Curry: The State of Climate Science in 5 Minutes

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 13 July 2021

Dr. Judith Curry has treated the world to a marvelous 5-minute synopsis of climate science on her blog Climate Etc. It is absolutely brilliant and makes a great bit to share with friends, family, neighbors and colleagues who would benefit from a more pragmatic view of the Climate Science field.

With her permission, I share it here — just the synopsis without her introduction.


“Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

Its warming.  The warming is caused by us.  Warming is dangerous.  We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming.  Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

So what’s wrong with this narrative?  In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions.  The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty.  Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales.  And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say.  According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.  In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states.  Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value.  Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’

Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.

Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change?  No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants.  We should work to minimize air and water pollution.  From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change.  Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events. 

With regards to energy.  All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy.  However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.

How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign.  Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises.  We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with.  We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies.

We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing.  The objective should be to improve human well being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.”


I couldn’t agree more. I might adjust a few details but would share this with anyone who wanted a straight shooting from the hip version of the climate situation.

Thank you, Dr. Curry.

# # # # #

4.7 53 votes
Article Rating
211 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 13, 2021 6:11 pm

Yeah! We don’t know how big the problem is, or how to solve it if it does exist, but appropriate vast sums anyway!

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 14, 2021 9:30 am

Global cooling started circa 2007 at the end of strong SC23 but just for a few years, PDO went negative (cold mode) for these few years, there were many extreme cold events, and then PDO rebounded positive.
 
Global cooling again started Feb2020 at the end of weak SC24, as we correctly predicted in 2002. Global avg UAHLT dropped 0.6C in the last 16 months to June 2020.
 
It is obvious that increasing atmospheric CO2 plays NO significant role in global temperature – that was fraud – it’s ALL water vapor, driven by solar activity.
 
Alleged fossil-fuel-driven Climate Crisis Cancelled – total false nonsense – a fifty-year-old pack of lies.
 
New climate crisis – solar-driven global cooling has already started – hundreds of new extreme-cold events all over the planet – crop failures. vital energy systems compromised by green energy scams… See Electroverse.net for hundreds of record-cold events.
 
How long global cooling lasts is estimated by some to extend to ~2050 – and humanity suffers greatly during cold periods.
 
Next steps:
Imprison the warmist fraudsters and adapt quickly to the new reality.
Quickly repair the damage to energy systems and bundle up!
 
_______________

Told you so – 19 years ago:
 
Our 2002 Predictions – #1 and 2 were easy.

  1. There is no dangerous global warming.
  2. Green energy is ineffective and foolish.

Prediction #3 for global cooling to start by ~2020 was more difficult – and also correct.

See Electroverse.net for hundreds of record-cold events all over the planet. Bundle up – it’s getting colder out there.
 
In 2002, co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U, Ottawa and Allan MacRae, P.Eng. (now retired), McGill, Queens, U of Alberta, published:
 
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
 
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
 
Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on communication with Dr Tim Patterson:
 
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
 
MacRae updated his global cooling prediction in 2013, based on cold events that occurred starting circa 2008 near the end of Solar Cycle 23:
 
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
________________

Greg
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 14, 2021 11:27 am

Yep, whatever CO2 effect is there is lost in the noise of weather.

Water, in all it’s states is the control knob of climate and it is out of our hands.

Judith Curry makes a pretty good job of it in such a short time. The one big failing IMO, is that she failed to challenge the “clean” energy lie as it is usually used to mean low CO2.

Yes, I’m all for “clean energy” too but that has NOTHING to do with an odourless, tasteless, invisible trace gas which is totally non toxic at any level we are conceivably going to encounter.

Saying “everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However ….” is tacitly accepting the whole anti-carbon diatribe. An unfortunate and unnecessary concession.

Last edited 15 days ago by Greg
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Greg
July 16, 2021 8:37 am

Saying “everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However ….” is tacitly accepting the whole anti-carbon diatribe. An unfortunate and unnecessary concession.

Perhaps she was referring to real pollution, not CO2.

bill Johnston
July 13, 2021 6:36 pm

We must fix it. Send money.

spangled drongo
July 13, 2021 6:49 pm

Speaking as an OBE [over bloody eighty] the climate today has never been better, my farm has never been greener, sea levels at our old sea-front house are lower today than they were in 1946 and whether this is down to natural climate variability or climate crisis, I’m afraid I couldn’t say but it’s OK.

spangled drongo
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 13, 2021 6:58 pm

Kip, Queensland, Australia.

The official mean sea levels on the east coast show the latest reading as 2 inches lower than the first reading 107 years earlier.

Not much climate crisis here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

jmorpuss
Reply to  spangled drongo
July 13, 2021 10:36 pm

Good luck tonight with the state of origin spangled drongo , it will be hard to roll the blues for their 3 nill series win.

The problem with all science institutions at the moment is their all threatened by the truth. Graham Hancock explains it pretty well in this short video.They Feel So Threatened By The Truth | Graham Hancock – YouTube

StephenP
Reply to  jmorpuss
July 13, 2021 11:38 pm

Yes, the scientists are scared stiff that they will lose their funding if they don’t say what the politicians want.
The main problem we have is that there is no political party in the UK which does not subscribe to the CAGW meme, so who can we vote for to bring a bit of sense back into the discussion?

jmorpuss
Reply to  StephenP
July 14, 2021 12:40 am

I hear you Stephen, It’s crazy how our lives are controlled and manipulated by PENCE and CENTS, instead of sense, some where along the line we’ve got wealthy and worthy mixed up. The only way to create change is to stop doing what were been doing first. But people are scared of change and the pence and cents aren’t going to give up the stranglehold on our everyday lives. One thing I do know IS you can’t trust a system that locks up whistle blowers like Julian Assange or Dr Judy Mikovits,

spangled drongo
Reply to  jmorpuss
July 14, 2021 12:05 am

It is hard to believe how these so-called scientists can hide from the real world the way they do.

Football players can’t, why should scientists?

jmorpuss
Reply to  spangled drongo
July 14, 2021 12:56 am

I think you should change your name to spangled emperor. Hey Stephen It’s a shame you cant put an old head on young shoulders, who was it that said  “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Herbert
Reply to  jmorpuss
July 14, 2021 2:45 am

jmorpuss,
On the State of Origin Football,I follow Eddie Maguire’s advice on all football-
“Never fall in love with a football team.The Highs are too few and the Lows are too low!”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  jmorpuss
July 14, 2021 3:49 pm

These ‘committed’ scientists have much more than ever to be afraid of on more than one front in the climate industry. Six years and counting of serious cooling that could raise the spectre of becoming an extension of the Dreaded Pause that stressed them out for 18+years while CO2 marched briskly on, leaving T behind and actually led to the career- ending “Climate Blues” clinical depression for many.

The second gut wrenching fear is the virtual certainty of CO2 accelerating in the atmosphere and surpassing 600ppm before 2100. Five billion non-Western folk are pushing for prosperity using coal power. Over 4000 new coal power plants, many completed, under construction or on the drawing board for completion in the next several years. These folk will not stop this development as some, like Bangladesh, are now enjoying 15%+ annual GDP growth and their fertility rate has dropped from 6 children to just under 2 in 6yrs!!

Climatly scientists are head in the sand over this. We are going to do the big CO2 experiment and we are going to know ECS to several decimal places. Their 100% failure rate on projections and calamities has added to niggling worries that CO2 is perhaps benign (Great Greening ^тм, bumper crops and greatly expanded natural habitat) and there is a good chance that we will meet the Paris Accord without doing anything. After all, 1.5°C is just double what we got in the last hundred years.

They know they will have laid at their feet the trillions wasted and lost opportunities, the unnecessary idiocy of renewables, and millions of deaths from induced poverty around the world including those in the Western world.

griff
Reply to  spangled drongo
July 14, 2021 1:27 am

Really? No wildfires in Queensland rain forest now? No tropical cyclones affecting you?

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:13 am

Omg griff, you’re right of course. Fires and cyclones are unprecedented and currently decimating Australia. Is anyone still left?

So, in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] Dangerous CO2 1950-2025

spangled drongo
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:28 am

Haven’t had a serious cyclone here since the 1970s and provided they let me strike a match to cool-burn the extra fuel load from authorities not doing doing their job, wildfires are no different from what they have ever been.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 5:48 am

I’m guessing that your troll handbook didn’t include these facts, but there have always been wildfires and cyclones in Australia. There is nothing unusual about the size or intensity of the recent ones.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 12:08 pm

Lrp
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:04 pm

Yeah, tell him Griff!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  spangled drongo
July 14, 2021 2:56 pm

Spangled from another OBE. That drop in sealevel might be tied to cooling. Our spring and summer temperatures Canada this year and in the east have been cooler than average by most often over -5 to -10°C. We had frost in early June at night in Ontario east. I’ve called it the “year without summer”. We virtually always have some 31-33C days in June and July. It warmed up to 25-27 after mid July from a cold first half of the month. Same in east half of US and in Europe.

spangled drongo
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 15, 2021 12:43 am

Yes Gary, and in the SH, that the Pacific is not rising is supported by the fact that atolls are increasing more than decreasing in area, too.

