Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; President Biden’s administration sowing more division and disunity, by demonising political opponents rather than including them in the conversation.
Readout of White House Climate Science Roundtable on Countering “Delayism” and Communicating the Urgency of Climate Action
FEBRUARY 25, 2022•PRESS RELEASES
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy hosted a 2-hour virtual roundtable yesterday of climate scientists from both natural and social sciences and other experts to discuss the scientific understanding of why arguments for delaying action on climate change are appealing and how they can be countered effectively. The event is the first White House-level convening of experts on the topic of “climate delayism” and its associated planetary, financial, and societal risks and costs. White House leaders and 17 scientists and communications experts from 11 states and the District of Columbia shared insights.
The head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Alondra Nelson applauded the roundtable participants for providing knowledge which will help to inform and accelerate federal climate action, and cited their work as an example of the value of combining social science with physical science:
“This is deeply important to us, because, as you know, the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda on climate change is historic. We rejoined the Paris Agreement on Day One, and we’ve been back at the table internationally — leading the world to increase our collective ambition, action, and innovation over the next decade. We’ve also set bold goals for the United States: to cut U.S. emissions in half by the end of the decade, to reach 100% clean electricity by 2035, and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. And we are making unprecedented investments in clean energy and climate resilience, the largest in U.S. history, to build a better America.
Now, given the realities of climate change and global warming — including the rigor and soundness of the science, and the increasing evidence of its impacts — one could be tempted to ask, “what’s taken so long?” That brings us to another reality, which this group knows better than most: that there have been for decades, and still are, forces arrayed against the cause of climate action — running the gamut from self-interest and short-term thinking, to deliberate disinformation campaigns that are as insidious as they are invidious.”
White House OSTP Deputy Director for Climate and Environment Dr. Jane Lubchenco led the roundtable, with remarks that framed the historical moment:
“While there is broad awareness of the physical science aspects of this climate crisis, attention to the social sciences has lagged behind. And at the same time, powerful vested interests have skillfully manipulated the narrative to prevent or stall action. Our world is a coupled social and environmental system that must be understood and dealt with as an integrated system. Today, we bring this richer, more complete integration of physical and social sciences to the White House. It’s been thirty years since a Republican president signed our nation up to fight climate change. It’s time to understand and fight the delayism that has already cost us so dearly.”
In closing remarks, White House Senior Advisor Neera Tanden said, “It’s clear that a variety of special interests have had a vested interest in sowing doubt on climate change and feeding denialism and delay. We need to confront that reality. However, despite this organized campaign, a strong majority of the country wants climate action because they understand the consequences of inaction.”
Five speakers provided remarks to prompt conversation:
Tony Leiserowitz, Founder and Director of the Yale Program on Climate Communication, Senior Research Scientist at the Yale School of the Environment, started the conversation by sharing data about public perceptions of climate change, how they have changed, and why.
“In 2015, the ‘Alarmed’ and ‘Dismissive’ were tied at about 12 percent each. So for every one American ‘Alarmed’ about climate change, there was one ‘Dismissive.’ But that has changed radically in the last six years. Today, there are more than three ‘Alarmed’ for every one ‘Dismissive’ in the country. And that reflects a fundamental shift in the underlying social, cultural, and political climate of climate change. It’s why we are so achingly close to being able to take national action even though we haven’t gotten there yet.”
Andrea Dutton, Professor of Geoscience from the University of Wisconsin, summarized evidence for some of the risks of delay in light of the predictable impacts of climate change over the next three to five decades, including some less predictable impacts and potential tipping points.
“Sea-level rise threatens the safety and security of the United States. It’s as if we have an army ringing our coastlines, advancing farther each year than the previous year, taking more land as it goes. We would not tolerate that; yet we are allowing sea level to rise unabated. We are already losing infrastructure due to coastal retreat and as sea-level rise accelerates, we risk of multiplying these losses. Social inequities are already arising between coastal communities that afford to adapt and those that cannot.”
Gernot Wagner, New York University Associated Clinical Professor and Clinical Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Public Service steered the discussion into the very real economic costs associated with delaying climate action.
“From an economic standpoint, it is precisely the risks and uncertainties that increase the urgency for action. What we know for sure is bad, what we don’t is potentially much worse.”
Dan Abbasi, former government and civil society climate communicator, now with Douglass Winthrop Advisors, shared his experiences on effective ways to counter arguments for delay and lessons learned.
“We’re committed to 1 foot of sea level rise by 2050, but we can still stay at the low end of 2 to 7 feet by 2100 if we act. So we need to make that fork in the road more visible and remind Americans of the can-do spirit they have always brought to challenges like this and need to again – from business innovators to citizens holding their elected officials more accountable.”
Marshall Shepherd, University of Georgia Distinguished Professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences and past President of American Meteorological Society focused on overcoming arguments for delay through communication with different audiences.
“Doom and gloom solutions do not do well. Most Americans don’t see scientists like us every day – they see the scientists on their TV, their meteorologists, talking about kitchen table issues. We have to remember that good messengers come from inside a community.”
Throughout the two hours, there was a lively discussion among participants. Some additional points included the following:
Katey Walter Anthony, Professor & Aquatic Ecosystem Ecologist, the University of Alaska Fairbanks
“In the Arctic, climate-driven changes include temperature rise at triple the rate of the rest of the planet, wildfires, decline in sea ice extent, loss of glaciers, and widespread warming and thaw of permafrost. These changes come with local costs. Communities must relocate. Roads, pipelines, and trails collapse. Water supplies become uncertain. Fish, wildlife and plants used for food and materials face threats. Ramifications are also planetary. Less snow and ice and higher carbon emissions in the Arctic increase sea levels.”
Kerry Ard, Professor of Environmental & Natural Resource Sociology, Ohio State University
“Climate change has increasingly been pushing people in the poorest and most affected countries towards opportunities in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. The demographic shift has prompted xenophobia and unrest, leaving policymakers to wonder what can be done to aid in an equitable and peaceful transition of receiving communities into healthy, more diverse, forms of themselves?”
Shahzeen Attari, Professor of Environmental and Public Affairs, Indiana University
“Our prior work finds that conservatives and liberals have a shared vision for a decarbonized energy mix for the year 2050, but they do not agree on the policy pathways of getting there. Given these results, we need to identify narratives for climate action and solutions that will appeal to conservatives to foster swift decarbonization today.”
Kim Cobb, Georgia Power Chair & Director, Global Change Program, Georgia Tech
“What are the opportunities, how can we grow our economy, how can we move equitably towards a low-carbon future? These are the kinds of arguments which can gain traction and help Georgians see what’s the risk and what’s the benefit from a Georgia-based perspective.”
Justin Farrell, Professor of Sociology, Yale University
“Research also shows that funding was allocated to create fake “grassroots” organizations– or front groups – staffed with fake experts, again with the intent of promoting doubt about CO2 and increasing global temperatures. Further, fossil fuel corporations and trade associations hired some of the best PR firms to test, tailor and target messaging they knew would be effective in manipulating public opinion related to climate change.”
John E. Fernandez, Professor of Architecture & Director of the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative
“Targeted delayism downplays health concerns of methane in homes and intends to extend the use of methane through the creation of concern for the viability of alternative low-carbon solutions. Narratives of delayism have taken advantage of this gap in general awareness about the health consequences of household methane emissions and combustion to assert that natural gas is the very best low-carbon alternative currently available. This is not accurate.”
Michel Gelobter, Climate Strategist, Founder & Chairman, Cooler
“Climate is a slow-motion pandemic: The direct impact of climate change is being felt, but as those of us who are deep in the field know, we’re doing a terrible job of surfacing the impacts of how much heat and environmental change we are baking into our social and environmental systems.”
Katharine Hayhoe, Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy and Professor, Texas Tech University
“That’s why it’s so encouraging when research provides us with insights on how we can overcome political polarization: by focusing on something that connects us rather than divides us. For example, when we address the challenge of psychological distance by bringing the impacts of climate change near to us in time and space and relevance, people can bond and connect over a shared love of or concern for place, family, or priority.”
Michael Mann, Professor of Atmospheric Science & Director of Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
“We really are moving away from hard denial. It’s very difficult to deny things that people can see with their own eyes. And so we’ve seen this transition from denial to division, deflection, distraction, delay, and quite important – doom-mongering. We can create a much better world if we act now. There is urgency but there is also agency.”
Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science & Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
“For most ordinary Americans, it’s about the present. It is about what’s happening right here, right now in the U.S. of A. We have concrete scientific evidence that storms, floods, fires that have destroyed people’s homes have been made worse by climate change. I have a slide that is a picture of a terrifying fire that is burning down people’s homes, and the title is three words: Theory Made Real. When I show that slide to my audiences, you can hear a pin drop in the room. People may say, ‘let’s wait and see.’ The truth is, we have waited, and we have seen.”
Veerabhadran “Ram” Ramanathan, Professor of Climate Sciences and Physical Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego
“The dire consequences of unchecked warming are becoming clearer,” said Ramanathan. “Numerous medical academies in the US and worldwide have concluded that climate change poses grave threats to public health. After 40 years in this eco-chamber of restating climate facts, I have concluded we need a different approach. We have to unpack climate change from all the other issues that divide America.”
