Essay by Eric Worrall
According to University of Manchester professor Kevin Anderson, “IPCC science embeds colonial attitudes”.
IPCC’s conservative nature masks true scale of action needed to avert catastrophic climate change
Professor of Energy and Climate Change, University of Manchester
Published: March 25, 2023 12.27am AEDT
The new report evokes a mild sense of urgency, calling on governments to mobilise finance to accelerate the uptake of green technology. But its conclusions are far removed from a direct interpretation of the IPCC’s own carbon budgets (the total amount of CO₂ scientists estimate can be put into the atmosphere for a given temperature rise).
The report claims that, to maintain a 50:50 chance of warming not exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, CO₂ emissions must be cut to “net-zero” by the “early 2050s”. Yet, updating the IPCC’s estimate of the 1.5°C carbon budget, from 2020 to 2023, and then drawing a straight line down from today’s total emissions to the point where all carbon emissions must cease, and without exceeding this budget, gives a zero CO₂ date of 2040.
Given it will take a few years to organise the necessary political structures and technical deployment, the date for eliminating all CO₂ emissions to remain within 1.5°C of warming comes closer still, to around the mid-2030s. This is a strikingly different level of urgency to that evoked by the IPCC’s “early 2050s”. Similar smoke and mirrors lie behind the “early 2070s” timeline the IPCC conjures for limiting global heating to 2°C.
IPCC science embeds colonial attitudeshttps://theconversation.com/ipccs-conservative-nature-masks-true-scale-of-action-needed-to-avert-catastrophic-climate-change-202287
Reading Professor Anderson’s “explanation” for the graph at the top of the page, published on his own website, yields this gem;
… The mainstream media is also complicit in allowing spurious techno-optimism to go unchallenged in politics. Journalists barely pen a line when BP, Shell, Exxon, Equinor, Chevron, Total, Saudi Aramco, Suncor and PetroChina make grand promises to be net-zero (or near-zero in PetroChina’s case) by 2050. The least investigation would expose such claims for the rhetorical, greenwashing nonsense that they are, applying only to the operational emissions from fuel production and processing (known as Scope 1 and 2 emissions), with no responsibility taken for the colossal quantities of carbon released when their oil, gas or coal is actually transported and burned, the inevitable outcome for extracted fuels (Scope 3 emissions).
Once we see through this ‘drug pusher’s subterfuge’, it quickly becomes clear that governments and oil and gas majors are singing from the same hymn sheet. Quite who is the choirmaster is not immediately clear, the distinction being blurred by revolving doors between ministers and oil and gas executives. The net zero by ‘not-in-my-term-of-office’ dates proposed by governments from the USA to Saudi Arabia, the EU to Russia, and China to Canada, essentially mirror those of the oil and gas companies. Wealthy nations with significant oil and gas production are not looking to phase out existing supply in line with 1.5°C [see endnote 1]. Instead they are licensing new oil and gas developments, including in the Arctic. As the recent minister overseeing the UK’s climate strategy blithely proclaimed, “we will extract every ounce of oil and gas from the North Sea“. Such developments, were they to proceed, would lock in fossil fuel use and high emissions for decades to come. They would also effectively lock out any prospect of 1.5°C and 2°C and bequeath to our children the chaos and suffering of an unstable climate heading towards 3°C and beyond. …Read more: https://climateuncensored.com/how-alive-is-1-5part-one-a-small-budget-shrinking-fast/
What can I say? These people train and influence young minds.
“Colonial attitude”? When much of the CO2 emissions are coming from China and India?
I really think he is just using that as a meaningless epithet. And his momma dresses him funny.
” And his momma dresses him funny.”
It’s a little late for my first chuckle of the day, but there it is.
He’s 60. I wonder how old his momma is.
The sooner we understand “Green” as a totem of religiosity rather than a color, or a benign, unimpeachable improvement, the better.
Greenism is being used as a synonym for sinful, with everything non-green understood as sinful. Greenism is being used to justify clear-cutting North American forests, pelletizing the wood, shipping it across the Atlantic, and burning the pellets for electricity in the UK’s huge Drax power plant. Greenism is used to justify clear-cutting forests that harbor life all year, absorb CO2 and release O2 during the growing season, and replacing those thriving biomes with vast fields of solar panels that support no life at any time of year.
Greenism is used as a justification for keeping Third World peasants in poverty.
We’re talking Orwellian hypocrisy on a rampage. Green is whatever our masters say it is, and we peasants just have to tug our forelocks, cringe and pretend they’re telling the truth.
I am more than willing to get into an honest debate with those in favor of a global world.
It is easy to concede that it was just a matter of luck that I was born in the US (in 1942) and raised during the Eisenhower years and that someone born in the 3rd world through no fault of their own is struggling. I agree that it would be wonderful if we could extend what I experienced to ALL of the Americas (Hillary Clinton) and then to the rest of the world.
What always breaks down any discussion is the HOW to make the planet more “equitable” (in the original meaning of the word – not the Kamala definition of equal outcomes no matter what).
I do NOT agree that the solution is to take wealth from the [oppressive] rich and hand it out to the poor. That is a solution that may have sounded great at 2AM in the Sophomore dorm. Its validity is not enhanced if everyone from Maurice Strong, thru the Cub of Rome to the current UN Chief hide it under a scientifically indefensible cloak of a “Climate Emergency”.
No option is guaranteed, but if I had to pick one it would be to help all of the truly undeveloped nations to use the same method as China and India have elected; subsidize their use of fossil fuels which got the developed nations where they are. The benefits would be:
a heck of a lot less expensivethe more developed a nation becomes, the lower its birth rate. (Maybe we could then avoid having our politicians claiming we need an influx of “immigrants” to fill our jobs needs.)adaptation (if required) would be affordable.
Somehow my comments were truncated or reformated.
It should have read:
Jesus, here we go again.
“clear-cutting North American forests, pelletizing the wood, shipping it across the Atlantic, and burning the pellets for electricity in the UK’s huge Drax power plant.”
NOBODY IS CLEAR-CUTTING FORESTS to make pellets. Stop spouting such stupidity.
Does your statement here mean that you believe the journalistic endeavors that linked large wood pellet operations in Canada and eastern Europe to European wood burning power plants were fabrications, or do you just put a different interpretation on those investigative results? Their evidence included photographs of major logging operations and chipping plants with humongous stacks of large tree trunks being fed to the chippers and documentation that the companies operating those facilities are closely linked to the power plants. Some wood burning power plants reportedly receive very large subsidies, so they have considerable sums to use in obtaining wood pellet supplies.
Look, guys. They don’t clearcut for pellets. Clearcutting is part of long term forestry- a method called uneven aged silviculture. When you clearcut you differentiate the wood into different products. The best goes into sawlogs. Some goes into pulp if you have a pulp market nearby. Some may go into firewood- some, the worst of the worst might go into pellets. Why is that soooo difficult to understand? Nobody would chop down sawlogs and send them to a pellet mill. But— read slowly if necessary– this means they are not clearcutting for pellets. The wood for pellets is the by product when there is no other use- which is why they built the pellet plants in the first place- to make use of that wood. You see, when you have a forest, there will always be some trees that you just can’t use for sawlogs for “higher uses”. Either because of the species- some species just have no market for sawlogs- that’s a reality- or the fact that so many trees have defects so you can’t saw those trees- or because some trees are in “dominant classes”, some are “intermediate” and some are “suppressed” or over topped and not vigorous. So, when you’re doing uneven age silviculture, you must remove those trees to start over again. Sometimes they’ll replant the forest- sometimes you allow for “natural regeneration” to restart the forest.
In summary, the forests are NOT CLEARCUT TO MAKE PELLETS. They may be clearcut but not to move all that wood into the pellet factory. It’s only the wood that can’t be used for vastly more valuable timber. It would be extremely ignorant to chop up a high value sawlog for pellets. And yes, there are subsidies- just like almost every industry on the planet in one way or another if you look close enough– I could make a long list but won’t bother. Regardless of the subsides- I’ll say it again, the forests are not clearcut to make pellets. In the American southeast, most of the wood goes into sawlogs, some to pulp, some to firewood, and some made into pellets. And, they do like clearcutting in the southeast because that type of forestry is extremely intense. After they clearcut they’ll pile up all the slash and burn it in piles to clear the land, just like in farming- then they may remove stumps, grade the land, the replant the trees- and some of those trees are genetically engineered. The, after some years they’ll thin the forest- either once or maybe a second time- then clearcut it and start over again. It’s a huge industry there on land that was once cotton fields in the days of slavery.
In the American northeast, there are also pellet companies and some woody biomass power plants- despite a huge, ferocious, viscous hatred by climate emergency whack jobs. Now, do you think we cut down extremely valuable veneer quality sugar maple, red oak, walnut, etc. trees and chop them up for pellets? In the northeast, clearcutting is far less common. It’s mostly uneven aged silviculture- sometimes with patch cuts (small clearcuts)- though in the northern parts of New England, they do some large clearcuts. So, here in MA, if I’m managing a timber harvest- maybe half of the wood will end up as sawlogs, some may go to pulp (rare in MA unless the price is high), much of the rest goes into firewood, and what’s left goes to biomass– if not too far from a biomass market.
So once again, nobody is clearcutting for pellet production. In a region with a big forest industry- and if there is a pellet industry- then of course you’ll see a mountain of small logs. Why would that not be the case?
As for your last comment: “Some wood burning power plants reportedly receive very large subsidies, so they have considerable sums to use in obtaining wood pellet supplies.”—- wood burning power plants in America don’t burn the sort of pellets shipped to England- the low grade logs are chipped- often on the harvest sight but sometimes at the mill. The power plants burn the chips- not pellets- there is a difference for those who want to understand forestry instead of believing the bullshit of the forestry haters.
All you need to do is stop believing the lies of those who want to stop all forestry- the tree hugging lefties who want to save the world from burning up and the oceans from boiling- at least that’s what they say when what they really want is a far left social/economic revolution for “equity” blah, blah, blah.
Very clear exposition which you have made many times before. Don’t know why your message isn’t getting through to some people!
the anti forestry propaganda is so strong even fossil fuel loving conservatives sometimes eat it up- thinking woody biomass is just another phony renewable energy- when it’s the only truly renewable energy which thankfully also enhances the atmosphere with more plant food- and provides blue collar jobs- and produces wonderful, beautiful, nice smelling wood for our homes, furniture, paper products- I’ve spent much of my half century career fighting against forestry haters so I know the ropes- I know the lies and propaganda inside out- if they want to pay me a few million bucks, I could write their propaganda better than they can 🙂
Some of the most important forestry and woody biomass haters are right in my area of Woke-achusetts and nearby states.
Right now, our new govenor has started a moratorium on logging on all of the 600,000 acres of state owned forest. She listens to ignorant academics and crazy old hippy tree huggers and not forestry professionals.
I’m not a fan of other sorts of biomass energy- like corn- but I know little about that topic.
As long as it makes economic sense its fine with me. When government intervenes for ideological reasons it goes off the rails.
Your response doesn’t address the question of the documentation presented by those journalistic efforts, mainly about pellet production in Canada and eastern Europe. I remember subsidies around 350 million per year for Drax. “Extremely valuable” is a relative term. The product is likely to go the highest bidder, whether it be used to build or burn. My impression is, in general, that many wood burning power plants in the US have closed over the years because they could not compete with coal and gas plants. That is after all the logic behind the large payments to Drax when it could be producing electricity from coal for much lower costs.
I’m seeing prices of $20 to $50 per board that I used to be able to buy for a couple of bucks. Like the claims about other biofuels substantially driving up food prices, it doesn’t seem improbable that the stupid onrush to replace coal and gas with wood has some significant effect on lumber prices. Yes, I’m sure that the general widespread deliberate destruction of the timber industry in many places is a significant contributor to high prices. It also puts the lie to the CO2 danger, especially here in the western US where ignoring the forest until it burns produces more CO2 than the legislative attempts to destroy civilization reduce CO2 production.
No I don’t have any difficulty understanding your logic but I don’t think it is all inclusive. Also, the question isn’t about clear cutting in particular, it is about the use to which the felled timber is being put. I’m not ranting against tree cutting, I just though you, with your claims of high interest, might have some insight into the recent report that (apparently) exposed the large scale violation of EU laws about wood pellet sourcing.
“The product is likely to go the highest bidder, whether it be used to build or burn.”
Not so. No decent sawlog tree will ever be sent to a chip or pellet plant. Absurd.
Yes, many biomass plants have closed- mostly due to competition with natural gas- which used to be far cheaper, not so sure any more. I’m 98% retired so not on top of the minutiae.
“…improbable that the stupid onrush to replace coal and gas with wood has some significant effect on lumber prices.”
I agree with that. I’m not aware that anyone has made that claim. Lots of reasons lumber prices are up such as: many areas now prevented from logging, high fuel prices, especially diesel drives up the price to cut timber, transport it, saw or process it. A big cause is that during Covid, the logging industry and sawmills almost shut down as demand dwindled. Then when Covid passed there was a huge increase in demand for wood- and like most businesses, the price went up as far as demand would let it- while the level of production was still low- it takes time to rebuild production. Also, much less of wood being cut is from big, old trees because enviros fight against that- but, big trees result in lower lumber prices because you get a lot of wood from big trees- faster and often, but not always, better quality.
“No I don’t have any difficulty understanding your logic but I don’t think it is all inclusive”
I didn’t write what I wrote for a Phd dissertation, otherwise it would have been “all inclusive”. I was just winging it as I have many things I do in a day and can’t spend hours writing responses- doing intense research, etc.
“it is about the use to which the felled timber is being put”
Believe me, the industry works extremely hard to maximize the way the wood is used- always struggling for new markets, better machinery in the woods and in mills and trucking. It’s an industry with low profit margins, believe it or not. Forestry haters make it seem that the industry is filthy rich from raping forests. That did happen a long time ago- lots of forests severely and ruthlessly exploited- in fact, most of North America where markets would support such bad behavior. It’s all slowly gotten better though. Logging used to occur with no foresters- it was all “cut out and get out” but now most logging has at least some forester input. Foresters have better education now and many states have licensing and a lot of regulation- certainly true of Massachusetts where the state actually brags about how heavily regulated it is. In my opinion, it’s gone too far- but that’s a story for another day.
Let me correct the beginning of my last response.
To clarify- what I’m saying is that any piece of wood is either sawlog material or pulp material or firewood material or “junk wood” with no value other than burning in a power plant as chips- or making pellets and shipping them to Drax and other places in the world now. Apparently interest in pellets is growing in Japan- though more for heat than power. So, any particular logging job- the wood is split into different piles going out in different trucks to different locations. Here in New England- any logging job might have the wood in a dozen different piles going to a dozen different places. It’s tricky because the guy doing the thinking about what log goes where really has to understand the mill side of things- which I don’t. Even then, when a log goes to a mill- it’ll get graded- that’s what determines how much the logging firm gets paid- then after sawing, the boards get graded. It’s complicated and I don’t claim to know a great deal beyond what I do- which is to figure out when a stand should be thinned and how- which trees to be cut and which to leave- it’s an art- since clearcutting is rare in southern New England.
I’ve had videos online for years- once on Vimeo- dozens of videos- now only on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@JoeZorzin/videos)- currently including 3 logging job videos, 2 weird videos taken with my 360 degree camera, and I just started a podcast where over time I’m going to produce dozens of videos on forestry topics – with my half century experience.
The author clearly thinks that governments should end democracy and start forcing changes on their citizens. The other option, adaptation, is never considered
The fact China, India and the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions no matter what developed countries do has already ended any chance of reaching any mitigation scenarios.
Of course, the reason this reality is not being publicized is it ends the “emergency”. What governments really want is to use climate fear for their own agendas. Ending democracy would out them as fascists. They could lose control.
It will be interesting to see if this gets media coverage.
I recall Professor Kevin Anderson saying many years ago that he never takes a shower in order to save the planet – he is just another idiotic alarmist.
He does not take a shower, still.
Does he move?
they get crazier by the day
“The mainstream media is also complicit in allowing spurious techno-optimism to go unchallenged in politics.”
Perhaps true, but for the opposite side of the “climate” debate. E.g., the claim that solar and wind energy are “cheaper than fossil fuels” and could power the world if only we had the political will, goes unchallenged by the media.
I don’t like this guy.
What is being alluded to is someone who makes an effort to get others physiologically addicted to some drug with no redeeming value, either through coercion or providing free samples until they become addicted.
Fossil fuels are not physiologically addictive, they are largely responsible for the standard of living enjoyed by most in First World countries, and it has never been provided free as a means to make users dependent on it. The fossil fuel companies are meeting a demand that is a legitimate need of modern societies.
It is disingenuous to make the comparison with a “drug pusher.” It is what I have come to expect from The Conversation.
Fits much better.
The real silliness about this is that because as William Happer points out, CO2 is basically saturated, i.e. we are on a pretty flat part of the logarithmic forcing curve. Adding lots more CO2 won’t affect things much.
Anderson and his argument all completely unravel with the ‘drug pushers subterfuge’
How someone of his age and (you would have hoped) experience can get something so wrong is the significant problem here. For everyone.
If he misunderstands that so badly there’s not a lot of hope for his science but even worse is what he’s projecting.
But much much worse is that no-one is going to take him to task on that, except me. Now.
a) What he is projecting via use of the word ‘subterfuge’ is lying, cheating & mendacity.
i.e. That ‘drug pushers’ are liars.
Why would that be? They are suppliers and traders of ‘A Commodity’ and they seemingly do very handsomely out of that trade.
Would that be the case if they were endlessly lying to and cheating their clients/buyers/consumers?
That you personally take a dislike to them and their product does not mean they are liars and cheats.
b) It gets much worse for him (and everyone in fact) with the notion that there are ‘pushers’. That somehow ‘someone’ is forcing (pushing) something onto someone else against their will or permission.
It does get really scary in fact – just who are the ‘pushers’
Why it gets scary is that the drug users are demanding ‘a product’ that when used to excess (as often always happens) – that product harms the consumer.
Scary (1) Is the implicit assumption that the consumers are ill-educated, dumb and stupid.
At first sight they maybe are but who is the stupid one if they don’t investigate any further than ‘first sight’? (Beware again of ‘self projection’)
Scary (2) What if the drug users are not in fact stupid – but are subsequently treated and mistreated as if they were. By folks taking a stand on Moral High Ground with their foothold only being a cursory examination (thus misunderstanding) of what’s going on.
(Isn’t this exactly like climate science)
It is that the drug users are responding to stress & enforced social-isolation (loneliness)
(Where does that sound familiar from?)
The drug they use/choose reduces the feelings of stress (that’s what loneliness is also: stress) via the release of Dopamine into the user’s brain. There is in fact Only One ‘Drug’ in this entire world and what everyone calls ‘drugs’ are actually ‘Dopamine release agents’
Thus we come to Kevin Anderson – and lord-knows how many more like him.
Because he and they are the real Drug Pushers.
They are the ones inducing stress, worry and anxiety onto the population at large. How many times now do we hear about stressed out kids, kids whose main stress these days is increasing = Climate?
When any one individual member of that population find themselves trapped by ever-escalating sources & levels of stress (e.g. prices and taxation) they respond by using ‘drugs’
They are not stupid and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them yet Kevin Anderson imagines that there is.
So, where is the wrongness?
So it all is very very simple, yet that simplicity means that when it goes wrong, it goes very very badly wrong and a lot of people can or will get hurt.
Kevin Anderson – you are an absolute monster and you’re projecting that onto Big Oil (not least) but also your own Government.
C’mon kevin, you know the one. The one that provides and funds the Ivory Tower you inhabit.
But how can anyone blame him. He himself is a living solid mass of ‘Good Intentions’, engulfed and swept along in a tsunami/consensus of like-minded souls.
So The Big Question is: What made Kevin Anderson into a monster?
We can’t imagine it was something.or anything he ate – he’s the very one who would be eating the Government Recommended, soon to be mandated, Balanced Diet.
Now it gets off-the-scale scary
I teach introductory Historical Geology here in Saskatchewan and I try to fit in a couple of lectures about climate change at the end, not always as I sometimes run out of time. My feeling is that most students have no idea, and more or less do not care, but broadly think the narrative must be true because that is what they have been bombarded with, for years, even going back to public school. Do they promote eco-actions? I don’t think so. Are they moved to think otherwise thanks to my evidence? I don’t think so either. They seem like zombies. Having said that, there will always be one student who complains that I am deviating from the narrative. They do not talk to me but they complain, and this escalates, the system is receptive, I am put on the spot, by people who have bought into the narrative but have no understanding of the scientific underpinnings. Rest assured, all those on WUWT, I have not surrendered!
It is actually a good thing that they complain, Brian: At least your institution’s “system” doesn’t appear to punish you for speaking truth to power. Do you have the opportunity to openly (publicly) counter obviously false political narrative in your areas of expertise? As student bodies continuously cycle, those you reach are replaced by a new crop needing a rational, truthful education
Brutal reality will eventually reach those that have to go out into the world and earn a real living outside of government, academia, media, crony capitalists, NGOs and other politicized institutions.
Who cares? Everyone knows that the 2 degree and later the 1.5 degree ‘limits’ were just pulled out of thin air, without any justification as to why those limits are any different that 3 or 4 degrees. Also note that any global warming was supposed to affect the areas towards the poles more than the those near the Equator, and affecting the lows more than the highs – so it would be a blessing the the affected areas.
The first thing that one should challenge the alarmists and the media that trumpet their insanity with, is why 1.5 degrees? Why is that so bad or noticeable? How different would 2 degrees be? Palm trees in Toronto??
Actually he is in a curious way right, and his approach, if you consider the implications, is very illuminating about the climate movement.
The argument is to accept that there is a global climate emergency. The claim is that this emergency as defined by the IPCC, if it is to be averted requires net-zero by 2040.
There is no climate emergency of course But the argument that as accepted in the movement it requires 2040 rather than 2050 for net zero is likely valid.
The first thing to notice then is that the movement understates the policy implications of its public alarmism. Its not consistent. Its promoted the concept of a climate emergency, but then fudged and understated what is required to avert it.
The argument then goes on to consider how to get to net zero 2040. And it points out that this would require global cuts of 2.2Gt every year, starting this year.
This too is probably correct. If you really do intend to get to net zero by 2040 you probably do need to make cuts at this rate.
At this point you notice a second thing about the climate movement. In the UK, for instance, the population is being told to move to EVs and heatpumps powered by a wind and solar grid. The UK is emitting about 420 million tons in total. How much of a reduction will this program make? I would be surprised if it delivers much more than a 100 million ton reduction by 2040. So emissions will fall, assuming its fully implemented, to about 300-350 million.
This is so far away from influencing what Anderson claims is required globally that you have to ask why bother? Especially when the Chinese, who are now doing about 11 billion tons, by then will be doing over 15 billion. If you add up what the US, UK, Australia, NZ and Canada are doing with their programs, the same conclusion will follow. The policies required by what is said to be necessary are totally out of reach, haven’t even been proposed.
So now we come to the point. The movement has underestimated what its diagnosis requires, and to do what it must consider necessary when you get the prescription right requires action which it has refused to advocate.
Instead it keeps demanding policies that are no more than futile gestures in the face of the emergency it claims to have discovered.
This, if his underlying diagnosis of the movement’s position is correct, is what emerges from a proper analysis of it.
Of course, he draws the idiotic conclusion that this means that the movement is correct and so the world has to go down the impossible path its prescriptions require. One that the big fast growing emitters have no intention of following.
The correct conclusion from what is a very illuminating analysis of the movement’s position is that its completely mad. They’ve invented an emergency, understated what this imaginary emergency requires, then proposed measures which don’t address it.
They should be advocating that the world goes back to 1750 if they believed their own story. In fact they are advocating turning off standby appliances and eating less meat. Oh, and driving a lot less, and having a lot colder homes. And a lot less shopping.
Do any of them believe their own story? That is the question the piece raises.
Belief trumps reality until reality bites back. Reality is biting now and will take bigger and bigger bites as time goes on.
We should be building life-rafts (adaptation) rather than dynamiting the hull (mitigation).
Academia seems to attract more than its fair share of very stupid people.
Very funny. The learned professor is halfway on the road to enlightenment. He has figured out he is taken for a ride by pretend-green politicians and rent-seeking industrials. What he now needs to grasp is that he is also been gaslighted by a pretend-scientific green movement.
Spot on! Exactly what I was trying to say, but you have put it far more clearly and briefly.
” Manchester Academic …”
Is he responsible?
Who gave him his “academic” title?
Who gave him his position in academy?
Remember President D. D. Eisenhower!
He is a former Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Was he self-appointed? Because that is the sense of my questions.
The Tyndall Center is, according to its internet site, a “unique partnership” between universities. Is tehre anyone responsible in those universities.
By “responsible” I mean “not irresponsible”, not “unaccountable”, as someone not “lacking a proper or adequate sense of responsibility” (Webster’s dict.) and not needing to be under surveillance, guard or ward by a curator, guardian or tutor.
NB.: What I wrote does not imply by any means the discharge or minorization of the personal responsibility of the said professor. I just point out to the fact that many admitedly responsible people had lacked to detect said personal trait when advising or deciding his appointment(s).
Oh brother. And no wonder he holds such strident and nonsensical views.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
Aspirational. Virtue signals. Public displays of Good Intentions. Support for programs that enrich the wealthy and elite while putting a lid on the expectations of the non wealthy and non elite.
There is so much going on wth the farce of Green Narrative and activism. The above points are not contradictory as they apply to different factions of the population over different time frames, and all support going down the foolish IPCC rabbit hole.
The non critical thinking public in the West has been groomed to believe feeling good about yourself is the highest goal. Self image. So “intentions” are more important than outcomes, as Intentions show moral values and worth, while outcomes are the unpredictable and uncontrollable result of forces in the world, physical as well as those if corrupt players. Plus, nothing Good happens unless you first intend to do Good. Gotta start somewhere.
And self-image requires community support in the weak. So public displays of Good Intentions – IPCC meetings, regulations, speeches, protests – have to follow.
The non critical thinking public are now fully on board and don’t require objective reality to support their drive to Do Good. In fact, the disconnect between what is intended for tomorrow and what goes on today, is just the speed bump they expect, because they wouldn’tbe agitating if it was easy to achieve, so they can continue to enjoy fossil fuel benefits after flying to All Inclusives in Mexico. Good Intentions are about a better future starting tomorrow not starting today.
Meanwhile the economic shifts of the Good Intentions require new businesses to be created and perhaps funded by the State, that only the existing wealthy can finance and run. Sure, existing businesses suffer, but since they are shareholder companies, the shareholders can shift ownership, while cash citing the old or selling pieces off or negotiating State support.
All works. Making economic or even mathematical sense isn’t required when Good Intentions rather than Good Outcomes underlay the narrative and activism.
OK, we are doomed to go above 1.5/2/3 degrees. the real question is So What?
Shouldn’t we be focusing on how to live with that. How do we increase the production of gin and quinine to deal with it? Should we wear Thobes? And what about siestas?
Short of a Nuclear Armageddon, this planet will never become Net Zero this Century or the Next. The Climate Lies won’t survive past 2050… and non-Western countries will not comply before then.
Anderson has been a n extremist for a long time, he is well worth laughing at, or ignoring, depending on your mood