There obviously must be net land ice gain from more cooling than warming.

Newminster
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 15, 2021 5:24 am

Middle of France. Midday temp 17.3°C. This is the lowest midday temperature for any day in July since we moved here 11 years ago. MeteoFrance are quoting it as 11 degrees below the “normal” figure for July. Rainfall for the week so far 115mm, the highest figure for any July week since we started measuring it four years ago.

Plum and pear crop totally wiped out by late Spring frost.

Now I know all this is weather and I know 11 years is close to irrelevant but to my way of thinking that level of rainfall (and most of Eastern France is under at least a yellow alert for heavy rain or raised river levels) suggests a cooling atmosphere not a warming one. The general consensus locally is that, to date, this has been the worst April-July in living memory.

Whatever the climate experts (and griff) like to claim!

GeologyJim
July 13, 2021 6:53 pm

Dr Curry could have added that Earth has been in geologic Icehouse conditions for the last 2.5 million years, there’s no reason to believe that is changing soon, and relatively warm periods in the past 12,000 years have all been highly beneficial to the human race

Great, spot-on summary of the uncertain science

griff
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 14, 2021 1:26 am

The change in the past hasn’t been as rapid, nor were there as many people of a technical civilisation living in densely packed cities along sea coasts.

I think the historic droughts in the US mid west displaced the native American populations there, the Mayans and residents of the S American W coast certainly had civiliations ended by climate change.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:28 am

griff
Three millimeters per year rise. Going on 175 years. Despite data manipulation, not actually accelerating. Slight multi-decadal fluctuations in rate, nothing more. The Netherlands largely below sea level yet not yet annexed by Doggerland.

You reference natural climate change in western US from eight or nine centuries ago. It does illustrate that subsistence farming in an arid climate is not preferable to having technology and abundant affordable energy from fossil fuels.

So, in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] Dangerous CO2 1950-2025

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 5:50 am

1) The actual evidence shows that climate has changed much more rapidly than at present many times in the past.

2) As your example of they Maya, etc. shows, climate is quite capable of changing without the help of man. You have yet to demonstrate that any of the recent changes aren’t completely natural in nature.

3) The drought that ended the Anasazi culture was much more intense than anything experienced in recent decades and lasted for over a century.

Last edited 15 days ago by MarkW
Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 7:13 am

“I think the historic droughts in the US mid west displaced the native American populations there, the Mayans and residents of the S American W coast certainly had civiliations ended by climate change.”

Yes, *natural* climate change did that, Griff. No CO2 involved.

Keep that in mind the next time you try to claim a drought in California is being caused by CO2. California has had longer and deeper droughts in the past, absent CO2, than they have had since California became a State.

Droughts and wildfires are normal parts of the climate picture in California. There’s nothing unusual there. Nothing CO2 related. That’s according to the IPCC, Griff.

mkelly
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 7:27 am

From Encyclopedia Brittanica about Young Dryas “In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.”

So your first sentence is way wrong as far as rapidity.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  mkelly
July 14, 2021 12:12 pm

Thank you. Sounds like “griff” needs the admonition: You’re entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

starzmom
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 10:27 am

Since those events happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it is clearly not a CO2 problem.

Bob
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 10:48 am

“The change in the past hasn’t been as rapid”. Oh yeah? From 20,000 years BP to 6000 years BP, sea level rose about 130 metres, or about a metre per century. I.e. about 5 times faster than the 17cm this century. So if you haven’t done that bit of basic geological research you’re either lazy or stupid. Take your pick.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 11:44 am

“The change in the past hasn’t been as rapid…”

Wrong.
Just, plain, flat-out…wrong.

“…nor were there as many people of a technical civilisation living in densely packed cities along sea coasts.”

Yeah, and so what does that prove?
Why are so many people choosing to live at coastlines?

There are many more of us in every type of place than ever before.
We have tens of millions crowded into deserts.
And along rivers.

And were these places coastlines and deserts and rivers before people moved there, or have they only since them becoming massively populated, did they acquire their distinctive characteristics?

Whatever the reason or reasons may be for people choosing to live in such places, does that mean we have magically acquired the ability to control the weather of a planet?
We cannot control the weather of a single inch of the Earth for even a single minute.
What delusion makes you think we can control the long term averages of weather over an entire planet?

What gives you the ridiculous idea that human beings have the ability to decide what sea level will be?

Last edited 15 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Lrp
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 14, 2021 1:10 pm

Griff is immune against common sense

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
July 15, 2021 5:17 am

How do you justify the “hasn’t been as rapid” assessment? Any reconstruction has a temporal limit which precludes judging how “quickly” something happened.

Mike Dubrasich
July 13, 2021 6:57 pm

“Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say.”

That statement is not true. Danger, or hazard, or risk, is a subject much studied by medical doctors, actuaries, economists, engineers, and other scientists and scientific disciplines. Science and/or The Science has a huge amount to say about risk. “Values” are also much studied, as in cost/benefit analyses, appraisal, budgeting, and other research.

I get what Dr. Curry is trying to say. She clarifies somewhat in the rest of that paragraph. The IPCC, that bastion of The Science, cannot find a “robust” predictor of certain hazards, and the Market appears to dismissive of climate alarmist dire forecasts — the most vocal alarmist leaders all own beach front property, for instance.

But science does have a role in assessing risk. The problem is that excessively politicized agenda-driven fake science has made unsupportable — indeed false — claims or “findings” regarding climate “change” risk. It’s bad science, junk science, not science intruding where it does not belong.

The climate has changed continuously during the whole of human history (and prehistory for that matter). It’s not a new thing. It’s not something recently discovered. Humanity has learned and adapted continuously since we rose up on our hind legs. It’s not a new challenge. It’s not even a difficult challenge given that people have lived, survived, and thrived in every conceivable climate the Earth has to offer.

The risk posed by potential climate “change” can be measured. It is nil. There is zero cost to a warming world. There is no problem — there are only benefits and marketing opportunities.

griff
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 14, 2021 1:24 am

You say there is no risk when large chunks of the USA are burning and in drought and seeing heatwaves.

which ARE climate change.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:31 am

Griff, you still don’t know the difference between weather and climate. Or perhaps you don’t want to know.

Climate believer
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 2:38 am

Grifter doesn’t know it’s arse from it’s elbow.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Climate believer
July 14, 2021 5:18 am

He can only do what the Guardian tells him to as they are the fount of all knowledge and only speak The Truth in his World.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:34 am

Are you sure that you’re not being paid by Anthony Watts to discredit the alarmist viewpoint? If not, he’s getting a free ride.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] Dangerous CO2 1950-2025

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 14, 2021 3:05 pm

I’ve often wondered if Griff posts here to get rational responses to his inane comments. A paid skeptic shill?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 5:53 am

You have yet to demonstrate that these fires and droughts, which are well within the range of normal, are the result of CO2 and not nature.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 7:18 am

Droughts are a regular feature of California’s climate. How is that climate change? If they stopped having droughts, then *that* would be a climate change.

The IPCC says none of it is caused by human-derived CO2, which refutes your claims that the droughts and burning and heatwaves are caused by human-derived CO2.

You need to study “the science”, Griff. Let the IPCC be your guide.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 11:52 am

Wrong.
Since these events have always been a fact of life in the places having them, it is not climate change, it is in fact climate same.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 11:54 am

A warmer world is a wetter world.
And CO2 puts out fires, it cannot cause them.
But obviously we need a lot more of it.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:12 pm

Weather Griff, weather!

Jimf
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 3:42 pm

I’m sure everyone here has seen this except you, Griffey… blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/5dc1e11d-0684-49b9-98e8-185957c133a8

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 14, 2021 2:10 pm

Griff, as pointed out in the Curry synopsis, even the highly politicized IPCC hasn’t found any evidence of increased droughts or wildfires. And as a related post forcefully points out, the recent heat waves were primarily a weather event, not evidence of climate change. Are you trying to argue that the IPCC is wrong? 

Anders Valland
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 15, 2021 1:14 am

That statement is not true. Danger, or hazard, or risk, is a subject much studied by medical doctors, actuaries, economists, engineers, and other scientists and scientific disciplines. Science and/or The Science has a huge amount to say about risk. “Values” are also much studied, as in cost/benefit analyses, appraisal, budgeting, and other research.”