Jigar Shah, Director, U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office
“We have at our disposal most of the tools and resources we need to meet the Administration’s bold climate agenda while creating good jobs through an equitable energy transition. Doing this will require a laser focus on using those resources and tools to maximize private sector capital formation – both supply and demand. In short, we need to a strong focus on government program execution with the specific goal of private sector capital formation.”Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/02/25/readout-of-white-house-climate-science-roundtable-on-countering-delayism-and-communicating-the-urgency-of-climate-action/
The thing which really strikes me about this meeting is, as far as I can see, none of the participants said anything new. It is all becoming direr and clearer, as always – except that it is not.
From what I can see, no progress was made at this meeting, nothing new happened at this meeting. Just the same tired climate has beens mouthing the same empty formulas many of them have been repeating for the last two decades. As far as I can tell, anyone who might have said something new was not invited.
Update (EW): Fixed a typo in the first paragraph.
So, same old same, the usual cast of clowns and liars doing the same kabuki theater crap they always do.
I guess it really IS worse than we thought!
Always think the worst when it comes to the demrats and Joey Biden. We need to build back a bigger better broader bolder brick wall to block Biden.
Perhaps more appropriate: demonrats.
Well, if you’re talking about how low these people will go, it’s without a doubt a LOT worse than we thought, and I thought it was pretty bad.
I note again that none of these “high profile” climate mouthpieces is ever qualified, or has any expertise / experience in not just suggesting power generation / storage / distribution solutions, but actually overseeing the rollout of their suggested “solutions” (just wind & solar really).
If the “science” was truly settled, these academics should by now have taken a back seat on the matter, and passed the baton to inventors, designers and engineers to get on with the “solutions” to de-carbonising the world’s economies.
Seems that everyone knows how a fart lingers in an elevator long after the perp has de-camped, but these climate “scientists” want to stay aboard to tell everyone waiting at each level that someone farted in the elevator.
They don’t get that the people waiting to board naturally associate the “scientists” with responsibility for the fart.
Why I love CO2
6 CO2 + 6 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2
If these people really appreciated science
they would be overawed by photosynthesis.
(sorry I could not get this to print with the correct notation – perhaps someone can advise)
CO2 has mostly been stripped out of the Earth’s atmosphere by millions of years of plant and marine organisms like coccolithophores. The little that is left is precious.
This planet has a ravenous appetite for sequestering CO2, adding a bit back for the plants can’t be a bad thing.
It’s worse than kabuki theater, in that they claim to own the necessity to stop increases in atmospheric CO2, and part of this ownership includes NASA stating that the “…world has experienced 10% greening…”, and these wizards want to stop this evil greening? How can you sell burning hell on one hand and stop evil greening at the same time?
To be clear, NASA has pointed out that the bulk of the “greening” is a result of wide-scale agricultural efforts in China and India.
There’s no way of spinning the drastically unnatural levels of atmospheric CO2 as some kind of net positive. It’s a disaster.
Correct. The unnaturally low levels of CO2 are barely enough to sustain photosynthesis. We should be trying to double levels to at least 800ppm.
unnatural levels would be below 150ppm, as in all natural carbon based life would disappear
Actually, the natural level IS below 150 ppm. A colder and colder ocean will leach more and more CO2 from the atmosphere. 150 ppm will insure that starvation will occur worldwide. At some point, scientists will have to decide how to increase CO2. Isn’t that just karma?
That’s there story now. Unfortunately for them, the bulk of the greening is not in the India/China region.
Regardless, it’s impossible to not paint the increase of CO2 as being a net positive. Huge plusses, absolutely no negatives. What’s not to love.
Practically everything that maintains your current life and health is ‘unnatural’.
You can always eschew your current lifestyle and revert to nature.
Misapplying Hobbs: a ‘natural’ lifestyle is invariably ‘nasty brutish and short’.
Apparently you can’t read past the title of your own link. That link states “China and India account for one-third of the greening,” of which about 3/4 is due to man-made efforts. So your statement that the “bulk” of the greening is due to agricultural efforts in China and India is not correct unless 1/4 represents the “bulk” of an effect. Global greening due to CO2 is real and generally undisputed.
Are you sure that global greening isn’t caused by global warming?
Barry, OK, I looked at the actual NASA reports, first in 201119 and again in 2021, where they do state that the greening is dominated by planting forests in China and India. The NASA shows world-wide maps of the greening effect and the greening is spread out over the entire globe, leaving me to wonder why they state it’s mostly China and India? Chlorophyll has a distinctive reflectance peak at about 700 nm, but intepreting abundance of chlorophyll from reflectance strength is complicated and difficult, given the maturing of different plant/tree species at different time in the growing cycle.
Ron, maybe its all the coal those two countries are burning that is causing the increase there?
The threat from rising CO2 is based on theoretical models that rely on theoretical feedbacks. Those models consistently overstate forecasted temperatures compared to actual observation. The newest models with ever more powerful computing power still cannot model long wave cloud cover accurately. So, why should we get alarmed?
The threat from rising CO2 is based on theoretical models that rely on theoretical feedbacks.
No, it’s based on real-world observation and empirical evidence. “These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.” http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
And these models, including those of Exxon, have to be exceptionally accurate against direct observation for decades. Why Deniers continue to claim otherwise is really a study in cognitive dissonance.
That’s because the clowns and the liars still don’t have any evidence proving human-derived CO2 is causing the climate to change. So they throw up smokescreens like claiming the science is settled, and complain that the only problem is alarmists haven’t been succesful enough at climate change propaganda.
(Edited the post to fix quoting errors and separating two different people’s comments) SUNMOD
“That’s because the clowns and the liars still don’t have any evidence proving human-derived CO2 is causing the climate to change.”
Continuing to ignore scientific research that proves the reality of AGW isn’t going to make it go away. “These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.” http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
(Barry you need to improve your QUOTING for your comments either use this ” ” or use the quote button at the bottom of the comment box and separate other peoples quote from your comment) SUNMOD
They do no such thing. Clearly the writer has no idea what “empirical” means. The idea is not only false, it is also circular reasoning. How often does this need to be said before you people will check your facts? You have no empirical evidence of AGW … none. You have a weak supposition.
Progressives believe their merely stating something as truth makes it true. They don’t need any darn evidence.
Then they take that ‘truth‘ and apply it as “evidence” of another “truth” … ad infinitum. Once you get started, circular reasoning has no end of uses.
“Fact Free Science”
“You have a weak supposition.”
That’s all any alarmists has.
Other than the models predicting that CO2 should cause warming, and the world warming more or less, there is no correlation between the models and real world data. The problem is that the models predict that temperatures should increase steadily, along with CO2 levels. In the real world, temperatures go up, go down, and stay the same for decades at a time.
This completely invalidates the claims of the models.
>>there is no correlation between the models and real world data.<< You can lie all you’d like, but the reality is that major climate models going back decades–including those of Exxon–have proven to be remarkably accurate against direct observation. It’s mystifying to see Deniers continue to claim otherwise in the face of direct empirical data. https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763
Fascinating how any data you don’t like is a lie.
Exxon never had any models, not a single one.
They just noted that since CO2 is known to be a GHG, it is likely to cause some warming.
No model has ever come close to replicating what temperatures have actually done. Period. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, it still remains a fact.
>>Exxon never had any models, not a single one.<<
This is a link on Exxon’s OWN WEBSITE with their 1982 report that included the projections from their models of CO2’s warming effects resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels.
>>No model has ever come close to replicating what temperatures have actually done.<< Like virtually all major climate models including the very from over 50 years ago have proven to be exceptionally accurate.
(And I apologize if I may not be able to reply further in this thread. My comments are being heavily limited by the board moderators.)
It really is sad how you have to limit yourself to propaganda sites in order to find someone who is willing to agree with you.
“Continuing to ignore scientific research that proves the reality of AGW isn’t going to make it go away.”
I’ll translate that sentence into how I perceive the situation as it stands.
~ Continuing to be aware of the fallibility (including susceptibility to corruption) of people who engage in what they call scientific research, claiming the reality of catastrophic AGW, isn’t going to make them go away. ~
If you believe that scientists are not just humans who’ve gotten degrees in this or that field of study labelled a science, I feel sorry for you. Just as I feel sorry for those who somehow still believe getting a degree in this or that field of Law, renders lawyers/judges unbiased champions of justice, by default.
In these word salads “tossed” by members of a blatantly obvious “special interest group”, one sees vague references to “special interest groups” they clearly want “ordinary people” to not pay attention to. That is to me antithetical to how people would behave, who actually have what this person claims’
“We have concrete scientific evidence that storms, floods, fires that have destroyed people’s homes have been made worse by climate change”
They would WANT those who disagree to be heard, so they could refute/convince them (with something more than what to me is a blatant lie about “concrete scientific evidence” that simply does not exist).
For “concrete scientific evidence” you must “test” the hypothesis in question in controlled experiments. We cannot do repeatable controlled experiments on how complex events would have played out in the absence of human generated CO2 etc, because there’s only one planet Earth.
That word salad tosser is talking about “concrete” opinions, obviously, and is willing to redefine the scientific method itself (apparently) to get the young and/or gullible to believe such opinions are the equivalent of what one could demonstrate by performing repeatable controlled experiments on a host of identical Earths that don’t exist.
I highly suspect that what is going on here, is an attempt to get enough anti-climate change “hardware” into operation to plausibly claim that “we’ve” held temps from doing a “hockey stick” sort of climb, as predicted, so as to justify an indefinite “lookdown” of our society, on the grounds that if we are freed from this pretend “scientific” concrete opinionating, all hell will break loose, so to speak. Hence, the last quoted verbiage by the Director of the U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office;
“We have at our disposal most of the tools and resources we need to meet the Administration’s bold climate agenda while creating good jobs through an equitable energy transition. Doing this will require a laser focus on using those resources and tools to maximize private sector capital formation – both supply and demand. In short, we need to a strong focus on government program execution with the specific goal of private sector capital formation.”
Barry is also trying the classic bait and switch. He believes that if he can prove that if the climate is changing, then he has proven that both, man is responsible for all of it, and it is going to kill us.
Perhaps he is trying a classic bait and switch, and perhaps he’s fallen for one or more such bait and switches. I suspect it’s the later, but certainly don’t rule out the former . .
Climate catastrophists are the most shameless of political fraudsters – and they know it.
By the end of 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times. At 50:50 odds for each prediction, that is like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
But no sensible person makes a 50:50 prediction – at 60:40 the odds against being this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; at 70:30 the odds against being this wrong are 1 in 13 septillion.
Even the most innumerate climate leftist must get it:
Climate doomsters have not been telling the truth. Ever! They lied! They’ve been lying for ~50 years and they know it! Quelle surprise!
The decades of earnest attempts by honest climate scientists to debate the science with warmist fraudsters have been a waste of time – the climate fraudsters know they are lying so they just shout down and vilify contrary opinions – a standard Leninist tactic.
>>By the end of 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times. <<
Which of these predictions, specifically, came from actual research organizations?
All of them.
The paper is here.Linked in red above and below.
I wonder if they used jazz hands to show support?
Should We Ban Clapping? | Good Morning Britain – YouTube
Committed to 1 foot of sea level rise by 2050 huh. I would love to see their prediction fo 2023…
They may be committed to a SLR of one foot. They world, not so much.
Why don’t these “experts” calculate the average yearly human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 level and see just how much reduction in that contribution is of any consequence regarding global warming. I have it at less than 1/10th of one part- per-million.
This should be helpful, Bill. Spoiler alert: AGW is a reality.
Not in the United States. The United States has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.
And once again, the only way to make it look like CO2 plays even a minor role in the climate, is to completely rewrite the past.
The well known and well documented warming rom 1850 to 1950 is completely disappeared and moved to after 1950.
What amuses most of the readers here is that anyone would believe those graphs have anything to do with the real world.
They should change that “Observed” label on those charts to “Seriously Fiddled”
Same old hockey sticks?
Can’t get any new material?
Bastardized Hockey Stick charts are all the alarmists have to show as “evidence” of human-caused climate change. Fraudulently mannipulating the temperature profile of the Earth is their “stock in trade”.
I’d like to know what land cover means. If it means cities and roadways, that is certainly from humans, but it doesn’t decrease the temperatures , UHI is a very real thing.
Barry Anthony, you must be new here. Thanks for the laugh*.
We discussed graphs similar to those here at WUWT many years ago. They clearly show that climate models do not and cannot simulate the factors that cause global temperatures to vary over multidecadal timeframes. Look at the period from the early-1910s to the early-1940s; they clearly show the models are shite at simulating those changes. Duh. What’s the matter? Can’t read a graph?
*PS: We’re laughing at you, not with you
Yep. And “Bury Anthony” thinks he is being cute .
What a maroon …
SOB, It’s OK, it’s a learning situation.
….the left hand axis is “degrees”….also ”observed” is “degrees”….GG, AHD, Ozone, LC, and Aerosols are some other parameter (not stated). Because these parameters consistently go up or down, they can be plotted on top of the increasing Temp curve by any graphics software and made to appear as if there is a significant correlation. For example, missing from your graph is the log of the number of radio stations, and auto land speed records. So anyone can be inventive with such graphs. Try labelling the other parameters Y-axes on the same graph and you will start seeing junk science aspect.
Alarmists never learn. They just keep using the same discredited studies until new ones come out.
“Barry Anthony, you must be new here.”
He is. He thinks he is enlightening all of us.
And how did they estimate the human & natural influences? They don’t have empirical data for all of it, they use models to make estimates. The models they use to determine model parameters/drivers are the same ones they use to verify the models. Circular reasoning of assuming the trend is all human, natural is mostly flat trend then trying to explain the per month/yr variations using combinations of the non-CO2 factors.
Those graphs are not emperical evidence.
Where is the link for your charts?
Why the blip 1940 to 1945? Why is the warming from 1910 to 1940 the same as the warming from 1970 to 2000?
Nasa.gov is a poor source for accurate climate data. They cannot even properly evaluate the information in their own documents. Look for the NASA document entitled “Satellite Detects Human Contribution to Atmospheric CO2” and see if the text relates accurately with the satellite mapping in the document. The location of so-called human CO2 contribution aligns nicely with forests and woodlands in the Eastern United States but not with cities like Los Angeles or Dallas-Fort Worth.
These charts are meaningless without an adequate presentation of the measurements used to make them.
The high temperature shown just short of 2020 was the result of EL Nino activity. Accurate temperature graphs show a warming period from about 1975 until about 2004or5. After that the temperature curve flattened until 2015 when a large El Nino effect begins then peaks in 2016 and ends in 2017. Since 2017 the temperature has again returned to a level similar to the one in 2004 or 5. El Ninos are a short-time temperature event whose cause is known and is not the cause of the longer-term warming in question. El Nino spikes should be ignored when considering longer range warming and the NASA.gov people should be well aware of this. The large El Nino spike in 1998 caused similar interpretive problems with some stating that 1998 marked the end of a warming period that began about 1975. It wasn’t. The warming period lasted about thirty years until 2004-5 making it the same length as earlier alternating periods of warming and pauses in warming.
Your attempt to ascribe the recent spike in global temperatures to El Nino represents a strawman argument. El Nino is not new. It’s a natural cycle that’s been in place long before the Industrial Revolution. The reality is that all natural drivers at this time should be very slightly cooling the planet. The planet is in fact now warming at the fastest level in at least the last 34 million years. And, as an ironic addition to your initial claim, this unnatural warming is actually affecting the El Nino cycle. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/climate-change-is-making-el-ninos-more-intense-study-finds
[That’s two. How many more posts am I allowed today, mods?]
What I said had nothing to do with the history of El Nino effects. I am talking about the graph of global temperatures from 1975 until the present. El Nino spikes tend to mislead readers into thinkng they are part of longer-range warming. They are not. They are short-range climate events caused by ocean current activity.
You have shown correlation not causation. Also, note that the planet is healthier and wealthier than any point in its history during a 140 year period of slightly rising temps. Of course, the alarmists say the next 1 degree is going to KILL US ALL! LOL!
No sooner said…….
Sorry for boring people with this…….
This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something we can all do by taking our socks and shoes off.
Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm:
Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostok Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Mauna Loa)
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years.
One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened!
Furthermore, the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 but cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2.
Hardly surprising. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming can’t be illustrated on the regularly updated Mauna Loa graph.
Mankind’s emissions are independent of seasonal variation and would reveal itself as a straight line, so should be obvious.
Not even the global fall in manmade CO2 over the early Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm), registers anywhere on the Mauna Loa data. Unsurprisingly.
In which case, the warming the planet has experienced is down to naturally occurring atmospheric CO2, all 97% of it.
That’s entirely ignoring the effect of the most powerful ‘greenhouse’ gas, water vapour which is ~96% of all greenhouse gases.
HotScot, your “410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.” is unsupported. You give no evidence for your assertion that Man is only responsible for 3% of the change. That damages your whole argument.
The present estimates of human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 level I have seen range from 3.75 percent to five percent by the EPA and IPCC. My calculations are based on the CO2 growth from 1960 until 2020 according to Muana Loa and a five percent human contribution. My result is a .09 PPM yearly human contribution.
You appear to be confusing the percentage of Man’s contributions to total atmospheric CO2 concentrations with Man’s percentage contributions to the marginal atmospheric CO2 increases over a period of time. As I understand it, other than some minor effects of the small amount of global warming we have experienced, additions to atmospheric CO2 is coming from Man’s emissions.
That is a common misconception because it is assumed by the IPCC. It is disproved by multiple lines of evidence and reasoning. See https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
Check out the references on the right side of that page.
I am not discussing the residence time of CO2 molecules, human or otherwise. I assert that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing fairly rapidly, and that is a stone cold fact. I am unaware of any natural sources of CO2 that are increasingly emitting at a significant rate.
Please don’t tell me that Man is not emitting significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I am convinced it has some minor warming impact due to the physics involved, but nothing to worry about.
Various of the OCO-2 satellite data mappng show the highest levels of CO-2 to be where vegetation is most present. It would seem that heavily vegetative areas should not show the highest levels of CO2 unless they are contributing more CO2 than they are absorbing. This may well be the principal cause of increasing global CO2 levels. It is not logical to think that the extremely small human contribution could somehow become a major source of atmospheric CO2. The root systems and leaves of vegetation, particularly broad-leaf trees, would appear to be a natural pathway for carbon to travel from within the Earth to the atmosphere.
Dave is right, HotScot. We’ve been over this ground a dozen times at least. Natural fluxes go both ways, our emissions only add. Nature can only soak up about half of what we emit and every year we contribute another small increment.
Our emissions are twice as big as the annual rise in atmospheric CO2.
Thank you, Rich. Early on I attempted to follow the cranks down their various rabbit holes, thinking that rational analyses would reveal the truth of any given scientific assertion. Sadly, over time it became apparent that the cranks would adhere to their pet “scientific” theories with increasingly convoluted rationalities. They invent novel physics, maths and physical properties that are impossible to disprove by normal reasoning processes.
My conclusions have nothing to do with standard CliSciFi “denier” denigrations of skeptics. These people have proven themselves to be cranks, harping on their singular obsessions.
Here’s the thing, Dave. There isn’t a single example of credible, independent, and peer-reviewed science that supports the Denier narrative. None. A true skeptic questions a supposition, but then accepts it when presented with overwhelming data in support. A Denier claims to be a skeptic, but childishly ignores all data supporting a finding. Deniers aren’t skeptics.
The term “denier” is used by CliSciFi practitioners to delegitimize people questioning warmunist dogma. I refer to those that build fanciful “scientific” proofs and reject proven scientific principles as “cranks.” Most prominent among them are the “no proven GHG effect” and “CO2 can’t affect temperatures” loudmouths.
How, exactly, does advocating for extremely robust science and responsible energy policy equate to “warmunist dogma?”
(And I apologize in advance if I may not be able to reply further in this thread. My comments are being heavily limited by the board moderators.)
Claiming that only people who agree with you can be called scientists is not “advocating for extremely robust science”, no matter how many times your cell master tells you to claim so.
Thank you. So far, not many of these scientific wizards have been able to predict anything correctly.
Barry, please describe your “extremely robust science” (without referencing unvalidated UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models) and, further, explain how destroying a reliable and cost-effective energy supply system is “responsible energy policy.”
>>Barry, please describe your “extremely robust science” (without referencing unvalidated UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models)<<
Here’s a link to Exxon’s own research from 1982 that successfully projected the global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels we’re seeing right now: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/03_1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3SO5mAjiaoFS_bP6Js_VB2PSoG2UWA7uRGKIMMKdAY1wP19tLmdKdPWNM
Here’s a link to more recent and expansive research that provides hard empirical data regarding the impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 on global temperatures:
“These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.” http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Here’s a link to recent and quite comprehensive research that proves the current spike in global temperatures is unprecedented across the entirety of the Holocene period:
In addition to a link to Mann’s own pioneering research, here are 50 more references to studies that specifically support his findings:
1.Mann ME, Bradley RS, and Hughes MK: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392(6678):779–787, 1998. dx.doi.org/10.1038/33859.
2. Jones PD, Briffa KR, Barnett TP, and Tett SFB: High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures. The Holocene 8(4):455–471, 1998. dx.doi.org/10.1191/095968398667194956.
3. Pollack HN, Huang S, and Shen, P-Y: Climate change record in subsurface temperatures: a global perspective. Science 282(5387) 279–281. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5387.279.
4. Mann ME, Bradley RS, and Hughes MK: Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical research letters 26(6):759–762, 1999. dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900070.
5. Briffa KR: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees. Quaternary Science Reviews 19(1):87–105, 2000. dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00056-6.
6. Crowley TJ and Lowery TS: How warm was the medieval warm period? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51–54, 2000. dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51.
7. Huang S, Pollack HN, and Shen P-Y: Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403(6771):756–758, 2000. dx.doi.org/10.1038/35001556.
8. Jones PD, Osborn TJ, and Briffa KR: The evolution of climate over the last millennium. Science 292(5517):662–667, 2001. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900617.
9. Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC, Jones PD, Shiyatov SG, and Vaganov EA: Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(D3):2929–2941, 2001. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900617.
10. Esper J, Cook ER, and Schweingruber FH: Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295(5563):2250–2253, 2002. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1066208.
11. Mann ME, Rutherford S, Bradley RS, Hughes MK, and Keimig FT: Optimal surface temperature reconstructions using terrestrial borehole data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 108(D7), 2003. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002532.
12. Mann ME and Jones PD: Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 30(15), 2003. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017814.
13. Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, and Schweingruber FH: Large-scale temperature inferences from tree rings: a review. Global and Planetary Change 40(1):11–26, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00095-X.
14. Pollack HN and Smerdon JE: Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 109(D11):D11106, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004163.
15. Huang S: Merging information from different resources for new insight into climate change in the past and future. Geophysical Research Letters 31:L13205, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019781.
16. Jones PD and Mann ME: Climate over past millennia. Reviews of Geophysics 42(2):RG2002, 2004. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000143.
17. Moberg A, Sonechkin DM, Holmgren K, Datsenko NM, and Karlén W: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433(7026):613–617, 2005. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03265.
18. Oerlemans J: Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records. Science 308(5722):675–677, 2005. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1107046.
19. Rutherford S, Mann ME, Osborn TJ, Briffa KR, Jones PD, Bradley RS, and Hughes MK: Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere surface temperature reconstructions: sensitivity to method, predictor network, target season, and target domain. Journal of Climate 18(13):2308–2329, 2005. dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3351.1.
20. D’Arrigo R, Wilson R, and Jacoby G: On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 111(D3):D03103, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006352.
21. Osborn TJ and Briffa KR: The spatial extent of 20th-century warmth in the context of the past 1200 years. Science 311(5762):841–844, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1120514.
22. Viau AE, Gajewski K, Sawada MC, and Fines P: Millennial-scale temperature variations in North America during the Holocene. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 111(D9):D09102, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006031.
23. Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Hyde WT, and Frame DJ: Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Nature 440(7087):1029–1032, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04679.
24. Smith CL, Baker A, Fairchild IJ, Frisia S, and Borsato A: Reconstructing hemispheric-scale climates from multiple stalagmite records. International journal of climatology 26(10):1417–1424, 2006. dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1329
25. Juckes MN, Allen MR, Briffa KR, Esper J, Hegerl GC, Moberg A, Osborn TJ, and Weber SL: Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation. Climate of the Past 3(4):591–609, 2007. dx.doi.org/10.5194/cp-3-591-2007.
26. Wahl ER and Ammann CM: Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Climatic Change 85(1–2):33–69, 2007. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7.
27. Huang SP, Pollack HN, and Shen P-Y: A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record. Geophysical Research Letters 35(13):L13703, 2008. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034187.
28. Lee TC, Zwiers FW, and Tsao M: Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods. Climate Dynamics 31(2–3):263–281, 2008. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0351-9.
29. Mann ME, Zhang Z, Hughes MK, Bradley RS, Miller SK, Rutherford S, and Ni F: Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(36):13252–13257, 2008. dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805721105.
30. Kaufman DS, Schneider DP, McKay NP, Ammann CM, Bradley RS, Briffa KR, Miller GH, Otto-Bleisner BL, Overpeck JT, and Vinther BM: Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science 325(5945):1236–1239, 2009. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1173983.
31. Tingley MP and Huybers P: A Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. Part I: Development and applications to paleoclimate reconstruction problems. Journal of Climate 23(10):2759–2781, 2010. dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3015.1.
32. Ljungqvist FC: A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 92(3):339–351, 2010. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x.
33. Goosse H, Crespin E, de Montety A, Mann ME, Renssen H, and Timmermann A: Reconstructing surface temperature changes over the past 600 years using climate model simulations with data assimilation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 115(D9), 2010. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012737.
34. Christiansen B and Ljungqvist FC: Reconstruction of the extratropical NH mean temperature over the last millennium with a method that preserves low-frequency variability. Journal of Climate 24(23):6013–6034, 2011. dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4145.1.
35. Ljungqvist FC, Krusic PJ, Brattström G, and Sundqvist HS: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries. Climate of the Past 8(1):227–249, 2012. dx.doi.org/10.5194/cp-8-227-2012.
36. Christiansen B and Ljungqvist FC: The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past 8(2):765–786, 2012. dx.doi.org/10.5194/cp-8-765-2012.
37. PAGES 2k Consortium: Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. Nature Geoscience 6(5):339–346, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1797.
38. Marcott SA, Shakun JD, Clark PU, and Mix AC: A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science 339(6124):1198–1201, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228026.
39. Shi F, Yang B, Mairesse A, von Gunten L, Li J, Bräuning A, Yang F, and Xiao X: Northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction during the last millennium using multiple annual proxies. Climate Research 56:231–244, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr01156.
40. Neukom R, Gergis J, Karoly DJ, Wanner H, Curran M, Elbert J, et al.: Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium. Nature Climate Change 4(5):362-367, 2014. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2174.
41. Barboza L, Li B, Tingley MP, and Viens FG: Reconstructing past temperatures from natural proxies and estimated climate forcings using short-and long-memory models. The Annals of Applied Statistics 8(4):1966–2001, 2014. dx.doi.org/10.1214/14-AOAS785.
42. Tierney JE, Abram NJ, Anchukaitis KJ, Evans MN, Giry C, et al.: Tropical sea surface temperatures for the past four centuries reconstructed from coral archives. Paleoceanography 30(3):226–252, 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014PA002717.
43. Tingley MP and Huybers P: Heterogeneous warming of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures over the last 1200 years. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 120(9):4040–4056, 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022506.
44. Wilson R, Anchukaitis K, Briffa KR, Büntgen U, Cook E, D’Arrigo R, Davi N, Esper J, Frank D, Gunnarson B, and Hegerl G: Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part I: The long term context. Quaternary Science Reviews 134:1–8, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.12.005.
45. Xing P, Chen X, Luo Y, Nie S, Zhao Z, Huang J, and Wang S: The extratropical Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction during the last millennium based on a novel method. PLOS ONE 11(1):e0146776, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146776.
46. Abram NJ, McGregor HV, Tierney JE, Evans MN, McKay NP, Kaufman DS, Thirumalai K, and PAGES 2k Consortium: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents. Nature 536(7617):411–418, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19082.
47. Hakim GJ, Emile-Geay J, Steig EJ, Noone D, Anderson DM, Tardif R, Steiger N, and Perkins WA: The last millennium climate reanalysis project: Framework and first results. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 121(12):6745–64, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024751.
48. Snyder CW: Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years. Nature 538(7624):226–28, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19798.
49. Pei Q, Zhang DD, Li J, and Lee HF: Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction for the mid-to-late Holocene. Ttical and Applied Climatology 1–11, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1932-5.
50. Emile-Geay J, McKay NP, Kaufman DS, von Gunten L, Wang J, Anchukaitis KJ, Abram NJ, Addison JA, Curran MA, Evans MN, Henley BJ, et al.: A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era. Scientific Data 4:170088, 2017. dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.88.
51. Marsicek J, Shuman BN, Bartlein PJ, Shafer SL, and Brewer S: Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures. Nature 554:92–96, 2018. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature25464.
This simple chart highlights the futility of Denier claims that increased solar activity is causing the current spike in global temperatures:
And this quite recent research underscores the reality of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2:
And this chart in particular highlights the causative effect of increased global temperatures by rising atmospheric CO2:
But before I go on providing dozens more such references and research links, I’ll simply underscore the inescapable reality that there isn’t a single example of credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research that supports the Denier narrative.
I’m only allowed 7 more posts for today by the moderators. If you have any responses or questions, please make them worth it.
Barry, I’m aware of many of those studies you shotgunned. Most have been shown to be results of shoddy data and defective statistical modeling; read more about their deficiencies before unquestionably accepting their validity. If you are not aware that Mann’s original Hockey Stick and its derivates have been convincingly shown to be false, you have not done any research. Even the UN IPCC CliSciFi reports had to walk away from those.
Your citation of Marcott is particularly telling concerning the level of your credulity: That study was a rework of a section of his PhD study. It only took 11 days after its publication for Ross McKittrick to discover its fraud.
Marcott’s thesis had no Hockey Stick up-ticking temperatures in modern times, whereas this study did. It turns out he re-dated (500 and 1,000 years in a couple cases) various proxy temperature series to reduce Medieval warming, putting the associated warming into modern times and other manipulation of data (moving one series by 32 years) to create a false narrative of the unique nature of current warming.
Neither academia nor the publishing journal has condemned Marcott’s obvious fraud, despite being provided with conclusive proof by Ross. It would be wise to avoid posting long lists of unreliable studies somebody gave you: I can’t believe you put in the work needed to produce the list without getting an understanding of their weaknesses.
I didn’t say CO2 can’t affect temperatures.
I despise cranks who can’t read, but I don’t blunder about blogs calling them cranks.
Nor did I say the calculation was scientific proof, it’s a straightforward arithmetic calculation. There is always room for improvement.
Until you can tell the difference it’s probably best you don’t go shooting your mouth off and insulting people.
Without going back over the entire Thread to check it out, I don’t remember ever saying that you said CO2 can’t affect temperatures. Sorry if I somehow implied that, HotScot.
Your “straightforward arithmetic calculation” averaged the total change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over a 171-year period to get an annual change in CO2 concentrations. You took took that average and multiplied it by Man’s assumed current contributions of 3% of total annual CO2 changes to get a bogus, lowball figure for Man’s parts-per-million contribution to current annual atmospheric CO2 increases. You then used that unphysical number to extrapolate Man’s future contributions to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
I agree with you that “There is always room for improvement.” but your calculation leaves many rooms unfilled. Don’t be so thin skinned.
Ah yes, the standard defense. Since none of the people I consider to be scientists agree with you, all of you aren’t scientists and are therefore wrong and everything you say must be ignored.
It sure beats thinking for yourself. Which Barry has demonstrated he can’t do anyway.
OK, Barry: CliSciFi practitioners label Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. a Denier. Read any of his work and tell me that he is a Denier, that his work is anything but independent and peer reviewed science. Dogma and narrative-support based on ideology is all the warmunists have.
Please point out one example of credible and independent research from Pielke that’s been published under peer-reviewed format in a respected journal that successfully contradicts the findings of NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, the Royal Society, the UK Meteorological Office, the American Meteorological Society, and nearly 200 other scientific organizations around the world that conclude the current spike in global temperatures is a result of human activity.
What you call a “spike”, most of us here would call a mild and beneficial warming, by no means unprecedented in human history. On the contrary, we look to the Holocene Climate Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval Warm Periods and shrug. Yes, it’s a Modern Warm Period and the living is easy.
I realize that there are a few here whom Dave has called “cranks”, but I think are (mostly) sincere and honestly just mistaken, who will try to claim that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect or that our emissions are not the source of rising CO2 concentrations, or that temperatures have not risen at all but have been adjusted to appear to have risen.
Most folks on this board will acknowledge that temperatures have risen over the past 45 or so years, at least to some degree, while noting that the adjustments stink to high heaven and the homogenization algorithm bakes in urban heat island effects and the rate of rise, which has leveled off of late is entirely similar to early 20th century warming which logically was not caused by our CO2.
The mainstream view of this blog would be that CO2 has some effect on warming, but since its effect is in delaying cooling, it tends to be a global milding, milder temperatures at night during winter. More CO2, still near plant starvation levels from a geological time period perspective, is wonderful for agriculture and the natural biosphere. It is not a curse, but a major blessing.
Your side seems to take the view that the best cure of a mild headache is a decapitation. Your solutions are catastrophic to human wellbeing as well as to the natural environment.
>>What you call a “spike”, most of us here would call a mild and beneficial warming, by no means unprecedented in human history.<< That’s just it. The unnatural spike in global average temperatures IS in fact unprecedented, Rich. While there have been regional phenomena during the Holocene, these events have not been global, nor have they been warmer than the temperatures of today.
>>Your solutions are catastrophic to human wellbeing as well as to the natural environment.<< How, exactly, does advocating for cleaner and cheaper energy solutions represent “catastrophic” solutions?
[annnnddd that’s your limit for today, unless you sneak one or two through–cr]
Yawn! Warm periods only regional?
How does that work comrade? Sea level was a meter higher but only regionally?
The CO2 concentration is (shudder!) UNNATURAL, sure ‘nuff. 0.042% instead of 0.028%, mostly caused by us. Guilty as charged. Help I can’t breathe! All this plant fertilizer is creating mountains of surplus food.
Empirical evidence says 1.7K per doubling of CO2 concentration, but we’ve got a way to go to reach 0.056% before we can take credit for any such meaningful improvement of the climate.
Paleoclimate evidence shows us that earth went into a glaciation in the Ordovician when CO2 was at 0.4% — about 10x current levels. Yeah, yeah sun less luminous- but everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with the climate, right?
You got nothin!
You want to ravage nature clear-cutting forests putting up hideous eyesores in the wilderness that chop up endangered raptors. And don’t deliver power when most needed requiring pretty much 100% backup on standby. (But you don’t count that as a cost). You want to rape the earth in pursuit of 70x more lithium. You can’t be serious. But you are, because it’s your religion.
In reality, it is neither unnatural nor unprecedented. You really need to learn about the resolution of proxies.
What does a natural spike look like, there are plenty of spikes long before man was around.
“While there have been regional phenomena…..”
Regional phenomena invariably demonstrates mankind can not only cope with climate change but benefit from it.
“How, exactly, does advocating for cleaner and cheaper energy solutions represent “catastrophic” solutions?”
When, for example, 25% of the UK’s domestic fuel bills (and commercial) is devoted to subsidising wind turbines to the tune of £10Bn a year, being that their return on that cash represents around 3% of our energy requirement.
Try multiplying that up and telling me that’s sustainable and not wholly destructive to the UK economy.
>>What does a natural spike look like, there are plenty of spikes long before man was around.<<
Like this: http://railsback.org/FQS/FQSCO2&Temperature-Holocene02.jpg
Or here, in Figure 3: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
>>When, for example, 25% of the UK’s domestic fuel bills (and commercial) is devoted to subsidising wind turbines<<
You’ll need to provide a source for that claim. And while you’re digging that up, here’s some additional information regarding UK fossil fuel subsidies to consider: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/10/29/uk-spending-32-times-more-on-fossil-fuels-than-renewables-new-report/
(I may be at my post limit for today. Hopefully the mods will let me sneak in 1 last respectful and informative post. Time will tell.)
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. researches and publishes peer reviewed scholarly work on the impacts of weather-related damages to natural and manmade works over time. His widely cited and referenced work shows conclusively that global losses from hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, fires & etc. have not increased over the past 100+ years on a normalized basis. When those groups you mention say that climate change has made weather disasters worse they are lying to you.
Additionally, what is this “current spike in global temperatures” of which you speak? Since the end of the 20th Century, the increase in global average temperatures has moderated significantly, especially as evidenced by radiosondes, satellites and ARGO floats. Were it not for back to back Super El Ninos there would be minimal to no 21st Century warming.
The early 20th Century warming period matched the level and rate of increase of that of the late 20th Century warming, a period that was used to tune the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models based on increasing CO2 concentrations. The model hindcasts totally miss the earlier warming because CO2 can’t be blamed for that warming. Governments and NGOs lie to you; get over it.
>>Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. researches and publishes peer reviewed scholarly work on the impacts of weather-related damages to natural and manmade works over time.<< And yet your blustery response didn’t include any examples of credible and independent research from Pielke that’ve been published under peer-reviewed format in a respected journal that successfully contradicts the findings of NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, the Royal Society, the UK Meteorological Office, the American Meteorological Society, and nearly 200 other scientific organizations around the world that conclude the current spike in global temperatures is a result of human activity. There’s a reason for that, as we all know: There is not a single example of credible research that supports the Denier narrative. Not. One.
[That’s one. How many more posts am I allowed today, mods?]
How about having his work cited in UN IPCC reports, Barry. Read more, spout warmunist propaganda less.
>>How about having his work cited in UN IPCC reports, Barry. Read more, spout warmunist propaganda less.<< And you’re still not providing any links to the research references I’ve asked for, Dave. I’d ask that you refrain from further commenting until you have those materials.
Barry, do your own homework. You might learn something along the way.
And once again, Barry declares that unless it’s published in a journal that is controlled by the climate clan, it isn’t science.
Ah yes, if it isn’t produced by someone I approve of, it isn’t science and must be ignored.
I’m still waiting for this over whelming evidence that you claim exists.
1) It warmed about half a degree from 1850 to 1950, but CO2 didn’t increase by enough to have caused any of it.
2) It warmed about half a degree from 1950 to 2020, we are told to believe that CO2 is the cause of all of it.
3) It was warmer during the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian and Minoan warm periods, and CO2 was lower.
4) It was as much as 2 or 3C during the 15K years of the Holocene Optimum, and CO2 was lower.
5) About 60 million years ago, CO2 levels were between 15 and 20 times greater than they are today, and temperatures were about the same.
These are all well known facts, and they all run counter to the nonsense you are preaching.
Are you calling me a crank?
HotScot, what would you say to somebody that asked you to accept your:
“410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years.”
I assume you are aware that Man’s production of CO2 has changed significantly towards the latter part of the 171 year period you are using. One cannot substitute average for incremental; Man’s is a time-varying contribution.
As the old saying goes: If the Foo shits, wear it.
OK, I’ll accept that my 3% figure is wrong, what I’m not convinced about is that mankind’s emissions are twice as big as the annual rise in atmospheric CO2.
Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but what you seem to be saying is that mankind emits twice as much CO2 as every natural organism and event on the planet which isn’t human caused.
Until 2018 humankind din’t know there were 91 volcanoes under the Antarctic ice sheet.
So how many active volcanoes are on the seabeds of the planet, which are largely unexplored?
How many other natural phenomena are we missing?
“Natural fluxes go both ways….”
Geological history would tend to disagree.
I guess we’ll have to build gigantic dehumidifiers. /s
Don’t multiply the pct of annual rates with the pct of sum totals.
Humans may be responsible for 3% of what is released each year (gross before absorption) but human GHG emissions are probably responsible for 95% of the net change over the last 150yrs. A small increase per year can accumulate into a significantly large amount over >100yrs.
But it still leaves many unknowns exemplified by the models using significantly different parameters including about +/-50% for 2xCO2 sensitivity.
Then why do OCO-2 satellite mappings show the highest levels of CO2 where heavy vegetation (jungles and forests) is located not where human activity occurs?
Global population has tripled since about 1950 to about 8 Billion, so why didn’t CO2 Triple in the same period? I think a person expels two pounds per day of CO2.
Putting it crudely, we expel what we eat as far as I can gather. If we don’t eat, we die and we don’t expel CO2, other than during decomposition which rapidly declines.
If humans just grazed then I suspect no one would have a problem with CO2 emissions.
The problem as presented is that we burn stuff to cook and heat with.
Fantasy on their part. They are betting that the Thwaites Glacier collapses in the next 30 years, with little evidence to support it happening.
Most of what you read about Thwaites is Bu11sh1t planted by people wanting a trip of a lifetime at gov’t expense. First thing you’ll read it is the size of UK. Then that it is 2K thick, but more than half is already under water, and 2/3 of its area isn’t moving anywhere fast except at its 120Km wide mouth.
Looks a wee bit smaller’n Scotland to me or a bit bigger than Wales. How many Manhattans?
I read that the whole glacier is the size of Florida.
It is ironic that their solutions to their to date unrealized projections are regressive and mostly hurt the poor. They claim to be saving lives yet unborn while destroying the future of those alive today. They are typical arrogant narcissists who refuse to admit they have made mistakes.
2050? Most of these will likely (and perhaps conveniently) be dead.
What they meant to say is that they should be committed for their idiocy in believing we’ll see a foot of SLR in less than 30 years.
According to their statement from today till today 2023 just on 12 mm . Actual today 2021-2022 around 1.6 – 2mm
If Rip VanWinkle took a twenty year nap next to the sea, how high above mean sea level should he place his cot? I suggest at least thirty feet, especially in Florida where you might have a few hurricanes. If I were not in his will, I might go 50 feet. It seems like the threat of high tides coupled with the low pressure effect at the center of the hurricane is far more concerning than sea level rise. Most buildings built in 2022 will be beyond their service life by 2100.
Should be 2-2.5 millimeters as per usual. Ho-hum.
You (Biden, etc.) can’t fool everyone all of the time.
At this point in time, the only person Biden is fooling, is himself.
Sadly, that is not true. He is still fooling my sister-in-law. But, she ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Every Family has one. That’s why I don’t believe in evolution.
And, he is probably completely unaware that his handlers are feeding him BS.
We’ve seen the believers here, Clyde. They eagerly embrace the BS and hotly defend it. Even after the BSness is demonstrated repeatedly.
Installed dictators don’t need to worry about things like that.
They can apply the police to everyone all of the time, though. That’s my worry. I can readily see the meeting as a pretext to criminalize “climate denialism.”
Reminds me of a meeting of the Supreme Soviet in the late 1980’s to discuss why people were still resisting the obvious benefits of communism.
Biden and Kerry will be as effectual here as they were at preventing inflation and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden’s whole stolen election administration is a joke. The upcoming SOTU speech will be very difficult unless he lies to Congress (likely), because the state of the union is truly a mess that is very hard to ignore.
It’s all transitory.
And your point, Scissor? It is trivially true that all life is transitory.
Just repeating a Biden lie concerning inflation, not that I believe it.
A liar lying to liars 🤔
Simon will be there, slurping every word!
Looks like Barry has taken over Simon’s shift.
Now that you mention it, Mark, is Simon on Spring break? I haven’t seen Simon for a bit.
On another article, Simon tried to pull of a bit of sarcasm.
He failed miserably.
He’ll need 2 or 3 extra B12 booster jabs.
“Biden’s whole stolen election administration is a joke.”
I prefer regime to administration. It’s the best thing that’s happened to Barack Obama’s legacy, though.
Mass psychosis is a thing…
Just what one would expect out of any group including Mann, Oreskes, and Hayhoe.
I am a proud member of the “powerful vested interests.” Can anyone tell me where I should pickup my paycheck?
If you don’t already know, I’m not allowed to tell you.
The left cannot imagine that it could possibly be wrong. The folks who disagree with them are treated as a bucket of deplorables.
The way that the left can govern against the interests of the majority of Americans is that only around 60% of eligible citizens actually vote. If somebody finds a way to fix that …
They have dead people voting all the time… 110-115% voting turnout in some cities..
Many born in 1900, which just goes to show the merit of a low carb diet.
The metabolically challenged have just as much right to vote as does anyone else.
The m.o. of these people is either:
A) Speak in nebulous terms
B) Make s..t up
With all of the lying about Covid, stolen elections, and climate change, I just don’t know what to think of my government anymore.
They say you won’t own anything and you will like it.
… or else.
“ The head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (high priest) and Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Alondra Nelson applauded the faithful for providing the theology which will help to inform and accelerate holy climate action”
Amen; as they say
Ramanathan: “After 40 years in this eco-chamber …” made me LOL!
Yes, the eco-catastrophists have been bleating the same anti-humanist doom scenarios in the echo-chamber of their own tiny little minds forever
Earth just keeps on trucking along, getting a little greener every year.
Useful idiots for the Marxists and nothing more. They’ve chosen this century as their time to take over with the Great Reset/Agenda 21 and this is just one part of the propaganda. With control of the MSM there will be little to no pushback from the masses but fortunately the internet is overtaking the MSM for credible news distribution or at least the ability to filter out the bullshit (from both sides).
The internet IS msm
The legacy media…
And now the Biden Administration should explain to the Ukrainian people how computer projections of a few degrees of warming in the 22nd century is the real existential threat.
Projections aren’t any threat at all.
The “health consequences of methane” in my house is that my family does not freeze to death.
Methane and NG are the only possible sources of heat, then?
Reliable ones, but there are no health problems
A few people tried nuclear reactors but didn’t end well.
Barry: “Methane and NG are the only possible sources of heat, then?”
Are you putting more stuffing in a strawman or did Pat actually say anything about “only”?
100% clean electricity by 2035. So no more dirty wind turbines or solar farms. It must be just nuclear, gas and hydroelectricity.
“So no more dirty wind turbines or solar farms. It must be just nuclear, gas and hydroelectricity.”
What a ridiculous thing to say. Wind and solar aren’t just cleaner than fossil fuels BY FAR, they’re significantly less expensive as per LCOE than even NG, and DRASTICALLY so compared to nuclear.
(Use the quote tags!) SUNMOD
Give it up Barry
It doesn’t matter what the real cost is, in the end you still need 100% reliable generation beside the unreliable renewable part
So renewables means you need two grids worth of generation
Why can’t you get that through your head?
Reality debunks yet another fossil fuel shill trope. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/29/renewables-plus-batteries-offer-australia-the-same-energy-security-as-coal-research-finds?CMP=soc_567&fbclid=IwAR2soMBLauE
For how many minutes of the day?
And you realise that SA relies heavily on coal fired generation for significant periods don’t you?
New South Wales’ coal fueled electricity mainly, with some top-up from Victoria.
What is SA going to do when both NSW and Victoria shut down their coal plants in the near future?
Answer – drastically increase the fleets of diesel powered generators they are already using to tide them over those frequent periods when there isn’t enough sunshine or breezes to get them through the night and the following day.
But that will be “climate-justified “diesel they burn, right?
Once again, Barry demonstrates that he is math challenged. Why do you believe that 5 minutes of battery power is enough to power a country during an entire night?
You probably need to drop the “fossil fuel shill” stuff just makes us know you are a retard rather than give you the benefit of the doubt.
Hush Barry,pause,take a deep breath and and stop digging.
Who cares about reality, I’ve got propaganda to push.
The only way wind and solar can be made to look cheaper is by
totally ignoring the cost of construction
totally ignoring the cost of interconnecting
totally ignoring the cost of back up
totally ignoring the cost of clean up
Any one of those is enough to make wind and solar more expensive than fossil fuel.
All of them combined can and do, make wind and solar way more expensive. For those who are actually paying attention, it is not a surprise that there is a 100% positive relationship between the amount of wind and solar in an area, and the cost of electricity.
Since it’s been well proven that CO2 is not a problem, there is no reason to get rid of it. Especially for a power source that is unreliable and much more expensive.
Page 8 will prove enlightening. https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf
As long as you make the totally heroic assumption that all the raw materials required to build all this renewable system just falls out of the sky somehow. For example lithium production needs to increase by 70 times current levels by 2050 to meet net zero targets.
First we need to find orders of magnitude larger ore bodies of critical minerals, lets say we can do this over 15 years of doing pretty well nothing else. Yes some will be located much sooner that 15 years, but the vast majority will take a long time.
Then we need to get those ore bodies explored and studied, currently this takes about 12 years, but the demand on exploration, assay, geology and engineering services will be incredible, so lets assume in reality it will blow out to 15 years.
Then comes approval – another 2 to 3 years, but this assumes we won’t be encountering any legal challenges, which in todays societal environment is in “I’ve got a bridge to sell you” territory.
Another few years for financing.
Its pretty obvious to anyone in the mining industry that supplying this gigantic amount of raw materials to make renewables be able to meet anything like the even the growth in energy demand, let alone replace fossil fuels, is going to require 25 to 35 years to first delivery of additional supply.
And because the actual pulling of the trigger on the large number of go/no go stages of internal project approval will depend on higher prices to offset lower ore grades, prices will need to be seen as sustainably higher to get these projects much past Concept Study status. The increase in production will tend to lag significantly behind demand. The lumpy nature of adding supply into mineral markets tends to result in shorter term oversupply which pushes prices back down a little before it returns to an upward trend. This makes investors cautious and slows production pipelines.
So supply is going to be incredibly constrained in the face of huge demand, driven by the arbitrary 2050 deadline. What do you think that might do to mineral prices?
And the reports you rely on ALL assume continued decreases in costs of all the physical goods associated with renewables.
Those models used to forecast ability to deliver fossil fuel replacing renewables at lower costs are much worse than the CMIP models.
Oh Dean, Dean, Dean. All this talk of capitalist process. Comrade Barry has in mind that there will just be a Five Year Plan or two coming out of the Politburo and the planners will decree 70x the production.
Once again, do the math. You will find that none of the problems I’ve listed are addressed in your document.
There are also several other problems with your document.
For example, the claimed life expectancy of wind and solar is at least twice the life expectancy that has been experienced in the field.
On the other hand, the life expectancy listed for fossil fuel plants is less than half the life expectancy usually seen in the real world.
If you can’t figure out why that is a problem for LOE calculations, you aren’t anywhere near as smart as you believe yourself to be.
Lazard’s only includes capitol cost and running costs.
Storage and decommissioning are not included.
The fact that Lazard’s is continually quoted to support renewable energy is one of the big lies, up there with massive unmeasured feedback to insignificant direct CO2 driven warming.
Here’s the relevant quote from Lazard’s.
“L A Z A R D ’ S L E V E L I Z E D C O S T O F E N E R G Y A N A L Y S I S — V E R S I O N 1 3 . 0
Despite convergence in the LCOE between certain renewable energy and conventional generation technologies, direct comparisons must take into account issues such as location (e.g., centralized vs. distributed) and dispatch characteristics (e.g., baseload and/or dispatchable intermediate capacity vs. those of peaking or intermittent technologies)”
I suggest we’re conversing with someone living in a fantasy world and is unable to process basic facts. He’s either very brave (coming here) or as mad as a hatter.
Or paid to post…
That’s also possible … hadn’t thought of that.
Yes, those promoting human-caused climate change are paying “journalists” to post their propaganda in the press and other publications every day, so it would be a natural extension to pay people to push climate change propaganda on the internet. The Human-caused Climate Change Promoters are in an all-out push currently and are spending money freely for the cause.
I’m not saying that’s what is going on here with Barry. I don’t know. Barry may just have been fooled and scared by Michael Mann into taking some action to try to help the situation, in his own way.
Regardless of his motives, he is completely off base with regard to Human-caused Climate Change. 🙂
There is no evidence CO2 is doing what alarmists say it is doing, namely, causing the Earth’s climate to do things it wouldn’t otherwise do. No evidence whatsoever.
If you can tell the difference between an assertion and evidence, then you cannot have any faith in the current claims of the climate change alarmists because they are made up totally of unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions. No evidence. Instead, the alarmists use “CONfidence levels”. It’s a joke, not science.
>>There is no evidence CO2 is doing what alarmists say it is doing, namely, causing the Earth’s climate to do things it wouldn’t otherwise do. No evidence whatsoever.<< You can ignore the evidence all you’d like and continue to make this false claim, Tom, but it won’t change the scientific reality of AGW.
Why are you so afraid of accepting the overwhelming data?
This overwhelming data of which you fantasize, does not exist.
A handful of cranks quoting each other does not count.
Only cheaper AFTER taking into account subsidies. Otherwise way more expensive, particularly after bringing into consideration useful life.
“Only cheaper AFTER taking into account subsidies.”
That’s a common fossil fuel shill trope. And, like virtually all fossil fuel shill tropes, it’s dead wrong. The Levelized Cost of Energy takes into account construction, interconnection, cleanup, subsidies, essentially everything. And wind/solar are STILL over 30% less expensive per MWh than even NG. Page 8 tells the story: https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf
(You never seem to know what Quote tags look like?) SUNMOD
I do not care about the cost of the generation. I care about the cost at my light switch for reliable power. LCOE does not take all the extra costs for diffuse and intermittent renewables into account. When those costs are taken into account renewables are not the affordable alternative.
Again this greetard goes with the ” fossil fuel shill” and as the mod has noted you are clearly a slow learner.
It really doesn’t matter how many times a lie is refuted, Barry will keep repeating it.
He really is a lot like his idol, griff.
SUNMOD: Quote tags are just a tool of the fossil fuel hegemony.
I’m at a loss to understand how, in a world with so much reliable information, you continue to believe such a palpable load of cow turds. Solar and wind power haven’t even recovered their initial investments … and never will. As for them being clean … you’ve got to be joking.
Not according to the IEA. But keep making crap up, its funny to see someone so delusional.
2020 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity – hint this does not include battery costs, or battery losses…….
That is nonsensical idiocy. When you consider the entire life/supply/production cycle of bringing these wind and solar devices into being, they dwarf fossil fuel’s ecological impacts. Consider the environmental impacts of the mining, smelting, production, and ultimately their disposal at the end of their productive lives and they are an ecological calamity.
[you used up your post comment quota this morning. one or two extras may occasionally get through after I start deleting, because I haven’t instructed the other mods on dealing with you – cr]
Yes, but the problem is that my electric utility doesn’t bill me on the LCOE. They bill based on the actual costs, and those have been going up as unreliable energy penetratioin goes up.
Barry is a has been FB troll for almost every WUWT post. His usual banter equates to little more than drivel.
So why are wind and solar power project subsidized?
If they’re truly less expensive, then government agencies world-wide wouldn’t need to spend any money on those projects or provide any incentives.
>>So why are wind and solar power project subsidized?<< I’m constantly amazed when fossil fuel shills try to complain about the subsidies renewable energy receives while ignoring the fact that the fossil fuel industry raked in nearly $6 TRILLION in subsidies around the world last year. It’s baffling, actually.
That lie grows every time it’s told.
There are NO subsidies for fossil fuels, unless you are one of those brain dead socialists who believes that any tax rate less than 100% is a subsidy.
Technology companies expense the cost of computers.
Oil companies expense the cost of oil they find underground.
There is no difference.
The only thing that’s baffling is the inability of most alarmists to understand even basic economics.
And what have they accomplished after more than a year, when Christiana Figueres says that we have less than 8 years left. Perhaps they don’t grasp the urgency of the situation — or don’t believe it.
They’ve managed to boost gasoline prices…
and start a world war…
It hasn’t quite gotten to that point yet. However, Belarus committing troops isn’t a good sign.
Their task was to convince us of the immediacy of the situation by creating the scary hobgoblins … never themselves.
“ as you know, the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda on climate change is
And each of the speakers provided proof of that observation.
An echo chamber of the deluded expressing their wishful thinking. Obviously, the politics is settled (unlike the science), at least for the current administration. We can only hope that the MSM hasn’t so brainwashed the electorate that our senile ‘leader’ will be unceremoniously retired. We are running out of time to repair the damage caused by demolishing existing FF and nuclear power plants, and covering open land with bird shredders and PV shade for cows.
“An echo chamber of the deluded expressing their wishful thinking.”
A good description.
I would have added “conniving” to the description of some of them.
Zealots usually subscribe to the doctrine that “The end justifies any means.”
The only and worst denialism is from the Democrats pushing their futile, insane and a fraudulent climate action.
Every Democrat (math denying) effort and proposal to limit and reduce domestic fossil fuel production (and use) is a fools errand, costly and destructive.
None of it will provide any climate or weather benefit at all.
It is the BIGGEST LIE.
A climate of ideological denialism. Wicked. Lose your Pro-Choice “ethical” religion
As long as the climate cult denies the obvious effects of the boundary layer they will continue to believe their own anti-science nonsense.
Those beady eyes let you know he’s tellin’ the truth. Just sayin’.
Sounds like the formative stage of another CDC.
What an august group — last august.
They are that clueless
The talking points read as if they were composed by an algorithm analogous to one of those text generators one finds on line that spoof “post modernism” academic papers.
I truly wish these people would explain how an average sea-level rise that is currently about 3 millimeters per year (equal to the thickness of two dimes) will result in a rise of 1 foot in 30 years. It would only be about 4 3/4 inches.
And furthermore, anyone on the coast who is concerned about sea-level rise should promptly pack their bags and move. I’m sure they can find plenty of buyers for their property. It’s really that simple.
The 3mm per year is based on the ridiculous satellite measurements
These loons always want to blame “special interests” (meaning oil companies, I presume) for “denial”, and that’s the biggest joke here. That would be like a pack of wolves blaming someone or something else on the fact that the sheep themselves don’t want to be eaten….regardless of what the farmer thinks.
The loons are too dense (apparently) to see that it is the consumer of fossil fuels and their products who don’t want to sit in the dark, freeze to death, go without medical care, and in general be forced to revert back to a 17th century lifestyle (and the lifespan that goes with it)!
Of course, such a meeting would never ever allow any users of those products (forget the producers) to defend their right to live.
And I would add (though it likely isn’t ever going to happen) I’d love to see all of the people at this meeting be forced to live a 17th century lifestyle for, maybe, 6 months or more. They could have a wind or water mill to grind grain, horses for transportation, and would be performing all of the manual labor that goes with that primitive lifestyle. I wonder how many would change their tune real fast….
Seems like a meeting to affirm loyalty to the cause.
Why do I see “climate delayism” and think of ‘vaccine hesitancy’?
The same sort of people inventing the same sort of derogation to dismiss the same sort of rational skeptics.
“value of combining social science with physical science”
Social science is destroying physical science departments all across the US, with the enthusiastic encouragement of university administrators and the morally decrepit surrender of academic scientists.
In this case: Social Science = Climate Change Propaganda
They are substituting propaganda for physical science, when it comes to Human-caused Climate Change.
Those least qualified (except perhaps the totally uneducated) to assess the science are typically the most supportive of the easily disputed CAGW claims. They are so impressed with their credentials that they overlook that fact that they weren’t smart enough to become engineers or scientists. They often share the same characteristics of actors (the ability to memorize a script) and lawyers (the ability to speak well). However, I’m reminded of an old Japanese saying: “It is rare to find a man who speaks well and is also trustworthy.”
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and these bunch of yahoos they have gathered together present a national security risk to the United States.
They are giving bad advice that has no basis in fact, and their bad advice, if implemented, puts the United States at a disadvantage versus its mortal foreign enemies.
The United States has already become dependent on Russia, and the madman Putin, for our oil, based on advice from idiots like this bunch of Science and Technology idiots.
Michael Mann can see human-caused climate change in the weather, he claims. Greta can see CO2 in the air, she claims. Both are delusional. Don’t take any advice from these people.
“…nothing new happened at this meeting. Just the same tired climate has beens mouthing the same empty formulas many of them have been repeating for the last two decades.”
It was like a choir practice. This zero-ology is exactly what you get when you shut down debate and berate and marginalize knowledgeable people who have different things to say on the subject. In this (pre)”historic” meeting you have 17 people with one thought, including half a dozen innumerate social sciencey types who are even more in the dark. At least Mann knows he’s full of baloney by now.
I any case, what is the problem? If you have the majority on your side it should be a slam dunk. No! The “delayism” is from themselves. Proponents of “action” have run into the brick wall of reality. As sceptics have been saying:
a) Renewables are totally unfit for purpose. Growing energy demand is being met by fossil fuels or blackouts!
b) The harm to fossil fuels through bad press, bad policy and divestment campaigns (‘defunding’) have resulted in stymying markets and production causing rocketing of fossil fuel prices, just when gov is coming, per force, to the realization that they need abundant fossil fuels to maintain an economy and keep homes lit and warmed.
c) They have known for quite some time that transportation relying on fossil fuels is the big nut to crack. Electric battery powered car technology is not yet perfected and status of raw material supplies, dangerous battery fires, the ‘need’ for trillions to be spent on hapless renewables to try to meet transportation electricity demand on top of a miserable performance in supplying home and industry power and other issues are proving to be intractable problems.
d) They went ahead confidently with a renewables electric grid as the easy nut to crack, but now are nostril-deep in a swamp of reality. They know it but like frogs swimming in a pot of water on a stove they just keep going. “Delayism” is their illness brought on by totally impractical actions.
You are implicitly assuming that it can be perfected. I’m not sure that is true.
Well, I’m an engineer. The broad discipline’s track record is pretty impressive I’m sure you’ll agree. One day, maybe a few centuries from now, we won’t have oil and gas in sufficient quantities to be cheap. Re EVs, you can bank on them finally being needed. Their electrical requirements may not even be from batteries. Engineers arent just looking on the shelf for ideas.
With reliable supplies of very cheap energy, hydrocarbons can be created out of air and water, just as plants do. So, I’m not sure that it is a given that EVs will finally be needed. I see them as more a niche for short commutes in cities.
I suspect that either fusion or anti-matter will be perfected before EVs are.
Since the leader of this conclave only invited people that agreed with her, why bother? She could just tell Xiden and the press of her conclusions and avoid the expense.
“climate scientists from both natural and social sciences”
This was clearly a pooling of ignorance. Where are the engineers?
“From what I can see, no progress was made at this meeting,…”
Nothing new was intended, nor progress expected. The meeting was composed to be the equivalent of a show trial, to provide the cover justifying the planned equivalent of political executions.
They intend to bulldoze the opposition with the power of government. We’ll see whether that includes police power.
Bit like COP really.
This may not seem on the subject, but I believe it is. A ten minute video of a long time RCP officer resigning after finding he had violated his oath and the Canadian Constitution in following Trudeaus orders.
The clown convention came early. So this was a meeting convened by a president who one day asked fossil fuel suppliers to ramp up supplies and on the next day talked of trying to stop fossil fuel consumption, a president who shared with Chinese leadership American intelligence about the Russian invasion of Ukraine so that that same leadership could then share it with the Russians, a president who went to the beach in Delawware the same time the Russian President was making veiled threats about nuclear war, and a president who appointed John Kerry as his climate Czar so that he can publically declare his dismay that Putins aggression in the Ukraine might distract him from fighting the imaginary climate crisis. All consistent and all unbelievable that people still support this presidency.
A lot less people support Biden now than when he took office a year ago. His numbers are terrible, and for good reason.
Pretty soon you won’t be able to find anybody that voted for Xiden. Let’s Go Brandon!
With a 37% approval rating, the public does not support the president. However, our constitution doesn’t provide for an orderly dissolution of the administration and immediate replacement.
Impeachment is a theoretical course of action, but improbable with the Democrats controlling both the house and senate. Besides, replacing Biden with Harris would be akin to going from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.
We will just have to hold our noses until the November mid-term elections and hope that he doesn’t do any irreversible damage between now and then.
I blame the MSM for being in this situation because they demonized Trump, and supported Biden and gave him a pass on hiding in his basement and showing signs of senility even before the election.
The legacy image of the Joey presidency will be the photos of the dozen or so shills standing in the carefully painted 6-foot circles, all wearing face nappies at Biden campaign “events”.
I am convinced it is a Democrat thing . The tactic seems to always attack the character of an opponent when the facts are not in their favor . Let me point out that I am an independent, because I am also disgusted with the Republicans who can never seem to get anything done when they are in control. Corruption on one side ….Incompetence on the other. Our nation is deep in the 💩 unfortunately
They’re afraid to debate the “science”.
Conclusion: Their position is weak.
LOL, politics all the way down……..
Can’t beat a good old echo chamber when the rest of the world ignore you in all practical terms. But they are dangerous people
It seems more and more that they don’t want to discuss science and keep trying to shift the discussion to soft social sciences along the lines of “why aren’t regular people buying the science we are selling”. Writing papers trying to come up with psychological rationales for their inability to convince us
“….to discuss the scientific understanding of why arguments for delaying action on climate change are appealing and how they can be countered effectively…”