Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Bloomberg thinks we’re not scared enough of climate consequences we cannot predict. But a decision to jump at shadows would have its own serious consequences.
What Smart People Get Wrong About Climate Change Extremes
There isn’t enough appreciation of the risks associated with new weather patterns we don’t yet understand.
By Kate Mackenzie
10 September 2021, 20:00 GMT+10If anyone should be attuned to the real-world impacts of global warming, it’s the policy makers and business heads that have to deal with the fallout. But even the most well-intentioned can fail to grasp just how bad things could get if climate goals aren’t met.
At least that’s the impression I get. That’s why I reached out to Andy Pitman and Sonia Seneviratne, two of the world’s top experts on the most catastrophic effects of climate change. Their fields of study focus on extremes and compound events. Both worry that institutions are too focused on outcomes we can predict with high confidence. There isn’t enough appreciation of the risks associated with new weather patterns we don’t yet understand.
Warming of about 1.2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels has already had devastating consequences. “Once we get around 2°C we are getting to a climate regime which hasn’t been seen for as long as the human species has been at work,” said Seneviratne, a professor at ETH Zurich who oversaw the chapter on extremes in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The document, published every six to seven years, is the pinnacle of scientific knowledge about global warming.
…
The instruments are meant to estimate the effects of higher levels of warming, but “if it tells you you are resilient at 4°C, that doesn’t mean you’ll be okay. It means your analysis is crap,” he said. It’s like asking “what would happen if you jumped off a 50-meter cliff and then finding you’d land at the bottom and you’d be fine.”
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-10/what-smart-people-get-wrong-about-climate-change-extremes
Jumping at shadows means committing substantial resources to addressing a problem nobody is sure exists. Since there is a finite supply of resources, spending more on climate action means draining money from education, hospitals, police, military or infrastructure. If you spend all your money chasing phantoms, you won’t have anything left when a real crisis strikes.
What if the world does warm?
We know beyond doubt that a warmer world is survivable, that life thrives in such conditions. Some of the most prolific periods of abundance occurred in the distant past, when CO2 levels and temperatures were far higher than today.
What about the direct impact on people of warmer temperatures?
We don’t need a time machine to truly understand the impact of warmer temperatures, all we need to do is book a holiday to somewhere warm. Or move somewhere warm, like I did.
I have no doubt that if the world warmed 4C, a lot of cities would need to fix their drains and maybe change the grade of tarmac on their roads. But this wouldn’t happen all at once, it would happen over decades, as part of the normal maintenance cycle.
The main impact for most people would be nicer weather.
I live in a place where the daytime temperature for half the year hovers around 30C / 86F. And life is beautiful. Low heating bills, a big swimming pool to enjoy with friends, long outdoor evenings where it doesn’t get cold. I even get to save on water bills – most of the time when the swimming pool gets a little low, a tropical storm pops up to refill it for me.
Given substantial evidence that climate models are running way too hot, I doubt we are going to see a significant climate shift by the end of this century, or likely even by the end of the next century. Folks are still going to have to move if they want to enjoy good retirement weather.
But if the last 10,000 years of climate shifts can teach us anything, that lesson is that humans flourish when the world warms. Our civilisations rise during warm periods, like the Roman Warming or Medieval Warm Period, and falter during cold periods, like the Dark Ages or the Little Ice Age.
The end of the Little Ice Age was an exception – because the industrial revolution which occurred during the final years of the little ice age finally gave us the means to be prosperous in the face of climatic adversity.
The industrial revolution was an advance we should treasure, not regret.
“But if the last 10,000 years of climate shifts can teach us anything, that lesson is that humans flourish when the world warms. Our civilisations rise during warm periods, like the Roman Warming or Medieval Warm Period, and falter during cold periods, like the Dark Ages or the Little Ice Age.
The end of the Little Ice Age was an exception – because the industrial revolution which occurred during the final years of the little ice age finally gave us the means to be prosperous in the face of climatic adversity.
The industrial revolution was an advance we should treasure, not regret.”
Neatly put !
During the(soon to be cancelled and called conspiracy theory) medieval warm period the world population skyrocketed as result of more farmland,longer summers and better water supply(=more evaporation ).
And the least thing the elites want is an increasing population.These guys even spent tons of money to set up the Georgia Guidestones where it is written that world population will be brought down to >500 million.
The only difference between medieval warming and (hypothetical )current warming is,
that even the dumbest scientist would eventually get to the conclusion that medieval warming did not benefit everyone all around the world as result of changes in weather patterns and cloud movements.
But in terms of AGW any warming is negative for all regions and countries around the world.(while in the real world the earth got greener by 5% and record after record in terms of crop yields were broken)
There is no: Wait and observe to see wether warming is good or bad for country xyz,as the chances should be around 50:50.
It’s only:warming is always bad(which is very strange for a science that feared global cooling(the only dangerous thing about climate are it’s scientist who went from one extreme to the other) the most just a few decades ag0).
The only reason they do consider from time to time warming may have positive effects is political strategy :to throw a bone to the plebs,to make themselves apear neutral and to create an excuse they can use in 2027 when they are accused of being biased they can always claim that they showed the benefits of warming on june 21st 2014,but they wont mention that 99.99% of the time they did the opposite.
I would hazard that warming is good/bad is not even a 50:50 chance, it’s more like 80% of the world’s countries will see positive benefits, while only 20% will see negative impacts. Or it could even go higher, like 97%! Yeah, that’s it, that’s the ticket…! Maybe it will be 80% of the world’s population…?
One difference between the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age is technology.
During the dark ages, civilizations collapsed.
During the Little Ice Age, lots of people died, but civilization itself did not collapse.
Better housing, enlarged trade networks, better farming technology. Better technology made it possible for more to survive the worsening weather.
With the industrial revolution and so drastically improved transportation, this old World could well get through another Little Ice Age with the only impact is the sale of fur coats. No starvation, because food can be transported anywhere, etc., etc.
That was one fine essay, Eric. It’s hard to refute a boots-on-the-ground, money-where-your-mouth-is argument.
–
–
–
Yeah, would someone please remind me why I leave my stone and stucco home in the North, where the temperature does cartwheels around the freezing mark and is often below 10 (F), and I leave the thermostat at 63(F) to keep the pipes and plants from freezing for a climate that averages about 75(F) with the odd mid-60s and mid-80s (F)?
I think I’m a Climate Refugee, but not the way the IpeeCC defines it.
–
–
P.S. Why do I meet so many nice Canadians, Minnesotans, and Michiganders where I Winter? Somebody give me a hint; genetic, cultural, what?
We have something in common, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. 🤷♂️
😜
Hard to say, without knowing where you winter.
Well Jeff, I am guessing it isn’t anywhere in the UK.:)
By golly! You’ve got me pegged, Rod. My wife is a Glaswegian, though. Which explains why we don’t Winter there. 😁
Didn’t want to specify Florida because there are a bunch of climate refugees in Arizona, Florida, Alabama too.
“We have something in common, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.”
Doncha know, it’s the funny way you talk, eh? ‘Specially if’n you’re upta Hallendale Beach. Ja?
Gulf side!
Wet your finger and stick it out the window. Does it get really cold? There’s your answer.
A disgustingly large RV belching plenty of *eeeevil* CO2? For the record, if I needed to be a climate refugee after your model, it would be with a trailer RV pulled by my 3/4 ton pick-up truck with the 6.4 liter gasoline fired engine. But I live in central to north central Alabama, where snow on the ground is not even an annual event, though it does happen from time to time.
42′ 5th wheel. Cummins turbodiesel. 😁
Supposedly, the “devastating impacts” we’ve already seen is a changing jet stream.
According to Wikipedia, we’ve only really been studying them in earnest since about WWII. So, how do we know what’s happening now isn’t perfectly typical?
As usual with climate science, we suddenly start hyper scrutinizing something, and seem surprised at what we find. The likelihood that nothing out of the ordinary is happening never seems to cross their minds. We just discovered it, therefore any variation must be BAD!
Which reminds me of the blind man describing an elephant.
I recall reading earlier IPCC projections were actually for net positive effects for several decades yet. There are indeed no “devastating impacts”. The statistics of big-ticket weather events are largely unchanged or even improved.
Pretty much like that dreaded “Hole in the Ozone Layer” always existed, and its size has always varied from time to time.
What’s unprecedented is the geomagnetic excursion.
The SH early winter jetstream looks plenty healthy to me.
An absolutely extraordinary piece on Ars Technica, may be worth an article here, about the bill before the House to eliminate natural gas use in the US.
These people actually seem to think that reducing or eliminating natural gas use in the US will in some way reduce what they think is an increase in extreme weather events!
Completely insane. The flip side of science denial, the invention of crazed fantasies which are alleged to be scientifically justified.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/heres-how-the-us-will-tackle-climate-change-with-the-3-5t-reconciliation-bill/
Ironically, people are being gaslighted.
Inflation, greater prosperity and a larger number of people per areas will mean damages will be higher.
Damages may be higher. What will eliminating US natural gas do to lessen their frequency?
This is the usual line: do something that can have no effect on the alleged problem, even if the problem is real, which it is not.
So they want to kill off as many poor people as possible, as rapidly as possible? If they were to eliminate natural gas use, we would have to make up for it by burning more coal at the power plant, rather than burning about a third as much (BTU-wise) natural gas in each local furnace.
Bloomberg claims to be an economist. YOu think he would know that.
“… which the bill defines as anything producing less than 0.1 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, …”
0.1 metric tons of CO2 PER WHAT? Can’t we get legislators who are actually numerate?
The attitude of our political and climate science establishment is exactly the same as my attitude at the age of 5 years old or so when I first took an interest in weather having started to notice weather variability on a day to day basis.
I knew nothing at all about weather and so assumed that it was infinitely variable rather than constrained within quite narrow natural limits.
On seeing anything new I constantly expected something unprecedented and for a few years that seemed to happen because my experience was very limited.
After a while as familiarity grew I found that my hopes and expectations of seeing something new we’re constantly being frustrated.
On reading about past weather and natural climate variability I found that nothing unprecedented was ever happening and that my lack of knowledge and experience was the sole cause of my frequent expectation of experiencing something unusual.
We are effectively entrusting our response to weather variability to the equivalent of 5 year old children and may well destroy our civilisation as a result.
I didn’t see snow on my place of residence until I was 13. That winter it snowed 3 times. By the 3rd the school didn’t even close. Oh don’t fault them for closing school after the first, there was a layer of ice under the snow that made it nearly impossible to even drive in a straight line. Even though the Texas Gulf Coast coastal savanna is disgustingly flat, many drivers found enough incline to strand their vehicle and have to call for a tow.
Not very smart people, surely? If they believe Warmists’ guff.
One can be very smart and still believe in nonsense. Look at all the people who believe in homeopathic medicine and astrology.
Or average global climate conditions.
–What Smart People Get Wrong About Climate Change Extremes
There isn’t enough appreciation of the risks associated with new weather patterns we don’t yet understand.
By Kate Mackenzie
—
She is dumb.
Does she expect a government to do anything about her “ new weather patterns”
Maybe she thinks politicians are smart people getting it wrong.
Politicians have always been stupid and evil. And they will continue to not represent the people voted for them.
Governor Cuomo is same creature as Bill Clinton and Obama. They all are feminists.
She is not dumb.
She makes a living as climate advisor and wants to keep her useless well paid job ,by declaring that even smart people are too dumb to understand climate while only a chosen few do.
Which is just part of big brothers most important strategy:
” The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
It was their final and most essential command”
George Orwell 1984
Considering how much bipolar and other mental disorders have increased as result of cognitive dissonance because the things promoted by MSM do not match with the observed reality of the individual,
it is safe to assume that the essential command has already been accepted by huge parts of the population.
Just the sheeple.
Stormtroopers 😉
If she accepts a big salary for knowingly spreading phony climate alarm then she is not a very nice person and there are some ugly words that could legitimately be applied to her…. If she actually believes the lies she is spreading then she is stupid!
The excerpts of Kate Mackenzie’s Bloomberg article, provided in the above WUWT article, clearly show she is auditioning for a consulting job with the IPCC . . . I mean just look at this paragraph of hers:
“Warming of about 1.2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels has already had devastating consequences. ‘Once we get around 2°C we are getting to a climate regime which hasn’t been seen for as long as the human species has been at work,’ said Seneviratne, a professor at ETH Zurich who oversaw the chapter on extremes in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The document, published every six to seven years, is the pinnacle of scientific knowledge about global warming.”
I’m wondering exactly how many people have seen “devastating consequences” from global warming—all of 1.2 °C—since the start of industrialization, an interval of about 260 years?
I’m wondering exactly how many people consider IPPC reports as the “pinnacle of scientific knowledge about global warming”? If IPCC is a pinnacle of anything, it is that of scientific misinformation.
Kate must surely enjoy the two moons on her planet.
Well, my version indicated a link to the “…devastating consequences…” claptrap. I dare not click on it, I’m sure I would be overwhelmed by bulls*** and probably strain an eye roll muscle.
She is dumb. She is Dem, all Dems are dumb {except smarter ones which strangely, want to be Dems, but the Dems hate them. Give a name of a smart Dem {who is not hated by other dems}.
{if you are dem hated by other dems, you aren’t really a dem}
Here is a large problem, Kate Mackenzie is not actually dumb, she is obviously of slightly above average intelligence, education, and professional success. How can she be so blind and misguided? When we see the CAGW crowd going off on theories presented as scientific fact, one big problem is that some percentage of them actually believe what they are saying (the others have gotten themselves a ticket on the gravy train and they ae going to ride it to the end of the tracks). What a difficult enigma.
I have a smart son (an engineer–you would think he would know better) who buys into this claptrap. It is all in the appeal to authority as he refuses to look at actual data–it is tainted by bias he says, but never explains why one bias is bad but the other good.
My experience of the younger generations is that they conform religiously to their peer positions.
Social rejection for them is a punishment worth sacrificing any amount of personal integrity for.
I fear these catastrophe notions are way short of a “theory” and even a few bricks short of a full-load “hypothesis”.
“Does she expect a government to do anything about her “ new weather patterns””
I would say to her: What new weather patterns?”
She is seeing things that are not there.
I assume you meant “misogynists'” instead of “feminists.”
Sounds like everyone needs a good dose of my mother’s advice: keep some money in the bank for emergencies. There, Climate Crisis solved. Everyone go back to work, on something productive.
I worked directly for Bloomberg for several years … he should never use the words “smart people” in a sentence unless he is refering to others who actually are smart … he is of average intelligence, is an insecure, small minded petty man with very few skills … yes he’s a billionaire, but not a smart one … I doubt very much that this Bloomberg writer is any smarter than her boss …
I really enjoyed Trump imitating Bloomberg by crouching behind the podium so you could barely see his head…Trump was funny. Bloomberg was not.
Interesting assessment of Bloomberg. It is pretty much what I think of him as well and I never met the man, it is just the attitude he radiates.
“Warming of about 1.2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels has already had devastating consequences …”
The purported linear global surface temperature trend for the longest thermometer record is less than 1C.
“Once we get around 2°C we are getting to a climate regime which hasn’t been seen for as long as the human species has been at work …”.
No-one can know what past global temperatures were to a necessary resolution to make that claim.
Um. Yes we can. Hippos in the Thames in the Eemian. All those evil Neanderthals with their V8s and jet planes….
Just where are these “devastating consequences” happening?
Always much worse than imaginable where its hard to go see for yourself….. in Polar bear country, Amazon Jungle, Pacific garbage gyre, Great Barrier Reef…..
But selected photos are always presented to illustrate the “crisis” claims, so you don’t need to go see for yourself.
We should all be more grateful for the efforts these researchers put in to ‘educate’ us about the “climate crisis”.
(where IS that /sarc symbol on my keypad?)
It’s not a symbol, it’s a font.
Ha! I have visited some remote areas doing Sea Level research. Guess what, no devastating consequences.
‘Fess up, Pamela.
You know that low tide shoreline you looked at was 3mm higher than when you saw it a year earlier 🤣
How do people become “the world’s top experts on the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”? It seems to be by making the most outlandish claims and then being anointed as experts by a gullible and agenda-driven media.
I was told, as a person gets more education, they become more specialized. In other words, they know more and more about less and less. Seems they have achieved that 1/∞ level of specialization.
…and the more I hear about that longest thermometer record the more I become convinced it is tainted by UHI, “adjustments”, or both.
You are quite right, we know a few degrees of warming is beneficial to all life, as is more CO2. The entire CAGW story is built on the lie that climate change is bad, it isnt.
It is worse than saying climate change is bad, they are trying to tell us that colder is better and warmer is bad! If warm were so bad, why do millions of people choose to vacation in much warmer climes? Why do people heat their homes when colder is so much better for humankind? This warmer is bad, colder is good rationale has never made sense to me when its adherents first started it 30 odd years ago. Just after they stopped yapping about the horror of the rapidly-approaching ice age!
Humanity has thousands of years of demonstrating that a warmer world is ever so much better for people than a colder one. Don’t any of these clowns ever study history?
You’re a glass half full man, I see. But cooling and little ice ages and big ice ages? I call that bad climate change.
The irony is that glaciation will come eventually. Today we are trying desperately to prevent better climate. When the glaciers start to advance, what has happened in the past 30 years would be hailed as a hopeful trend. Insanity reigns.
It takes a special mindset to produce nonsense such as Kate’s. Not only is it full of factual errors (devastating consequences?) it is presented in sloppy gobbledigook (levels of warming??). The key to this kind of reporting is the ‘impression’ of the second paragraph. An arts graduate lecturing on physics. Only at Bloomberg.
Special needs?
Take a moment and study the picture at the top of the article. Notice the caption.
“Britain’s Terrifying Global Warming Future:”
That should strike fear and terror into anybody’s heart.
That’s right – The Touristo Hoards.
They come like a plague of zombies. They get everywhere. They are on the beaches, downtown, in the shopping centers and in the restaurants and nightclubs. Horribly dressed and toting cameras galore, they come at you, implacable and unstoppable. Then come the resort hotels and the tour buses everywhere. The Touristas wave their credit cards and attack the shopping centers shouting their terrifying battle cry: Chaaarge It!
Nobody deserves this fate.
Small seacoast towns are most at risk of climate change but are not alone by any means. There a few things we can do to prepare for climate change.
1) Survey your town, categorize all ways in, including roads, rail, and sea.
2) Establish a defensible perimeter. Make the hard choices about what must be defended and what is outside the perimeter and cannot be defended.
3) Fortify the perimeter, remember “defense in depth”.
Good Luck, friends.
That looks like a plan.
Never forget, tourists being money and leave it behind when they go home. Their kiddos don’t need to be educated, they use very few local resources, and generally stay only a fortnight or less.
All those shorts and sandals with black dress socks below a beer belly overhang! Horrors!
Carbon neutral is like jumpting off a 50ft just in case there’s tiger behind you.
When you don’t live in India.
Great essay, Eric!
It’s disingenuous to claim 1.5°C of temperature rise is due to human activity when the start point for that rise is a naturally occurring low temperature (little ice age).
Once that’s taken into account then the rest can safely be dismissed.
They also need to take into account that the temperatures have cooled by about 0.5C since the highpoint of the 21st century, the year 2016.
Especially when there is solid evidence that the temperature for most of the last 10 to 15 thousand years, has been warmer than that 1.5C mark.
…and in light of that “temperature record” having been corrupted by UHI and “adjustments”.
Here in Australia, we have reworked the historical temperature record by inserting the official data from Commonwealth Year Books from the 1950s. These were the best quality available at the time they were printed.
The best we can find by simple number comparison is that Australia warmed only 0.6 deg C from before 1931, compared to 2000-21, not the official current wisdom of
the BoM’s estimate of a 1.44 deg C mean increase from 1910 to 2021, based on the 104 non-urban ACORN stations as BOM define them.
It is a rather good adjustment that turns 0.6 deg C into 1.44 deg C.
Kinda turns a pleasant small change into a global apocalyptic threat, just by adjustment of measurements.
Why is this allowed to proceed?
Geoff S
“Why is this allowed to proceed?”
Good question.
Who benefits from directed manipulation of data?
In the climate caper, my money would be on those whose chosen profession would be a barely noticed backwater, unless they found a way to make it seem that their work was a critical plank in saving the planet from certain doom.
“Sexing things up” I believe the practice is called.
And in the U.S., if you take only the non-urban sites, the trend line is virtually flat-line, i.e., it’s neither warming nor cooling. Yet. Where have I seen that? Is that posted on Not A Lot of People Know That website? I’m sure it’s available somewhere.
“We know beyond doubt that a warmer world is survivable, that life thrives in such conditions.”
Absolutely right. I’ve already posted the link to the Austrian Institute of meteorology (ZAMG) and their “climate section”. Here it is again:
https://www.zamg.ac.at/cms/de/klima/klima-aktuell/klimamonitoring/?param=t&period=period-y-2020&ref=1
What you see is the comparison of 2020 with the temp-average of 1961-1990 and as you can see 2020 was warmer by +2,1 °C , 2019 by +2,3°C and 2018 even by +2,5°C
So clearly above the +2°C target set by the global climate policy as maximum limit to avoid catastrophic consequences. But in reality there are none. The crops since the 60/70s have doubled or trippled, there is no mass extinction of animals or plants, no increase in floods, storms or fire. Summers got hotter and winters milder, but we can still go for skiing in winter and the retreating glaciers release pieces of tree trunks. I wonder where they come from. Because actual tree survival limit is some hundred meters below and as far as I understood biology trees don’t walk some hundred meters up a mountain and jump into a glacier before they die.
Oh, dear Lord! Now there’s something else to worry about!
Seriously. Just how bad can things get if we do nothing about something that isn’t?
“The main impact for most people would be nicer weather.”
How do you know that?
Given that a sizeable chunk of the human population lives in China and in India, and surrounding lands, do you have a particular insight into the impact of a warmer climate on those folks, for example?
Yes, because it happened before, during the Holocene Optimum. The Holocene Optimum was a time of massive human expansion throughout Eurasia. Towards the end of the Holocene Optimum the first true city states arose in Southern Iraq, which was a very warm place then, just as it is today. The Majiayao neolithic culture flourished in China around this time, as did neolithic cultures in India.
The Holocene was around 1C warmer than today at the equator, and 4C warmer at the poles. Sea levels were significantly higher than today.
It would be lovely to be living in the Holocene Optimum! I really need to get working on my time machine again….
Mike Bloomberg started his career as a paid liar and noisemaker (i.e., salesman) for the infamously corrupt and dishonest firm of Salomon Brothers (see Michael Lewis’ Liar’s Poker).
At Salomon, Bloomberg was immersed in a culture of deceit and intellectual dishonesty (e.g., John Meriwether, John Gutfreund).
Mike is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I doubt that he’s ever bothered to examine the nitty, gritty details purporting to underlie the “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE.
Does Mr Bloomberg lead a Net Zero lifestyle?
If not, why not?
Surely he should be leading by example.
Buying offsets just won’t wash, it is the modern equivalent of purchasing Mediaeval indulgences.
Knowing God is in his heaven helps alleviate irrational fears.
As my aunt used to say when asked why she went to church to pray, “It gives me comfort.”
I know. I no longer need to buy or grow San Francisco Fog tomatoes. All that genetic selection and UC Davis research wasted.
A pity she didn’t read section 1.6.1.4, “The likelihood of reference scenarios, scenario uncertainty and storylines”, page 1-110, then :
Those “five core scenarios used most in” AR6 are, from “most catastrophic” to “most optimistic”, SSP5-8.5, SSP3-7.0, SSP2-4.5, SSP1-2.6 and SSP1-1.9.
Even the IPCC agrees with you that the “most catastrophic” emissions pathway is actually a “counterfactual” figment of the scenario producers imaginations.
Unless, of course, the “pledges” — from the original 2015/6 NDCs, not the 2020/1/2 ones for COP-26 that are supposed to be a “progression beyond [their current NDC] and reflect [their] highest possible ambition” — made by politicians about what their countries “will” do to reduce CO2 emissions “by 2050/2060” should be taken with a very large pinch of salt …
“I reached out to Andy Pitman and Sonia Seneviratne, two of the world’s top experts on the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”
Didn’t we have an alarmist complaining here the other day that there was no CAGW, it was just AGW, and the “C” was just made up by skeptics?
Here is a journalist using the term. It appears we even have experts in this field. Skeptics did all that?
Which confirms right there, this entire IPCC Climate Assessment document is activist in nature, attempting to influence and push a desired policy, rather than scientific.
From the above article:
Who and who?
The worst part of the photo above is the large number of people enjoying the sunny beach. but I guess many people like warm sunny beaches.
A real problem in the world is the growing number of large people.
Some can be seen in that photo, but if you search-up ‘ obese Americans ‘ you will get a better idea of the problem. [ I used the images tab on DuckDuckGo.]
Does Bloomberg actually believe all the hogwash they publish or are they so ideologically blinded by their fixation on what they believe is correct and all other views wrong?
Living the low carbon lifestyle is for the little people.
I was hoping to find out what “smart people,” like most of the visitors to this site, get wrong. The Bloomberg article did not answer that. It seemed that their main point is if we do not understand something, like a change in weather patterns, we must fear it. That does not strike me as something “smart people” should do?
That reminds me of an article I’ve been meaning to write called: “What Smart People Get Wrong About Space Aliens, Zombies, and Demons”. For starters, you never really know which is which because of their shapeshifting abilities. It’s much, much worse than we thought.
What rubbish, Bruce!
Everyone knows that zombies are not shape-shifters. That’s primary school material.
And not all aliens shift shape, either. In fact, only 56.712% of alien species are mutamorphological, according to the latest poll of ancient alien theorists as reported on the History channel. So that’s like almost half. Don’t you believe in The Science ™?
It’s the demons we really need to worry about of course. They are invisible most of the time and models prove that there may be more demons today than at any time in the last 22 million years.
Shhesh, do you just throw things out without any evidence? If we want nonsense pulled out of hind quarters we have griff and Loydo for that.
So devastating that nobody can find any evidence of it.
Leftists have no use for education, police and the military.
The only people who disappear in the forest are the incredibly intelligent and the incredibly unintelligent. The rest of us have nothing to fear.
Same with global warming.
This reminds me of the classic Indonesian Wayang puppet shows which are local religious, superstitious / spiritual in nature. The puppet shows were performed to ward off unsuspecting intrusion or invasion of the spirit people… watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivNTjE53VsI
So one might conclude that the climate tree huggers are acting out spiritual shadow plays and in a sense that might be getting close … climate tree huggers lack the intellectual competence and ability to differentiate between what seems like it could be from what is scientifically verifiable in the sense of Popper, or Feinman i.e., following the Scientific Method of drawing conclusions vs. reacting on your feelings of risk avoidance. But also misrepresenting data to support one’s feelings about risk avoidance when one cannot draw conclusion is also known as scientific dishonesty and simply chasing a “cause” because it gives a sense of satisfaction or accomplishment … that’s not science and it is better called b**l s**l.
“New” weather patterns? That you don’t understand?
This is starting to sound like, the crystal ball says you will be in a car accident tomorrow, which will destroy your car. So you should trade in your old clunker today on a brand new car today to replace it. …? But wait, if the crystal ball is right, won’t I still be in a wreck tomorrow? So it will be my new car that gets destroyed, not my old clunker? Science Denier! Science Denier!!!
Alarmists would have us believe that in the last 150 years we have dangerously shifted the climate away from 10,000 years of relatively stable climate. The reality is the last 150 years have been one of the more stable climatic periods of the Holocene, because of less colder periods.
Earth-based climates are extreme, with irregular intervals of calm detachment. Let us bray (sic) that Gaia doesn’t plan (pun intended) to change her choice (pun intended) and deem life, human life, to be a “burden”, and in a depraved state of mind, pass summary judgment on the colorful clumps of cells that occupy Her.
What humans at all education levels get wrong frequently is straight-line thinking, but that is fundamentally wrong on a planet with cyclic climate.