I do believe you are in error here. The fact that there have been publications that both address scientific matters and assess value impacts does not mean science has anything to say about values. It patently does not, and there are good reasons for it.

Science is the search for Truth. I use the capital letter “T” to indicate that the goal is to find the explanation for it all. In Einsteins words, it is the search for the simple underlying principles that will lead to understanding everything by pure deduction. It is not achievable, but it is the goal non the less.

The Truth is also what is to be known regardless of the prevailing values, ethics and morals. It is not the “good” truth, the “economically best” truth, the “humane” truth. It is plain and simple Truth.

This is the main reason you need training to try yourself at science. Most of us have what is known as human traits and will fall into the pit of trying to describe truths rather than Truth. Even with training most do.

Risk, danger and hazard are not scientific disciplines. They are engineering disciplines.

Cost/benefit, appraisal, budgeting are not scientific disciplines. They are economic and engineering disciplines.

Values are, by definition, outside the realm of science. One of the main problems we struggle with today is that somehow a lot of “scientists” do not like this and want science to include values. They encounter all sorts of problems when they try to mix the two, but have so far been able to suppress the all to apparent shortcomings that follow. This will change in the future, since time is on the side of science. The question is how much damage is done before the tide turns?

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 16, 2021 7:40 am

Mike,
When I first saw the statement:

Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say.

My initial reaction was the same as yours. I spent my entire career studying risk, and her statement sounded like she was dismissing those contributions. However, I thought about it a little more and while I won’t pretend to speak for Judith, I have some thoughts on the point she was trying to make. If it can be proven that man-made CO2 contributes to changes in climate, that will be a net cost to some groups of people and a net benefit to others. For example, a higher sea level might displace some people, while others will benefit from higher crop yields. Those groups of people are not likely to be the same groups, so society might ask whether those who benefit have a moral obligation to help those who bear the costs. Answering the narrow question is a question of values, about which scientists have little to contribute, but if the societal consensus is “yes”, scientists will be in a position to calculate the costs and benefits. I saw Curry’s response as speaking to the narrow question.

Unfortunately, this gets heavily wrapped up in politics. One of the classic examples is islands asking for reparations due to rising seas while not being able to point at actual evidence of harm.

B Clarke
July 13, 2021 7:00 pm

“The objective should be to improve human well being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.”

Isn’t climate change its goals all about “environment ” climate and the environment are both inextricably linked according to governments and environmentalists, are not climate measures ,laws ,regulations ,essentially the same as so called environmental measures “ban co2 producing cars to save the climate “you also save the environment, heavily regulate farming less meat = less ch4 (another so called climate bad gas) reduce farm land rewild .

All measure for climate and environmental protection are inextricably linked there not about climate there not about the environment there about control you agree with one eg the environment you agree with the narrative of climate change. Both have been inextricably linked by propaganda, government policy and activism. Environmental policy is another chapter out of the climate bible .

Last edited 16 days ago by B Clarke
hiskorr
Reply to  B Clarke
July 14, 2021 8:40 am

It is not at all clear that “climate” policies and “environmentalist” policies are identical, or even compatible. (See: Planet of the Humans”) I know of no environmentalist who would prefer clearcut hills to forests (biofuels), or hundreds of acres of solar panels or hundreds of thousands of acres of “wind farms” to tens of acres of power plants with much shorter power lines. There’s even the struggle between hydropower lakes and the loss of valley farmland.

B Clarke
Reply to  hiskorr
July 14, 2021 9:29 am

I surgest you read my post again, what part of banning cars do you not understand being inextricably linked to climate and environmentalism, what part of governments legislating in the name of climate and the environment do you not understand.

You yourself have just given a example of climate and environmental legislation go hand in hand “know of no environmentalist who would prefer clearcut hills to forests (biofuels), “. Of course you don’t every government in the world is planting trees to offset co2 (climate) and to clean the air ,rewild and wooded spaces for piece of mind.the two reasons are inextricably linked by governments through mandates, as for biofuel, not for people nearly every country i know of are banning the use of wood for domestic heating ,

You really need to understand climate and environmental legislation are inextricably linked.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  hiskorr
July 14, 2021 11:59 am

There’s even the struggle between hydropower lakes and the loss of valley farmland.”

Ridiculous.
Dams prevent floods, and also alleviate the effects of droughts.
Every lake created by a hydropower dam provides irrigation for vastly more arable acreage than is lost by the creation of the lake.

Every part of this assertion is false.

The struggle is between ridiculous jackasses and sane people.
Between the ignorant and the educated.
Between sensible and senseless.
Between smart and stupid.

July 13, 2021 7:01 pm

Lets turn the CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money. Waste is Not Waste if It Has A Purpose. https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo

gringojay
Reply to  Sid Abma
July 13, 2021 7:50 pm

Hmmmm …

A6DD5F73-D37D-4547-9E59-13555CBFCDD1.jpeg
Rich Davis
Reply to  Sid Abma
July 14, 2021 2:44 am

Yes, and let’s break all the windows everywhere across the land. Think of the high-paying jobs for glaziers and glass factory workers!

Then burn down the cities. That will provide millions of high-paying jobs for construction workers.

Wasting most of the energy content in coal sounds like a great plan, too.

MarkW
Reply to  Sid Abma
July 14, 2021 5:55 am

There you go pimping your get rich quick scheme again.
Have you no integrity?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sid Abma
July 14, 2021 7:21 am

Carbon Dioxide does have a purpose in the atmosphere. It feeds all the plants and animals that humans need to survive.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2021 10:07 am

I could only give you 1 up-vote, so here’s 32768 more!

Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  Paul Penrose
July 16, 2021 1:16 pm

32768 – Love it Paul. Now do it in binary.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Sid Abma
July 14, 2021 7:30 am

And Marketing EV’s to the masses is . . .?

ironargonaut
Reply to  Sid Abma
July 14, 2021 12:26 pm

In that case would you suggest hiring people to break windows so we can create more window repair jobs. Regarding video does it return more to soil then it removes? If not then it will require more fertilizer to replenish soil. Waste vegetation is often used to feed animals thus it already has a purpose. Those animals feed millions. Which poor countries do you suggest that we starve so we can create “clean” jobs?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Sid Abma
July 14, 2021 3:10 pm

Good paying full-time jobs: Have unionized government employees use spoons to fill in cold-related roadway potholes.

commieBob
July 13, 2021 7:07 pm

From the linked post:

Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy.

Okay then. So she’s on a panel with some renewable energy experts and she has this to say:

The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

And then she elaborates a bit:

The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.

I would love to know how the other panel members (all folks involved in renewable energy) responded to that. Holy cat among the pigeons Batman.

Everyone else will have started with the assumption that renewable energy is nothing but good. I’m guessing that they’re not used to having that assumption challenged.

I wish I’d been there.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2021 10:41 pm

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail….

Rich Davis
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
July 14, 2021 2:51 am

More like when you really desperately want to use your wrecking ball (stop burning fossil fuels to dismantle capitalism), every problem looks like a decrepit house.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 14, 2021 12:04 pm

And when every thought one has is an insane delusion, the truth sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.
That is where we are today vis-a-vis the alarmistas.

Last edited 15 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Graemethecat
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2021 12:41 am

The Market ensures that a truly transformational technology supersedes older technology remarkably rapidly (who remembers electric typewriters today?) If Renewable Energy were even half as good as its promoters assert, it would have replaced every single thermal or nuclear power station in the World by now.

griff
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 14, 2021 1:23 am

Well it is over the 40% mark for electricity generation and rising in multiple European countries…

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:35 am

Griff, all that demonstrates is the insane level of subsidies that renewable energy currently receives in Europe.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:55 am

Which afternoon was that now?

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] Dangerous CO2 1950-2025

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 14, 2021 10:35 am

Think you need quotes around, and a “supposedly” before, “Dangerous.” Other than that, spot on!

Rich Davis
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 17, 2021 4:55 pm

Yes, I suppose you’re correct, but I need each choice to fit on one line even when viewed on a phone. So it’s limited in the number of characters. Think of it as accepting the griffster’s premise for the sake of argument.

Invariably he’s telling us that CO2 is causing some horrific damage here and now. But he knows that he’s infinitely better off than he would be in the depths of the Little Ice Age. So he can never answer this.

Chris*
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 4:50 am

Russia is building a second gas pipeline( Nord Stream 2) into Europe via Germany, the first runs through the Ukraine. Why do you think that is happening? The short answer is Germany has stuffed up their energy supply -windmills just don’t cut it and they now have put themselves in the invidious position of becoming dependant on Russia for energy. A few years ago the Ukraine and Russia had a falling out over costs, so Russia turned the gas off in the middle of winter with disastrous consequences for many Ukrainians.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris*
July 14, 2021 5:58 am

I wonder how long it will be until the Russian ambassador starts advising the EU, that unless they want the gas cut off, they had better start changing their policies.

B Clarke
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 7:12 am
Raven
Reply to  B Clarke
July 14, 2021 8:24 am

From your link:

A tax on aviation fuel, and a 10-year tax holiday for low-carbon alternatives

There’s a low carbon jet fuel? 😉

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris*
July 14, 2021 7:25 am

Fools and their freedom are soon parted.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 5:57 am

I see griff is still trying to pretend that faceplate power is what renewables actually produce.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 6:14 am

Faceplant power?

PaulID
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 14, 2021 8:14 am

A bird killing windmill rated at 5 KWH for example the faceplate rating is the 5 KWH actual production is in the range of less than 10% of that number.

Mason
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:51 am

Griff, you need to start getting your facts straight. Is that you giggleteets?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 8:16 am

Where do you get the 40% figure from?

According to Wind Europe’s ‘ 2020 Statistics and the outlook for 2021-2025’
“wind energy met 16.4% of demand across EU and UK” in 2020.

Oh, and your favourite Germany “saw the worst year for installations since 2010.”

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 12:06 pm

And yet it has not led to any reductions in CO2 production, and has only raised prices for power through the roof for tens of millions of people, plunging formerly prosperous individuals into energy poverty.
Great first act.
The encore is bound to leave ’em dead.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:20 pm

If solar panels were truly economically more sensible than coal plants, why on earth would China ever export a solar panel? (In case you were wondering, yes I understand Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage, but that would apply only if China were producing more panels than they could consume, which is not the case.)

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2021 6:30 am

Holy cat among the pigeons Batman. Oh, that’s good!

Jimf
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2021 3:48 pm

That’s how most alarmist arguments go-start with a false premise and make the other side refute it. Don’t play that game-make then prove their premise first

CD in Wisconsin
July 13, 2021 7:17 pm

The CAGW narrative sadly demonstrates the degree to which science can be corrupted by the greed for money and power needed to drive activist agendas in politics and environmentalism and enhance the health one’s bank account. The scope and longevity of it was made possible by silencing scientists in academia and elsewhere with threats to their careers and pocketbooks if they were to speak out in agreement with Dr Curry’s assessment posted above.

Politicians and the media with a leftist bent and with little or no understanding of how scientific discourse works are of the mindset that leads them to readily accept this scare narrative regardless of the serious problems with it (if they are even aware of them). It provides confirmation bias for their existing beliefs as regards the evils of humanity and fossil fuels in sympathy with environmentalism.

Others have said that this could go down in human history as one of the most massive frauds we have ever seen, and I do not argue with that. The huge amounts of money, time and effort poured into it can lead one to that conclusion. Viewed as a religion, its longevity is probably not
surprising as cults generally do not tolerate dissent if the cult’s existence is threaten by it.

I don’t know if I will live long enough to ever see this end, but I pray that I will.

commieBob
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 13, 2021 7:32 pm

Yep. When future generations look back, Tulip Mania will have been replaced by Global Warming as an example of human folly.

Steve Case
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 13, 2021 7:36 pm

When the democrats achieve one party rule it will end and be forgotten. Who was that dingbat character on Saturday Night Live who’s shtick was to say, “Never mind”

gary
Reply to  Steve Case
July 13, 2021 10:22 pm

Emily Latella

gary
Reply to  gary
July 13, 2021 10:22 pm

Aka Gilda Radner

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steve Case
July 14, 2021 3:08 am

What’s all this I hear about…
Violins on television
Soviet jewelry
Youth in Asia

Glow bull-warming?

Fraizer
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 14, 2021 8:16 am

That’s funny. I remember each of those skits – back when SNL was funny.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Fraizer
July 14, 2021 10:14 am

And all classics. There is no good comedy anymore; if you are funny, you get cancelled. Humor is no longer allowed. You know your country is in trouble when they start killing the clowns.

Farmerphil
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 13, 2021 7:56 pm

Correction…….IT WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS ONE OF THE GREATEST FRAUDS WE HAVE EVER SEEN.

griff
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 14, 2021 1:22 am

Hmmm… who, exactly, is getting all the money in climate change? Scientists are not well paid…

there are multiple centrist and right govts in Europe who accept the science of climate change and who back climate action. It is not a ‘leftist plot’, is it?

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:38 am

Griff, I accept the science of climate change and I am a sceptic of the religious cult of catastrophic man made global warming because it has zero scientific support.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 3:28 am

The blind squirrel finds a nut.

The climate scam has parasites who are not all unwashed loons of the Left. Thinking of large corporations that sell both windmills and the gas turbines needed to back them up as an example.

Whether there’s a leftist plot or not, there’s also a multitude of others who are responding rationally to the economic incentives facing them.

Climastrology “scientists” don’t all get paid like the execrable Michael Mann, but they all depend on whatever salary they are getting. And they all know what the “right answer” is. Does the McDonalds burger flipper tell each customer that this food is killing them? No, they either shut up about it to keep their crappy job, or they are clueless, so there’s no conflict for them.

Congratulations though griff, you almost got one right.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] Dangerous CO2 1950-2025

Richard M
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 5:54 am

Griff seems to have forgot about folks like Jagadish Shukla. His fraudulent activities were covered on WUWT. Did you forget?

https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/

Last edited 15 days ago by Richard M
MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:01 am

Some scientists aren’t well paid. But most of the leaders of the AGW cult live in very nice houses. Houses that can be afforded on even an average salary.

Only in Europe can a socialist be considered a centrist, and someone who like socialism, but just wants to scale it back a little, be considered far right.

AlexBerlin
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:08 am

There are no “right” and barely any “centrist” governments (only Hungary maybe though that’s also been called “Populist” which is just another word for Leftist-Collectivist) in Europe any more.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 7:00 am

Griffy-poo:

“Hmmm… who, exactly, is getting all the money in climate change? Scientists are not well paid…”

I admit I do not have any numbers readily at hand. But the climate modelers swear by the scientific soundness of their models, and the whole CAGW foundation is rooted in those models (among other things). The modelers’ careers, prestige and paychecks depend on people believing them and their models. The institutions they work for have no doubt benefited financially from govt funds that have been spent chasing after the CAGW narrative, and that is the incentive to silence the dissenters.

“there are multiple centrist and right govts in Europe who accept the science of climate change and who back climate action. It is not a ‘leftist plot’, is it?”

Politicians are not scientists Griffy-poo….did no one tell you that? If they believe it is in their political interest to hop on the alarmist bandwagon, they will certainly do it. Their scientific illiteracy precludes them from doing anything else. The CAGW narrative has become (as much as anything else) a good vs. evil crusade against fossil fuels, and any such crusade is seen by politicians as a great bandwagon to hop on for votes and political support. It does not matter if the alarmist science is sound or not….that is beside the point. You apparently do not understand politicians very well.

To some degree, the good vs. evil nature of the alarmist narrative precludes CAGW from being about the science of the Earth’s climate. Good must defeat evil (fossil fuels), so the science that shoots down CAGW is to be silenced, discredited and ignored. Griffy-poo, CAGW has all the elements it needs to succeed regardless of the serious scientific issues with it.

You will not accept the problems with CAGW (that have been well documented here) because, as I said above, CAGW provides confirmation bias for your existing beliefs about fossil fuels, the companies that produce them, and so-called “green energy”. For you, the confirmation bias is all that matters Griff. That type of thinking is religion Griff, not science. You remain unable to understand that, and that is why you are at odds with all the excellent scientist/commenters here at WUWT who continue to peck away the the faultiness of CAGW.

Other trolls here (like Loydo) have the same problem I suspect.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 7:28 am

“Hmmm… who, exactly, is getting all the money in climate change? Scientists are not well paid”

Some are, some are not, but all of them *are* paid. As long as they go along with the climate change program. See how that works?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2021 8:37 am

Griffy-poo is like “Nowhere Man”:
He’s as blind as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 15, 2021 6:22 am

Good one, Bruce.

Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 16, 2021 1:31 pm

Or maybe the Boxer:
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest – Paul Simon

Lrp
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:47 pm

Money for nothing Griff! Too many of them sucking at taxpayers teat and producing useless research. Why? Because that’s where the funding is. And funds are distributed by people with delusions of grandeur

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:26 pm

Hmmm… who, exactly, is getting all the money in climate change?

Have you checked out Al Gore’s house? A lifetime in government service yet manages to own mansions.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 3:31 pm

“Physical scientists (all other) had a median annual salary of $107,210. What they do, according to O*NET: This job category includes geologists, paleontologists, chemists, physicists, and astronomers. Jun 1, 2021″ And it doesn’t include pension, life and health insurance and other non-pay benefits and other perks, like sabbaticals, free transportation and meals, vacations at exotic resorts to attend “conferences,” etc.

Last edited 15 days ago by Dave Fair
Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  griff
July 16, 2021 1:28 pm

Do you have any idea how many PhDs and Candidates, University income streams, government (and NGO) bureaucracies, tax collectors, and all the hangers on would lose everything if this all stopped? This starts to look like a LOT of money! Not necessarily leftist at it’s core, but the political side is decidedly so. It’s like one of the biggest jobs programs scam in history. C’mon man, the thing!

At this point I think we should consider banning Griff. The inanity is becoming overwhelming and even if we’re using him as the “straight man” in these discussions, the fact that he never responds, unlike our other trolls has become tiresome.

Doug Deal
July 13, 2021 7:36 pm

Dr. Curry is the most reasonable voice in climate science. We could use more like her and fewer who are seeminy driven by politics and the need for funding their climate change proposals.

griff
Reply to  Doug Deal
July 14, 2021 1:21 am

Dr Curry’s opinions are political opinions…

she herself has recognised that by moving from research to a political stance

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:44 am

Griff, so anybody who disagrees with you is not a scientist. You seem to live in a little bubble with people who have the same views as yourself. What exactly is your occupation?

H.R.
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 4:11 am

Professional troll? Macedonian content farmer?

Gerry, England
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 5:30 am

griff is stupid enough to believe that ‘global warming’ is about science and not that the whole thing is political right from the start via Maurice Strong. He will deny that the UN have confirmed this from their own mouths and it is well documented, because it would never feature in the Guardian.

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 6:02 am

griff’s occupation? You just read it.

PaulID
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 8:17 am

Griiff is a bot hence his having failed the Turing test multiple times.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:02 am

That reminds me, have you apologized to Dr. Crawford yet? For declaring that she knows nothing about polar bears.

paul courtney
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 9:01 am

For those here interested in observational-type science, here is textbook example of progressive projection. Going back to Hansen, Clisci’s have used politics and political tactics, pushing scientists like J. Curry out of her research position. They know these tactics are considered wrong by actual scientists, but the team used them for a great cause. When J Curry responds by identifying these tactics as wrong, she is “politicizing”, which is wrong. That’s how we know griff knows it’s wrong, and he knew that for the past fifty years but said nothing while progressives “politicized” it. What I find singularly disgusting about this one is, he knows J Curry didn’t “leave”, she was pushed out. Presenting it as her “choice” is really quite loathsome.

Last edited 15 days ago by paul courtney
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 12:09 pm

Griff,
Your opinions are the incoherent babbling of a jackass.

See what I did there?
I said something demonstrably true.
You ought to try it sometime.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 3:41 pm

Ho … Ho … Ho! Dr. Curry moved from a politicized academic culture to her own private business to continue with real science.

niceguy
July 13, 2021 7:56 pm

“Systemic racism” works too.

Mr.
July 13, 2021 8:14 pm

Dr. Curry’s article will never be shared in the mainstream establishment media.

No scary clickbait headlines, no ranting, too much rationality.

(I secretly suspect, however, that her position on manmade climate change has a lot more “silent majority” supporters than the political opinion polls report)

n.n
July 13, 2021 8:16 pm

Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems.

For the record, I would like it to be known, that as a man, I do not take this attribution personally, and if I were a woman, feel left out. In fact, I find it refreshing that normal people, most people, do not indulge color judgments.

Last edited 15 days ago by n.n
n.n
July 13, 2021 8:24 pm

We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.

Risk management in a world that too often avoids conservative philosophy and practices, science, and religion (e.g. morality, ethics, law), and bends to extremism.

Pat from kerbob
July 13, 2021 8:31 pm

Cold weather is racist, colonialist, imperialist, the LIA lead to massive waves of emigration from Europe.

Warm weather means times of plenty, less starvation means less migration.

The last time we had “climate refugees” was in the LIA, the modern world is the result.

Fight the cold, emit CO2, the opposite of racism

griff
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
July 14, 2021 1:20 am

riiiight… nobody ever migrates because of drought and cyclones/hurricanes…

(Guatemalan and Honduran migrants trying to enter the USA recently were driven out by 2 hurricanes in one year, I have heard)

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:48 am

Griff, the only climate refugees that I am aware of are the large number of people who migrate from cold countries to warmer countries when they retire. Understandably, many people want to move from poor countries to rich countries to improve their standard of living. These people are clearly economic migrants, not climate refugees as you have ludicrously attempted to claim.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 3:05 am

The states which have added most people in the last ten years are Texas and Florida. The states which have been hit by most hurricanes are Texas and Florida. So migrants are actually flocking towards hurricane prone states, not being displaced by them.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:04 am

I still griff still suffers from the delusion that anything he reads in the Guardian is proven truth.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 7:35 am

“Guatemalan and Honduran migrants trying to enter the USA recently were driven out by 2 hurricanes in one year, I have heard”

That’s ridiculous.

The people are coming to the United States because they see large, personal financial gains in doing so.

At the expense of the American taxpayers. No problem, Biden says.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 9:21 am

Oh griff
Obviously the penniless peasants that the demrat party is so keen to import as voters are economic migrants. In your dishonest little heart of hearts, you know that.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1759
[__] Dangerous CO2 1950-2025

Jimf
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 3:56 pm

Griff-they come here because we have income inequality, not to get away from it. Where they come from most make equally nothing. Here there’s at least a chance to make more.

observa
July 13, 2021 8:42 pm
Joel O'Bryan
July 13, 2021 8:44 pm

Climate Voodoo is what the Idiots in Climate Shaman-Science are now practicing.
Chicken bones and rattles, voodoo rituals, sacrifices to the climate gods, all in a claimed attempt to tame the weather.

Like this:…

tenor.gif
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 13, 2021 8:51 pm

Here… I’ve obtained exclusive video coverage of Drs Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth, and Santer coordinating their Climate Change message for the average Joe.

trenberthsantermannschmidt.gif
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 14, 2021 10:54 am

Nah that’s not them. They have far too much class to be the aforementioned Drs.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 14, 2021 12:20 pm

“First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.
When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.
Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”
It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 14, 2021 12:24 pm

See, de hot come go, come go.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 15, 2021 6:28 am

That “analysis” was hilarious! 🙂

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 14, 2021 10:50 am

Looks like a much more useful activity than what laughingly passes for “climate science” these days…

July 13, 2021 8:46 pm
observa
Reply to  Chaamjamal
July 14, 2021 2:22 am

Can’t speak for Noo Zulland but here in Oz we certainly welcome any guilt largesse from you northerners. Yuan dollars yen rupees euros and even bitcoin if you must.

Mike
July 13, 2021 8:59 pm

Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution.

Why do so many people – including ”experts” – continue to conflate the impact of our pollution with our impact on the climate?
Do they even read what they write?
This piece is all very well but is rather disappointing. Skeptic Lite.
We need an attack dog hovering over all the train-wreck claims of the alarmists and the researchers they feed from.

Last edited 15 days ago by Mike
July 13, 2021 9:03 pm

Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution.”

Environmentalism – ie minimizing air and water pollution, does not address climate change. Nothing can be done to stop climate change as it is out of our hands.

Ariadaeus
July 13, 2021 9:20 pm

My summary: –

Climate change / Anthropic global warming is politics not science.

Last edited 15 days ago by Ariadaeus
gbaikie
July 13, 2021 9:26 pm

–“Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’
Its warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.
So what’s wrong with this narrative? —
Everything.
We are living in an Ice Age. 15 C [59 F] is cold.
Don’t set your thermostat for 15 C, it’s too cold.
Most of US is fairly warm, but average temperature is less than 15 C.
The average temperature of Europe is about 9 C, and crazy Europeans imagine they are
too warm. If US average temperature was as cold as Europe, we would have something to
complain about, though the State Alaska average temperature is colder than Europe.
India’s average temperature is about 24 C- and roughly been around this average temperature for thousands of years.
Global warming is largely about warming places like Europe, Europe would be lucky if it’s average temperature was 15 C. And how Europe could possible get average as high as the cold temperature of 15 C is by having much warmer winters. Or since India is in tropics, it doesn’t have winters, it’s wet and dry seasons.
Serious or significant global warming would be if all arctic polar sea ice melted in the summer.
Anyhow we in an interglacial periods and in past interglacial period, in warmer parts of these time period, all polar sea ice melted in the summer. And sea levels rose 4 to 9 meters higher then our present sea levels. Also earlier in present interglacial period, polar sea melted in the summer. This time period is call the Holocene optimal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Our interglacial period is called Holocene. Note is was not called Holocene Disaster and during this period, Sahara desert was grasslands rather than vast dry sands we have currently. And there has kooky ideas that humans were responsible making the Sahara into
a desert, but it was the drier global conditions which made Sahara into a deserts.
Or global warming is wetter world- it has higher global water vapor.
So in Ice Age, in latter part of interglacial period which cooler and drier than in earlier part of
our interglacial period. Or we may have past our interglacial peak.
Everyone knows we going back to the colder and drier part of the Ice Age. We known this for over hundred years, and people were worried that this could happen, soon.
And it didn’t happen soon and may take a few thousands before it happens.
So, not end of world if all polar sea ice melts in the summer, it was predicted it would happen and it didn’t, and it’s possible in might happen within next hundred years- and also possible the Sahara desert might green a lot more than it has.
But unlikely to be as warm as during the Holocene optimal, but if want to spend trillions of dollars, humans might able to make grasslands and forests in Sahara desert. Having forest and arable land instead of sand, would make world a better place.

Michael Hammer
July 13, 2021 9:31 pm

Looking at one effect of a situation while ignoring all others is not a good way to arrive at the truth. GHG’s do reduce energy loss to space to some degree but they also do some other rather important things. By creating a cold junction at the tropopause which can radiate energy to space they allow the atmosphere to function as a heat engine. That is what creates weather on Earth. More directly, it allows convection and surface evaporation of water which between them (According to NASA earth energy balance diagram) allow 86.4 + 18.4 = 104.8 watts/sqM of surface cooling. Also, by allowing evaporation it allows precipitation and hence clouds which reflect a significant amount of incoming solar energy and thus stop it reaching the surface. Again according to NASA – around 77 watts/sqM. Thus they reduce surface energy balance by 104.8+77= 181.8 watts/sqM. This is hardly a second order effect, more like a primary impact. Without GHG we would have a static atmosphere vertically isothermal and saturated with water vapour. No wind, no clouds, no rain.

Noonday summer temperatures inside a car even in the mid latitudes reach levels which kills children in minutes. They do so because convection and evaporation are prevented. Without GHG’s the entire environment would be like the inside of a closed car. Without GHG’s non daytime temperatures would be 70C-80C and night time temperatures would be like those on the antarctic high plateau. Not quite as extreme as on the moon because the “day” is 24 hours not 28 days and the surface does have some thermal mass but still extreme. So the presence of GHG’s ameliorates temperature extremes (lowering daytime maxima and raising night time minima) making life on Earth possible. In which case, why should a small increase suddenly exacerbate them. Is there a point of inflection wrt to the impact of GHG’s where the impact of change in GHG concentration suddenly reverses? If so why does does such a point of inflexion exist and at what total GHG concentration does it occur? Which side of such a hypothetical point of inflexion are we on?

Eben
July 13, 2021 10:03 pm

That was one dull talk

July 13, 2021 10:37 pm

Why do I see clickbait ads on WUWT?

Jerry
Reply to  Hans Erren
July 13, 2021 11:57 pm

Lately it’s been weird floating articles above an ad, then it was weird floating articles with no ad underneath, just white space. I still have to get aggressive when I log on to cancel the ad sources before they manifest, like the one at the bottom of the page that will totally ruin my experience because it’s my electric company and will force huge ads on the page even if I try to quit them. WUWT is becoming an aerobic sport.

griff
Reply to  Hans Erren
July 14, 2021 1:18 am

I see a lot of ads for condoms…

Do advertisers know something about Watts readers I don’t?

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:53 am

Griff, those adverts are probably personalised adverts directed specifically to you because of your internet history. A lot of people don’t realise how adverts are targeted on the internet.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 7:54 am

Ole Griff is telling us something about himself. 🙂

Griff probably needs a script blocker, too.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:01 am

Ads are targeted. They know you’re a d#ck…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:06 am

It shows that we are popular with the ladies?

paul courtney
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 12:10 pm

Mr. griff: Does it make you wonder if there are other things you don’t know about us? “Cause we sure wonder what could make you wonder.

Don Perry
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 3:15 pm

Personalized ads in hopes that you don’t reproduce.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 17, 2021 5:20 pm

No griff. Google knows something about you that you just told “Watts readers”

If you’re not too busy doing a Toobin Zoom call, maybe you could tell us: in which time period would you prefer to live your life?

[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] Dangerous CO2 1950-2025

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Hans Erren
July 14, 2021 7:53 am

“Why do I see clickbait ads on WUWT?”

You need a script/ad blocker. NoScript for Firefox is what I use.

Vincent Causey
July 13, 2021 11:57 pm

Not her best. For example, her implication is that renewables are “clean”. This is the “out of sight out of mind” fallacy. The truth is, they are dirty – utterly filthy and environmentally destructive on a scale that is at least an order of magnitude worse than fossil fuels. She also treats climate change as if it is “a thing” by which I mean man made, but some discussion of the natural cycle would have been useful to put that notion into perspective.

griff
Reply to  Vincent Causey
July 14, 2021 1:17 am

That is nonsense, isn’t it?

How is mining for their raw materials more destructive than open cast coal mining? Or the particulates from coal burning and diesel?

and the major driver of climate is now a new, additional driver on top of historical forces -human CO2

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 1:58 am

Griff, you really don’t get the point, do you? Renewable energy will require additional mining on top of the existing mining. Even some greens are admitting that there will be a “temporary” increase in mining around the world in the next few decades for the “clean energy transition”.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 5:41 am

Extraction rates are a complete mystery to griff – just like most of life really.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 8:36 am

Except of course the increase won’t just be temporary because the wind and solar will need replacing in 25 years or less and then you have to factor in all the mining required for EVs. Sure there will be improvements in the recycling of materials but a huge increase in mining will be a permanent feature.

The International Energy Agency recently noted that “the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.”
(The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions. IEA May 2021)

Last edited 15 days ago by Dave Andrews
MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:07 am

If CO2 is on top of natural forces, why are changes now slower than they were 100 years ago?

griff
July 14, 2021 1:15 am

We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. 

And there is no evidence that fossil fuel ever would supply Africa with that grid, with that power.

It hasn’t over the last 75 years – why would it in the future?

I remind all of the sheer physical size of Africa. I remind all that poor countries with no local coal/oil/gas can’t afford to import it.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 2:00 am

Griff, the same argument was made about Asia 50 years ago. Asian countries have shown Africa the way forward and it entails massive increases in energy production principally from fossil fuels.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 14, 2021 4:03 am

Bill, let me compliment you on your patient, rational responses to Griff’s tired claims about the dangerous state of the climate and the virtues of renewables. No personal attacks or snark, just short explanations of where he is clearly wrong. It’s helpful for anyone visiting the site for the first time to see he’s more to be pitied than censured.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 6:08 am

When griff is given a new lie, he runs it into the dirt.

In griff’s world, the fact that Africa has been too poor to afford a modern energy infrastructure is proof that Africa couldn’t possibly benefit from a modern energy infrastructure.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2021 9:17 am

Africa has around 36 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves, 90% of which are in South Africa. But Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Botswana have an estimated 46 billion tonnes.

Tanzania has huge reserves of natural gas.

As regards oil Libya has the 8th largest proven reserves in the world. Nigeria is ranked 11th, Algeria 16th, Sudan 23rd, South Sudan 24th, Uganda 33rd, Congo 38th, Chad 39th,Equatorial Guinea 41st, Kenya 42nd and Ghana 43rd.

In total the continent has 10% of the world’s oil reserves and 8% of natural gas reserves.

So, many countries in Africa do have considerable coal/oil/gas resources. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to exploit them?

Last edited 15 days ago by Dave Andrews
Michael in Dublin
July 14, 2021 2:05 am

There are some people that keep turning up on this site like a bad penny that sadly do not engage in a carefully reasoned discussion with the contributors. Climate alarmism is being used to perpetrate massive fraud and often simply for political gain. It is quite shocking how naïve even educated people can be. I may not agree with all Dr Curry writes but I have found her particularly careful and logical in her reasoning – not something I usually find among emotional alarmists.

Michael
July 14, 2021 4:21 am

The fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with changing climate. Its a red herring; an excuse to impose totalitarianism. That the debate revolves around man-made CO2 and climate is useless, irrelevant, and doesn’t address the real problem: the desire for egoless dictator wannabes to rule over as many as possible.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael
July 14, 2021 9:12 am

I think you meant egocentric?

Last edited 15 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Michael
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 14, 2021 9:21 am

I meant egoless.

Gerry, England
July 14, 2021 5:43 am

I would only quibble with the reference to ’20th century renewable technologies’ given that windmills have been around for centuries and were replaced as soon as something better came along.

MarkW
July 14, 2021 5:45 am

RCP8.5, that is highly implausible

That’s being generous

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 8:05 am

Yes, RCP8.5 is getting more unrealistic every day. Vietnam, for example, is not going to build a new coal-fired powerplant, instead they are going to build a natural gas-powered powerplant, something not foreseen in RCP8.5.

The United States has reduced its CO2 emissions greatly by replacing coal-fired powerplants with natural gas-powered powerplants. This is the wave of the future. This, and nuclear powerplants.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2021 11:09 am

Until they ban fracking, which of course they also want to do. Then I guess we can just start building coal fired plants again, if they succeed in driving up natural gas prices by curtailing the plentiful supply.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2021 12:45 pm

LED lights are reducing energy usage by a few percentage points.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 2:42 pm

That’s a lot. Citation? 

My quick and dirty research suggests that lighting is about 8% of total electricity. Electricity is about 37% of total energy consumption, so lighting itself is only 3% of total energy consumed. By definition, LED use can only reduce this by some fraction of 3% which doesn’t qualify as “a few percentage points”. I’m a big supporter of LED lights, and have installed many, but I don’t think they are as significant as you suggest.

Dave
July 14, 2021 5:50 am

She has been a voice of reason for a long time, and I appreciate her work very much. Unfortunately the younger generation is being indoctrinated by the alarmists who now control the schools, most of the news media, and the political left.
It will be a tough struggle to return sanity to the masses.
Keep telling the truth. Keep the faith!!

Mason
Reply to  Dave
July 14, 2021 7:05 am

I think the increase in cooling will eventually overcome the propaganda and we will be left with masses of disillusioned people hopefully searching for truth. Unfortunately, I don’t think I will live long enough to see it. I am making sure that my immediate circle understands there is no truth in AGW.

gowest
July 14, 2021 6:41 am

a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’
Its cooling. The Cooling is caused by us. Cooling is deadly. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, we can increase the price of energy through the roof to make lots of money for us.

Tom Abbott
July 14, 2021 6:58 am

From the article: “According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of [human-caused] changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.”

This can’t be repeated often enough.

Alarmists attribute every severe weather event to human-caused CO2, but as can been seen, the official UN agency assigned to find human causes of climate change cannot find any so far, and say so publicly.

So alarmists who claim extreme weather events are caused by human-derived CO2 have nothing on which to base their claims. They are blowing smoke, according to the IPCC.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 14, 2021 7:26 am

Dr. Curry presents a nice synopsis of the “climate crisis.” However, my read of that summary is that climate crisis/climate change is asserted to be fundamentally associated with global warming . . . from whatever root cause, man-made or not.

I seriously question that assertion. Hey, it’s not like the Earth has never gone through interglacial warming periods in past, is it?

Does that mean a “climate crises” could not be caused by an interval of global cooling, such as the previous Little Ice Age, that could lead to widespread famine?

What about all the past worries about loss of the ozone layer (i.e., the size of the ozone hole over the Earth’s polar regions) that would in turn lead to flooding a large portion of Earth’s surface with greatly increased levels of UV radiation . . . that’s not associated with global warming, so would it thusly not constitute an imminent climate crisis?

What about an astroid/meteor impact event, such at the one at Earth’s K-T boundary that wiped out the dinosaurs . . . wouldn’t that caused a climate crisis?

What about a flip (i.e., reversal) in Earth’s magnetic poles which we know has happened over the last 10 million years at a periodicity of once every 200,000 to 250,000 years . . . think there won’t be any climate crisis as Earth temporarily loses its magnetosphere that protects the atmosphere and surface from direct impact of particulate radiation from the Sun as well as cosmic radiation?

I could go on and on, but need I?

Climate crisis can originate from a variety of causes other than just “global warming”.

Moreover, humanity has absolutely no means to control, let alone eliminate, climate change, despite the hubris of so many “leaders” (aka talking heads) that imagine such is possible.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 14, 2021 12:36 pm

KIp, I fully understand.

But then again, neither does neatly wrapping the nice bow of “global warming” around “climate crisis” just to satisfy a 5 minute statement. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, if it disagrees with observation it is WRONG.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 14, 2021 12:50 pm

The flipping of the magnetic field has been going on for way more than the last 10 million years.
None of the previous magnetic field reversals caused any noticeable problems with anything.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 3:02 pm

MarkW posted: “None of the previous magnetic field reversals caused any noticeable problems with anything.”

And we know this from what scientific research? . . . that is, please provide a referenced scientific paper or URL link establishing your assertion.

P.S., please re-read my post to see that I never stated or implied that magnetic pole reversals started about 10 millions years ago . . . only that my stated periodicity of such was averaged over that time period.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 4:38 pm

We didn’t have electronic devices during any of the previous reversals. I don’t think we have any way to know what impact it will have on such things. ANYTHING, from “nothing will happen” to “everything will be destroyed” is pure speculation.

Richard M
July 14, 2021 7:31 am

It is unfortunate that many of the skeptical climate scientists still don’t understand how energy flows in the atmosphere and still consider CO2 to provide a warming influence.

Radiative gases (or anything that absorbs/emits radiation such as dust) do allow energy to be radiated to space from the atmosphere. This allows the expansion the atmosphere to its highest level as allowed by the energy available. The only way to increase the expansion is to add energy or reduce certain cooling factors (such as convection of latent heat).

The adiabatic lapse rate already tells us all we need to know. There is nothing about it that is significantly affected by CO2 levels. The ALR is based on gravity and the heat capacity of the air. Doubling CO2 would LOWER the heat capacity slightly which would reduce the lapse rate and cool the atmosphere.

Not only that, if additional water vapor were a feedback of CO2, you would also increase convective heat transfer which would reduce the ALR.

To emphasize this point just think what would happen if you kept the energy level the same and started to reduce water vapor. The planet would warm up considerably. That’s right, reducing the most significant “greenhouse gas” leads to warming. With no water vapor the planet surface would be ~28 C warmer.

But what about the “trapped heat”? Sorry, for practical purposes, it’s all already trapped. You can’t trap any more. All that energy is already being moved around in the atmosphere by kinetic energy transfers and a photon cloud of radiation transfers. The surface skin already participates in this thermodynamic system. Adding additional CO2 simply increases the photon cloud slightly but does not add any energy. Without more energy you can’t increase the temperature.

That is, when you replace an O2 molecule with a CO2 molecule by burning fossil fuels, you simply increase the size of the photon cloud and make it more efficient at moving the same amount of energy through the atmosphere. The reason the cloud moves upward is because of the reduced density as you move upward. Without a change in the volumetric structure of the atmosphere you won’t change the movement of the energy.

Robert Lyman
July 14, 2021 7:53 am

I greatly admire Judith Curry and the way she handled the challenging task of breaking down a mind-numbingly complex set of issues into a five-minute statement. I have tried, and failed, to do the same in the past. The one significant issue that she did not touch on or allude to concerns the premise that emissions reductions of unprecedented size and cost will be achieved through international agreements that have so far utterly failed (i.e. global emissions rose by almost 60% from 1990 to 2020). The central geopolitical reality of climate change is that all of the emissions growth is occurring in countries that require affordable, reliable and secure fossil fuels for their economic development, and nothing that the OECD countries do can suppress those trends.

TonyG
July 14, 2021 11:40 am

This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.”

I don’t think that is unintentional. It’s much easier for politicians and other “leaders” to pontificate about how we need to “fix” things by addressing “climate change” than to actually fix anything by addressing it with the appropriate policy. (See CA fires and blackouts) And it gives them something to campaign on next time.

ironargonaut
July 14, 2021 12:06 pm

I see one gigantic problem with this synopsis. She doesn’t define warming. Are we talking Joules or are we talking Celsius? These two things are different. If you look at data points for when we have enough data to calculate Joules for atmosphere it is much to short to draw conclusions. Celsius for the variation amounts we are talking about depends on which way the wind is blowing(jet stream) this year.

michel
July 14, 2021 12:51 pm

Its pretty good on the failure of the basic argument: CO2 emissions > disastrous warming > renewable energy saves planet.

But I would like to have seen it refute the most noxious argument of all. This is usually made in the UK, US and Australia, and its simple, it just says do this here to lower emissions because global warming.

You can always tell this argument is being used because of a shift in the meaning of ‘we’. ‘We’ have to reduce emissions (we in this case being the world). Therefore ‘we’, in this case the US, UK or Australia, must phase out coal or go to electric cars or whatever.

And what always needs pointing out, time and time again, is that ‘we’ locally doing any of this will have no effect on global emissions, because its China etc that are the leading emitters and are increasing theirs. So the argument, do GND because warming, or phase out coal generation because warming, is completely fallacious, it will have zero effect on warming even if there is a link between CO2 and warming.

Its not local ‘we’ that need to reduce, its local ‘them’!

The we that has to reduce, in the argument, is not the we that is being asked to reduce. There are 37.5 billion tons that the general ‘we’ have to reduce. But the ‘we’ that are being asked to make reductions are something like 10 billion of those 37.5 and falling, whereas the 27.5 billion are increasing as fast as they can. Say ‘we’ cut it to 5. Meanwhile the other ‘we will have raised it by 10.

I have never seen a valid argument for local action in the UK, US or Australia that actually showed that the action demanded would have any effect on reducing global emissions. We (readers) always need to ask of any proposed policy, by how much will it lower global emissions and temperature? And the answer is usually not at all.

A pity this could not have been pointed out as well as the excellent and succinct points that were made.

Rud Istvan
July 14, 2021 2:40 pm

5 minutes is in my opinion still far too long. Both in my consulting and then corporate careers we practiced what was known as the ‘elevator speech’—full (simplistic) explanation while on the elevator with CEO to C suite—30 seconds, max. And the followup memo was the front of one sheet of paper, double spaced, 12 point font. To insure it got read.
Even full more complicated Board level stuff was limited to 15 minutes and max 15 slides, leaving another 15 minutes for Q&A.
Or, to paraphrase a famous Mark Twain saying: “I apologize for the length of this letter. I did not have the time to make it shorter.”

Hu Fan
July 14, 2021 4:45 pm

A major, major problem with the proposed solutions to “climate change” is an increasing reliance on technologies dominated by the Chinese. If reliance on Middle Eastern oil was bad, it’s arguably far worse to rely on technologies where China holds a commanding lead (solar panels and batteries). My fear is we will all wake up 20 years from now to find the Chinese have us in a box. Terrifying thought.

TonyG
Reply to  Hu Fan
July 15, 2021 6:34 am

20 years?
Five sides of that box are already complete and we’re helping build the sixth.

Mickey Reno
July 14, 2021 5:55 pm

I love Judy Curry to death, but her answer to “does this mean we do nothing?” is wrong.

The correct answer is YES. We need to do NOTHING, we MUST DO NOTHING. Doing anything that has the level of uncertainty associated with modern climate science is wasting money, wasting resources, especially when CO2 is assisting the natural world in non-ambiguous ways, helping human agriculture, helping wild lands and species that like to eat plants which can thrive due to our CO2 emissions.

Buy a huge 4×4 SUV and go for a drive and celebrate..

Last edited 15 days ago by Mickey Reno
michel
Reply to  Mickey Reno
July 15, 2021 1:01 am

No, we need to do sensible things that have real quality of life benefits and there are quite a lot of them.

This includes cheap reliable electricity supplies (ie not wind or solar). It means fitting conventional plants with scrubbers, and preferring natural gas fired ones to coal fired or (the latest insanity) wood fired.

But it also includes getting ICE and particularly diesel engines out of areas where we live work and play. Cities need to be freed from current dominance of ICE cars and we need to be able to walk or bike around substantial areas in peace, quiet, clean air and safety. No-one in their right minds would vote for the present system of transport, with its toll in accidental death and injury in addition to the pollution and destruction of outdoor living space. Does anyone really think that the balance of benefit would justify the current use of cars when reckoned against the death and injury rates? Does anyone seriously think the death and injury rates are acceptable side effects?

In the country cars are essential and their toll limited, and there are usually plenty of ways to walk or bike to many destinations on relatively car-free routes. In the city they are a disaster, rapid through traffic simply destroys neighborhoods.

We need to do all this without regard to CO2 emissions. What we should be worried about and seek to improve is not CO2 emissions but noise, accidents, particulates and NO2. In fact, if what it takes to improve the immediate living environment involves raising CO2 emissions, we should just do it.

Mike Malone
July 14, 2021 10:15 pm

Humans, by nature, seem to need an answer, we seem to need to attribute an event or situation to something. The correct answer is optional. Before science we looked to the gods. Before our awareness of static electricity, heat convection and water vapor behavior the Norse had Thor. Bad lightning and wind storm was bad news for a seafaring people, so “Thor must be angry”. Good enough, check the box, we’ve got an answer. Now appease the god, sacrifice something, or someone.
Today we have climate change, global warming, whatever. Hot spell, cold spell, tornado, collapsed building, earthquake, social unrest, whatever, it must be man-caused climate change. Good enough, check the box we got an answer, now que up the human sacrifice.

Matthew Sykes
July 15, 2021 11:59 pm

“Climate Change s a Grand Narrative… ” Says it all.

TallDave
July 16, 2021 12:56 pm

our moral panic will be quite amusing to the trillions of functionally immortal citizens frolicking in 2221’s newest luxurious living spaces tunneled miles deep into Earth’s bedrock, endlessly debating how much people should be paid for breathing out scarce, valuable carbon dioxide to be pumped into the vast underground farms

July 20, 2021 4:13 am

This is better :-). It highlights problems with the way in which honest scientists address, and are evn able to address, the clear structural fraud of consensual science for profit that now infects academe. A Campaign for Real Science is needed, with a different approach, because the enemy does not play by the rules of deterministic science.

I have despaired of the “communications skills”, or rather the lack of them, in the principled but ultimately ineffectual academic science challenge to the pseudo climate science with observational and physical reality. By debating the detail evidence most people clearly cannot follow. Pointless.

It is necessary to tell lay people the conclusions, and the inferences. Such as that people are being lied to by politicians for their own profit from subsidy rent rolls at public energy poverty. etc. THis is a fact that is easy to prove across the WEstern World. People will understand that. It’s the Nazis but this time the Jews and Slave are AGW. Same basic approach, imposed by the governing regime to gain power and justify the extreme solution to a non problem, destruction of our hard won economies in this case.

The lobby fodder politicians don’t understand this at all, just drink the cool aid and march through the lobbies at their party’s call. Nor do hopelessly innumerate arts graduate journalists from the darkest delusional left corners of Universities, who never had a real job adding value to materials or learning the basics of rational thinking or able to question authority on the facts.

The purist deterministic academic science approach fails utterly to counter the assertions of activists who simply make it up, or read the simplistic and unsupportable assertions from a bible they have been given, which the audience is unqualified to choose between, while attacking the credibility of real expert scientists they these inadequates can never aspire to. Wong forum and wrong argument. Especially when this is supported by the knowing deceit of the prostitutes for profit academics like Michael Mann. HIs fate is telling. His deceit was clearly exposed, but has never been censured, rather rewarded by the corrupted academic establishment for the grant income it brings.

O suggest these people must also be called out and accused of lying and betraying the fundamental principles of deterministic science for their positions. Over and over. Yes, I know Tim Ball did. It needs repetition.

PS I do suggest that It IS important that lay people understand the difference between deterministic science you can prove, and models which you cannot, that all this deceit is built upon.

Models are computer games the programmers decide which variables to include and their effects on each other, Made up by the guesses of humans, not following proven laws of nature, so cannot prove any laws, and have now been comprehensively disproven by observation.

Climate Science has hi-jacked what lay people believe science is, to create easy academic careers for incompetents making up consensual science to support the agendas of politicians and activists.

It’s not about science as we imagine it to be it, principled deterministic science. THis is science fiction. Sociology, epidemiology, may be right, may be wrong, can’t be proven.

Illogical, but very rewarding for its dishonest practitioners and their University managements, at the expense of those paying for it. A “pay to prove” service for rich benefactors and government. Never mind the science follow the money, and make sure the peer review process is corrupted with the same cash flow.

The people should be told the reality of how these cynical liars for their grants, that we pay for, such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al, control our Universities, and fabricate the science they publish to support the agendas they are paid to by government and the very rich.

If real scientists don’t say this, who will? It is well past time for the Campaign for Real Science to begin. Aux Barricades! But tool up with MG 3s, A-10s , RPGs and plenty of ammo and body armour, not nice green bows and Arrows and pitchforks as now. This opposition has to be destroyed, it cannot be reasoned with, the climate change zealot academics and their money driven honours seeking administrators are the SS, Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen of science. Evil people, whose response to challenge is to remove the person responsible from their post, work, and any possibility of publication in the now captive “scientific” media. To silence them for ever. Reasoned debate is not their plan. IMO

Reply to  Brian R Catt
July 20, 2021 11:38 am

I meant Slavs, not slaves. Wrong not Wong, etc. I never manage to getosts typo free. But hopefully the points are clearly made.

%d bloggers like this: