn’t fix the problems with Maxwell’s equations (even after altering the metric system and creating the Luminiferous Ether); classical physics can’t explain what electrons are doing in the atom; classical physics can’t explain why light bends in a gravitational field; classical physics can’t explain the precession of Mercury’s orbit; and so on.

        Quantum electrodynamics (QED) doesn’t extend Maxwell’s equations–it replaces them. Newton’s gravitational law requires that the speed of gravity’s propagation be infinite. GR restricts that to the speed-of-light. There’s no way to reconcile those two differences; i.e., Newton’s law is not a classical approximation of GR. Newton’s concept of fixed time, fixed space, and constant mass is completely opposed to the ideas of mass and space-time in Special Relativity and GR.

        >>
        No advances in science will invalidate the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
        <<

        More quotes from Dr. Feynman:

        “I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don’t know anything about but I don’t have to know an answer.” –Richard P. Feynman

        “If you thought that science was certain well, that is just an error on your part.” –Richard P. Feynman

        I remember one physicist saying that he thought that Thermodynamics probably won’t be disproved, but he never said it will always be valid. Some future advance may just prove to be too much for Thermodynamics. It’s funny how alarmists and Luke-warmers always claim that the GHE is 100% valid for all time–the science is settled. You would think they would show some hedging considering what’s happened to many past theories in physics. Especially, since the required warming of the atmosphere due to the GHE isn’t there.

        Jim

          • THAT’S IT! Now where have I heard that before?

            Atmospheric CO2 level doesn’t have any measurable effect on temperature whatsoever, considering the paleoclimate record, which has consistently demonstrated NO such effect. Any postulated CURRENT effect is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION that has NO empirical support. In the real world, “all other things held equal” is not a meaningful set of circumstances, since it’ll never happen, and the supposed POTENTIAL effect of CO2 on temperature never will rise above the level of “hypothetical bullshit” and related extrapolation of THAT.

            So any “carbon intensity” reductions would fall under the class of “solutions in search of a problem.”

  6. Where is that exponential change around 2030 coming from? How do they justify it instead of linear trend or cyclical? History supports cyclical and empirical data linear trend. Chaos theory says that there is no trend and actually the observations are just around zero within error margins.

    You can program your models to show exponential future that resembles linear observations in the beginning. It is curve fitting or politically correct parametrization. Physics says that models should use logarithmic model related to CO2.

    Climate models are needed because CO2 is not the single factor that drives global temperatures. Equation that is used for CO2 sensitivity is not enough. Physic says that CO2 is a contributing factor in infrared absorption. Climate system is more complex than that basic science. The other contributing factors like sun, clouds, H2O, ocean currents, carbon cycle that are not well know. Even IPCC admits that.

    Because we do not have accurate detailed data of all of the contributing factors – not today, not in 1880, we can’t verify our models. Except of course that they are wrong even with global temperatures.

    Right action in complex situations is a copying strategy. – not a Manhattan project based on pure speculation. If weather is getting warmer, buy a cooler to your house and car.

      • AND, more importantly, the ASSUMPTION that “atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature,” which has NO empirical evidence to support it, and plenty that refutes it.

        It’s also pretty hysterical that the best way to get the “models” to agree with REALITY is…

        to TURN OFF their CO2 “sensitivity” parameter. LMFAO.

        • While there’s no evidence that CO2 drives climate change, there is extensive evidence that it has a logarithmic effect on the average temperature of the bulk atmosphere.

          One of the problems with the climate models is that sensitivity to CO2 isn’t programmed into the CMIP models… the 3.0 °C +/-1.5 °C estimate is largely derived from tbe models.

  7. Fleet of solar powered cloud ships in the Pacific. About the same price as a single squadron of F35s. For the entire world. Can be switched off. Job done.

  8. Fleet of solar powered cloud ships in the Pacific. Costs about the same as a single squadron of F35s.
    For the entire planet. Can be switched off. Job done.

  9. How much would it cost to make all the Walmarts green again? Tear up the parking lots and plant trees.

    Have any of renewable bullshit artists considered the possibility that the climate won’t stop changing even if we transition the economy to shit hole levels they dream of?

    Basically the cost is giving up more money and resources than we have to invest in a system guaranteed not to meet our needs.

  10. Thoughts on the Green New Deal (aka nuvo Marxism).

    What would have been the consequences if the Good Samaritan had been as skint and destitute as the unfortunate traveller?
    It is not a question of How or Who. It is With What shall it be paid?

    In the final analysis: In the absence of fossil fuels a carrot will be worth more than an Executive Jet.

  11. What might happen if all that electronic doodad stuff suddenly stopped working because the interwebs went down and couldn’t be fixed? (Make sure you back up important stuff before you go offline, period.)

    Gee whiz, wouldn’t we be back to landlines, radios, and antenna TV? Teh Horror!!!!

    I’m just saying that all these wannabe despots and their followers, including the idiots who glue themselves to things, need their Very Own Place that they can never, ever leave.

    And the rest of us can get on with their lives. Therefore, the more we know about them and their plans and their shenanigans, the better off we are. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, anyway. It’s hurricane season and not much is going on, just a weak one in the Pacific that broke up, a second weak one, and a weak banana in the Atlantic that turned into heavy rain.

    • “What might happen if all that electronic doodad stuff suddenly stopped working because the interwebs went down and couldn’t be fixed? (Make sure you back up important stuff before you go offline, period.)

      Gee whiz, wouldn’t we be back to landlines, radios, and antenna TV? Teh Horror!!!!”

      My internet connection was down all day long yesterday. It was horrible! I had to do some extra chores around my house to keep myself busy. 🙂

      • We’d have to go back to cans & string phones… The landlines, radios and antenna TV’s don’t work too well without electricity either. We went nearly a week without electricity in East Dallas back in June. Fortunately there were stores with ice and batteries and gas stations that had electricity within a short driving distance.

        On the bright side, the same FM DJ’s on the classic rock station I listened to back in the 80’s were still on the air and had the same hilarious morning show as they did in the 80’s.

  12. Yes. It’s just like I always say, “don’t ask how to pay for space alien invasion, ask who.” Also, “how much” and “when”. All important questions where it comes to space aliens.

  13. “Longstanding guidance from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget directs federal agencies to conduct benefit-cost analysis using discounts rates of 3 and 7 percent. However, that guidance also states that lower discount rates – in the 1 to 3 percent range – can be appropriate when there are important intergenerational impacts. The 2015 Obama administration analysis used lower discount rates for precisely that reason and adopted a range of discount rates from 2.5 to 5 percent. Trump’s EPA, on the other hand, used discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, lowering the social cost of carbon and the estimated benefits of avoiding climate change by a factor of 10.”

    https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/flawed-analysis-behind-trump-administrations-proposed-repeal-clean-power-plan

    Adding 2.5, 3.0, 5.0 & 7.0 and dividing by 4 = 4.4.

    Look how reasonable the Trump administration was. 3.75 >>> 5.00.

    Or:

    3.75 >>> 7.00.

    The argument is stronger using 4.4.

    • This is fracking mental…

      Some believe, however, that it is ethically impermissible to discount the utility of future generations. That is, government should treat all generations equally. Even under this approach, it would still be correct to discount future costs and consumption benefits generally (perhaps at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis), due to the expectation that future generations will be wealthier and thus will value a marginal dollar of benefits or costs by less than those alive today. Therefore, it is appropriate to discount future benefits and costs relative to current benefits and costs, even if the welfare of future generations is not being discounted. Estimates of the appropriate discount rate appropriate in this case, from the 1990s, ranged from 1 to 3 percent per annum.23

      But the 2003 guidance document concludes the fracking mental bit with…

      If your rule will have important intergenerational benefits or costs you might consider a further sensitivity analysis using a lower but positive discount rate in addition to calculating net benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.

      https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/

      The funny thing, is that the original OMB Circular A-94 never mentions intergenerational and the Circular A-4 only shows up in the Obama Maladministration archives, even though it’s dated in 2003.

      • I am not sure I follow you. I tried to give President Obama’s and Trump’s EPA’s discount rates and average them.

        https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart

        Is there a higher number you’d like to use such as 7.5%? What’s the point of standing on the edge when nearer to the middle works just fine? When you say 7% and Trump’s EPA says 3% and 7%, why go further than Trump when half the country hates him?

        • Discount rates aren’t averaged to find a compromise.

          3% is basically what long-term Treasuries yield.

          7% is the average cost of capital to private sector businesses.

          Proved oil & gas reserves are valued with a 10% discount rate.

          If it takes a discount rate lower than 3% to justify a tax or regulation, we’d be better off putting the money into 30-yr Treasuries and paying for whatever happens, if and/or when it happens, rather than paying the government to try to prevent the problem.

      • The real irony of all that blather being that their “prediction” of future generations being “wealthier” is a complete crock of shit, since if the Eco-Nazis get their way, future generations will be a great deal POORER, NOT “wealthier.” All of the wealth they like to “project” out to future generations WAS BUILT ON THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, and there AREN’T ANY ALTERNATIVES at this point. Take the FOSSIL FUELS away, and you won’t HAVE any “wealth” in the future.

  14. Where do the GND-mongers think the highly trained workers needed for all their grand schemes will come from? The U.S. currently has essentially full employment at a 3.7% unemployment rate. Employers are now scrambling to find qualified people for currently open positions.

    • “Where do the GND-mongers think the highly trained workers needed for all their grand schemes will come from?”

      No problem, they’ll just pass a lot of incoherent laws while doubling everyone’s taxes which will crash the economy ensuring they have lots of workers available to implement the GND! (/sarc)

  15. Henry Farrell is right about this much: “ it is crucial to change the terms of debate and acknowledge reality.

    The reality is that no one knows what impact CO2 emissions can have, or do have, on the environment. If they have any impact at all.

    Climate models have no predictive value. Their air temperature projections have no physical meaning.

    That’s the reality Henry. The reality is that you’ve been gulled, big time.

    The greatest disaster of global warming, apart from the social discord, has been the gigantic transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. There’s Christiana Figueres’ wealth redistribution for you.

  16. I am not sure I follow you. I tried to give President Obama’s and Trump’s EPA’s discount rates and average them.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart

    Is there a higher number you’d like to use such as 7.5%? What’s the point of standing on the edge when nearer to the middle works just fine? When you say 7% and Trump’s EPA says 3% and 7%, why go further than Trump when half the country hates him?

    • Just pointing out that the “intergenerational” bit only showed up in the Obama archives, even though it was dated 2003 and it still called for the 3-7% standard and that the intergenerational concept was fracking mental.

      Discount rates aren’t averaged. You run multiple cases. 7% is the average cost of capital in the private sector. Anything less than 7% is simply an effort to justify a regulation.

      • I found both these guys:

        “The difference between Stern’s estimates and those of Nordhaus can largely (though not entirely) be explained by the difference in the PTP-rate. Previous studies by Nordhaus and others have adopted PTP-rates of up to 3 per cent, implying that (other things being equal) an environmental cost or benefit occurring 25 years in the future is worth about half as much as the same benefit today. Richard Tol argues that in estimating discounting rates and the consequent social cost of carbon, the assumptions that must be made about the remote future are so uncertain that they are essentially arbitrary. Consequently, the assumptions made dominate the results and with a low discount rate the social cost of carbon is also arbitrary.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#Discounting

        Add this to my previous points.

        “Meta-analysis on the topic do not provide easy answers either. One recent analysis from Richard Tol estimates (using a 3% discount rate) a mode estimate of $28/ton.”

        https://medium.com/dialogue-and-discourse/the-economics-of-climate-change-explained-e895ff73ee57

        I Averaged President Obama’s and Trump’s EPA’s numbers and got 4.4%. 7% is too much I think.

        • 7% can’t be “too much” because that’s what it costs the private sector.

          And… yes… I know Tol and Nordhaus have been attacked for suggesting 3%… because the Warmunists say it’s too high.

          • I am looking at figure 5. 4.4% is easier to argue than 7.0%. Everything still works at 4.4%. All no decisions remain no decisions at 4.4%. Nordhaus and Tol own the field. I don’t see why we’d need to be far away from them. All the same arguments still work. I am going to say, we need to be somewhere not too far from the status quo to have an impact. I used a combo of President Obama and Trump to estimate that. Once we are too far away, they will not listen to us. It doesn’t matter how right we are, they will not listen.

            I read the thing, and the thing I looked at was the 7%. Discussion over. It’s not fair. But that’s what happens.

            They are offended with Trump’s EPA’s rates. They aren’t listening to anything greater than that. We are trying to solidify his number. Which I read to be either 3% or 7%, but something less than 7%. The 3% in all cases has some weight.

            This really isn’t our money. The go/no go business sector rate is something else. We are talking about the government here. There are different expectations and different owners. If the government blows it, who really pays? The risk is with the businesses. And it’s real money in that case.

            Having said all this, I appreciate you. You carry the load and do the work. You provide much of the content here. You are a valuable addition to the blog.

          • I am looking at figure 5. 4.4% is easier to argue than 7.0%. Everything still works at 4.4%. All no decisions remain no decisions at 4.4%. Nordhaus and Tol own the field. I don’t see why we’d need to be far away from them. All the same arguments still work. I am going to say, we need to be somewhere not too far from the status quo to have an impact. I used a combo of President Obama and Trump to estimate that. Once we are too far away, they will not listen to us. It doesn’t matter how right we are, they will not listen.

            It doesn’t matter whether or not 4.4% is “easier to argue”, particularly since the Warmunists insist that 3% is too high. Many argue, with total ignorance of economics, that there should be no discount rate. This is all that matters…

            As a default position, OMB Circular A-94 states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy…

            If you take money away from the private sector, it should have to meet the same hurdles as private sector finical decision making because government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend is either confiscated or borrowed from the private sector.

            This really isn’t our money. The go/no go business sector rate is something else. We are talking about the government here. There are different expectations and different owners. If the government blows it, who really pays? The risk is with the businesses. And it’s real money in that case.

            It absolutely is “our money”, if you live and work in the private sector. Expectations are irrelevant because the FRACKING PRIVATE SECTOR OWNS THE FRACKING MONEY… You are correct here, “The risk is with the businesses” and businesses generally apply a 7-10% discount rate when risking capital. Since private sector businesses employ everyone not leaching off the taxpayer… The only valid discount rate is 7%… particularly since some private sector businesses (Telsa, etc.) exist to leach off the taxpayer… And all of the taxpayer money p!!$$ed away on GND greenschist will be paid to private sector businesses that exist to leach off the taxpayer.

            Having said all this, I appreciate you. You carry the load and do the work. You provide much of the content here. You are a valuable addition to the blog.

            Thank you, much appreciated. I realize my “style” and “tone” can be rather brusque… particularly when I’m not being sarcastic… 😉

          • Actually, David, the costs of any assumed future climate warming (at any particular level of man’s CO2 production) are purely speculative. Any assumed future technology level is also speculative. The future worldwide social and economic developments are likewise speculative. Therefore, the future is speculative (Mr. Obvious) and cannot be stated precisely in econometric models. That’s why we use discount rates to “discount” our future speculations.

            If one is absolutely sure (unlikely) of his future projections, one uses a zero or low discount rate. On any reasonable planning horizon (20 years, or so) one uses the cost of money, currently about 7%. Planning beyond that horizon is not planning; it is speculation. “Planning” out 50 – 100 – 300 years is wild speculation that only a child or simpleton would believe. Nobody can know what Man will accomplish over those time frames; to assume one can is hubris of the highest order.

          • Actually, David, the costs of any assumed future climate warming (at any particular level of man’s CO2 production) are purely speculative.

            Absolutely… particularly the future costs that aren’t imaginary.

            Any assumed future technology level is also speculative. The future worldwide social and economic developments are likewise speculative. Therefore, the future is speculative (Mr. Obvious) and cannot be stated precisely in econometric models. That’s why we use discount rates to “discount” our future speculations.

            To some degree, some of these things can sort of be projected from past and current trends… I’m not sure that’s better than speculative.

            If one is absolutely sure (unlikely) of his future projections, one uses a zero or low discount rate. On any reasonable planning horizon (20 years, or so) one uses the cost of money, currently about 7%. Planning beyond that horizon is not planning; it is speculation. “Planning” out 50 – 100 – 300 years is wild speculation that only a child or simpleton would believe. Nobody can know what Man will accomplish over those time frames; to assume one can is hubris of the highest order.

            3% compound interest over 50 – 100 – 300 years could probably cover whatever the weather does to us… 😉

          • Actually, David, I believe Nordhaus showed that, even with his absurd econometric model. According to his calculations, it is essentially a coin toss. Although he wouldn’t put it that way.

            Uncertainty is just that; one has no idea as to what the future holds, especially for climate and econometric modelers. I would never bet the farm on those boys.

          • “Having said all this, I appreciate you. You carry the load and do the work. You provide much of the content here. You are a valuable addition to the blog.”

            I agree wholeheartedly! David makes this website so much better than it would be without him. 🙂

          • I share your sentiments regarding the “climate crisis”… It’s just as a geologist, I have to approach the climate/weather data the same way I approach geological/geophysical data in oil & gas exploration. As a grumpy old geologist who still acts like he’s in college, I have to do it in a brusque, sarcastic manner… with lots of 70’s and 80’s pop culture references.

          • You are arguing that our government should use the same discount rate as businesses. That’s not the way the world works and we are not changing that. Tol and Nordhaus are correct. And even if they are not correct, they present the discount rate at a number that people will use and accept.

            We are arguing over the discount rate. I’m say 7% is too high. If you want to win, you have to speak their language which includes a lesser discount rate. There are a number of ways an argument can fail. One of them is stopping to prove a point that doesn’t need to be made.

            All discount rates above 4% prove the point. In other words, one concedes to get agreement. Failing to concede in this case defeats the argument for what reason? The specific point becomes more important than winning the argument.

          • You are arguing that our government should use the same discount rate as businesses. That’s not the way the world works and we are not changing that. Tol and Nordhaus are correct. And even if they are not correct, they present the discount rate at a number that people will use and accept.

            We arguing over the discount rate. I’m say 7% is too high. If you want to win, you have to speak their language. There are a number of ways an argument can fail. One of them is stopping to prove a point that doesn’t need to be made.

            All discount rates above 4% prove the point. In other words, one concedes to get agreement. Failing to concede in this case defeats the argument for what reason? The specific point becomes more important than winning the argument.

          • It’s not the fracking government’s money… Nor do Ted Nordhaus or Richard Tol (both of whom I hold in high regard) get to decide what discount rate the US applies to regulations and taxes.

            It’s the private sector’s money. President Trump, unlike Obama, understands this and restored the OMB guided 3% and 7% discount rates to the Clean Power Plan, effectively killing it…

            Trump’s EPA, on the other hand, used discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, lowering the social cost of carbon and the estimated benefits of avoiding climate change by a factor of 10.

            https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/flawed-analysis-behind-trump-administrations-proposed-repeal-clean-power-plan

            7% is what it costs the private sector. 3% is what 30-yr Treasuries can yield. Even considering anything less than that range is theft.

          • “The choice of discount rate strongly affects the social cost of carbon. The current US SCC ranges from $10 at a 5% discount rate through to $50 at 2.5% (see below). The conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation calls for a 7% rate, which it says would reduce the SCC by 80%.
            A high discount rate suggests those alive today are worth more than future generations. A third approach to discounting, based on ethics, says this is wrong, and argues for a very low or even zero rate. This is why the Stern Review on the economics of climate change published in 2006 adopted a rate of 1.4%.
            US government guidance is to use discount rates of both 3% and 7% for valuing costs and benefits within a single generation of, say, 30 years. It suggests using a lower rate, for time horizons that cross generations.
            UK government guidance from HM Treasury is to use a 3.5% rate. However, it says: “The received view is that a lower discount rate for the longer term (beyond 30 years) should be used.” It sets out a sliding scale falling to 1% for time periods greater than 300 years.
            In a major survey of 197 economists, the average long-term discount rate was 2.25%. The survey found almost all were happy with a rate of between 1 and 3%, whereas only a few favoured higher figures.”
            https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-social-cost-carbon

            The argument becomes the discount rate, overshadowing your main point. This is like when someone says, ‘prove that CO2 warms to any extent’ on every article posted here. My 4.4% rate is high compared to the above and too low for you. The US Government handles the problem by giving two numbers, 3% and 7%. Recognizing the problem. The conversation is all the above numbers and not one number close to what is used by businesses which are different than governments and operate in different environments and have different owners. Wrapping a government in something and calling it a business, is wrapping a government in something and calling it a business, when it is not one. We may wish it to be one, but they have resisted being that for 150 years and will continue to do so.

            Tol makes his arguments with something like a 3% rate. Not because he’s against us, but because he wants to be part of the conversation. My contention is, people that know about the discount rate will switch you off when they see the 7% discount rate. And switch you off a second time when it’s because that’s close to what businesses use. ExxonMobil is already on their list of the main problems. For instance, the devil uses this discount rate, caused the problem in the first place, and we should use their discount rate.

          • “The choice of discount rate strongly affects the social cost of carbon. The current US SCC ranges from $10 at a 5% discount rate through to $50 at 2.5% (see below). The conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation calls for a 7% rate, which it says would reduce the SCC by 80%.
            A high discount rate suggests those alive today are worth more than future generations.

            No. It does not. A discount rate has nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with the value of people. It’s the net present value of an investment or expense.

            Discount rates reflect the time-value of money… Which is 3% if government is borrowing and 7% if it’s taxing. If a rule, regulation or tax has no net present value at a discount rate of 3% or higher, it has no value if you’re financing it with debt… The cost/benefit ratio is greater than 1. If a rule, regulation or tax has no net present value at a discount rate of 7% or higher, it has no value if you’re financing it with tax revenue… The cost/benefit ratio is greater than 1. When the cost/benefit ratio is greater than 1, the costs outweigh the benefits.

            We’ve had 50 years of fake discount rates and fake economic analyses by the EPA. Since January 2017, they have been constrained by the real world.

            I understand how Nordhaus and Tol approach the issue. I commend them for being voices of reason, in a sea of Nicholas Stern’s.

            I don’t care who “switches me off” when I resist armed robbery.

  17. The observations and the analysis override incorrectly applied general physics equations and incorrect modelling.

    The CAGW Zombies just repeat the mantra (ignore politically incorrect facts) which is spend as much money as possible on green stuff because ….

    It is a politically incorrect fact that the green schemes fail at the point where power storage is required, regardless how much money is spent (see Germany).

    Key fundamental predictions of the AGW theory have been found to be incorrect:

    If AGW was physically real, planetary temperature should and would increase as a wiggly line.
    The fact that there is a plateau in temperature disproves the CAGW theory for sure and explains why there is cottage industry of changing the earth based temperature record to create the GISS wiggly line. It is interesting that the satellite temperature record does not agree with GISS.

    There is the pesky unexplained 1970’s cooling.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

    1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

    2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

    3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

    4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

    14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

    9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

    10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)

    • William you’ve just cut and pasted a load of bollocks. I looked through the full list from that post from 4 years ago and the “22 reasons” are almost entirely false.

      Pick out your favourite and show us some evidence.

      (The fact you’ve gone unchallenged is unfortunately unsurprising.)

      • Loydo,
        What are you talking about?

        There are more than a dozen different observations that support the assertion that there is no CAGW.

        It is not an argument, it is show and tell. It is like fishing in a barrel. It is not even new. There is a book that was written 15 years ago and a summary paper that contains the key observations and 70% of the answer.

        There are piles and piles of anomalies and paradoxes sitting around and dead theories.

        There is a breakthrough in Geology, the discovery of pipes in the mantel (couple of years ago) from the analysis of seismic waves that reflected from the pipes and the discovery of fracturing along ocean ridges (15 years ago). The pipes connect to the crust and run down to the core of the planet. There is evidence of past interaction of pipes.

        Te field of geology is missing the force that moves the plates which is the reason why it took 20 years for the theory of tectonic plates to get accept. The plates move, sure, there is however no force to move them.

        Geology is in addition to the missing force is missing the source of water that covers 70% of the planet.

        There is evidence that C14 is made it to the deep ocean without delay via biological material which disproves the CAGW necessary Bern equation.

        Fifteen years ago it was discovered that there is fracturing all along the edge of the ocean floor ridges that are being pushed apart.

        Fracturing is caused by either a liquid or a gas being pumped into the region where the fracturing is occurring. Same as fracturing rock to get gas or oil. What is need, to cause fracturing and the force that moves the plates, is a pump, a pipe, and a liquid that is pumped into the region to cause fracturing and to cause the force that moves the plates.

        In 1997, there was a 300% increase in earthquakes all over the planet along the ocean ridges. The high level of mid ocean ridge earthquakes all over the planet has continued for the entire period of warming. With large increases in mid ocean ridge earthquakes preceding by two years El Nino events.

        This recent observation that C14 is making to the deepest ocean with no delay is an observational fact that disproves the CAGW team created absurdly non-physical so-called Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times. The paradox that it has been discovered that three times more water is entering the mantel dragged down with ocean floor as it is pushed under the continents that is coming out via water vapour in volcanic gases.

        The mean temperature has been stable since 1997.

        Atmospheric CO2 levels have tracked planetary temperature rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

        There are current observations that are hard paradoxes for the key assumption which CAGW requires to create the problem.

        For example the material balance paradoxes.

        Recently it has been found that three times more water is being dragged down into the mantel by the ocean plates as they are pushed under the continents.

        The discovery that large amounts of water are dragged down into the mantel was expected as there is also an early water problem that has been around for 30 years.

        The early water problem is the earth was struck by a Mars size object roughly 100 million years after its formation. That impact created the moon and stripped the earth of a Venus like atmosphere and heated the surface of the earth to 700C. It also caused the heavy metals to sink to the core of the earth.

        The high surface temperature 700C was a surprise as that removes most of the water and CH4 from the mantel. How then is it possible that 70% of the earth is now covered by water?

        20 years ago it was assumed there was a late veneer of material that hit the earth after its formation. It has assumed this late veneer consisted of comets and core material from a Mars size object that was hypothesized to have formed the astroid belt.

        It is now know that the astroid belt was formed from small bodies that were not large enough to have concentrated heavy metal cores. This created a paradox as to how to explain the known concentration of heavy metals on the planet and strangely the known concentration of suite of heavy metals in bituminous coal and heavy oils. The amount heavy metals increases as with oil viscosity.

        The late comet impact has also been ruled out as the oxygen content of the moon rocks is almost exactly the same as similar earth rocks. Also a late comet impact would have increased the amount of nobel gases in the atmosphere.

        The early water/CO2 problem is a paradox as all of the possible late veneer very large sources of water and CH4 have been ruled out.

        That observation is a hard paradox (material balance problem).

        There must be a undiscovered (there are tons of observational evidence that the missing source is CH4, CH4 disassociates in the upper atmosphere to form CO2 and H2O) ) very large source of CH4 or some other source of water and CO2, that is constantly entering the biosphere or the earth would be dry and lifeless and/or plants would die from lack of CO2, rather than covered 70% by water that is 2 miles deep with continents and oceans that are covered, full of plant life.

        The amount of CO2 that is assumed to enter the biosphere paradigm (fundamental assumption of the Bern Equation), the fossil fuel paradigm, and the planet’s water paradigm are all based on the recycle water/CO2/hydrocarbon paradigm.

        In this paradigm it is assumed that the only ‘new’ source of water and CO2 that enters the biosphere is from volcanic eruptions.

        The Bern equation assumes zero biological material is being sequestered in the ocean.

        The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

        https://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
        The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).

        https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html

        Bomb C14 Found in Ocean Deepest Trenches

        ‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches

  18. A thermometer at the same scale as a typical temperature anomaly plot would be about 64′ tall. So, I took the liberty of reducing the temperature anomaly plot to the same scale as a thermometer, a genuine Texaco thermometer…

    This raises a point I was thinking about a while ago, but couldn’t figure out how to express it. In geography and cartography, there’s a concept called “vertical exaggeration,” which expresses the relationship, or ratio, between the horizontal scale and the vertical scale in a cross-section.

    A vertical exaggeration is easy to calculate, because the units are the same. A horizontal scale would be in centimeters and kilometers, and so would the vertical scale. The can’t be said for time-series plots of temperature, or temperature anomalies. If you plot a series and the year ticks in the x-axis are 1 cm apart and the ticks in the y-axis are 0.5° C and 3 cm apart, what is the “vertical exaggeration”?

    If there’s not a word for this, there should be.

    • That’s exactly what I was thinking about when I put that graphic together.

      It is a form of VE; but it can’t be readily quantified.

      • If your y-axis is in °C and your ×-axis is in years, it’s difficult to quantify.

        I think somewhere, I noted the actual height of those thermometers and related that to the dimensions of a sheet of graph paper.

    • It just dawned on me that I got the 64′ from the actual dimensions of the thermometer and a sheet of graph paper. The VE is about 70x.

  19. “Most of us look at temperatures on thermometers.”
    …to read the instantaneous temperature. If you wanted to show a subtle but significant anomaly then you wouldn’t be trying to hide it. You seem completely happy revealing small anomalies when they suit you. Feeble obfuscation.

    Can do better.

    • The purpose of vertical exaggeration and most semi-log plots is to accentuate subtle anomalies. It’s only fraudulent when the vertical exaggeration isn’t noted on the plot.

      With no vertical exaggeration, sea level rise would be invisible…

      With no vertical exaggeration, Greenspan’s ice loss would be invisible, if evenly distributed over the ice sheet.

      Without vertical exaggeration, Gorebal Warming is invisible.

      • Even better examples of the invisibility of sea level rise with no vertical exaggeration…




        • I know you think your thermometer is clever but that doesn’t proclude it from being obfuscation.

          obfuscation
          /ɒbfʌsˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
          noun
          the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible

          You could do exactly the same thing with the sun’s TSI graph or the Milankovitch cycle. But what would the point? Oh, wait…

  20. From the article: “Well Hank, the IPCC’s SR 1.5 indicated that it would take a $240/gal tax on gasoline and $122 trillion to fight the Global War on Weather in order to stay below the arbitrary 1.5 ˚C warming limit. Which is basically where we are now without wasting $122 trillion and destroying the Free World.”

    Not to mention that the globe has been cooling for over three years and is now 0.5C cooler than the highpoint of Feb. 2016. So it’s not getting worse, it’s getting better, from the standpoint that 1.5C warming is a limit and/or dangerous.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2019_v6.jpg

  21. The real fallacy here is that someone will have to “pay for” global warming. We know that CO2 levels are rising, but temperatures are rising much more slowly than the models predict, sea levels are rising slowly and not accelerating, there’s no evidence of increased storm activity, droughts or floods, and more land is covered by forests now than 50 years ago. Since more people die during exceptionally cold weather than exceptionally hot weather, wouldn’t some warming be a net benefit for humanity? If sea levels are slowly rising, can’t coastal cities build seawalls when necessary?

    Also, those who are doing these “social cost” calculations need to consider the alternatives. For example, if it was decided to remove all cars from the road, how would people get around in crowded cities? Before the invention of the automobile, people used to get around on horseback or in horse-drawn carriages. But could anyone imagine the number of horses required to transport people around New York City? This could create a public-health problem, as the storm sewers of most large cities could not clean up a massive amount of horse manure, which would also emit methane and contribute to “global warming”.

    • Actually the real fallacy is the notion that atmospheric CO2 levels have ANYTHING measurable or significant to do with “climate change.” Atmospheric CO2 levels are far more an EFFECT of rising temperatures than they are the CAUSE of temperature change.

      Still NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 levels “drive” temperature. And a good deal of empirical evidence that CO2 has NO EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE whatsoever.

      “Hypothetical bullshit” need not be paid for by anyone. All you need do is disregard it.

      • In the UK, the whole of the political elite is committed to zero CO2 by 2050 and to get there they have taken the advice of the Climate Change Committee chaired by historian, ex-mad cow disease minister and advisor /investor in big green business. They also have academics and an oil industry expert on the board. Their report is now available and just about everything that the UK’s late great analyst of sustainable energy Professor Sir David MacKay said and wrote has been ignored. Here we have someone who insisted on making the sums add up and showed how to in his acclaimed book Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, but the committee have ignored him and gone for a huge increase in offshore wind and reformed gas, while reducing nuclear. The cost to the British economy will be huge and it is doubtful whether the enormous backup using hydrogen and CCS, for the winter lull will work. Even the assumption that the wind turbines will work to 58% of capacity and cost a third of present offshore and that gas generation with CCS will cost the same as today without CCS is unproven, if not insane.
        Links to the report and a comparison with SEWTHRA with questions can be found here:-

        https://www.notion.so/shredded/Has-Gummer-Goofed-5511d6dcf68b43ee9fc5ad41bd744116

  22. I should add that at the time it was written and when he made his final interview, the latest evidence that warming is around half that modelled and the huge increase in shale gas was not known.

Comments are closed.