Important news from the world’s top meteorologist

Reposted from the Fabius Maximus Website

By Larry Kummer, Editor / 12 September 2019

Summary: After years of tacit cooperation with climate activists, the first major climate agency may have begun to turn against their misuse of climate science. If so, this would be a big event in the climate debate. As seen in this interview with the head of the WMO. He has much to say that we need to hear.

Scientists are turning against climate activists and their scare tactics.

Little Girl Crying - Dreamstime-121361027
ID 121361027 © Ekaterina Fedorova | Dreamstime.

Excerpts from “Climate change is not yet out of control,
but the debate is

Interview with Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the WMO.
By Pekka Lähteenmäki in the Finnish weekly magazine Talouselämä, Sept 6.
From Finnish to English via Google Translate, so only roughly accurate!
WHO = World Meteorological Organization (their website).

{Taalas has five children.} Many people wonder if we should even have children. Will the offspring live as adults on a ruined planet? Every child and adult is a source of emissions. …

“Now we should put on the ice and ponder what is really the solution to this problem,” Taalas says on the terrace of his home in Nuuksio, Espoo. {He} does not see the basis for the apocalyptic predictions that are now in circulation. “There will be no end of this world, the world will only become gray. For some of the planet, living conditions are getting harder, but people have been living in difficult conditions.”

In his view, the Finnish debate and reporting on climate change have become too distressing. “The Finnish media atmosphere has been a cause for concern. The latest thing was that children are a negative thing. For example, I am concerned about young mothers who are living under many burdens. This adds to their load.”

“If anxiety leads to action, it is a positive thing. If it leads to a deterioration in the quality of life, that’s a bad thing.”

According to him, the solution to climate change does not require an individual to have an ascetic life or give up child labor. “The fight against climate change can be done in good spirits. Big things are done at the state level. If you start living the life of a scheme, the world will not be saved.” …

“Climate change is solved by private investment, not just public money. I believe in win-win issues. That it is economically viable to invest in climate-friendly solutions. Consumers can benefit economically and even though healthy food or exercise.” …

“The media partially feeds {the fear}. Forests and food, for example, are important issues in combating climate change, but they are not the core. Now they have gained a lot of weight.”

What would be most important now? “In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy. Abandonment of oil, coal, natural gas, and peat in Finland. That is the key.” Still, Taalas doesn’t want to downplay the importance of, say, vegetarian food. 70% of the cultivated area goes to feed, ie meat production. Feeding the growing world population requires change. “Young people have an interest in making positive decisions. You can see it from your own children. When they cook, we usually eat vegetarian food.” …

The next UN climate summit is in New York in September. “I am leading the conference science group, where we will summarize the latest scientific findings and evaluate new initiatives in different countries to combat and adapt to climate change. The aim is to raise the level of ambition in reducing emissions. If it cannot be lifted, we will move towards a 3-5 degree warming at the end of the century.” …”We also need to focus on adapting to climate change.”

Until a few years ago, climate scientists had a fierce debate with so-called skeptics who disputed the foundations and results of climate research. This has diminished, but experts are now being challenged from the other side, according to Taalas. “Experts are under attack that we should be much more radical. There are threats and extremists at the end of the world.” …“The IPCC reports are read like the Bible, seeking certain verses that justify their own extremes. It has the features of religious extremism.” …

He also does not believe that climate policy should or should be widespread into prohibitions or some form of a command economy. “In a global sense, the problem is being overcome by investing in non-fossil solutions for power generation, transport, and buildings. Land use and changes in the nutritional economy can further enhance this. The public sector has to create the framework, but the resources come mainly from elsewhere.”

The fight against climate change does not require a lower standard of living. “Economically and technically, we can do the fight. That was the message of the October IPCC report. Living with adverse effects is estimated to be 20 times more expensive than the investments needed to overcome the problem.” …

“If we look at the state of the world, excluding climate change and population growth, then we are in the best of mankind’s time in many ways: the economic, health and, for example, the position of women will never be better. …Global climate change and population growth are things that aren’t well under control, but they can also be solved.”

Update: Taalas posted a statement at the WMO website re-iterating the key points from this interview. Especially “the science-based approach is undermined when facts are taken out of context to justify extreme measures in the name of climate action..”

Editor’s afterword

This excerpt gives only some of the great material in this interview. I recommend reading it in full (it is gated). This is the first push-back I have seen against the climate alarmists’ exaggerations and misrepresentations of science (see The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science). Until now the major climate agencies have been complicit by their silence. They have been activists’ enablers.

What changed?

After the publication in 2013 of the IPCC’s AR5 report, many US climate activists and some climate scientists criticized the IPCC as “too conservative” (e.g., see Inside Climate News, The Daily Climate, and Yale’s Environment 360). With activists’ adoption of extreme doomster views, such as the Extinction Rebellion, they moved into open opposition to mainstream science. See this year’s hot leftist book: Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy (summary at Scientific American: “Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change“).

The pushback began against activists blaming AGW for every severe hurricane. First, with NOAA’s statement on hurricanes and climate change. It said that there was no clear trend in frequency or strength. Second, with the recent publication of two papers by the distinguished international group of scientists of the WMO Task Team on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: “Detection and Attribution” and “Projected Response to Anthropogenic Warming.” They found no signal showing a human influence on hurricanes – yet. See Dr. Curry’s analysis of these.

Now the head of one of the world’s major climate agencies has taken a public stand against activists. This might be a major inflection point in the so-far dysfunctional debate about the public policy response to climate change. Perhaps we will take the simple first step: prepare for the repeat of past extreme weather instead of bickering about predictions of climate change.

Photo from the WMO website.
About Petteri Taalas

Taalas is the highest ranked Finn in the UN. He was recently elected to run the United Nations Special Organization for Weather, Climate and Water (WMO).

He has a PhD in Meteorology, been an author of over 50 peer-reviewed papers on atmospheric chemistry and climate change. He has been a senior manager of science agencies since 2003. See his bios at the WMO. and at Wikipedia.

For More Information

Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon.

Hat tip on this story to the Epoch Times.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change. Also, see all posts about uncertainties in climate science, and especially these …

  1. Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
  2. Activists hope that fake news about droughts will win.
  3. Listening to climate doomsters makes our situation worse.
  4. How fast is the world warming? Is it burning?
  5. Look at the trends in extreme weather & see the state of the world.
  6. How journalists helped wreck the climate debate.
Alarmists don’t want you to read this book

To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr., prof at U of CO – Boulder’s Center for Science and Policy Research (2018).

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change

Available at Amazon.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 14, 2019 10:17 am

The public framework has been severely corrupted at this point and talking around that will not solve anything.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 14, 2019 12:06 pm

“In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy. Abandonment of oil, coal, natural gas, and peat in Finland. That is the key.”

sounds like he is still part of the cult, to me.

Reply to  Greg
September 14, 2019 2:46 pm

What wall they use for heat in Finland absent any of those? Nuclear is the only rational source he’s left on the table although electrical heating has to be the most inefficient form of electrical energy use.
Gee, I didn’t know peat was a fossil fuel? Some how it falls short of fossilization.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 14, 2019 3:59 pm

The key will be the efficient utilization of unicorn farts. This seems to apply the world over, not just for Finland

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 14, 2019 4:29 pm

Finland has made good use of managed forests for electricity and heat production:

Unlike the present versions of wind and solar generators, managed forests are a source of renewable energy for electricity production.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  RickWill
September 14, 2019 8:04 pm

The big shock about forest management in Finland is how much better they are also it compared with the Swedes.

Reply to  RickWill
September 16, 2019 6:25 am

That will not have a negative impact on the wildlife.
So, I did not see an immediate answer in the PDF. What % of their energy, including for things like vehicles comes from wood chips?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  RickWill
September 17, 2019 11:59 am

Crispin in Waterloo September 14, 2019 at 8:04 pm

“The big shock about forest management in Finland is how much better they are also it compared with the Swedes.”

What’s the difference between Finland / Sweden timber haulage:

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 16, 2019 10:35 am

RocketScientist : “electrical heating has to be the most inefficient form of electrical energy use”

Are you referring only to forced-air electric “toaster” furnaces? Have you compared a ‘high efficiency’ gas furnace to an (electric) geothermal heat pump?

I cherish the idea of a future powered by nuclear reactors running my geothermal heat pumps (GHP). I would be surprised to find gas (whose lines leak) burned in each home’s small single-cycle furnace to be more efficient than a centralized electric power (even with transmission losses) setup — potentially by closed-cycle fission or multi-cycle gas — running GHPs. And let’s not pass on the idea of neighborhood-centric piping for those GHPs (larger/longer/deeper).

Reply to  RM25483
September 17, 2019 6:11 am

Apples v Oranges. Geothermal Heat Pumps are the most efficient “electric” form of heating (note that gas fired central heat also uses electricity to move the working fluid around, so it’s “electric” in the same way as the heat pump) and single pass externally vented gas heaters are among least efficient gas powered. If you want to compare like to like, the efficient gas heater developed for some Canadian buildings burns the gas and dumps the entire exhaust into the building. Efficiency ~ 100%. no stack losses (no stack) no heat lost in transport (burner is in building). Using grid power incurs a transmission loss (20%, more). Unless you put the reactor in your house, you can’t be more efficient than direct combustion heating.

Reply to  RM25483
September 17, 2019 2:37 pm

John_C : “Apples v Oranges.”

This is not an apples vs. oranges situation. A homeowner must choose between the apple and the orange, i.e. they _must_ compare them in order to choose. The question is, which should a homeowner choose? If choosing based on efficiency, regardless of energy source, RocketScientist claimed that “electrical heating has to be the most inefficient form of electrical energy use”. It is that statement that I was questioning, and your response does not answer that question, it side-steps it as if the two forms of heating cannot be directly compared. They absolutely can be directly compared, that’s what homeowners have to do whenever they replace their system!

In order to compare, not just from the homeowner’s standpoint, one must consider the transmission of the source of energy for the system. For electric, there are transmission losses due to EM transmission and losses due to both EM impedance and physical impedance (though typically measured and labeled together). Your figure of 20% is abnormally high; these losses are typically 8-15%. For gas, there are transmission losses due primarily to junction leaks, though mid-pipe leaks due occur. These losses are typically lower than electricity losses, on the order of 4-7% unaccounted-for gas. It is worth noting that in many discussions, electricity losses are a “known figure” while gas losses are often altogether ignored.

Once in the home, there is another measurement, goes-inguhs vs. goes-outguhs of energy supplied to the HVAC system vs. energy added or removed from the home. While these values are different for gas and electric, they are comparable when scaled properly. We know how much energy is contained in a ‘unit’ of gas just was we know how much energy is in a ‘unit’ of electricity. While we could compare those two values, it is not necessary, as we can generalize the comparison balancing equation, i.e. comparing the ratio of energy-goes-outguhs / unit-of-gas-goes-inguhs vs. energy-goes-outguhs / unit-of-electricity-goes-inguhs. This ratio of out/in is how we compare residential systems; we can save the heating / cooling separation for a later discussion.

Having researched residential HVAC systems, I was questioning RocketScientist’s negative generalization regarding electric-only HVAC systems. There may be regions where geothermal HVAC makes no sense compared to gas (and we are currently discussing efficiency, not cost), but a blanket statement like that simply does not fit. There are significant efficiency gains by supplying much of the energy to the system from directly under the residence.

Electric resistance heating? Pshh, they are clearly a loser in this category; though it is worth noting that 100% of the energy used goes to heat and produces virtually no local emissions of any kind since you pointed out the gas design that removes the stack. Air-sourced electric heat pumps are vastly superior to resistance, but they have a narrower range of temperatures and climates where they will beat gas; they also pump cold air out into the winter chill and hot air out into the summer heat. Ground-sourced (geothermal) electric heat pumps have a much wider range of temperatures and climates where they will beat gas for efficiency, especially when being honest about the known transmission losses of each supply; they do not vent anything to the local outside air, they transmit / absorb energy from the dirt below. Note also, at least where I live, all gas systems have an electric backup, so resistance heat will always be with us, just in case.

Reply to  Greg
September 14, 2019 2:55 pm

I would like him to show me where there was ever a real debate with skeptics.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Greg
September 15, 2019 3:43 am

Agreed. I think it may be the recognition of the Monster they have created.I have often come across Climate alarmists who try to distance themselves from the many wild claims, that Climate change causes everything from Acne to Zombies. If it’s bad, it’s Climate change. However, I point out that the incredible silence from Scientists on their side of the debate, endorses the the scaremongering, and therefore they are entirely to blame for not shutting down the lies.
What sceptics have been calling for, for years, is open honest full debate. The moment that was shut down by alarmists, the integrity of Climate science was undermined. and so the Monster was created. If this man, Petteri Taalas, sees the damage the scaremongering has done, perhaps it will be the first steps on the long arduous road back to reality

Best to all, Eamon.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Greg
September 15, 2019 6:42 am

Absolutely. I don’t undertsand what’s so great about this. From his words, this man is hopelessly deluded. It’s just that he’s a little less deluded than the others.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 14, 2019 1:28 pm

Interview with Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the WMO.

What would be most important now? “In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy. Abandonment of oil, coal, natural gas, and peat in Finland. That is the key.”

Sorry Petteri, but that is total härkä paska. In fact, people who say this are “full of paska”.

Go back to school and learn basic math.

I mean like, y’know dude, TOTAL härkä paska!

Timo Kuusela
September 14, 2019 11:46 pm

Actually, in Finnish ,the BS is “horse shit”, not bull s. But Taalas has been full of hevonpaska for long, that is why he was rewarded with that position in the UN. He has mislead Finnish media and people himself when he was the head of the FMI here, he is an alarmist of alarmists for political and career reasons, so this “new state of mind” is just smoke and mirrors. We must be prepared for this new tactic , that is alarmists trying to sound moderate but hiding the same former agenda inside the sentences, between the lines, as he did in this article.

Reply to  Timo Kuusela
September 15, 2019 2:30 am

Thank you Timo. Hevonpaska it is, and Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the WMO, is full of it.

I have detected for several years a careful retreat by some warmist academics from the extremes of climate hysteria. I think they are hedging their bets in preparation for probable imminent global cooling, driven by the quiet Sun.

In Petteri’s case, he is sitting uncomfortably astride a barbed-wire fence, trying to appease everyone with his Orwellian double-speak, while adhering to the false warmist mantra.

The more fanatical warmists are doubling-down, increasing their hysterical fear-mongering in an attempt to have their extremist agenda adopted before global cooling proves their warming hypothesis is absolutely false. Note that this same scenario happened from ~1940 to 1977, when fossil fuel combustion rapidly accelerated at the onset of WW2, and global temperatures COOLED for over 30 years.

All the global warming leadership are full of hevonpaska, and they know it. Soon, it will be obvious to all, and even their adoring acolytes will have to admit the truth.

Crispin in Waterloo
September 15, 2019 3:42 am

Allen, I like the phraseology: trying to maintain hysterical alarm while using moderate language.

He is trying to sound like a scientist while communicating like MSNBC. Hence the prezel-lips.

Rainer Bensch
September 15, 2019 5:17 am

The more fanatical warmists are doubling-down, increasing their hysterical fear-mongering in an attempt to have their extremist agenda adopted before global cooling can proves their measures against warming were effective hypothesis is absolutely false.

There… FIFY

September 15, 2019 8:12 am

Hi Crispin,

The global warming fanatics are appearing increasingly desperate, as their false CAGW hypothesis is being disproved (again), by global cooling or an absence of significant warming, even as fossil fuel combustion continues to increase.

I am reminded of a phrase used by my Russian translator, Nicolai the Great (Nic was a bit overweight). In the Former Soviet Union, there were many swindlers who routinely tried to cheat us – like the global warming fraudsters but not nearly as pervasive. When one of these FSU fraudsters was about to make a major tactical error, Nicolai would laugh loudly and predict “And zen, and zen, ve vill squizz zer bolls!”

The project was technically easy but logistically and politically challenging. I managed two armed invasions in the first two years with no bloodshed – even the bad guys got to go home safely. I did not even contact the authorities, who were worse than the armed thugs.

My successors invested a few hundred million, and sold that project to the Chinese for US$4.2 billion. It was a hundred-bagger on the Toronto Stock Exchange, unusual for a resource play.

September 15, 2019 10:21 am

Rainer Bensch wrote:
“The more fanatical warmists are doubling-down, increasing their hysterical fear-mongering in an attempt to have their extremist agenda adopted before global cooling can proves their measures against warming were effective hypothesis is absolutely false.”

Probably – as I posted earlier, the global warming leaders’ adoring acolytes really ARE that stupid – but they will all be “sucking and blowing at the same time”, as my old boss Chuck used to say.

Their CAGW hypothesis is already disproved by many examples of existing evidence – this will be one more – that global temperatures decline even as fossil fuel combustion increases – just like happened from ~1940 to 1977.

My new word for the day is “hevonpaska”, Finnish for “horsesh!t”, and the global warming alarmists are full of it. They know they are lying and have been for decades – nobody could be this wrong, this incredibly stupid, for this long – they have a covert agenda.

Yooper asked:
What happens when the cold comes, polar ice expands, and growing seasons are shortened? Will the answer be “We need more CO2!”

Probably no – the warmists will shift seamlessly from “CO2 causes catastrophic global warming!” to “CO2 causes catastrophic global cooling!” – both blatant falsehoods are equally acceptable to the extreme left, who lie about everything – and their idiot acolytes will actually believe them!

Dodgy Geezer
September 14, 2019 10:18 am

I assume that there will shortly be a vacancy at the WMO, and an advert for a more compliant Head….

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 14, 2019 1:13 pm

He has crossed a couple of red lines, no doubt, but he is now busily retrieving his steps, trying to brush away the footprints in the sand…
He needs to answer a few basic questions, like:

Do we need to stop eating red meat in order to save the cliamte?

Do children need to be scared of the future, or led to think that they have no future?

How will WMO put pressure on developing economies (like China) in order to make them cut their co2 emissions, seeing that the great growth in emissions come from these countries, while they are exempted from obligations (even moral obligations -guilt is reserved for those developed nations that actually have reduced or at least halted the growth of their emissons) under the Paris agreement?

If, by the year 2030, co2 emissions have continued to grow as today, while the predicted dire results of this are not observable, will the WMO make a new appraisal of their views on the “climate crises”?

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
September 14, 2019 5:43 pm

Hey, we were all scared out of our pants of The Bomb in the sixties–duck n’ cover under the desk with the fire bells going off at 6 years old. World will end in a ball of fire, in your lifetime! Lefties all were sure of it, too. Ever wonder why so many kids did dope? Decided when The Bomb came I’d die under the flagpole, saluting with a jug of Jack Daniels! Plague, ice age, rolling famines, population bomb, ozone layer, acid rain, mad cow, global warming, but woke up on my 40th birthday and said, “Sunnuva beehive, never thought I’d still be here, but HERE I AM!” 😉

Today’s kids are orders of magnitude more media-savvy than we Boomers ever were, and can call out hypocrisy at 10,000 yards. You really think they can’t see through the phony crap from the likes of DiCaprio and the barefoot Royal Twit?

The general public, as opposed to the stunt-organizers and chatterati, are long since sick and tired
of this fearmongering and weaponizing the weather, and this web site is not hard to find for those who want to broaden their perspective. BTW, “climate” now being conflated with every BS “social justice” nonsense out there is making it meaningless; because when “climate change” is about EVERYTHING, it’s about NOTHING. They blow their own credibility, and crazier street theater and hysterical teenagers won’t help. There is simply ZERO chance we’re going to give up driving, flying, being comfortable in our homes, and EATING for this ridiculous, evidence-free “cause.”

What these people need is some PUSHBACK, public and LOUD and strong. The basic facts need to be reduced to a 3-bullet-point sound bite that’s out there EVERY DAY. It’s way past time to stop validating media clickbait of a cultists’ moral panic based on nothing but virtue-signaling!

Reply to  Goldrider
September 14, 2019 8:32 pm

what is the “3-bullet-point sound bite”?

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 14, 2019 1:24 pm

At some point that would become a very bad political move.

Once the scientists start saying things have gone too far, we can guess that the pendulum will start swinging back the other way.

Reply to  commieBob
September 14, 2019 2:03 pm

When scientists start saying things have gone too far, you know that the pendulum is already swinging back and they’re trying to get ahead of it before it hits them in the face.

September 14, 2019 10:26 am

This is the free-floating fear felt by the ignorant. It can actually make them violent, servants of the unscrupulous.

Antero Ollila
September 14, 2019 10:30 am

It sounds positive that it looks like Taalas has now a softer tone in his message. I have been following his outcomes for many years as his countryman. Please notice the following: ” If it cannot be lifted, we will move towards a 3-5 degree warming at the end of the century”. It means that Taalas is fully behind the Paris agreement, in which the scenario if nothing will be done is RCP8.5. Do you remember what is the temperature increase according to RCP8.5 in 2100? Its average value is 4.25 C. Do you think that humanity could increase GH emissions in a way that this scenario would be possible? No way. The annual CO2 increase rate should be about 6.4 ppm when it is now about 2.2 ppm. Although humanity would do everything they can, this scenario is not possible. Taalas plays with two cards.

Reply to  Antero Ollila
September 14, 2019 12:03 pm

How did people get to be this stupid?…..
“In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy.”

…like the rest of the developing world gives one flying pig

Reply to  Latitude
September 14, 2019 5:46 pm

. . . like they couldn’t use a few warmer days in freaking Finland. Smack my head!

Anybody dumb enough to not reproduce because of “climate change,” shouldn’t. Obviously the veganism is making their brains shrink daily, to the point where they believe this. Instead of listening to tripe, they ought to try eating some!

Reply to  Antero Ollila
September 14, 2019 12:17 pm

Agreed. He covered his @ss no matter which way the wind blows. In fact alarmists could easily lift a few quotes from this piece (just as they do everything else) to justify claims of apocalypse.

September 14, 2019 10:37 am

Why is it that overactive imaginations ALWAYS see bad news in the future climate?

How has ACTUAL global warming in the PAST 325 years that harmed anyone?

Has life been so bad since we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere over 100 years ago?

When people think wild guess, always wrong, predictions of the future climate are real science, then they don’t think much at all.

The climate on our planet is the best it has been for humans and animals in about 10,000 years.

If we keep adding CO2 to the air, by burning fossil fuels with modern pollution controls, then the climate will get even better for plants.

How are warmer nights in Alaska an “existential threat”?

How is 6 to 9 inches of sea rise a century an existential threat?

How is a ‘greening’ planet, from more CO2, an existential threat?

Implementing The New Green Socialism (Deal), however, would be a real existential threat to the U.S. economy

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 14, 2019 11:26 am

“The climate on our planet is the best it has been for humans and animals in about 10,000 years.”

Indeed, the world population has tripled in my lifetime and is still going gangbusters … hardly an endorsement for the doom mongers.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
September 14, 2019 1:09 pm

Population growth is slowing unequivocally. Max ~9 -10B some time in the next 50yrs. It is thought that it could overshoot this and then fall back as prosperity spreads through the last of the poirest nations. Note that Bangladesh, formerly one of the poorest currently has a GDP growth of 6%+/yr. They have recently built a large, modern coal-fired electricity plant to serve a growing manufacturing industry.

R Moore
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 14, 2019 10:15 pm

Bangladesh has a population of 164 million people living on about 57,000 square miles. It is just a little smaller in size than the state of Georgia, USA (current population 10.5 million) which has 59,000 square miles but it has a population as if everyone who lives in the United States east of the Mississippi River moved to Georgia. The US State Department urges extreme caution for travelers to Bangladesh due to crime and risk of kidnapping.

Maybe somebody who has been there can comment about life there because there are a lot of people there (8th most populous country on Earth ) getting by on very little energy use compared to other countries and basically this lifestyle represents what the future would hold in store if the Green New Deal type plan is implemented.

Reply to  R Moore
September 15, 2019 12:02 am

Bangladesh has had a seven fold increase in emissions since the 1970s. It shows no sign of abating. Its share of RE is falling rapidly. Its energy use is increasing, mostly non-renewable.

This is not the GND
comment image
comment image

Reply to  R Moore
September 15, 2019 2:07 am

Bangladesh is the future of humanity if the globalist .01% ers get their way.

Antero Ollila
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 14, 2019 11:42 am

Exactly so. These good times were called climate optimums before this climate change panic.

September 14, 2019 10:46 am

He rightly sees the insanity of climate alarmists and their reckless solutions, even if the IPCC was right about the science, but he incorrectly seems to believe that climate change from CO2 emissions is a serious enough problem that it must addressed. This is the misconception that must be challenged before we waste countless trillions of dollars mitigating consequences that are already precluded by basic thermodynamics.

The only reason the ‘fierce debate with so-called skeptics” has diminished is because those who accept the legitimacy of the IPCC to fabricate fake science conforming to an agenda refuse to debate their fake science on its merits while a politically motivated MSM has enabled the inability to correct the science by deeply suppressing the truth and pushing sensationalism based on the lies.

Dr Deanster
September 14, 2019 10:50 am

Guy sounds like an activists. “The answer is eliminating fossil fuels”

Beeeeee Esssssssss.

Andy Pattullo
September 14, 2019 11:02 am

So there is no emergency, just a troublesome need to give up on all reliable energy sources that support human development and help to reduce the human impact on the natural environment, while we plaster the natural world with devastating wind and solar farms and tear up rain forests for biofuel cultivation. Well that’s a relief.

This is really just a different version of magical thinking while ignoring the objective evidence that the world is not in crisis, but rather doing quite well as our almost all indicators of human well-being. This world perceived by this man is as real as the climate models.

September 14, 2019 11:04 am

“If we look at the state of the world, excluding climate change and population growth, then we are in the best of mankind’s time in many ways”

The state of the world is elevated largely because of cheap energy provided by fossil fuels. How do we continue this improvement…..

“…the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy.

Joel O'Bryan
September 14, 2019 11:06 am

Things the Left already wants banned because… Climate Change:

– banning red meat and dairy.
– Having more than one child (or any).
– Pickup/SUV’s to pull your boat or camper to the Lake.
– Air travel (except for the Elites)

But if the Left really wants to alienate the rest of population that may not care that much about the above:

Green Left will totally lose whatever support they have in the middle (read: not insane) by declaring that pet ownership (your dogs and cats) contribute to CC. Thus your having your family dog or cat has to go to Save the Planet. Here in the US, the PETA and HSUS idiots are already there.

It is just a mater of time until middle class pet owners and the “carbon footprint” of pet ownership come into their cross-sights.

Call that an obvious prediction. And that will mark the inflection point in the turn against the Climate Change lunacy. That is, it will be the point when historians a hundred years from look back and decide what was the moment the Watermelons lost it all: the instant they tried to take people’s dogs and cats away in the name of climate change. Even the dingbat crazy old cat lady down the street with 5 to 15 cats (everyone has one in their neighborhood) who loves Bernie and Pocahontas won’t be able to support them then.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 14, 2019 1:55 pm

– banning red meat and dairy.
Just had sirloin steak and salad for supper. 30 days aged Hereford beef. Tasty.
– Having more than one child (or any).
We have two lovely boys (now young men).
– Pickup/SUV’s to pull your boat or camper to the Lake.
We have a diesel estate car (wagon, for our north american cousins) , admittedly 14 years old.
– Air travel (except for the Elites)
We’re off to France (thank you Ryanair for cheap flights) next month for a friends 60th birthday.
Life is good.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 14, 2019 6:13 pm

I’ve got a few things we could reduce that would be A LOT more politically popular:

(1) Commuting. Work from home in your underwear! A screen’s a screen, and then there’d be no need to build, heat, cool, and light all those damned office buildings and cubicles everyone hates anyway. You can get rid of “fast fashion” and “child care” at the same time. Everybody stay home in your sweats! Would get rid of 90% of the Starbucks, too. Make yer own damn coffee, and drink tap water without a bottle, what a concept!

(2) Business Trips for Meetings. Would anybody, anywhere, be broken up? SKYPE it, already, dimtards!

(3) Family vacations to banal tourist traps like Disney World for no better purpose than to take selfies while amassing insane levels of credit card debt. No more “going just to be able to brag you went there.”

(4) Jogging and Biking. Stop eating freaking grains and sugars already, and you can stop obstructing the streets trying to be the fittest corpse in the graveyard. Eat fatty meat, get thin while you sleep (I do not lie!) You can shut down all the irritating gyms, too. Or hook the machines up so they at least generate electricity, your choice.

(5) School Buses. ‘Round here, there isn’t usually more than one kid on each 50’ redundant behemoth the Feds mandate the State mandates the Town have for each and every possible route, even though Mommy drives the Precious Ones to school and 58 after-school activities daily in the family Range Rover.

(6) Turn all Colleges into trade schools, because they’re obviously making the populace STUPID!

Now tell me THAT won’t improve the weather! 😉

Jean Parisot
September 14, 2019 11:12 am

How about we have rigorous, continuous debate about the collection of measurement data, so our great-grand children can have a some hope of understanding Earth’s climate – rather than trying to ‘solve’ climate change.

September 14, 2019 11:18 am

Nothing more than an alarmist realizing they’ve taken the message too far, gone off the deep end, and are in trouble of losing followers. All he’s saying is tame the alarmism to get maximum exposure.

September 14, 2019 11:22 am

Wait, wait, I thought I was the world’s top meteorologist. No?

Reply to  4caster
September 14, 2019 11:55 am

It seems ‘top meteorologist’ is a UN construct: their top guy is the world top guy because he’s their top guy.

Myself, I like Joe Bastardi. And that Watts guy.

Reply to  Gamecock
September 14, 2019 12:15 pm

Beat me to it.

Reply to  Gamecock
September 15, 2019 2:09 am

Piers Corbyn talks sense, too unlike his idiot brother.

Reply to  4caster
September 14, 2019 1:42 pm

Wait, what?! You mean it’s not Al Gore?

September 14, 2019 11:22 am

Funny thing. For all the scare talk, for all the hysteria, I haven’t seen any sign of global warming in my daily life. I wonder if anyone else has seen any actual sign of it in their lives?

I’m approaching 70 years old. I’ve seen lots of things change over the last 70 years. But the weather today seems to be just what it always has been. Sometimes there are cold winters and hot summers, and sometimes there are mild winters and mild summers. But overall I just don’t see any difference over the last 70 years in the weather. If there is any pattern or trend in the weather I sure don’t see it. If global warming were actually happen, don’t you think by now we’d have begun to see some actual sign of it in our daily lives?

I’m not talking about tables of data or computer models or stories about starving polar bears. I’m talking about walking out on my front porch some summer afternoon and saying “Wow, it’s never been this hot before in Chicago, and come to think of it I don’t remember another summer ever being this hot.” But that hasn’t happened. And they’ve been talking about global warming for something like forty years now. Now maybe I’m just not an observant person. But I’m pretty sure I would have noticed a big thing like global warming. I know it is so hard to believe but you think it could just possibly be that no one has seen global warming in real life because global warming doesn’t exist? Like the Easter Bunny, where we all know the Easter Bunny is real but no one has ever actually seen him?

Reply to  Marty
September 14, 2019 12:37 pm

Nicely said. This is one reason that the skeptics are all old folks, and the alarmists can rile up the youngsters. We’ve got experience on our side, and the youngsters don’t.

Brenda Donovan
Reply to  Marty
September 14, 2019 12:40 pm

There are glaciers melting, sea levels rising, temperatures getting hotter every year, disastrous storms, out of control fires. And what have most people noticed over the last 30 years ? Like you, a big fat zero.

I’m thinking ordinary people like me are reading these warming reports in mainstream media with a big yawn or turning to sites like this to get a different viewpoint. And then when you start to dig a little deeper, it gets truly frightening. When I read “the science is settled” whoa…something ain’t right.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Brenda Donovan
September 15, 2019 2:59 am

There have been a few scientists who had total faith in the IPCC and its reports – until they actually read one and found it riddled with flaws. And there are some who question their version of the science in their particular field but believe that in every other field they are honest and competent and have got it right.

It is amusing that the extreme alarmists have turned on the IPCC and that in response sceptics can point to the IPCC reports as the first counter argument.

James P
Reply to  Marty
September 14, 2019 3:50 pm

Same here… I’ve lived nearly 60 years in the same city, outdoors for walks every day, and nothing has noticeably changed in that time. I think it will be hard to convince average people to radically downgrade their lifestyles for an emergency they are unable to detect.

Reply to  Marty
September 14, 2019 5:52 pm

I’ll tell you what I see–the leaves changing 3 weeks early here in New England, and the grass cut off growing cold turkey in spite of plentiful rain. Hickories loaded with nuts, insane amount of seeds on maples. Stock growing out thick winter coats already. Canada geese showed up a month early, too.

Now y’think the birds and trees and beasties maybe are a tad more sensitive to that ol’ Solar Minimum incoming that we sorta-slow de-evolved “smart” primates?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Marty
September 16, 2019 10:30 am

I will second that notion. I am 69 and have seen a number of seasons go by. I have also traveled enough that I know the “climate” of Canada is different than my “climate” in the central USA and different than the “climate” in Houston, Tx. Until GCM’s can break down the differences to regions, no one will have any clue as to how accurate they are. Right now they are worth nothing more than the crystal ball at Madam Knowitall at the House of Fortunes.

September 14, 2019 11:29 am

Stop all fossil fuel use, let people freeze to death, then spend 16 trillion (bernie’s plan) to make all the rich people even more comfortable… The slaves can live outside of the cities in little homes powered by solar panels which work only when the sun is shining.

Reply to  Sunny
September 14, 2019 4:32 pm

I wonder if anyone has made an estimate of the death toll resulting from the sudden ceasation of fossil fuel use? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was somewhere around 4 billion. The climate extremists seem to be either oblivious to this, or worse, aware of it but fine with it.

Reply to  MarkH
September 15, 2019 11:38 am

The watermelons – true scarlet-interior types – would look at a mere 4 billion dead as a very real failure.
Only a few hundred million – of a current global population of 7,700-7,800 million humans like you and me – should be permitted to survive, as a peasant/serf [or slave] to the Elite, the True Believers, the Archimandrites of the Faith [who will need their concubines, too].
So – about seven thousand million ordinary people [‘deplorables’ like me] will have to die, in pretty short order, and lo-o-o-ong before their time.

Famine and hypothermia look to be the weapons of choice.
Other weapons will be available.

I will seek candidates not touched by the green lunacy if we ever get another General Election here in the UK.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Sunny
September 16, 2019 10:32 am

You ever watch the Hunger Games movies?

V. Dominique
September 14, 2019 11:33 am

He may have a clue when it comes to weather but his knowledge of agriculture is deficient. 70% of cropland is not used for livestock feed. The bulk of livestock feed (86% according to recent studies) comes from grasses and forbs (pasture and hayfields), crop residues (roughly 90% of the phytomass produced by crops is not human consumable), and the byproducts of food processing (wheat midlins, oil meals, peels, fruit pulp, brewers grains, and so on). Also, more than two-thirds of the non-ice land surface that is currently used for food production can only support livestock. Less than one-third of the land used for food production is arable, and most of that land cannot be used to produce food all year long, year after year, because of limitations due to climate, soil type and/or topography.

Reply to  V. Dominique
September 14, 2019 4:32 pm

And basically all nitrogen fertilizers are derived from natural gas, which is another reason crop yields have not been better.

James Clarke
September 14, 2019 11:43 am

After putting up with decades of irrelevant appeals to authority as a basis for being terrified about climate change, are we now going to start making our own irrelevant appeals to authority?

I guess I am just frustrated with my species. It should be apparent to nearly everyone with a high school level education that the claims of the alarmists must be rejected, and that their motivations must be strongly questioned. Yet, the press, the politicians and a portion of the masses just soak up obvious lunacy like a sponge in water! Their unquestioning acceptance seems to continue until someone whom they believe to be in authority says otherwise.

If we are indeed an intelligent life form, we would not need Mr. Taalas to speak the obvious before the rest of us can start to understand.

September 14, 2019 11:45 am

What a letdown. I dived right into this pile of horse manure digging as fast as I could….and guess what….no pony.</b Same old bait and switch "look, a warmist is coming to his senses!!!!……NOT." As long as he spouts the "CO2 is the boogey man" garbage, he is just another lost panderer. He is just dog whistling to the left to tone down the doom and gloom.

Orson Olson
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
September 14, 2019 2:10 pm

(TEWS_Pilot–Thanks for properly expressing my jaundiced disappointment early this morning. I was on Judith Curry’s blog and caught a tweet to this “news” in the upper left corner; I had a look at Larry’s breathlessness and could only mutter about his miscomprehension alone.)

Bruce Cobb
September 14, 2019 11:53 am

So, Climate Alarmism shouldn’t be at defcon 5; defcon 2 or 3 is fine. A little Alarmism goes a long way.
Got it.
How about no? There is no cause for concern about the climate. None whatsoever. The climate is fine. It’s the people who are fracked.

Smart Rock
September 14, 2019 11:53 am

How have we come to this place?

Three years ago, this guy, who is firmly behind IPCC, Paris accord, AGW, fossil fuel abandonment, etc. etc. would have been painted as the enemy by skeptics who frequent WUWT. Now, he’s almost an ally in the opposition to mainstream media that constantly parrot messages of imminent doom and disaster, and over-educated, under-informed twits gluing themselves to city streets. He wouldn’t have been dismissed as a lukewarmer, but a full-frontal AGW proponent.

The fact that some of us (well, Larry, anyway) are looking at Mr. Taalas as almost on “our side” is the clearest illustration of just how crazy this whole climate thing has become.

The one piece of encouragement I can get from this is that is shows just how much, and how quickly the CAGWaggers have escalated their campaign rhetoric and their blizzard of misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. It just can’t keep on ramping up like that for ever; I think we must be moving towards some sort of dénouement in the near future. It probably won’t be very pretty.

Antero Ollila
September 14, 2019 12:00 pm

When I read the first time this interview, I got a positive feeling and Taalas addressed the Finnish audience, so I thought. In my country – as it may be in many other western countries – it is media who control and show the way in the climate change issues. Taalas had noticed that it had gone over the top and there is a risk that people start to think by themselves.

Media has created its own message about climate change and for ordinary people, the most convincing evidence about climate change is hurricanes and severe storms because the reason is climate change because media tells so.

In Finland, there is a continuous stream of news stories in which way people should change their way of living for saving the world. It looks like everybody should have a positive story in which he/she has been able to change the living habits. People are feeling guilty if they have no such stories.

The positive message of Taalas was, the individual cannot save the world by doing the small things in a little better way. Big numbers will make the change.

Roy W. Spencer
September 14, 2019 12:18 pm

He’s toast. (His position at WMO, that is.)

Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
September 14, 2019 1:45 pm

Hmm, he did say we must completely abandon fossil fuels. Doesn’t that say it all in a nutshell?

Brenda Donovan
Reply to  brians356
September 14, 2019 3:16 pm

True that to the statement “He’s toast”.

Brenda Donovan
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
September 14, 2019 3:14 pm

True that.

William Haas
September 14, 2019 12:25 pm

I have good news for everyone. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet CO2 levels were lower than today and no climate tipping point was crossed and the last ice age did take place. We should enjoy the current interglacial period as long as it lasts. A new ice age will happen but that is most likely many thousands of years off in the future.

Reply to  William Haas
September 14, 2019 6:19 pm

Mr. Haas, I like your summation. PLEASE forward it to President Trump and your local Senators and Representatives. Mayb if we all did . . .

September 14, 2019 12:33 pm

If his comments are interpreted as a moderate and a step forward god help us. His solution is still going to destroy western economies. I think he is still delusional to think the cost of doing nothing is still so disastrous. I think his concern is that the hysterical alarmism is creating unintended consequences rather than the intended consequences , which has nothing to do with climate change but to destroy capitalism as we know it. The only encouragement I see is that the more extreme the fringes get the more the devotees may be able to be convinced to pull back from their own warmist views, but only slightly. We desperately need more Venezuelan type blackouts to hit countries like France, Germany, Britain make people understand the consequences of their action. The utopian world they seek is in reality a socialist egalitarian society where electricity is a luxury that only the elites can afford. Ironically the China v the rest of the world trade war may be won by China because of the rest of the worlds global warming own goal.

September 14, 2019 12:38 pm

This is bogus stuff. This guy, Taalas, and his “turn to moderation” was covered here earlier. One commenter gave a link to a .pdf of one of Taalas stock presentations. It is nothing but alarmism. Every single alarmist talking point, in order, all in one nice tidy package. Apparently Taalas is one of the big alarmists over at WMO. So what happened? Simple. The alarmists are losing control of the message to the hysterics. They do not like that.
Taalas issued his statement of “moderation” a day after the US presidential candidate climate showcase, where they demonstrated just how lunatic they have become. It was easy for the alarmists to see how the hysterics are harming the message and the UN Climate Change Brand. Something had to be done.
This is all what it has always been. Well calculated misinformation and misdirection.
Interesting that Kummer would accept this change from “hard sell” to “soft sell” at face value.
I do not trust Taalas and his appeal to moderation as far as I can throw him.

And NO, we are *not* going to “Restart The Debate”.

Rod Evans
September 14, 2019 12:43 pm

Larry, do you really think this guy presents a moderating stance from the climate alarmists??
“The aim is to raise the level of ambition in reducing emissions. If it cannot be lifted, we will move towards a 3-5 degree warming at the end of the century.” …”We also need to focus on adapting to climate change.”
Does that statement from Taalas sound like someone who is even remotely realistic in their projections? What are these emissions he refers to? If it is CO2 (just guessing) then the chief of scientific opinion at the UN is as far removed from scientific reality as the rest of the alarmist brigade.

Paul Penrose
September 14, 2019 12:43 pm

A moderate climate alarmist is still a climate alarmist. Are we supposed to cheer because he sounds a bit less shrill? The man is still advocating public policies that will wipe out most of the advances of the last 150 years and plunge us into a world wide depression that will cause massive suffering and death on a scale not seen since the two world wars. All based on a theory that’s so incomplete it can’t make any valid predictions about future climate states. So who’s the crazy one here?

September 14, 2019 12:53 pm

I share others view that this is not in fact a moderate statement. He is just trying to normalize extreme statements by criticizing the wild nonsensical ones that are obviously wrong. He still clings to computers models and extreme scenarios and pays little obvious attention to actual satellite temperature and sea level observational data.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2019 1:05 pm

“In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy. Abandonment of oil, coal, natural gas, and peat in Finland. That is the key.”

So this is just the ‘hard cheese’ no panic version of the same agenda. That’s impotent news.

September 14, 2019 1:08 pm

Hi Jean,

Good point. I suggest we already have considerable understanding of what drives millennial-scale weather and climate. Details are summarized below.

I think we are getting to a point where solar activity can be predicted for years or even decades – not my area of expertise.

There are a few components that we could improve upon – for example:
– A good longer-term predictive method (timing and magnitude) of El Nino/La Nina events. Theodor Landscheidt had some success. Others?

Best personal regards, Allan

Selected references:

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng. (ret.), June 15, 2019


Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng. (ret.), June 13, 2015


1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.

2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
Note: This is better expressed as “Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.”

4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

– Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

September 14, 2019 1:25 pm

What happens when the cold comes, polar ice expands, and growing seasons are shortened? Will the answer be “We need more CO2!”

Reply to  Yooper
September 14, 2019 3:23 pm

Yooper asked:
What happens when the cold comes, polar ice expands, and growing seasons are shortened? Will the answer be “We need more CO2!”

Probably no – the warmists will shift seamlessly from “CO2 causes catastrophic global warming!” to “CO2 causes catastrophic global cooling!” – both blatant falsehoods are equally acceptable to the extreme left, who lie about everything – and their idiot acolytes will actually believe them!

September 14, 2019 1:31 pm

“does not require an individual to have an ascetic life or give up child labor.”
I wholeheartedly agree! Everyone deserves a few frills in life & if I have to kick these kids in the ass to get a little work done around here once in a while, that’s OK, too.

September 14, 2019 1:59 pm

Slip of the tongue will get you every time.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 14, 2019 2:02 pm

“For some of the planet, living conditions are getting harder, but people have been living in difficult conditions.”

For which people on the planet are living conditions getting harder as a result of climate change? Statements like this are thrown out as solid fact, and without any substantiation whatsoever.

September 14, 2019 2:16 pm

On a related note, would it be possible to take action against AOC under Article 240 of the Penal Code for:
Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree related to sea level rise in Florida?

A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, he or she:
1. Initiates or circulates a false report or warning of an alleged occurrence or impending occurrence of a crime, catastrophe or emergency under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or
inconvenience will result; or
2. Reports, by word or action, to an official or quasi-official agency or organization having the function of dealing with emergencies involving danger to life or property, an alleged occurrence or impending
occurrence of a catastrophe or emergency which did not in fact occur or does not in fact exist; or etc.

Just a thought.

September 14, 2019 3:13 pm

ABOVE: “This is the first push-back I have seen against the climate alarmists’ exaggerations and misrepresentations of science”
I missed the part where he pushed back against alarmists’ . He is advocating the same activism and policy and is only asking that the rhetoric be changed.

ABOVE: “Scientists are turning against climate activists and their scare tactics.”
If someone has examples of scientist(S) turning against climate activists, I would appreciate seeing those examples. Mr Taalas pushing back against scare tactics, is a party of one.

Jeff Alberts
September 14, 2019 3:20 pm

“According to him, the solution to climate change does not require an individual to have an ascetic life or give up child labor. ”

Wha? I’m guessing this interview is just a really bad overall translation.

September 14, 2019 3:21 pm

I wish I could accurately describe my conclusion about the WMO people I met when I worked in Manhattan. I basically conclude that these people, in the late 1980s, and this is the best way I can characterize it, were disconnected from reality. It seems to have gotten much worse. But, the U.N, like government service, is rife with people who treat money as if it is Monopoly money. They are communist organizations, and as such, the disconnect from the real, working, successful world is striking.

September 14, 2019 3:27 pm

In the nearly forty years since 1980 when the Global Warming hysteria started, we have noticed that nearly nothing has changed in the climate but that there has been a serious crisis in the public debate on the subject of the climate accompanied by serious disregard for consequences by the Warmistas advocating counterproductive climate mitigation measures. This reached its crescendo recently with a Swedish academic endorsing a return to cannibalism.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 14, 2019 6:23 pm

Which is doing nothing for their cause, believe me! The big question is, WHY don’t we de-fund all these think tanks, NGO grifters, and especially the UN? Why are the taxpayers of the Western world paying these charlatans to crank out this drivel?

September 14, 2019 4:23 pm

This guy has not moderated a whit.

Back about twenty years ago, when I first started researching this subject, I found myself on a ‘warmest disaster site’, can’t remember which one. There were many predictions of disasters, just scant years in the future. Some were outrageous.

I made what I thought was a reasonable comment, something like: I think it best to be careful with predictions of disasters happening in the near future. There is the danger that global warming is occurring, and will one day cause serious problems. If you predict disasters, though, and they don’t happen as predicted, the result will be loss of credibility, and no one will believe in potential future problems, even if global warming is confirmed.

I was excoriated by other commenters, and censored from making future comments (I only made that one comment).

Well, twenty years have passed with no climate disasters. What can they do but admit that some of the rhetoric has been over the top, but global warming really, really, really is bad, and we must mend our ways or disasters really, really will happen someday?

He is merely trying to walk back the failed predictions to maintain credibility, and continue pressing for the same drastic actions. He should be held to explain what negative impacts he still believes will happen should we continue using fossil fuels.

Roy Oldham
September 14, 2019 5:09 pm

They will still be have the climate change debate in 50 years time.

September 14, 2019 7:37 pm

As long as the hockey stick is the holy grail of the IPCC, we are doomed. Just had a nice experience in Bogota with warm nights with clouds, cold nights with clear skies.

Reply to  rakman
September 14, 2019 7:46 pm


“As long as the hockey stick is the holy grail of the IPCC, we are doomed.”

It’s not, it was removed from the IPCC report some time ago. How long ago, I’m not sure.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  RStabb
September 14, 2019 10:29 pm

They relied on it heavily early on. It gave them false legitimacy.

Howard Dewhirst
September 14, 2019 8:38 pm

Apparently he has now withdrawn his comments; can’t imagine why

Timo Kuusela
September 14, 2019 11:31 pm

As a Finn, I do not trust the guy at all. He is a former head of the FMI, Finnish Meteorological Institute, and he is an extreme, rewarded political alarmist in disquise. He has been misleading Finns himself in the Finnish media, so now he must again have something nasty in his back pocket. Even before, and during his reign in the FMI, measuring stations were replaced with ones close to the hot spots,( their flagship station in Käpylä, Helsinki is surrounded by asphalt parking lots, buildings and bare rock hill), only two stations are still operational that have been in the same place for a century or so. Those show clearly that Finland is now at the same temperature as it was in the late 1930:s. No “double arctic warming” for 80 + years. As Taalas is now trying a new approach to brainwash people, that is sounding less alarmist but hiding alarmist agenda inside sentences, we must be prepared for this new alarmist tactic. The propaganda is still there, just made to soud like moderate. Do not trust these “former alarmists”. They are still on a mission.

September 15, 2019 4:51 am

“In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy. Abandonment of oil, coal, natural gas, and peat in Finland. That is the key.”

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
–The Who

“Same as it ever was.”
–The Talking Heads

Even if Petteri Taalas is serious about dialing back the cries of wolf, he still lives in the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution Energy Fantasyland.

It’s like replacing Stalin with Trotsky.

Gary Kendall
September 16, 2019 12:40 am

Did he mention that Finland is building a new nuclear power plant? It is being provided by Rosatom.

Matt G
September 16, 2019 1:24 pm

The fight against climate change does not require a lower standard of living. “Economically and technically, we can do the fight. That was the message of the October IPCC report. Living with adverse effects is estimated to be 20 times more expensive than the investments needed to overcome the problem.” …

A lower standard of living has already been occurring for many already because of high energy prices caused by the fight against imaginary evil climate change.

There has been no known living adverse effects with nothing usually about climate going on, so this is a hideous claim. Therefore normal weather events costing 20 times more expensive than 50-100 trillion, who’s maths?

For the US it was expected to be at least 4.5 trillion by 2030, so will extreme weather caused by droughts, hurricanes and floods etc cost the country at least 100 trillion? Hurricanes, droughts and floods will still happen even when the 4.5 trillion has been spent. Why are some people that still support extreme activist views so far from reality when even trying to tone it down?

“In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy. Abandonment of oil, coal, natural gas, and peat in Finland. That is the key.”

In Finland CO2 emissions are 0.13% of the world’s total, so it will have zero affect. Giving up all of these will lead to many more deaths in Finland during winter because there is no viable energy replacement to achieve this goal without building nuclear plants.

Steve Martin
September 16, 2019 3:22 pm

“WHO = World Meteorological Organization”

Wouldn’t that be WMO?? I thought WHO was World Health Organization…

September 16, 2019 10:27 pm

I hope all you 2 brains both wound be lonely BE proud for frighting all our young children and there family life kids come home from school brain washed and starting fights with there family sad

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights