Week in review – politics and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

The Pope

This has already been discussed somewhat on recent threads, here a few articles that caught my eye this a.m.

Richard Tol’s take [link]

Rupert Darwall’s take [link]

UK politics

Brendan Frasier:  Tories must seize the chance to rethink climate policy [link]

David Davies, a relatively new MP, is become a strong voice re climate change [link].  Haven’t had time yet, but some of his speeches are on youtube

US politics

Good summary of Rep. presidential candidates views on climate policy [link]

GOP readies assault on Obama’s climate agenda [link]  …

Climate change impacts

Carbon Brief:  Will rising temperatures mean more lives are saved than lost? [link]

CATO’s Comments on the USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment [link]   …

Adaptation

How can we make agriculture climate-smart? [link]

1/2 of World’s Hungry Are Farmers: How Cell Phones Can Help [link]

The Environmental Case for Industrial Agriculture: Small-scale Food System Enlarges Human Footprint [link]

Climate wars

Matt Ridley:  The climate wars damage to science [link]

Nature: Beware of climate neo-skepticism (calls out JC and Steve Koonin) [link]

Behind The Weather Channel’s Inventive Climate Change Campaign Aimed At Conservatives | ThinkProgress [link]  …

Science assessments and research integrity: reconcilable or antagonistic? [link]

Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate [link]

National Review: “Today’s climate activists are actually trying to turn themselves into oppressed southern blacks from the 1950s.” [link]

JC comments

Week in review is a bit thin this week (too busy to keep up with the news), but there are some interesting articles here.  I look forward to input from the comments.

Having a great time in the UK, but rather too busy (am a bit exhausted), but the hospitality has been wonderful.

 

 

350 responses to “Week in review – politics and policy edition

  1. Richard Tol’s article has been censored (by the pope, the Green-religion’s high priests, or God?)

  2. Carbon Brief says:

    Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from heat-related illnesses, scientists say.

    But you’ll sometimes see it argued in parts of the media that the number of lives saved each year as winters get warmer will outweigh these extra deaths caused by heat-exposure.

    I don’t find this persuasive. It seems to me they haven’t done an objective analyse.

    First, we know that cooling is bad for humanity and for life on Earth. It’s happened before, the planet largely dried up, and life struggled. We also know that live thrived as the planet warmed and the more in warms the more food is produced.. We can support more population. So why should we believe that this trend of warming is good will not continue? Evidence please.

    Second, As the poorest people get richer, and get better houses, electricity, better transport, better infractructure, etc, the fatalites caused by heatwaves will decrease.

    Thirdly, most warming will be in high latitudes, winter and at night. All this seem good to me.

    Fourth, life thrived whrn the planet was much hotter than now.

    It seems to me that warming will be net good, not net bad.

    • Thought fer Today:

      ‘So cold the regions of
      the midnight sun, any
      wonder that Hamlet was
      a melancholy Dane?’

      • I’m still traumatized by the severity of our eastern U.S. winter. Ferocious snow storms, endless cold, precious little sun. No wonder people get depressed in winter. For my money, it’s the only rational response. Meanwhile, today’s forecast is low 80’s, balmy breezes, and the crystal clear light of summer.

        Which is better?

        (aka pokerguy)

      • Good one! Myself, I don’t think I could survive a winter near the arctic circle – too depressing! I get SAD bad!

        Note that, except for winter sports enthusiasts, most people go to warm climates to vacation, hence the notion of the tropical paradise. You never hear anyone talk about a frozen paradise. :)

      • A glowing salt lamp when the sun goes down
        and a glass of wine, Justin, helps against the
        Sunlight Depravation Melancholy Dane Syndrome.

    • “Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from heat-related illnesses, scientists say.”

      Anyone else noticed how you can pretty much assert anything you want as long as you affix, “scientists say” to it.

    • The more I read and think about “global warming,” the more I believe the argument that warming is bad may be stronger than trying to argue the science. The science is so badly understood, one can make almost anything of it.

      Then this Ravetz character comes along and attempts to conflate politics wrapped in his “Post Normal Science” scheme. Science has no need of utility for policy, but politics does. The need of politicians for policy doesn’t change science on whit. PNS is more like Abnormal, Bastardized Science. Ravetz just further muddies any science-based argument about global warming.

      • That should have been:
        Then this Ravetz character comes along and attempts to conflate politics and science wrapped in his “Post Normal Science” scheme.

      • Jim2,

        The more I read and think about “global warming,” the more I believe the argument that warming is bad may be stronger than trying to argue the science.

        Could you please summarise the main points that are persuading you that warming is likely to be bad?

      • Thanks for catching that Peter. That should have been “warming is good.”

      • Warming is bad for ice road truckers.

        But seriously, can we cover the Greenland Ice sheet in Mylar or mitigate melt runoff with reverse dykes? Solve this problem and warming is good all but Polar bears and Eskimos.

      • Jim2,

        Thanks for that clarification.

      • Actual biologist know that in a truly warmer world with an ice free Arctic polar bears devolve back into grizzly bears, probably within a few generation.

        When the ice returns, so does the white bear.

    • patmcguinness

      “Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from heat-related illnesses, scientists say.”

      This is worse than non-persuasive, this is junk science, bordering on hoax science. The science in question is based on epidemiology studies that showed some (rather WEAK) correlation between extreme weather events (ie heat waves) and mortality (irrespective of cause of death). This conclusion is oblivious to the ‘correlation is not causation’ concern, and is based on multiple absurdities, one being that warmer weather means more ‘extreme heat’ rather than considering that when you raise an average, what defines ‘extreme’ changes, and the other is that no mitigation or adaptation takes place due to such changes. this is conterfactual, as in fact warmer abodes have more air conditioning, which mitigates the one risk that is legitimate, ie, extreme heat’s impact on those with health risks who lack air conditioning.

      This is akin to saying greater rainfall will lead to thousands getting wet because nobody will have the sense to get out of the rain or buy an umbrella. Such counterfactual nonsense (leave aside the junk projections that posit RCP 8.5 type scenarios baked with ECS of 4C) is what passes for ‘justification’ of massive EPA regulations. Meanwhile, the maximum warming is during polar winter nights, and somehow this means more heat deaths in Chicago.

      This junk is used by EPA to amp up ‘social costs’ for carbon. Despite its amplification through junk science, the EPA regulation cost/benefit is still absurd on its face. A cirtical comment from NERA:

      “Moreover, when EPA attempts to quantify the benefits of its proposal, EPA significantly overstates the value of reducing emissions by using the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). ACCCE submitted comments in February 2014 on the flawed approach taken by EPA, and other federal agencies, in attempting to estimate the SCC.215 One of the most significant errors in the SCC estimate is the use of global benefits instead of domestic benefits. Should EPA use a domestic SCC, the overall benefits would be 7 percent to 23 percent of the values used by EPA.216 For the CPP, the climate benefit estimated by EPA of $31 billion would be reduced to $2 billion to $7 billion, far below the $41 to $73 billion estimated annual cost projected by NERA.217” (from ACCE response to EPA regulations, Dec 2014)

      This misuse of science and cost-benefit analysis is blatant and corrupt.

  3. Who is the League of Conservative Voters’ if they intoduce the linked comparison of Republican presidential aspirants with this diatribe:

    Because the next President will determine whether we continue to make progress or slide backward in the fight against the climate crisis, the League of Conservation Voters is urging every presidential candidate to be explicit about their plans to combat the greatest challenge of our time. The next President must create real and lasting solutions that cut carbon pollution while creating a clean energy future that continues to improve the economy and creates jobs.

    • Why should anyone have a position on the nonsense term “carbon pollution”?

    • OK, ya. That came across as about as ‘Conservative’ as a piece in the Guardian or Rolling Stone. ‘Climate Crisis’? ‘Carbon Pollution’?

      All it needs is a reference to ‘Anti-Climate’ and Mosher could out it as a Peter Gleick original. <¿<

      • Whoops. Conservation not Conservative. That makes more sense. I’ve heard most conservation groups have been overrun by greenies that are more interested in ‘climate justice’ and promoting wind power then actually conserving anything.

      • Schitz – I saw a job posting for a guide/interpreter at a local nature educational center located in a wetland ( slough). The requirements for the position included a degree in biology OR, you are gonna love this, “social justice”. That pretty much nailed it for me. What used to be rational environmentalism has been subsumed into and perverted by a quasi religious political movement.

      • Steven Mosher

        Mock not zipfs law.

    • rogerknights

      It’s not “the League of Conservative Voters,” it’s the League of Conservatiion Voters

  4. Pingback: Week in review – politics and policy edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  5. According to the David Rose method of determining when warming has stopped, GISTEMP still shows a pause since 1997. It’s becoming obvious now how stupid that method is.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12

  6. David Wojick

    The Cato critique is clear and blunt. The USGCRP is nothing but a climate scare propaganda shop, which should be abolished. Their bias is breathtaking.

  7. This sly, ambitious Francis knows how to roll with the fashion and the power: earlier, the Videla and Galtieri regimes, now the Green Left. He’ll make sure there are always lots of pobres and shirtless ones for his concern and pity.

  8. Neo-sceptics recognize the importance of policy decisions — who should do what, when, and at what cost, for example. However, they project an ironic certainty in advising the postponement of serious mitigation efforts until confidence intervals for climate projections are narrowed.

    Heh.

    Physicists, biologists and social scientists should be focusing more on risks, rather than simply pursuing more-precise estimates of physical parameters that are not linearly related to the most worrisome hazards. Society does not demand certainty to cope with other high-consequence risks, such as those relating to public health, airline safety, terrorism, and natural or technological disasters.

    Double heh.

  9. Of the Ridley piece:
    These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.

    “Lukewarmer” does provide at least one shade of grey contrasted with the black and white thinking that prevails for the topic.

    What is more, in the small print describing the assumptions of the “representative concentration pathways”, it admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high (which is doubtful); if world population growth re-accelerates (which is unlikely); if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down (which is improbable); and if the world economy goes in a very odd direction, giving up gas but increasing coal use tenfold (which is implausible).

    It certainly appears that we’re currently on track for even less than the low end scenario – not zero, but less than low end.

  10. Brendan Frasier: Tories must seize the chance to rethink climate policy [link]

    Compared to what’s happening in the US, the thoughts expressed in this article gives me reason to have faith in my fellow man again! I hope those thoughts will mutate into action.

  11. Long, hot summers stimulate urban riots which do result in additional deaths.

  12. Matt Ridley: The climate wars damage to science [link]
    In this piece, Ridley correctly states the link between the persistence of bad science and the government. But he fails to highlight the role of Post Normal Science, which tends to involve the government on issues of science. Post Normal Science is a misnomer. It should have been called Post Normal Politics.

    *******
    From the article:
    Science for the Post-Normal Age
    As a theory, PNS links epistemology and governance, for its origins lie in the relations between those two domains.
    ******
    PNS comprises those inquiries that occur at the interfaces of science and policy where uncertainties and value-loadings are critical. It can be analysed as a ‘policy cycle’ including: policies, priorities, persons, procedures, products, and post-normal assessment; it also extends to the ‘downstream’ phases of implementation and monitoring.
    *****
    With PNS we can guide the extension of the accountability of governments (the foundation of modern democratic society) to include the institutions involved in the governance of science and technology.

    http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/155319/

    • jim2: Post Normal Science is a misnomer. It should have been called Post Normal Politics.

      Personally, I think it ought to have been called “Politics”, or “Policy Analysis”. Attaching the “post Normal” attracted the attention of a lot of readers of Kuhn, but also attached the vagueness of Kuhn’s “concept” of “Normal Science”. Yesterday Mosher cited Ravetz as saying that the appellation “post Normal” was a mistake. Without that attachment to a popular writer, would Ravetz have become famous or widely read? What besides the name was ever novel? Certainly not the “defining characteristics” listed by Mosher. All the arguments were entailed in Florence Nightingale’s debates with the British Army; as well as the policy debates that followed Benjamin Franklin’s invention of the “lightning rod”. You can go back to the Plague Year of The Restoration for such debates; as well as the Athenian epidemic during the Peloponnesian War.

      • Abnormal works for me.

      • > All the arguments were entailed in Florence Nightingale’s debates with the British Army; as well as the policy debates that followed Benjamin Franklin’s invention of the “lightning rod”. You can go back to the Plague Year of The Restoration for such debates; as well as the Athenian epidemic during the Peloponnesian War.

        As Eli says, “post-normal” is actually pre-normal.

        MattStat agreeing with Eli: you’ve heard it at Judy’s!

      • Willard: As Eli says, “post-normal” is actually pre-normal.

        That works for me, but is normal well-defined? Kuhn used the appellation “pre-paradigm”, with “paradigm” not well-defined.

        I seldom care much who agrees or disagrees with me. On rare the occasions when Pat Buchanan or Bernie Sanders agrees with me I wonder where I went wrong, but you have to expect some agreements to occur randomly.

    • Steven Mosher

      “Post Normal Science, which tends to involve the government on issues of science. Post Normal Science is a misnomer. It should have been called Post Normal Politics.”

      Government is always and forever involved in the issues of science.
      People, especially grown ass denizens, need to forget the fairy tale they were told about science being free from influence.

      • Don Monfort

        Steven, can you tell us about a precedent for the partnership between governments and a branch of science, like what we have been seeing for the last couple of decades?

      • Ideally, government would fund fundamental science in an apolitical manner. That never happens, but would be a nice-to-have.

        PNS, OTOH, attempts to dictate, for example, what sort of statistics a scientist should use depending on what relevance the experiment has to policy. A scientist should design the experiment in a manner that will best answer the science question, without regard to policy implications. JMO.

      • To quote a classic Hollywood film ” WarGames (1983)” – Do you want to play a game?
        Maybe PNS can tell us which is the correct and logical answer to the current nuclear weapons race between the US and Russia?
        I see at least 4 solution paths:
        1: Negotiate a way to disarm all countries that have nuclear weapons. Yes that included the hundreds of nukes Israel has along with India, Pakistan and China.
        2: Jointly develop a truly effective missile defense system so all players realize the futility of trying a pre-emptive attack.
        3: Build so many nukes and delivery systems that everyone else becomes so terrified of us that they unilaterally disarm and submit to our new world order. Alternatively everyone goes all out to build out their own systems and it ends in either a full scale exchange of all nukes (maybe 2k-3k megatons concentrated around populations centers or a perpetual mexican standoff like what happened when the USSR collapsed.
        4. Full pre-emptive nuclear strike with overwhelming force (at least 400-800 bombs). If we can pull it off I guarantee nobody will be talking about climate change for at least 3 of 4 generations.
        (97% of skeptics should pick option 4 because they know Russia probably won’t fall for the same bluff Reagan pulled back in the 80’s).

      • Option 5 to War Games is:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine
        With increased refinement of its stealth capabilities. Easy for me say, as a deterrent and primarily for a retaliation strike. How did that whole ELF thing turn out?
        Option 6 is Love and Trade.

  13. O’Reilly interviewed the Weather Channel founder John Coleman last night about the Pope and climate change. Coleman is a full-on denialist, and O’Reilly found himself having to give the scientists’ side. Interesting to watch.

    • David Wojick

      There is no “scientists’s side”. Sciences on both sides, hence the debate. You mean the warmer’s side. Your side.

      • O’Reilly described it as something along the lines that I said. Complain to him.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        You saw O’Reilly’s side through a prism. There was a temporary dispute based on a misunderstanding when O’Reilly was in agreement with the pope regarding third world pollution and filth. He was talking about the definition of pollution as we’ve always known it, absent CO2. Coleman, at first, did not understand this, until O’Reilly explained. The pope does discuss pollution as we’ve always known it and as there has always been agreement in the U.S. However! he leaves the rails when discussing man made global warming; looks like the fact checkers stayed home.

        Richard

      • I am reading through the encyclical over the weekend. I will have a better view after that, but so far up through Chapter One, this is certainly a view of a thinker. He has a global perspective not only on behalf of the people but also nature. He is not just parroting science, but tying relevant strands together as a good thinker does. As someone from the Second World, he is in touch with both the First World and Third World ways of living. It is a unique perspective compared to many who give their views on climate change. At the end of the first chapter he talks about two extremes, one of technological advances solving everything, and the other of reducing man’s impact on nature solving everything. He thinks both of these are extremes, and he sees a middle way. I look forwards to the rest of it.

      • Richard, regarding O’Reilly, yes he was saying that the Pope should have focused more on pollution and that advanced science has solved it in the more prosperous countries. Of course O’Reilly didn’t say it takes more than just science to solve pollution. It takes sensible regulations too. That is key. It doesn’t just happen if you leave industries to do what they want, and this is the problem in the polluted countries.

      • Don

        I wonder if the Pope will recognise that forbidding birth control for Catholics is a major cause of additional populations, thereby increasing the demand on the earths resources and contributing to climate change.

        If so, perhaps Jim can tell us after his reading of the document, whether Birth control amongst Catholics will now be encouraged?

        tonyb

      • From what I have read so far he is skirting the population control issue. I suspect it is not something he will advocate. His case is going to be more along the lines that the wealthier nations are the ones challenging earth’s resources, not the poorer ones with their high populations.

      • Tony, yimmy’s theme for today’s huffpo sermon is that the Pope is a great and wise man. So, I don’t expect him to have any criticisms of the praying peronista pope.

      • Yes, Don, the wisdom is there in the encyclical. I am not a religious person and quotes he has in that area will leave me cold and may even be offputting if there are too many, but so far there is not too much of that.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        I agree and expect that most skeptics would agree. There has been little disagreement on the matter of pollution and the need for some regulations over the last 40 – 50 years. Here in the Detroit area there was some pushback on the auto emissions regulations and for good reason. The EPA was dictating not only the limits, but how to achieve the limits, and it was driving gas mileage way down, as I recall most cars in the 70s were getting about 10 miles per gallon. The goals were good, but the EPA wasn’t allowing the companies enough time to properly engineer the cars. I was an engineer at Ford during the 70s and saw the confusion and band aid remedies first hand.

        But +1 on our agreement.

        Richard

      • Jim D,

        You do realize this is not the work of a single individual and most certainly was not written by the Holy father himself, right?

      • RE Jim D’s “the wisdom is there in the encyclical. I am not a religious person and quotes he has in that area will leave me cold and may even be offputting if there are too many”

        So what Jim is saying is that the encyclical is the work of a deep thinker and full of wisdom – in those areas where he agrees with it. The rest, not so much.

        Jim, the encyclical is a guide to believers in Christ on how they should live their lives in accordance to God’s teachings, mainly in regard to improving the condition of the poorest of his children.

      • timg56, he often quotes groups of bishops from various regions during it, so no it is not all his, but he has coordinated the thoughts into a coherent whole. You don’t get this level of coherence without an individual doing the editing.

      • Also, as a non-religious person I am not going to agree with the relevance of all of it. Chapter Two was tough going for me, but it basically uses the Bible to justify a moral view that anyone should have anyway.

      • Jim D,
        So to summarize, you are discounting the man’s primary area of expertise (even denigrating it, albeit very politely) to listen to him as an expert outside that area. And not in any way that challenges your beliefs but rather reinforces them. That sounds like a textbook definition of cherry picking.

      • The Pope has a perspective that is much broader than just the science. It is well informed by his experience of the world. We should pay attention to his synthesis of all the information he has received.

      • It is interesting that the opinions of a titular religious leader of perhaps one seventh of the world’s population seem to be accepted by some as prescriptive of the behaviour of the remaining six sevenths.

        Possibly the other six sevenths’ religious figureheads have been instructed by their respective deities to let Nature take its course, without trying to impose their views on people who have not sought the Pope’s opinion.

        I haven’t seen any definitive proof one way or the other. I believe I’ll wait for a while. I invite others to join me, if they enjoy a quiet life.

      • I am not a religiouscatholic person and quotes he has in that area will leave me cold and may even be offputting if there are too many, but so far there is not too much of that.

        You are one of the most religious people I’ve encountered on the internet ;)

      • Atheists unite!!

      • From Jim D:
        “The Pope has a perspective that is much broader than just the science. It is well informed by his experience of the world. We should pay attention to his synthesis of all the information he has received.”

        Jim, without Googling it, can you provide a brief synopsis on the Pope’s “experience of the world” and / or how exactly he has “a perspective that is much broader”?

        I’ll give you credit though. You hang in there and argue your position without regard to how ridiculous it sounds. And you are certainly on a roll with your defense of the encyclical.

      • I honestly think that’s cherry picking, Jim. Everything he says is filtered through his role as the leader of a religion. If you discount that, you discount everything about him. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to then say “but he’s so wise about everything else (except his primary reason for existence and the only reason I’ve ever heard of him).”

        And then there’s the whole issue that timg56 brings up. What does he really know aside from that? From what I can see, he’s a fairly standard party line socialist with a naive view of economics. Those are a dime a dozen. The only difference with him is that he’s the Pope. But since you don’t really care about that aspect of things what does he really have to offer? Except confirmation bias?

    • David Wojick

      You said it as though it were true, not something he said, so I am complaining to you.

  14. “Carbon Brief: Will rising temperatures mean more lives are saved than lost?”

    These UK temperature projections are based upon the premise that a warmer world would will give a positive bias to the North Atlantic Oscillation that largely dictates UK temperatures. Well the data already disagrees with that, as daily negative NAO extremes not seen since previous solar minima occurred through 2009-2013, with Dec 2010 being the second coldest since 1659. And I disagree that the NAO variability is internally driven, as I have produced detailed solar based long range forecasts for it since 2008, both the cold shots and the heat waves.

  15. “Today’s climate activists are actually trying to turn themselves into oppressed southern blacks from the 1950s”
    Evil evil patriarchy. Some call cultural marxism. I recently heard a postulate that its a sort of neo-calvinism. The christian concept of original sin and neverending penitence. Or some historical mishmash of these.
    One thing it never has been, science.

  16. “Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate”

    For someone with such obvious contempt for western rationality and reason (you know, the one that built and invented every manufacture object you will touch today) to be a distinguished proffessor at harvard in the history of science says it all about the state of our universities and science today.

  17. David Davies video here.

    His response to the argument “extremely likely more than half” is that it is therefore likely 51%, not realizing that extremely likely more than 50% also means extremely likely more than 51%. It is comical to see his reasoning along those lines.

    • “…about .26 …, [the IPCC] think is fairly likely to have been caused by man made…ah…..”

      “…but actually the overall amount is well under half….”

    • David Wojick

      So at what percentage does it cease being extremely likely? 56%? 66.5%? 72.35%? It is your reasoning that I find comical. But then all this percentage attribution stuff is comical.

      • He was doing all his mathematics assuming 51% was the likely value. He should not quote the IPCC if he doesn’t understand what they are saying. The person who questioned him had a more correct interpretation of the IPCC consensus. The most likely value is near 100%.

      • The next sentence after the famous one he quoted is “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” This means that the center of the distribution is at 100%.

      • Don Monfort

        Why did the IPCC even mention “extremely likely more than half” if it’s really 100%, yimmy? Do you think they are making it clear? That’s BS, yimmy. Try to admit a flaw in your story once in a while and you might find you have earned an ounce of credibility.

      • It’s a distribution. The tail may just get to 50%, but the bulk is nearer 100%.

      • Don Monfort

        That’s BS, yimmy.

        You got two statements from the IPCC geniuses:

        “extremely likely more than half”

        “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

        What does “similar” mean? It doesn’t mean “the same as”, and it doesn’t mean “100%”. They could easily have written “100%”, in place of “similar”. Why the vague BS? This is supposed to be science. What does “best estimate” mean? Who picked the “best estimate”? How much better than the other estimates is the “best estimate”?

      • Don, maybe you are not mathematically inclined enough to visualize a probability distribution that has a broad peak near 100% and has a tail near 50%. I can’t hep you with that.

      • Don Monfort

        That’s a non-answer, yimmy. I asked you some specific questions about some specific quotes from the freaking IPCC. You dodged the questions. You are asserting a probability distribution that nobody is obligated to visualize. Maybe you are not honorably inclined.

        little yimmy:”He should not quote the IPCC if he doesn’t understand what they are saying.”

        If you understand what they are saying, yimmy, answer the questions. You can start by showing us the actual probability distribution that you are talking about. Where is it in the IPCC reports, yimmy?

      • Don Monfort

        Are you looking for it, yimmy? I thought you had it at your little fingertips. Are we going to have to visualize it, yimmy?

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        “It’s a distribution. The tail may just get to 50%, but the bulk is nearer 100%.”.

        Have you read the attribution chapter of AR5? The statements of extremely likely, etc. are determined, not by statistics or evidence, but by a few scientists coming to a subjective consensus. And, if you read that chapter and are left scratching your head, you are not alone. The point is made that global temperatures are the result of both forcings and internal variables, however there is no explanation of how internal variables are determined. The term “estimated internal variables is used” and in the chapter on modeling there is a graph of the pseudo estimated internal variable model; a graph that appears to represent zero. My conclusion is that the IPCC has assumed an estmated internal variable of zero, using no evidence. It appears that the consensus science community is satisfied with its guess regarding the estmated internal variability and has no interest in doing the necessary research that might improve the estimate.

        Richard

      • Don and Richard, you should not expect a precise curve based on the words that they give, but the words are clear enough about where they see the probabilities and there is a distribution because it is a consensus, which is necessarily a spread to represent everyone in proportion to how many are in each range. The range can go over 100% because natural variability since 1950 could be positive or negative. This seems very clear from what the IPCC are saying on attribution. Here are the 2 sentences again.
        “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
        Davies quoted the first one, but completely ignored the second one which undermined his whole playing with numbers. If he wants to quote the IPCC as an authority, quote the whole thing, not a cherrypick. I think he fooled few people with this trick.

      • Don Monfort

        Poor, yimmy. There is no probability distribution. He is making crap up, again. Notice that yimmy quotes from WG1 the first statement including the judgement “extremely likely” but he does not include the WG1 statement on the alleged 100% attribution.

        IPCC from WG1 on attribution

        (1) “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951–2010. This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods. Observational uncertainty has been explored much more thoroughly than previously and the assessment now considers observations from the first decade of the 21st century and simulations from a new generation of climate models whose ability to simulate historical climate has improved in many respects relative to the previous generation of models considered in AR4. Uncertainties in forcings and in climate models’ temperature responses to individual forcings, and difficulty in distinguishing the patterns of temperature response due to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings prevent a more precise quantification of the temperature changes attributable to greenhouse gases. [9.4.1, 9.5.3, 10.3.1, Figure 10.5, Table 10.1]

        (2) Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C
        over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be
        between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings
        likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and from
        internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are
        consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C over this period. [10.31, Figure 10.5] ”

        Little yimmy repeats the “extremely likely” subjective assessment from the first statement, but avoids mentioning that the assessment on the probability of the anthropogenic warming being “consistent with” the observed warming is only “likely”. That’s pretty freaking weak, yimmy. No wonder you avoided it.

        Where is the probability distribution, yimmy?

        Richard is obviously correct and yimmy’s efforts are pathetic.

      • > So at what percentage does it cease being extremely likely? 56%? 66.5%? 72.35%?

        Anyone who pretends to be a logician should see that Davies’ pet trick relies on some kind of existential fallacy. Even Mr. T, who is not a logician, would disapprove the sudden certainty by which Davies pulls 51% out of his contrarian hat.

        From “more than 50%,” one does not simply infer “therefore 51%.” Could be 51%. Could be 99%. Could even be more than 100%, depending upon the concept of “%” involved.

      • Don M, if you are agreeing with the IPCC, great. I won’t argue. Their numbers are there for the attribution. You can draw your own graph from them if you need to see a picture. Go on the Web, and some people have done this for you already, including Gavin in his discussion on 50/50 with Judith.

      • Here.

      • Don Monfort

        You are a faker, yimmy. Realclimate is not the IPCC. The IPCC is guessing and the realclimate goons faked a probability distribution. Do you call that math, yimmy? You are shameless. If you keep this crap up even your fans here will be disgusted with you. Both of them.

        Where did I agree with the IPCC, yimmy? Quoting them is not agreeing with them. But you know that. You are just making a fool of yourself.

        You are right, willy. The vagueness of the IPCC BS allowed Davies to play some cheap trick. Countered by a cheap trick from little yimmy. What a spectacle of cheap tricksters.

      • Don M, you got your graph. Now study it against the IPCC report. This illustrates what the words in the SPM mean in an easy to understand picture. You should be thanking me for helping you.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        Please explain how the IPCC scientists have determined “internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C”

        Regarding your statement “but the words are clear enough about where they see the probabilities and there is a distribution because it is a consensus, which is necessarily a spread to represent everyone in proportion to how many are in each range.”.

        1. I don’t think you’ll find that explanation in any of the IPCC reports.

        2. Do we know the number of scientist involved in the consensus decisions? I suspect, from reading the APS workshop transcript, that it was few.

        3. Do you not think that the group dynamics would be like most group dynamics, where leaders step to the fore and individual opinions are often minimized or squashed? This might be especially outrageous at the IPCC where, as Dr Christy describes, there is unlimited power of the lead authors.

      • Don,

        Go easy on Jim D. He struggled with fractions in school. Still does, based on his comments here.

      • Richard, this started with a “skeptic” using the IPCC attribution as an authority, but in a somewhat distorted truth of his own. That is what I was commenting on. I am not going to justify the whole of AR5 WG1 any more than you get by reading it yourself.

      • Don Monfort

        You are dishonest and everybody can see it, yimmy. Show us the math behind the “picture” of the alleged probability distribution. It’s just BS. You are not doing the cause any good here, yimmy.

      • They quoted the section of AR5 it came from. What else do you need?

      • Dear Don Don,

        I have some time this evening, and will take Jim D’s place for a while. RichardS’s claim:

        The statements of extremely likely, etc. are determined, not by statistics or evidence, but by a few scientists coming to a subjective consensus.

        is misleading at best.

        A consensus is inter-subjective, not subjective. Besides, there’s no such thing as an objective consensus.

        There’s no dichotomy between statistics or evidence and a consensus. For instance, the IPCC consensus is based on an evidence basis.

        Finally, the very idea of having an consensus determined by statistics or evidence is a bit abstruse.

        ***

        Since giving links is not your forte, here’s the link to the technical summary of the AR5 WG1:

        http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

        Now, which one do you want us to check?

        Thanks for playing,

        W

      • Don Monfort

        You and yimmy can carry on with your foolishness, willy. Enjoy. I don’t have time for your games.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        I appreciate your answers, but the last few make me sad. Your trust in the RealClimate figure is misplaced. I have chapter 10 in my library and that figure is derived in a chapter 10 figure describe as an assessment. It is a figure showing the results of subject opinions of a small group of attribution experts. A couple of years ago Curry and Webster had a back and forth with Hegerl et al and this excerpt may be relevant:

        IAC Review provides a starting point for a description of what is suitable: “… it is unclear whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How exactly a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented.”

        Once again, I am sad that those you trust are deceptive. They are not open and seem content in allowing readers to be overconfident, allowing them to believe that the IPCC conclusions are objective and statistically provable.

        Sincerely,

        Richard

      • > A couple of years ago Curry and Webster had a back and forth with Hegerl et al and this excerpt may be relevant: […]

        Citation needed.

      • > allowing them to believe that the IPCC conclusions are objective and statistically provable.

        Sure, “extremely likely” looks exactly like a statistical proof, e.g.

        In January 2014, Keevash established that, apart from a few exceptions, designs will always exist if the divisibility requirements are satisfied. In a second paper posted this April on the scientific preprint site arxiv.org, Keevash showed how to count the approximate number of designs for given parameters. This number grows exponentially — for example, there are more than 11 billion ways to arrange 19 schoolgirls into triples so that each pair appears once.

        https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150609-a-design-dilemma-solved-minus-designs/

        From the horse’s mouth:

        Based on the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, this WGI Technical Summary and the WGI Summary for Policymakers rely on two metrics for communicating the degree of certainty in key findings, which is based on author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding:

        • Confidence in the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgement) and the degree of agreement. Confidence is expressed qualitatively.

        • Quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding expressed probabilistically (based on statistical analysis of observations or model
        results, or expert judgement).

        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

        That’s the first box, on the second page.

      • Willard,

        Expert judgement? This is supposed to be science, laddie!

        X of course, stands for the unknown quantity, and a spurt is a drip under pressure. Hence, x-spurt, or in Warmspeak, expert.

        And just who are these experts who can quantify the future? Hansen? Mann? Schmidt? Or just a motley assemblage of even lesser lights?

        It is my expert judgement that you are full of it. Have you any peer reviewed evidence to the contrary? I thought not.

        It is also my expert opinion that the IPCC knows as much about the future as I do – or maybe even less, but I don’t want to be accused of boastfullness, being the shy and self effacing chap that I am!

      • richardswarthout

        Willard

        I can’t believe that my comment misled you. Certainly a small group of attribution experts, with no accountability to the public, no explanation of its conclusions and ratings, no explanation of its lines of evidence, should be suspected of hiding something; not an objective something, but most likely a subjective something, with all players agreeing. Call it what you want, but it is sad that too few question them.

        Respectfully,

        Richard

      • RichardS,

        Surely you must be joking:

        Certainly a small group of attribution experts, with no accountability to the public, no explanation of its conclusions and ratings, no explanation of its lines of evidence, should be suspected of hiding something; not an objective something, but most likely a subjective something, with all players agreeing.

        No explanation of its conclusions and ratings? I just quoted the box!

        No explanation of its lines of evidence? You yourself claim having read the AR5!

        Certainly hiding something?

        Most likely a subjective something?

        With all due respect, RichardS, if you are trying to find the truth which conspires to be out there, you might need to raise your concerns in a way that is a tiny bit less preposterous.

      • richardswarthout

        Willard

        Here is the citation you asked for:

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/15/hegerl-et-al-react-to-the-uncertainty-monster-paper/#more-5973

        Also, as stated above the output from a small group of experts cannot be trusted unless the process is completely open. I suspect, due to the nature of group dynamics and the possibility that all the experts were selected by a lead expert, conclusions from the group will have no defectors.

        Finally, the guidance note is mere lip service to what has to be done.

        I am not a scientist and know nothing about statistics, but have a rather good bs detector; it made me a very good project manager.

        Richard

      • > It is also my expert opinion that the IPCC knows as much about the future as I do […]

        We’ve been there already not so long ago, MikeF:

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/10/driving-in-the-dark/#comment-711516

        If you insist, this time will be less socratic.

      • RichardS,

        Thank you for the link where Judy uses stolen emails to get back at colleagues. This was a great moment in the annals of the INTEGRITY ™ branding. I confer you to Andrew Adams’ comments on that thread.

        Except for the zeroth draft, the process has enjoyed an openness that no private company would ever be able to tolerate. Ask Richard Betts about that one.

        The number of defectors you suspect should congregate and spell out their alternative theory of climate. Meanwhile, the IPCC’s report is
        the deck to beat.

        Speaking of paying lip service, I await your concession that the first box of the second page of the Summary contains the information you portray as being hidden from the public’s view.

        I duly acknowledge that you could very well be a very good project manager. Please rest assured that I as a ninja, I could not care less about such appeal to any authority.

        W

      • richardswarthout

        Willard

        I just returned from outdoors after relaxing with some wine and a cigar and some quiet thought and think I know the reason for some our disagreement. You are right that statistics can be used to analyze group decisions. However, the IPCC is inaccurrate when it states “More than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.”
        That is a statement is about the planet, not about what the group of attribution experts concluded.

        Regarding the openess of the IPCC process, the box that you suggest falls short. To my knowledge, the recommendations of the IAC 2010 have largely been ignored by the IPCC and the statements I made stand. There are many organizations that have strict standards on traceability and it would be very reasonable for the IPCC to follow their lead.

        I am not searching for a truth, only for a report that is open. For instance I have yet to find an answer as to how the estimated internal variability was determined. Specifically, not an overview.

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        Willard

        Thank you for the information regarding the emails that Dr Curry used in defending her paper; her paper describes things I’ve been fumbling with on this thread, and the emails prove she is right – she did a service to the world and your characterization of her action is totally inaccurate. Scientist who publicly convey confidence in their conclusions and exchange emails that convey the opposite are not her colleagues; they are the problem that she is wants the world to know about. And your notion that she is “getting back” may be accepted in the underworld of the IPCC that also describes her as a heretic, but it’s only home is that underworld.

        It is difficult to understand your support of the IPCC process and your characterization of Dr Curry’s action. I am led to believe that you support the deception taking place at the IPCC. Hope I am wrong.

        Richard

      • David Wojick

        That chart is very strange. How can there be an attribution greater than 100%? There is no more than all. Perhaps this is a measure of the great lack of understanding of statistics by the warmers.

      • I think skeptics have trouble understanding that the attribution can be more than 100% because they don’t consider that natural variation can be negative. For example if the sun is less active at the end than in 1950, which is plausible.

      • About the Real Climate attribution plot above, Can we reconcile more than all by doing this? If the warming had been much more, our contribution to it would have been a lessor percentage. If there had been a tiny warming, our contribution to it would have been something like 500%. Perhaps our contribution is determined to be X based on sensitivity.

      • > You are right that statistics can be used to analyze group decisions.

        I’m glad you seem to agree with what seems to be the 3rd point I said, RichardS:

        (1) A consensus is inter-subjective, not subjective

        (2) There’s no such thing as an objective consensus.

        (3) There’s no dichotomy between statistics or evidence and a consensus.

        (4) The very idea of having an consensus determined by statistics or evidence is a bit abstruse.

        There are three other points upon which you have yet to opine.

        ***

        > [T]he IPCC is inaccurrate when it states “More than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.” That is a statement is about the planet, not about what the group of attribution experts concluded.

        Your last sentence is a bit obscure. Are you suggesting that the IPCC did not intend to make a statement about an indicator of the climate, i.e. GMST 1951-2010?

        ***

        > To my knowledge, the recommendations of the IAC 2010 have largely been ignored by the IPCC and the statements I made stand.

        To my knowledge, the IAC 2010 did not publish neither its review procedure, nor the draft manuscript of the IAC report. Do you have access to them by any chance?

        ***

        Since you advocate traceability, please rest assured that everything Denizens (go team!) say on Judy’s is traceable. This includes our current exchange. Usually, traceability costs money, but not here. That’s one advantage of ClimateBall over more formal meetings.

        This implies that our exchange is not exactly like a management meeting. You’re not a boss here, and every single thing you say remains here for all eternity. Therefore, you might be advised to revise your technique to manage conversations. Unless you wish to become the perfect example as to why we should either oursource our management teams to countries with better formal training and lower salaries, or simply replace them with expert systems and other algorithmic devices.

      • richardswarthout

        Willard

        “Your last sentence is a bit obscure. Are you suggesting that the IPCC did not intend to make a statement about an indicator of the climate, i.e. GMST 1951-2010?”

        Sorry it is obscure. The sentence simply says that the IPCC made a statement about the planet as if it was provable and irrefutable. It was not accurate to make that statement without a clarification.

        “This implies that our exchange is not exactly like a management meeting. You’re not a boss here, and every single thing you say remains here for all eternity. Therefore, you might be advised to revise your technique to manage conversations. Unless you wish to become the perfect example as to why we should either oursource our management teams to countries with better formal training and lower salaries, or simply replace them with expert systems and other algorithmic devices.”

        The comment strange. Are you trying to intimidate me? Normaly I would try to accommodate any disagreements, but not in light of your threat, The threat that might be more egregious than anything I said. Finally your ramblings about me have duly been noted and put in the “rant” bin.

        Take your medicine, get some sleep, and please do not reply.

        Richard

      • > Normaly I would try to accommodate any disagreements, but not in light of your threat […]

        There was no threat, RichardS, unless you consider traceability as a treath. Take for instance your last claim:

        The sentence simply says that the IPCC made a statement about the planet as if it was provable and irrefutable. It was not accurate to make that statement without a clarification.

        This is supposed to clarify:

        You are right that statistics can be used to analyze group decisions. However, the IPCC is inaccurrate when it states “More than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.” That is a statement is about the planet, not about what the group of attribution experts concluded.

        which was supposed to clarify (June 20, 2015 at 8:40 pm):

        I can’t believe that my comment misled you. Certainly a small group of attribution experts, with no accountability to the public, no explanation of its conclusions and ratings, no explanation of its lines of evidence, should be suspected of hiding something; not an objective something, but most likely a subjective something, with all players agreeing.

        which was supposed to clarify (June 20, 2015 at 7:32 pm):

        Once again, I am sad that those you trust are deceptive. They are not open and seem content in allowing readers to be overconfident, allowing them to believe that the IPCC conclusions are objective and statistically provable.

        which was supposed to clarify (June 20, 2015 at 3:19 pm):

        Have you read the attribution chapter of AR5? The statements of extremely likely, etc. are determined, not by statistics or evidence, but by a few scientists coming to a subjective consensus.

        The trace of your comments does not show any disagreement management. The trace of talking points is not quite linear, with the slight dodges and understated jabs, but it’s there.

        ***

        You forgot to tell if you have access to the review procedure or the draft manuscript of the IAC report.

        Thank you for your concerns about my health,

        W

    • jimd

      I had never heard of the David Davies who you linked to.

      The much more famous climate sceptic MP is David Davis.

      http://www.daviddavismp.com/

      He was one of the very few MPs to vote against the climate change Bill which has loaded costs on to consumers and business. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and often appears on Commons select committees on the topic.

      tonyb

    • Willard,

      Many thanks. I clicked on the link you provided, and it gave the following –

      “A person beholding the name Flynn or has it within his/her string of names is considered sexy, incredible, ninja-tastic, amazing and mysterious. Not only are they amazing in bed, but outside of the bed as well. If ever get a chance to kiss one of these Flynns never cease to act upon it! Their kisses make you melt the second your lips touch with theirs. Adventurous and easy going, Flynns can give you the thrill of your life and make you addicted to them. You’ll want them more and not just because you have to survive, but because you really do WANT them. Hold on to these Flynns, once you find one. You’ll never get one back if you lose him/her.”

      I didn’t realise you harboured such a deep attachment. I’m not sure why you wish to be melted by touching my lips. Maybe you are just looking for the thrill of your life, but I’m not sure whether I can (or would even want to), accommodate you.

      As to the rest of it, yes, it’s all true, even if I do say so myself (with all due humility).

      I can see why you stand in awe of my wonderfullness! For me it comes naturally. If you apply yourself diligently, you may eventually one day achieve Flynnness, as you so obviously desire.

  18. richardswarthout

    The Pope’s encyclical has much that skeptics can agree on. However when it gets to the few paragraphs on man-made global warming he leaves the rails. I started to review those paragraphs, and here are the first three results:

    The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.

    Comment: Disturbing? Is there solid evidence that this level of warming is unprecedented?

    In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level.

    Comment: Recent decades? Is there solid evidence that the rise is unprecedented, or that a global sea level prior to 1980 could even be determined?

    And (in recent decades this warming has been accompanied), it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon.

    Comment: Not true

    Richard

    • @RS: Is there solid evidence that this level of warming is unprecedented?

      None whatsoever. It was much hotter 50 million years ago.

      But you have the wrong question. Is there solid evidence that previous instances of this rate of warming did not kill off 75% of the planet’s species?

      That in a nutshell is the current concern.

    • @RS: Is there solid evidence that this level of warming is unprecedented?

      None whatsoever. It’s been hotter for nearly all the time multi-cell animals have been thriving on Earth. In fact is seldom been colder than now. There has been no ice sheets at either pole for 75% of the past half billion years. It’s been hotter than now for nearly all the past 50 million years. It’s been hotter in each interglacial period over the past million years. It’s been hotter for most of the Holocene, including the Roman, Medieval and current warm periods.

      Furthermore, life loves warmer and thrives in warming periods.

      And there is no reliable evidence the warming in the last century is unprecedented. In fact there is evidence of much more rapid warming in the past, and life loved it.

      Climate changes abruptly. Always has and always will – nothing like the nice smooth curves the gullible mathematicians and modelers produce and believe

      That in a nutshell is the current reality.

      Amazing eh?

  19. I hope one day Matt Ridley gets the full recognition and appreciating he deserves.

  20. I have a comment stuck in moderation. Can’t figure out what made it land there.

  21. “The central players were serious scientists who had major career triumphs during the Cold War, but in subsequent years apparently came to equate environmentalism with socialism, and government regulation with tyranny.”

    Well well. What would ever make these brilliant people think such a thing?

    • I guess also having grown up in the ’80s I missed that point in pop cult where being against communism and government tyranny became scandalous????

    • Nickels, wasn’t the point having more to do with equating enviormentalism with communism and government tyranny?

      • Its a pretty easy link. Having also been to Stanford it is very clear that the universities are heavily marxist in their leanings. I myself left there heavily influenced by Marxist thought.

        “This last thesis, ‘Thesis 11,’ would become the dictum of the burgeoning cabal of Marxists in the social sciences during the 1970s. They saw their scholarship as revolutionary ‘praxis,’ believing that the underlying validation of their theorising and research was the extent to which it advanced the revolutionary cause. To them, the praxis of science, like everything else, reduced to the political – which is the politics of historical materialism, the mechanism of the class struggle that determines the course of history.”
        https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/revolutionary-science-post-normal-climate-science-and-neo-marxism/

        Fast forward to the notion that science is consensus….the link is stronger today than ever. Show me anyone who rings the consensus bell that isnt also ringing the ‘save the planet’ bell. Now to be sure its not all marxism. Theres also a self flagellation, “were destroying the planet,” which has been argued as a christan component, the never ending penitence. Which leads to the Calvinistic desire to regulate all.
        I dont the I have to dig into the government tyranny part. I mean, just look at the EPA.

      • Yes, I understand better now what you were getting at.

      • Don Monfort

        Maybe she is talking about the Communist China on another planet. This is the one we got on this planet:

        https://www.google.com/search?q=china+pollution&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=armFVeDJOtfUoATd0rKgDQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=667

      • Looks bad.
        But connect le dots
        A) Naomi gains fame by shaming cold war heros for linking environmentalism to commies and tyranny.
        B) UN Climate Chief claims communism is the perfectly suited regime for enacted climate change controls.

        In what intellectual climate are the two things able to exist simultaneously?

      • Perhaps your picture shows it was never about climate.

        China wants the manufacturing connections:
        http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/01/the-new-global-leader-in-renewable-energy.html

        And the lefties want their ideologic gains:
        http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm

      • Hey Nickels, I followed your link to Revolutionary Science: Post-Normal Climate Science and neo-Marxism, and underneath it I found a couple comments from Jerome Ravetz, the first being:

        Thanks so much! More homework for me. The link between PNS and Marxism, either classical or neo- is not close at least in my conscious thinking. I had broken with political Marxism before the events of 1956, and in research and teaching in the history of science in the early 1960’s I saw its inadequacies as a heuristic for that field. As others have noticed, I still find ‘dialectical’ ideas very fruitful. Also, Silvio and I were always careful to steer clear of reductionist post-modern thinking. But there are many other important issues to be sorted out there.

        He appears to be pretty much disavowing his unfortunate creation.

        See also here: https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/21/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-xii-ravetzs-lecture/

        Those of an older generation remember a time when the prestige of science was unquestioned. Science would save the world, and scientists would do the saving. It is all different now, and the mutual denunciations of the scientists in the Climategate debate have not helped. One of the most important influences that drove me to a personal involvement in this debate was a report by our distinguished colleague Judith Curry, of a conversation with a student. This student was dismayed by the Climategate story that had just broken, and wondered whether this was the sort of career that she wanted to take up. We all know what happens to institutions when they fail to attract the brightest and the best young people. Slowly, perhaps, but surely, they atrophy and wither.

        You see the connection. If ‘science’ comes to be seen by young people as the sort of institution where Climategate happens, and where scientists insult and condemn each other, its future is not bright. Of course, this negative reaction would happen only at the margins; but it is at the margins where we will find the really wonderful young people that we need. I cannot prescribe, indeed I can scarcely imagine, how the spirit of non-violence that has inspired the political world can be imported effectively into science. But I would argue that it is an attempt that is well worth making, even for the future of science itself.

      • Having also been to Stanford it is very clear that the universities are heavily marxist in their leanings.

        That’s ridiculous. The last tenured professor that Stanford fired was a Marxist. Get your facts straight.

      • Having also been to Stanford it is very clear that the universities are heavily marxist in their leanings.

        Yep. That’s pretty clear. In fact it is happening in most or all universities in the developed world as those who like to call them selves do all they can to stop progress and return us to the pre-enlightment era

  22. I read two of the articles under adaptation about farming and reminded myself of trying to learn a little about organic gardening years ago. I must plea ignorance in regards to farming practices but the article about industrial agriculture opened up a lot of questions in my mind. I’ve always wondered if organic farming practices could be implemented on an industrial level and avoid the use of pesticides used on gmo crops and soil depleting methods of industrial farming requiring nitrogen and other enhancements. The other article seems to suggest such practices.

    I used to subscribe to Rodale magazine when I did try to garden those years ago. I noticed they have a book that seems to echo, somewhat, the problem with carbon depletion in the soil. Like I said I’m fairly ignorant on the subject but thought I’d interject some food for thought:

    http://www.rodaleinc.com/products/books/soil-will-save-us-how-scientists-farmers-and-foodies-are-healing-soil-save-planet

    • A few points: I was a farmwife for a few years. We did big wheat and beef, and subsistence farming for most stuff we consumed (doing chickens, milk cow, dress our own meat, big country garden, ect) and not only is it bloody hard work, far harder than any job like waitressing in a truck stop I have done, I just don’t think we can feed everyone without big industrial big farming. It takes a lot of land and most people can’t imagine working that hard. Only the industrial style produces enough food to sustain cities full of people who want to work 9-5 and have leisure time. Second organic is an every changing target. The organic movement started out with the idea of getting off chemicals and has morphed to be anything anyone wants and meanwhile the official organic label has also been gradually bought up by the big agro businesses it was designed to thwart and the rules for it have modified to suit them so they can produce grossly overpriced stuff from rich yuppies with too much money and adding an unwieldy market certification system designed to strip even more money off the farmer while tying his hands behind his back. Meanwhile any good organic practices that save money and produce better crops will automatically be adopted by nonorganic farmers because farming is such a knife edge business if something will give you an advantage, you adopt it. Third: the worst enemy of the farmer is government regulation that provides subsidies for soil mining practices such as draining wetlands and turning shelter belts into very marginal wheat acreage. If farmers were left alone, they would generally do a much better job than any agro experts from the government who have a university degree but have never walked the land. I kid you not. We had an agro guy from government who came to tell us what to do to be better farmers. He walked our land with us and said it was so cool, because he’d never been on a farm before. We were polite, fed him homemade rhubarb/strawberry pie, and ignored his advice because it was stupid.

      • Thanks for the perspective. Industrial farming is necessary for the modern society. I understand that. I just wondered if organic methods could be employed on a mass level. If it’s true it requires too much land I suppose it would have to be limited.

      • ordvic – the whole “organic” movement is a sham, and an expensive one at that. Contrary to popular belief, organic farming usually does involve pesticides – copper and sulfur. On top of that, there is no solid evidence that the use of the more typical pesticides causes any serious problem. Conventional meats and vegetables provide just as much protein, fats, and vitamins as “organic” one. IMO, buying organic food is nothing more than a waste of money.

      • Jim2, Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind.

      • What a great post fulltime! It’s full of information and funny too! There are some organic practices that might be useful if they can be economically scaled up, like using plants to attract predatory insects or using no or low till practices to reduce soil erosion. That said, I suspect most farmers know all that already, it ain’t news.

        That free strawberry rhubarb pie was worth getting a university degree, plus he got a little free education on the side, if he was paying attention.

        I would love to read another post from you like this one, especially about farming.

      • excellent post.

        And you can add to the part about urban populations not being able to feed themselves the fact that not only does it require industrial scale farming, it also requires a modern transportation system that runs on fossil fuels to get that production to them.

        Side bar on organic. I think it was last year that Stanford researchers published a paper on a 10 year project into the health benefits of eating organic foods. Their results were that there was zero benefit. (Which pretty much anyone with an understanding of biology could have told them.) When it was covered on NPR, they received so many angry or upset calls and emails from listeners that they had to run a second story the next day that backtracked as much as possible from the first. I was laughing my butt off. And thinking that it will be a cold day in Hades before I ever contribute again to NPR.

    • It’s interesting that Ted gave that talk on the importance of “accelerat[ing] the long-term processes of growing more food on less land” without discussing the comparative ratio of calories/land use for raising cattle – whether feedlot beef or grass-fed beef – and growing vegetables.

      How could Ted have had this talk, which highlights the importance of growing more food on less land, without that discussion?

      Very interesting.

    • Oh, and ordvic –

      You might find this interesting – as something of a counterbalance to the rhetoric you’ve seen in the comments here (and Ted’s presentation also).

      http://www.npr.org/2015/06/08/412236817/as-global-population-grows-is-the-earth-reaching-the-end-of-plenty

      http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Plenty-Crowded-World/dp/0393079538

  23. It took me a little bit to find my way around the paywall. I do have library access but it isn’t always easy to access. I did finally get to JH Perkins “Beware of climate neo-skepticism”. The correspondence has no content. His conclusion “Society does not demand certainty to cope with other high-consequence risks, such as those relating to public health, airline safety, terrorism, and natural or technological disasters.” is about the closest he comes to actually saying anything. HIs argument seems to be that because we allow airline security even though the chance of any one flight being commandeered by terrorists is vanishingly small, we should therefore pursue all forms of global warming mitigation regardless of the cost or the proof. The problem is terrorists have blown up aircraft and we have increased security as the risk has been proven and required by specific incidents. (Shoes off after a shoe bomb threat for example) where as there is no actual proof of any kind of catastrophic climate change, it’s all in the computer models, and in fact we are in a hiatus period. …. Oops sorry, I forgot NOAA homogenized that problem away. In any case I like the term neo-skepticism. It’s much less derogatory than “denier” and the neo part implies it is newer and more modern, perhaps even reflecting that more and more scientists are becoming skeptical, which is a very nice thought. I think I shall declare myself a neo-skeptic. It’s easier to grasp and is more accurate than “luke warmer”.

  24. With all due respect for everyone here, there is a lot of shooting from the hip in reaction to specific statements taken out of context. The encyclical states clearly that this is not a scientific or policy document, but an expression of concerns about what the current global economy is doing to both humans and the human habitat. The encyclical is a theological reflection on the community of creation and tries to give moral guidance on issues of social and ecological justice. May I suggest it would be better to read the text calmly and then discuss the scientific issues in a separate thread. It would be helpful to prepare a list of science-related statements in the encyclical that should be clarified, in the form of concise “statement-question” pairs.

    • Luis Gutierrez,
      “It would be better to read the text calmly and then discuss the scientific issues on a seperate thread”.

      There is such a thread of discussion @ WUWT:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/18/is-the-catholic-church-burned-by-the-sun-again/

    • David Wojick

      The problem, Luis, is that those concerns are based on a false claim as to what the global economy is doing to both humans and the human habitat. The Pope says “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications:
      environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of
      goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our
      day.”

      This is simply false. When the Pope bases a major pronouncement on a falsehood, what are we to say? Reading the text calmly does not make the falsehood go away. The Pope has been fooled. This is a matter of grave concern, is it not?

    • I read the encyclical (calmly), and am a conservative Catholic to boot. The Pope’s writing is terrible, and often contradictory. Elsewhere I have called is latest effort is “Theory of Everything” because he wanders over so many topics, basically laying out his personal political and economic philosophy dressed up as theology.

      The Pope is frankly an economic illiterate. He has zero understanding of how the western free market he so despises has raised the living standards of billions of people around the world, even in the centrally planned economies he so favors. China didn’t raise the living standards of 250 million of its people to western standards by coming up with better 5 year plans. They did it by marginally raising the statist boot off the neck of parts of their economy. (Marginally – which is why the remaining billion are still mired in the economic dark ages.)

      The funniest thing to me is his disdain for bland box architecture, and his belief that this is a product of the free market. The worst atrocities in ‘art’ in the west have virtually all been commissioned by progressive politicians. I get to walk past the black metal Picasso cubist monstrosity set in the Daley Center Plaza every time I go to state court in Chicago.

      The Pope should have taken a tour of east European residential apartment complexes and office buildings after the Berlin Wall fell if he wanted to see soulless mediocrity at its apogee.

      But no, he is too worried about improved air conditioning.

    • In a speech at the Ideacity Conference in Toronto (Canada), Lord Lawson, the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, has criticised the papal encyclical:

      “The encyclical is a thoroughly reactionary document. A mixture of junk science, junk economics and junk ethics, what Pope Francis advocates would prevent the world’s poor from escaping from poverty – just as it would have prevented the industrial revolution, which enabled the western world to escape from poverty and squalor. I’m sure the Pope means well, but it is well known that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
      http://www.thegwpf.com/lord-lawson-criticises-papal-encyclical/

      Lord Nigel Lawson – The Trouble with Climate Change
      http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/lord-nigel-lawson-the-trouble-with-climate-change/

      Alex Epstein
      http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/alex-epstein-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels/

      Patrick Moore
      http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/patrick-moore-the-sensible-environmentalist/

      It’s remarkable that such topics could even get an airing in Politically Correct Toronto. We”ll have to see what flak Moses Znaimer takes for this impertinence!

      • Surely, if the Pope, like the Club of Rome, wishes
        limits ter growth, he’d advocate sensible policies
        of birth control? And surely, if the Pope wishes ter
        put an end end poverty, he’d promote open-society,
        demonstrated benefits like efficient energy that
        released serfs from ( gasp) slavery? And surely,
        he’d facilitate the wealth -creating technical and
        food production innovations, like wheat-yields ‘n
        other problem-solving initiatives, not top-down-
        philosopher-king- elite-committees-with-no-real
        -skin-in the game? Wouldn’t he?

    • Carbon week: The church of climatism
      Nigel Lawson, Special to Financial Post | June 17, 2015
      Climate scientists and their hangers-on have become the high priests of a new age of unreason

      How is it that much of the Western world, and Europe in particular, has succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is the climate change orthodoxy? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that climate change orthodoxy has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the past, and in some places still does so today.

      Throughout the Western world, the two creeds that used to vie for popular support – Christianity and the atheistic belief system of Communism – are each clearly in decline. Yet people still feel the need both for the comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide. It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism, of which the climate change dogma is the prime example, that has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.
      http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/carbon-week-the-church-of-climatism

    • Dominic Lawson
      A Very PC Prayer For Our Times
      Our Gaia, Who art in danger,
      Sustainable be thy name
      http://www.thegwpf.com/a-very-pc-prayer-for-our-times/

  25. CATO’s Comments on the USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment [link]

    We need some perspective on all this death and dying from heat, cold and weather. According to National Health Statistics reported on July 2014, there were 2,000 total deaths from weather, heat and cold.

    “http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf”

    Lets compare that to the 44,000 deaths last year also 2014 from drug overdose. Or the 38,000 automobile deaths last year.

    All this alarm about the coming Thermogeddon and its consequences on human health, well, the alarmists need to step back and take a breath. There is much work to be done in the here and now that vastly exceeds whatever is imagined to happen a hundred years hence.

    • David Wojick

      I think the best point Pat and Chip make is that the US climate varies regionally by an order of magnitude more than the changes the USGCRP is projecting, with no such impacts. People who move from Seattle to San Diego, or from Boston to Tucson do not die from the climate change. The USGCRP is simply a federally funded hoax in progress, led by Tom (no hiatus) Karl.

      • “People who move from Seattle to San Diego, or from Boston to Tucson do not die from the climate change”

        What about the subset of people who are forced to move from Seattle to San Diego in their sleep and may have underlying illnesses?

      • David Wojick

        Sorry neb, but I have no idea what you mean. If your comment is a joke you need to signal that, nor do I get it if it is.

      • David,

        Similar to the supposed threat of the ozone hole. Where the additional exposure to uv radiation was the same as one would get moving from Minneapolis to New Orleans.

        Perhaps nebakhet can chime in about the poor unfortunates who were forced to travel to NO from the wilds of Minnesota. Made to wear cheap beads, consume large quanities of alcohol and bear witness to scads of young women exposing their breasts. Oh the horror of it all.

    • Sorry folks. By my putting quotes around link made the link inaccessible to just clicking on the link. You can copy and paste or use:

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf

      Give it a try.

    • RiHo08,

      But it gets worse –

      USA, 2013 : “According to a new study just out from the prestigious Journal of Patient Safety, four times as many people die from preventable medical errors than we thought, as many as 440,000 a year.”

      The deaths from adverse weather, drugs, and utomobile accidents, all put together, rather pale into insignificance don’t they?

      Where are the billions of dollars in research to find a cure for this avoidable death toll? Gone into the black hole of “climate research”, of course!

      We probably get what we deserve, which may be not much at all!

      • MIKE FLYNN

        440,000 does seem to be a big number. I wonder what or who are all caught up in this net cast upon the health care sea. If complications of cigarette smoking, being obese, etc are wrapped up in the preventable deaths group. We just received word that cholesterol does not cause most heart disease, rather it is inflammation. Do we throw out the 610,000 annual cardiovascular deaths from the preventable deaths groups because we don’t know what is causing the inflammation? Cancer, the 600,000 deaths per yer at least several have been linked to diet, previous exposures of estrogens, etc. Do these cancers fall under the category of preventable deaths (better screening). Suicide, 45,000. Are these preventable?

        To me, the preventable death story is just that, a story worth keeping tract of. At this time, its hard to tell which deaths are presentable

      • RiHo08,

        Results of just one study –

        “Results: Using a weighted average of the 4 studies, a lower limit of 210,000 deaths per year was associated with preventable harm in hospitals. Given limitations in the search capability of the Global Trigger Tool and the incompleteness of medical records on which the Tool depends, the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year. Serious harm seems to be 10- to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.”

        These are just deaths which result from avoidable medical errors. It seems surprising, but could even be worse.

        One could even surmise that the medical consensus actively opposes or ignores procedures and protocols which have been shown to reduce numbers of patient deaths due to what might be called medical ignorance or carelessness.

        Taking on the medical profession is not a task be entered into lightly. Plenty of questions, few answers.

      • Mike Flynn

        “One could even surmise that the medical consensus actively opposes or ignores procedures and protocols which have been shown to reduce numbers of patient deaths due to what might be called medical ignorance or carelessness.”

        The insurance companies have tried to impose their will onto medical practice dictating what to do regarding hospital acquired infections and readmission after discharge from hospitalization. There have been studies out of Dartmouth screening medicare data serving as a guide for setting standards of care.

        And then reality. What was believed to be good care, statistically identified in small studies was found not to be true from just same old same old. Big shock! There was an introduction of checklists in the hospital operating suite for the operating crew to behave similarly to airline pilots prior to take-off. Did check lists make a difference? The longer operating suite check lists are in use, the less check lists seem to be effective, at least in and of themselves in reducing medical error or at least perceived error. Elevating head of bed in intensive care units did what? to hospital acquired infections? Not much.

        Lawyers had been involved in the pain-and-suffering gig until medical-mal became capped and then lawyers went on to niche practices: asbestos being one.

        The truth is, there is very little known about what effects outcomes. There are conjectures and theories and small pilot studies. The dynamics between provider and patient/client is very complex including compliance and adherence (the two are not the same), truth telling, information overload, defensive medicine and the list goes on and on. It is not a good time to lay down hard and fast rules for medical care primarily because the “facts” keep changing as to what is good and what is not so good. And, once rules become codified into policies and procedures, they are very very hard to undo requiring years and years of accumulating contrary science.

        There does seem to be some evidence that the provider who has been at their trade for 20 years or so, have some gray hair at the temples, who are busy as all can be, thats the one that I would go to to fix my heart, take out my gall bladder, work on my colon cancer, etc. The kindly old doc who is slowing down their practice and now has time to sit and listen and listen and listen will, more likely than not, give me a bit of off the cuff advice that has been filtered by all the years of hype and I can be comfortable with: “your too young to go do that…”

  26. From the article:
    The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history. Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years. If the currently elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity benefits. On human time scales, this loss would be effectively permanent because in the aftermath of past mass extinctions, the living world took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to rediversify. Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their populations—notably habitat loss, overexploitation for economic gain, and climate change (31–33). All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity (6). However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full

  27. Neo-sceptics are either blind to the CO2 trend or discount its importance. To them, 400 ppm is not so bad, so maybe 700 ppm won’t be either. It is somewhere between irresponsible and reckless.

    • Jimd

      It is a shame that our dear friend max anacker s no longer with us as he would have enjoyed challenging your figures.

      The chances of getting to 700 ppm are zero as cost effective and useable supplies of fossil fuel will have been used up long before then, quite apart from alternative energy supplies coming on stream, from improved renewables to nuclear and hopefully sources like fusion.

      Tonyb

      • There are easily enough carbon resources to blow through 700 ppm. Coal alone can, but also tar sands, methyl hydrates, untapped Arctic reserves, etc. If the neo-sceptics want the argument on resources they should have stated that, but it is not appearing in their WSJ op-eds so far. They seem to be in favor of burn-it-all, find more, and burn that too. If not, say so. It helps to find common ground.

      • […] methyl hydrates […]

        What’s that?

      • aka methane hydrates.

      • aka methane hydrates.

        No it’s not (aka). Methyl hydrate, more properly known as methanol (aka “wood alcohol) is a different chemical compound than methane.

        Methane hydrate clathrate is a complex formed from methane and water, with enormous implications for fossil carbon and the Industrial Revolution.

        (A few minutes with Google would have saved you exposing your lack of scientific knowledge or interest in same.)

        One of the biggest (IMO) implications for methane hydrate clathrate is that there is potentially a good way to extract it from deposits under the ocean floor by replacing it with CO2. If the latter is extracted from the atmosphere or ocean surface the process could easily be carbon-nuetral, or even produce a net sequestering of atmospheric carbon.

        A key advantage is that sea-floor methane hydrate clathrate is arguably a “commons”, where those using it could be fairly required to use methods that replace the carbon in methane with a greater amount of in CO2 extracted from the air. And with sufficient reduction in the cost of extraction process(es), it would constitute a small fraction of the resulting return from selling the carbon-neutral methane extracted.

      • yes, it was aka to me until I looked into the difference just now.

      • Jimd

        What on earth is a neo sceptic?

        The only google reference was this one concerning David Hume

        https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KX6GAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=neo-sceptic&source=bl&ots=ItWoQyD1LZ&sig=s3duL4AJ2m9aiw0422Qt_VBU9lc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ptmFVdizBKne7Aaj24uoBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=neo-sceptic&f=false

        Do you seriously believe that sceptics want to unearth every last bit of fossil fuel at whatever cost to the environment? We should definitely leave the arctic alone.

        Perhaps this could be your big chance to contribute an article here? I am sure we would all like to know more about neo scepticism as applied to the climate

        Tonyb

      • The letter by John Perkins in Nature described the view put forward by Koonin and Curry in WSJ op-eds as neo-sceptic, a term he coined for this view of being too uncertain to do any mitigation at all.

      • I think Lamar Smith (US House Science Committee chair) had an op-ed with all the same bullet points too recently. Usually it also includes the pause.

      • Jimd

        Can you link to it as I am still none The wiser about what a neo sceptic is supposed to believe.

        Until the 18th century charcoal burning was just about the largest occupation in Britain.

        http://www.pyrites.org/publications_files/Charcoal%20Making.pdf

        It became too expensive to use as the industrial revolution gathered pace and a more modern alternative, coke, took its place until that too was displaced.

        The point I am making is that our use of fossil fuels will seem as quaint in 50 years time as does charcoal use seem to us now.the world moves on, and our use of fossil fiel is destined to declne and alternatives will come along

        Tonyb

      • http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/522287c?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version&show_checkout=1&tracking_action=preview_click
        Hopefully that works. I think it is a summary of something that may be longer, but I am not sure. The only examples were Koonin and Curry.

      • It’s just a letter to the editor, signed by these people.

      • Yes, Judith spotted it and pointed it out for discussion, so here we are.

      • […] this view of being too uncertain to do any mitigation at all.

        Actually, that’s a “bait&switch”. That phrase is commonly used for anybody who doesn’t demand the entire socialist agenda in the name of “climate change”. All sorts of “low-regrets” options are dismissed as “[not] any mitigation at all.

      • Ah, peak charcoal! I’m sure some paleo-alarmist’s warnings fell on deaf ears, back in the day.

      • Mosomoso

        If your bamboo makes good charcoal perhaps we can recreate the good old days of charcoal burning and really boost the co2 in the atmosphere. It’s vital that we live up to the traditions of neo scepticism which, as oldman rivers points out , is a very very bad thing. Jimd obviously thinks e te all evil.

        Tonyb

      • David Wojick

        Jim D: 400 ppm is good news as far as food is concerned and 700 might be even better. You are assuming what most of us do not believe.

      • 700 ppm leads to a climate that humans have not dealt with before, and it all comes very quickly in a hundred years, not over thousands of years. It is a stepwise disruption of every ecosystem which we don’t have to do if we think about and progress to more modern energy alternatives. There is a choice to try or not to do this. “Skeptics” are against even trying, and would just prefer to surrender to change.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “700 ppm leads to a climate that humans have not dealt with before,”

        Only if you assume that temperature follows CO2 concentration, for which there is little or no evidence, of course.

        Rather the opposite, in fact.

      • davideisenstadt

        Mosh:
        I believe if you perform even the most cursory of searches regarding photosynthesis and CO2 levels, you will find that you are incorrect.
        In your comment we find the rare twin straw man, as you distort and misrepesent two arguments in one paragraph.
        That commercial growers throughout the world find it profitable to enrich the atmosphere of their greenhouses to 1000 ppm (roughly) should be a hint to you.
        What I find interesting is that you, who rely on lab studies regarding the effects of CO2 on terrestrial temperatures, have difficulty accepting the same type of evidence regarding plant yield and CO2 levels.

    • So Jim, exactly what evidence is there that the trend of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration shouldn’t be discounted?

      • Like I said, 700 ppm. Good or not? They just ignore this discussion even though non-mitigation leads there. How can they do that?

      • […] even though non-mitigation leads there.

        Why do you think that? Really doing nothing might, but doing other things besides what your agenda demands could easily solve the problem even better than your favored approach.

      • It’s called a “straw man”, Jim D.

      • Jim D,

        You asked – 700 ppm, good or not? Of course it’s good!

        Why would it not be? Combined with extra water (the other combustion product of hydrocarbons), we might regain some of the plant life lost in the past.

        Who wouldn’t want to see the deserts bloom?

        Even Svante Arrhenius hoped global warming would occur. Better and more equable climate, more plants.

        Warmists decry any desires or projections that don’t lead to doom, gloom, or despair. Why is that, do you think?

      • I’m saying they don’t even have that discussion. If they want defend that 700 ppm is even better than the IPCC target of 450 ppm, they need to talk about that, but they don’t bring up that discussion, right? It is a form of self-denial about where a lack of mitigation leads us. Just do the numbers. What ppm level do you prefer and why? What policy is implied by that choice? These are simple questions driven by looking ahead that the IPCC had addressed, but their opposition haven’t.

      • Well the discussion usually gets centered around a doubling of the pre-industrial level, which I believe gets you somewhere around 550 – 600 ppm. To date the only “evidence” to that being something to worry about is the output of models. So lets say that, while unverified models are not recommended for serving as the foundation for policy perscription, if they are all we have, perhaps we should pay at least some attention to them.

        Now comes the tricky part. The real world the models are trying to replicate is diverging from what those models put out. That is a problem. So much of a problem that some scientists feel the need to perform numerical masturbation in an attempt to make it go away.

        So back to your question Jim. There is no real evidence that a doubling of the concentration is something we should worry about. And that is what? 75 – 100 years out. Moving on up to 700 ppm is at least a few decades more. If 600 ppm is unlikely to be threatening, how bad could 700 ppm be?

      • Steven Mosher

        Jim D

        What is really funny is that skeptics who argue that we cant know the future, skeptics who demand absolute proof about every damage,
        rather blithely forecast that going from 400-700 will necessarily have benefits for plants growth.
        Ya, sure there are some lab experiments showing that more c02 benefits plants in the same way that there are lab experiments that show c02 blocks IR.. but there isnt any science that shows these lab results of growth benefits will actually translate to benefits outside a lab environments. They got zero science on the global effect increasing c02 on plant growth and no falsifiable predictions

      • Danny Thomas

        Huh? I thought the new term was “projections” and not predictions.

        And only in this case is falsifiability of future events a concern?

        The harder I read here, the more I learn.

      • […] going from 400-700 will necessarily have benefits for plants growth.

        Weeds are plants.

      • davideisenstadt

        Mosh:
        I believe if you perform even the most cursory of searches regarding photosynthesis and CO2 levels, you will find that you are incorrect.
        In your comment we find the rare twin straw man, as you distort and misrepesent two arguments in one paragraph.
        That commercial growers throughout the world find it profitable to enrich the atmosphere of their greenhouses to 1000 ppm (roughly) should be a hint to you.
        What I find interesting is that you, who rely on lab studies regarding the effects of CO2 on terrestrial temperatures, have difficulty accepting the same type of evidence regarding plant yield and CO2 levels.

      • “Mosh: …In your comment we find the rare twin straw man”

        What do they call it when the twin straw man is presented by a clown?

        Cirque du Moshaire?

        Andrew

      • It’s good to know Mosh doesn’t believe climate lab experiments are meaningful. Often, they don’t correlate with the real world. Recently, there was a study of a reef in the real world that contradicted lab studies of coral. This reef was in a region where the ocean was less alkaline than usual. The reef was flourishing.

      • If 400 ppm CO2 has been so beneficial for plants it sure isn’t showing up in the amount of Oxygen in the global atmosphere. Look at the graph of O2 compared to CO2 over the last 60 years and they are a reverse mirror image of each other. While we are in no danger of depleting the Oxygen levels to the point that it might have major negative feedbacks, it’s pretty clear we are overwhelming the biosphere with way more CO2 than the natural balance of the carbon cycle has had to deal with in hundreds of thousands of years.

        As to switching developing nations over to natural gas what we are talking about is LNG and if you do the calculation you will find that it’s takes around 20-25% of your NG feed stock to generate the energy just to do the compression and refrigeration to prepare it for transport. Add to all this it still costs billions to build the ships, receiving terminals, distribution pipeline network, gas fired power plants, electrical transmission system etc. and few of these third world countries have the money to afford it on their own. More often than not they default on the loans and the real winners turn out to be international corporations like Caterpillar, General Electric and KBR who tend to get their money up front or on a percent completion contract. At the end of this complex system of generating electricity with LNG the poor countries are even more dependent on foreign supplies and the whims of commodity prices set in New York and London.

      • Mosher you apparently enjoy running off the rails, putting out garbage like this: “What is really funny is that skeptics who argue that we cant know the future, skeptics who demand absolute proof about every damage,
        rather blithely forecast that going from 400-700 will necessarily have benefits for plants growth.”

        I have never argued for any of that. Since when does asking for some evidence – beyond model output – for any of the myrid calamities climate change is suppossed to bring down on our heads equivlant to demanding absolute proof?

        Have you become so jaded that honesty is now optional for you?

    • You have no data that shows that 400 or 700 ppm will cause any problem.
      You only have Models and they have never worked. it is irresponsible and reckless to try to get rid of CO2 that makes green things grow better with less water without a tiny bit of data to support the Alarmism.

      • > You have no data that shows that 400 or 700 ppm will cause any problem.

        Cf. Table SPM.A1 of Observed impacts attributed to climate change reported in the scientific literature since the AR4:

        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

      • Millions of years of data shows that 700 ppm is incompatible with polar ice of any kind leading to higher sea levels by 200 ft, for example.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: {“i>”Millions of years of data shows that 700 ppm is incompatible with polar ice of any kind leading to higher sea levels by 200 ft, for example.”

        More drivel.

      • Check out a period called the Eocene.

      • Willard,

        Yes, even the veriest numby realises that droughts, floods, hurricanes, snow, winds, blizzards and freezing weather have impacts.

        Even the U.S. EPA cannot find any adverse effects of CO2 on humans at twice current levels. The Warmist proposition that CO2 causes bad or good weather is ludicrous, unless you can demonstrate how CO2 can simultaneous exacerbate and ameliorate all weather phenomena observed.

        Don’t forget that climate is only the average of weather. The weather has to change before the average changes. Did you know that?

      • > Yes, even the veriest numby realises that droughts, floods, hurricanes, snow, winds, blizzards and freezing weather have impacts.

        Perhaps, but they’re no Flynns. Flynns only live carpe diem. They owe to this dedication to the present their magnetic presence.

        Future droughts, floods, hurricanes, snow, winds, blizzards, and freezing weather are unknown. They have zero Flynn.

      • David Springer

        Jim D | June 20, 2015 at 11:31 pm |

        “Millions of years of data shows that 700 ppm is incompatible with polar ice of any kind leading to higher sea levels by 200 ft, for example.”

        Ice huggers are weird. Most of the earth’s history lacks polar ice caps. No ice caps is normal. Ice huggers are abnormal by association.

      • David, I believe the ice huggers have an afiinity for Florida, DC, NYC, Philly, Charleston and Boston:

      • Jim D,

        I’m pretty sure there was no ice when the seas were still boiling, regardless of the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        I’m not sure why Warmists love ice so much. Plants don’t, animals don’t, in general.

        Sea levels rise and fall as the crust moves. As the crustal mass is conserved, an uplift above the geoid must be offset by a compensating depression. If this depression is decreased in crustal area, it must perforce be deeper, thus an uplift may result in sea level depression ranging from mild or almost unnoticeable, to extreme fall in apparent sea level.

        This phenomena is easily demonstrated with a bucket or similar waterproof container, sand, enough water to cover the sand, and your hands. Start moving sand from below the water level to create continents. Remove more to create mountains. Take it from your ocean basin over a wide area, or from a deep hole.

        You will quickly see what I mean.

        Now bear it mind that as the crust continues to cool, it gets thicker. The solidified matter occupies less volume than the molten rock. It shrinks. As it shrinks, it deforms or wrinkles. However, the water on top changes proportionally less in volume. This has interesting ramifications.

        I’m with Svante Arrhenius. He hoped for a warmer world. More comfortable, more plants (even weeds, which are only plants you don’t like!). Warmists seem to like cold, misery, and disaster.

        Not me.

    • 700 ppm leads to a climate that humans have not dealt with before,
      Nope.

      Humans dealt with hotter summers:

      and at the same time, colder winters:

      during the Holocene Climatic ‘Optimum’.

      Evidently, climate doesn’t matter that much.

      and it all comes very quickly in a hundred years, not over thousands of years.

      Nope.
      CO2 is currently rising at 1.82ppm/year – a century would get you to around 580ppm.

      But even that’s not happening because of natural gas and the displacement of humans by machines. Robots can waste all day posting on blogs, much more efficiently than you or I can. So who needs humans? And with fewer humans, there will be less CO2.

      It is a stepwise disruption of every ecosystem which we don’t have to do if we think about and progress to more modern energy alternatives.

      Too bad you don’t actually have any evidence to back up your assertions.
      CO2 is a radiative gas, to be sure, and should tend to accumulate thermal energy, but ‘how much?’ matters and how much is still small compared to seasons, diurnal fluctuations, and weather. People have exaggerated the extent and impacts of climate change and this is not scientific thinking.

      There is a choice to try or not to do this. “Skeptics” are against even trying, and would just prefer to surrender to change.

      It doesn’t matter.

      Many ( most? ) nations already have falling CO2. The developed world is less and less a portion of total CO2 emissions, but the extent and impact of CO2 is small, though there are benefits to plant life, plant life on which we all depend. Further, the farther we get from equilibrium CO2, the faster we will return to equilibrium CO2 because uptake continues to rise.

      • The Holocene Optimum CO2 level was still below 300 ppm, remember. Doubling CO2 means a climate the 3 C or thereabouts warmer than that era. You seem to be assuming that CO2 doesn’t have the effect that it does. For projections of emissions, you can assume a per capita growth of CO2 and a population growth that lead to an acceleration of emissions going forwards. If you think a per capita reduction of CO2 will occur by itself in a developing world, you are assuming some of the policies that you oppose will likely actually work, which is a bit self-contradictory. A lot of “skeptics” implicitly make policy assumptions that counteract what they advocate when they project small CO2 growths. Either support and propose global per capita emission reduction methods or revise your CO2 estimates to be consistent with each other. Otherwise it is just talking the talk without walking the walk.

      • Many ( most? ) nations already have falling CO2.

        That will only continue if nations continue to take steps to reduce their CO2 emissions. As Jim pointed out with expected global population growth and economic growth in the developing world the demand for energy can only increase.

      • The Holocene Optimum CO2 level was still below 300 ppm, remember.

        The HCO didn’t have anything to do with CO2 – it was hotter in the summer and colder in the winter ( that is, more extreme climate ) because of orbital variation that lasted for thousands of years.

        Doubling CO2 means a climate the 3 C or thereabouts warmer than that era.

        That’s by no means certain. Plank response is about 1C. It’s not at all clear that the net of feedbacks even doubles that, and indeed, sensitivity studies have a distinct downward progression, so 3C is probably exaggeration. A more practical measure is warming rate. The peak warming rate observed is about 1.9C per century. The most recent 30 years warming rate is lower at around 1.6 C per century. If you’re talking about anything faster than 1.6C per century, you are drifting away from scientific observation.

        You seem to be assuming that CO2 doesn’t have the effect that it does.

        What would lead you to believe that? Was it when I wrote:
        “CO2 is a radiative gas, to be sure, and should tend to accumulate thermal energy, but ‘how much?’ matters and how much is still small compared to seasons, diurnal fluctuations, and weather. “?

        Of course CO2 has an effect. I just don’t think people should get away with exaggerating the effect or impacts without any basis.

        For projections of emissions, you can assume a per capita growth of CO2 and a population growth that lead to an acceleration of emissions going forwards.

        Nope.

        In the US and most of the developed world, CO2 per capita emissions peaked in the 1970s and have been declining since.

        National emissions of CO2 have declined for twenty years now in the ‘Annex I’ countries ( the blue and the green ):

        And if you examine the graphic, you will note an inflection took place ( was accelerating convex up, now decelerating convex down ):

        That’s consistent with flat emissions for 2013 to 2014.

        If you think a per capita reduction of CO2 will occur by itself in a developing world, you are assuming some of the policies that you oppose will likely actually work, which is a bit self-contradictory.

        Nope.

        Cheap natural gas, a tendency toward greater efficiency, and ageing societies with declining populations have done it already.

        I used to worry about the ‘population explosion’ but it turns out that was for naught and we don’t need a totalitarian state to sterilize people, or to regulate how much you drive your car or if you eat a bean burrito.

      • That will only continue if nations continue to take steps to reduce their CO2 emissions. As Jim pointed out with expected global population growth and economic growth in the developing world the demand for energy can only increase.

        Nope. It’s happening already.

        According to the CIA, more than half of the nations on earth already have a fertility rate of less than replacement!

      • From Joseph:

        “with expected global population growth and economic growth in the developing world the demand for energy can only increase”

        Well, yes, initially. Up until they reach the stage in the development curve where, having secured the basics in life, they start having smaller families, delaying marriage and child raising. Look at the demographics for Japan and South Korea.

        So Joseph, what is your prescription for handling population growth in the developing world? Prevent them from developing, in the hope famine and disease takes care of the problem? I personally favor the model which has produced proven results – meeting their demand for energy and economic development. Who knows, maybe some where in India right now a child is being conceived who will someday invent a device leading to unlimited, non-polluting energy production.

      • TE, global CO2 per capita has been increasing. It is the developed world that can and has been trying to reduce this mainly by moving off coal, which is a partial measure only and far from all that is needed. China and India continue to dominate the per capita increase which reflects in the global increase. Later Africa may become significant too. Global agreements alone can accomplish what you are assuming will happen which is a global per capita reduction, and these agreements can go a step further to keep us below 500 ppm by 2100. As you seem to surmise, this is not very difficult, and it just needs more people on board with it.

      • TE, global CO2 per capita has been increasing.

        Well, there was a bump when China achieved most favored nation trading status. However, CO2 emissions were flat from 2013 to 2014 while population grew a little, so for 2014 anyway, CO2 per capita fell and CO2 absolute was flat. India is still young and growing, but that too will end in a few decades. Will it be enough growth to offset the declines in China? We’ll see.

        <It is the developed world that can and has been trying to reduce this mainly by moving off coal, which is a partial measure only and far from all that is needed.

        No.

        The developed world has moved to natural gas because it’s cheaper and has falling emissions because for many nations, population is already falling. This will continue.

      • TE, so you think China has already peaked, somewhat in contrast to their plan to peak around 2030. Well, we can see how that turns out, but I think pressure is needed to keep them to their commitment. India and Africa can be persuaded to go with cleaner forms of energy as part of a global agreement too. This is where Paris can help. You should support these mitigation processes because they don’t just happen by themselves. Similarly within the US, despite the cheapness of natural gas, there is still an active lobby against the EPA as they try to move states away from the dirtier forms of energy.

      • Well, we’d agree that Africa, India and some of other developing Asian nations are where development will lead to increases. Fortunately, natural gas is cheaper than coal but perhaps not readily available in those places. If governments could agree on appropriate trade deals, simply developing with nat gas as opposed to coal would be a big help. And that probably doesn’t need heavy handed taxation, prohibitive rules or subsidies, just prudent policy toward what’s already the cheapest fuel.

      • Jim D,
        You should be relieved to know that Pres. Obama is playing a father’s day golf marathon shrewdly negotiating with China as we speak about CO2 emissions.

        TE is correct that the world is already becoming more efficient and at the same time improving alternative technologies. So on one hand the CO2 levels, if they are a problem, will get solved by humanity following a self-interested course. On the other hand there is certainly no historic evidence that nations would abide by negotiations made by predecessors that are deemed to hamper their economies. This not to say that they would not renegotiate on behalf of their successors. How do you catch cheaters?

        The Holocene Optimum, if you are agreeing it was warmer than today then that would contradict those who claim our GMST is unprecedented. If you know that the Holocene Optimum was controlled by CO2 in any way you are ahead of any evidence I have yet seen. The 1.1 degree C per doubling of CO2 is accepted by most scientists and lukewarmers as sound theory. But even this has yet to be observed in the environmental record or with validated models. CO2 certainly did not cause the Holocene. I think we all agree on that.

      • I am not sure we have a reliable proxy for the global Holocene Optimum temperature, and also “skeptics” don’t “trust” paleo evidence anyway, so good luck convincing them of this. That period corresponded a warm part of the Milankovitch precessional cycle, so it should have been warmer than the LIA and now, for example, as we are now in a Milankovitch “cold” period, but many “skeptics” aren’t too keen on Milankovitch either, so this information is not going to be of much consequence to them. It is very hard to debate these issues when you can’t predict what they will take as solid and what not. It should be impressive that temperatures now rival the Optimum and are still rising because that is opposite to the precessional cycle’s expected trend at the moment. Obviously something else is happening, and it is known what that is. Furthermore, 2 C per doubling accounts for it well.

      • There is some work by Marcott that shows the warm Holocene Optimum well. This is generally being accepted now, even by some of the skeptics it appears. You can see the MWP and LIA in there too.

      • Nice work, yimmy. You are showing true dedication. The POTUS and alleged leader of the free world is out in Palm Springs playing golf again, but yimmy has steadfastly remained on duty, grinding away at the ole axe. Kudos! I would prefer yimmy as POTUS. He couldn’t do any worse and we would save a fortune on travel expenses.

      • Jim D,
        I spend much less time reading skeptic’s positions than you but I see only these common denominators; skepticism of 3+ ECS, skeptcism of world government imposed solutions and skepticism of harmful weather events being caused by GHG. Since the IPCC claims to be the world authority and they claim their ECS best guess is 3, but refuse to rule out 4.5 or higher, and they are opaque as to their attribution of this knowledge, as discussed by you and others upstring, climate skeptics are skeptical of the IPCC. In particular, they are skeptical of their job of linking their summaries, to the scientific method. Skeptics also share a suspicion of the sincerity of those claiming that skeptics are anti-science, conspiracy buffs or religiously motivated.

        Jim, I think you would be more persuasive if you acknowledged the areas that you agree with us skeptics and at least acknowledge what we are skeptical of. It would be even better if you could disavow the ignorant assertions of people like Naomi Oreskes saying skepticism is driven by tobacco lobby-like merchants of doubt.

        Your consideration the 2C for doubling (2C ECS) as fitting Mann and Marcott is interesting but I don’t think they would agree. These two are probably the most untrusted paleo-climatologists (for skeptics). One of them might be shown in court to have committed fraud if Mann v Steyn ever makes it to court.

      • Ron, 2 C per doubling only fits the thermometer data, and is a transient value, of course, because the full response even to current forcing has not yet been completed (see the often forgotten but measured positive imbalance). It is hard to say where I agree with skeptics because every one of them has a different view and most of them want to ignore certain aspects of the science. One is paleoclimate that is inconsistent with their numbers. Another is the imbalance that shows that all the warming we have had has not been enough to counter the anthropogenically dominated forcing which leads to the more-than-all argument on attribution. Another is the transient fit either over the last 150 years (Lovejoy and V. Pratt), or over the period since 1950 that both point to a TCR in the area of 2 C per doubling. Another is anything from the IPCC WG1 reports that skeptics have thrown out wholesale. Or from AR5 WG3 that mitigation costs are in the noise of GDP growth, again not accepted by skeptical non-economists. So many and such a variety of arguments that they ignore makes compromise somewhat difficult.

      • Jim D:
        I am thinking the Marcott plot has a lot of smoothed data followed by data less smoothed. Isn’t the recent past by definition, cherry picked when compared to 500s or 1000s of years? The recent past can easily appear hyperactive.

      • The upward spike has a realistic magnitude and is based on measurements. The skeptics are hoping other spikes are hidden by the smoothing, but they would have no cause as plainly obvious as the recent one. The general pattern fits Milankovitch until the last century, and there are no surprises there for the AGWers while the skeptics are probably very surprised and mystified by this spike, if not the Holocene as a whole.

      • Ragnaar, the recent spike in the Marcott plot is highly misleading. Marcott et al themselves have admitted the spike in their reconstruction has no validity due to temporal resolution issues. Basically, the authors of the paper admit the spike is due to their methodology not being appropriate for the endpoints.*

        The Mann et al 2008 reconstruction is no better. The authors of that paper have actually admitted their conclusions are wrong if you withhold a few proxies known to be uncalibratable to modern temperatures (which the Mann 2008 process required for a proxy to be used). That problem, incidentally, is what led to those proxies being used upside down. The reality is using the proxies rightside up would have been wrong too, but it at least wouldn’t have been embarrassingly wrong.

        *There’s an additional issue where Marcott et al redated proxies in a way which was wrong. That contributed to the spike as well. Regardless of it though, there would not have been a spike like there was with a methodology that could actually handle endpoints properly.

      • Don Monfort

        Somebody needs to get a life.

        The pause has done killed the cause.

      • By the way, if you want the details on problems with Mann 2008, I wrote a short eBook which shows all the details of what I just said about it. The eBook doesn’t cover all the problems there are in the Mann 2008 paper (I don’t think even a full-length book could do that), but it does provide a good explanation of the paper and its central flaws, plus full documentation/references for its claims.

        I announced it in this post, but you can find a direct link to it here:

        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00YDZ41IK/

        I don’t know that anyone here would want to buy it, and it’s fine if they don’t. I have a standing offer to send free PDF copies of it to anyone who is interested. So if you want to read it and don’t want to spend any money, just let me know where I can send a copy.

        And if you don’t want to post your e-mail address publicly, you can e-mail me about it at my name (first and last, separated by a period) at Gmail.

      • @DM: The pause has done killed the cause.

        The pause is dead, Don. Get over it.

      • TE, whether or not population growth is or will slow down, it’s still projected to grow by another 2 billion by 2050. That’s 2 billion more people that will add to the demand for energy, And you haven’t addressed the fact that the developing world is still developing which will also increase energy demand. And this most likely won’t slow or stop anytime this century

      • I am not sure we have a reliable proxy for the global Holocene Optimum temperature, and also “skeptics” don’t “trust” paleo evidence anyway, so good luck convincing them of this.

        It’s worse than that – the graphics I posted above are models.

        However, they depict what your chart of proxies is missing – seasonality.

        The HCO summers got a lot more summer sunshine and a lot less winter sunshine, hence: hotter summers and colder winters. The proxy study doesn’t indicate this even though we understand the orbital forcing cause.

      • Jim D

        The upward spike has a realistic magnitude and is based on measurements. The skeptics are hoping other spikes are hidden by the smoothing, but they would have no cause as plainly obvious as the recent one.

        It’s hard for natural proxies to show resolution and magnitude. Many of them will reverse their proxy response during temperature highs thus flattening the record even before Mann and Marcott decide which side up to read them. Don, if I know this you know this already, which leads one to believe that you might be disingenuous. Science reporters can be excused for ignorance on a complex topic like climate science but you have to be held to a higher standard being here as long as you have.

        Dr. Pratt, the same goes for you. It should provide you little comfort that the consensus is based on mis-information and religiosity rather than science, which I’m sure we both have dedicated our lives to. Climate science hurts the cause of science from what I’ve seen in the last 7-8 months of close investigation. How can you parrot “the pause is dead” like some high school kid when you know that Karl et al (2015) smells to high heaven.

  28. I too, like you, Tonyb was slightly thrown by the term ‘neo-sceptic’. I made a few enquiries and found out that it is meant to be (a) a very bad thing to be, and (b) a common symptom of classic Anthropogenic Factor Delta Depression (AFDD) that has many causes but inevitably creates an outlook, within a sufferer, that associates any change in any measurable attribute which can be traced back, with or without peer review, to a Human source to be a bad, very bad thing (see (a) above)
    Hope this helps.

  29. catweazle666

    I find it somewhat ironic that after all these years when one of the biggest slurs that the Warmists have used to belittle AGW sceptics was to liken them to Creationists, all of a sudden the World’s most pre-eminent Warmist is the biggest Creationist of all.

    Strange times…

    • Who dat?

    • War makes for strange bedfellows.

    • Catholics aren’t creationists…

      • to expand on that: Catholics don’t believe the creation account in the bible is literal

      • The Vatican accepts the extraterrestrial life hypothesis. i’m not sure where they are on origin of the universe. They’ve come a long way though since Galileo. And, I think now they are trying to anticipate the curve to stay hip with young Catholics. Religions that discount the young are uncovered by archaeologists from time to time.

    • So, now we have even more evidence that global warming is a religion, not science.

    • Unlike “skeptics” who are more set in their ways against chosen areas of science, the Pope does appear to accept the science of evolution. He is more modern in that respect.

      • Jimd

        Just because we are not fully on board with CAGW does not mean that we believe smoking is good for you, that we should use every bit of fossil fuel available, even in the Arctic OR that we do not accept evolution.

        You really do have a stereotypical view of sceptics that matches no one I have ever come across.

        tonyb

      • I only refer to gaps in their discussion on future CO2 levels. In fact any discussion on future CO2 levels is missing from anything they say, making me think they have not considered this factor in their reasoning. To me, this is a central issue, whether or not they are uncertain of its effect. Surely it is not much to ask.

      • Jim D,

        You keep referring to “gaps” in their discussion.

        It isn’t a matter of a gap or refusing to discuss it. As I have already pointed out, why should we follow you into a 700 ppm discussion when you avoid the one that comes before it. Namely, the lack of evidence for a doubling of the concentration to be of concern.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        The acceptance of evolution is a long established catholic tradition, unrelated to Pope Francis. It is amusing when the left tries to get into the heads of others they disagree with; like there’s got to be something wrong with them because they disagree with me. Would it occur to you that skeptics may not all be set in their ways against chosen areas of science? If you are now broadening the meaning of skeptic there is a risk of confusing things. How would you describe the many liberals who are opposed to childhood vaccinations but also catastrophists regarding climate change?

        Would it occur to you that, regarding the skeptics of CAGW, we are not skeptical of science. I think it would accurate to say that we are skeptical only of CAGW.

        Richard

      • timg56, no the science has given you several ways of relating emissions to future temperatures, so now the discussion is which emission scenario are we going to be following. The “skeptics” have avoided the scenario discussion because they have not yet even considered that the science is possibly correct. They call themselves “skeptics” which allows for possible truth in the science, but actually they are the d-word when they do this, and you can tell by their refusal to even discuss future CO2 levels. They seem to know that defending 700 ppm would look crazy, so that way lies grief for their argumentation in the op-eds.

      • Richard, I don’t confuse AGW skeptics with Creationists. In fact, according to polls slightly more people in the US believe in AGW than in evolution, which I find interesting. CAGW is a meme that is not actually the science itself. The science just gives probabilities of temperatures for emission scenarios (WG1), and even this is denied before you get to impacts where you would add the C in WG2. They have not accepted the science of AGW as in WG1 which is the whole IPCC sensitivity range including its uncertainty.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        Thank you for responding.

        Richard

      • Jim D: “the science has given you several ways of relating emissions to future temperatures”

        And what science would that be Jim? Science gives us an estimated rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2 concentration in a closed system with no feedbacks. Everything else is modeling output.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “timg56, no the science has given you several ways of relating emissions to future temperatures”

        No it hasn’t.

        Stop making stuff up.

      • Here. It is quite a linear relationship. The “skeptics” have not come up with an alternative to this yet which must be very disappointing for their side of policymakers. They’ve got nothing to combat this with. Where is CATO when you need them?

  30. Apologies that this is a bit OT. But this is why I see petroleum E&P as high tech. From the article:

    Remember the mission of drilling for shale oil: You’re going to drill down vertically for about two miles below the earth’s surface in the shale resources of the Bakken or Three Fork formations, and then you’re going to start drilling laterally for up to three miles in a roughly horizontal direction, guided by sophisticated computer equipment that “geo-steers” the direction of the lateral drilling to stay in the optimal areas of the shale reservoir! Each drilling site has one or more professional, certified geologists, along with petroleum engineers, who help supervise the directional drilling, based on 3-D seismic imaging of the subterranean structure that helps identify and target the fluids-rich shale reservoirs.

    In the same way that computer technologies have revolutionized industries like ride-sharing transportation, special effects in movies, surgery and medical procedures, motor vehicles, architecture and engineering, medical and diagnostic procedures, smartphones, computers and devices, advanced manufacturing, 3-D printing, etc., advanced computer technologies have revolutionized oil and gas extraction, which is one of 50 industries identified by the Brookings Institution that constitute America’s Advanced Industries Sector. As I mentioned in Part I of this series, the general public is probably unaware of the fact that the oil and gas business is a very, very high-tech industry that uses cutting-edge, advanced engineering, geological and drilling technologies that continually advance and improve. The technological innovation that unlocked the nation’s oceans of shale resources hasn’t stopped but instead has actually intensified in the Bakken, Permian Basin, Eagle Ford and Marcellus regions. New ideas, technologies and ways of cracking the shale code emerge daily, and the oil and gas industry is now entering a new wave of innovation and advances that is being called Shale 2.0.

    In contrast to the advanced technologies involved in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the technologies involved to produce renewable energies like wind and solar power are relatively low-tech and primitive – centuries-old technology in the case of windmills.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/3272015-top-10-things-i-learned-on-my-summer-trip-to-the-bakken-oil-fields-part-ii

    • Excellent post jim2! The modern exploratory rig is a computer with an attached drill bit. It is only going to get better. Peak oil is pure bullpeaky!

      • well earlier on we had a skeptic claiming there wasn’t enough fossil fuels to ever reach 700ppm but now you are saying peak oil is a myth (so there is no limit?)

        It’s quite confusing to an outside observer what climate skeptics are really arguing and how they are so rising CO2 isn’t dangerous.

      • mebakhet – when it comes to global warming and fossil fuels, you really have to do your own research and form your own opinion. Google crude oil prices and you’ll get a wide range of predictions – and they can’t all be right.

      • I don’t feel any need to be consistent with the statements of other “skeptics”. I consider myself not gullible. As for peak oil, it is nothing to worry about. Prices have been very stable despite massive growth in India and China. If oil becomes scarce ( expensive), we will find other sources of energy. I like Jim Hansen’s position on nuclear power. He is very worried about CAWG, but I think he is right about nuclear.

      • patmcguinness

        nebakhet: “well earlier on we had a skeptic claiming there wasn’t enough fossil fuels to ever reach 700ppm but now you are saying peak oil is a myth (so there is no limit?)”

        Given the ocean has about 37,000 Gigatonnees of carbon, about 70x the atmosphere, and throwing in Hnery’s law (rise in atmospheric Co2 will raise ocean CO2, and the revelle factor (of about 10) wrt carbonate balance that reduces that by factor of 10, you get 7/8ths of emissions *eventually* going into the ocean. With a capacity of about 3000 GT for each doubling of CO2, or about 300 years worth of current emissions. (There are claims that the uptake will run out of capacity alot sooner but there is zero science behind that, at elast wrt ocean uptake; the science is clear that the deep ocean is a very big carbon sink.)

        So, yeah, if we lower emissions by about 30%, the land and ocean uptake will be significant enough that we could be emitting at that rate for centuries, letting the deep ocean eventually get most of it, and never hit 700ppm. One of several dirty little secrets the Warmists will never admit to (but is there if read the real fine print on the science).

        Do we have 3000GT of fossil fuels to burn? We have 300 years of coal, but most of it will never be used. we have maybe 80 years of oil and gas. Whether it is used depends on the shape of futre technology. IMHO, the age of fossil fuels will end before we get there… and get to 700ppm.

  31. The piece by John Perkins [ Nature: Beware of climate neo-skepticism (calls out JC and Steve Koonin) ] makes statement about ” the risks of ‘tipping points’ with large, nonlinear responses. ”

    This illustrates a common misunderstanding about nonlinear dynamics: They are far more likely to be exceptionally stable than other systems. In fact, the stabilities in dynamic nonlinear systems are best described as “attractors” — the system moves toward the stable attractors, even when perturbed away temporarily. If one thinks of a old-fashioned nut-dish, with two concave areas (one for cashews, one for peanuts) and then in imagination rolls a marble into the nut-dish system, the marble will end up in one of two attracting bowl bottoms. A salad bowl is a system with one attractor — the bottom of the bowl — a marble let roll down anywhere on the inside at any angle will be attracted to the bottom.

    In geologic history, he Earth climate system appears to be a two-attractor system: Ice Ages and Inter-glacials. Inter-glacials themselves seem to have be a multi-attractor system with warm periods and little ice ages, or perhaps, as Wyatt and Curry (2013) posits, a period-8 cyclical multi-attractor system, the Stadium Wave.

    The worry about a “tipping point” is that we might shift from our current Inter-glacial into the other attractor — an Ice Age. And that would be bad bad bad.

    (No, I’m not a fan of Global Cooling either — but if the climate is a two-attractor system, the “other one” is an Ice Age.)

    • OMG – rationality?

    • In geologic history, he Earth climate system appears to be a two-attractor system: Ice Ages and Inter-glacials. Inter-glacials themselves seem to have be a multi-attractor system with warm periods and little ice ages, or perhaps, as Wyatt and Curry (2013) posits, a period-8 cyclical multi-attractor system, the Stadium Wave.

      AFAIK this is a very simplistic picture for a system that is constantly being forced by overwhelming solar changes (seasons). Not to mention that, unless Salby is correct, the CO2 level is higher than it’s been for 6MY or so, since before the Himalayas/Tibetan Plateau reached its present configuration and the Isthmus of Panama closed. So we’re in totally new territory.

      • AK | June 20, 2015 at 9:36 pm
        the CO2 level is higher than it’s been for 6MY or so,

        What is magic about 6MY? If this is correct, CO2 is now significantly lower than it has been for most of the earth’s history.

      • What is magic about 6MY?

        Just that AFAIK the “best evidence” (barring Salby) is that it was before that time that the pCO2 was higher.

        CO2 is now significantly lower than it has been for most of the earth’s history.

        That doesn’t matter. The primary driver of climate is almost certainly continental configuration. The Earth’s continents have never been in the configuration (even roughly) that they’ve been for the last million years or so, in all the 1-3 billion years there’s (arguably) been oxygen in the atmosphere. And all the time they’ve been in the current (rough) configuration, the pCO2 has evidently been lower than it is today, much less than it appears to be heading for.

        And that completely leaves out the ecosystem(s). Whole new ecosystems based on C4 grasses have evolved during the last 10MY. More than half of that has been during the late low-pCO2 period. In fact, IMO, there’s a high probability that the decline in pCO2 between ~12MYA and 5MYA was involved in a positive feedback loop with the evolution of the present C4-based ecosystems.

        Thus, as I said, we’re in totally new territory. While the probability of a “snowball earth” or even “hothouse earth” scenario is probably vanishingly small, there’s a good probability that the “climate” is moving into new attractor-land.

      • Ak

        “AFAIK this is a very simplistic picture for a system that is constantly being forced by overwhelming solar changes (seasons). Not to mention that, unless Salby is correct, the CO2 level is higher than it’s been for 6MY or so, since before the Himalayas/Tibetan Plateau reached its present configuration and the Isthmus of Panama closed. So we’re in totally new territory.”

        It is precisely because of the Isthmus of Panama and the Himalayas that we need not panic. Study yes, panic no. The believers in the new ecogreenie religion are willing to sacrifice the poor to appease their angry post- enlightenment God. Funny how the high priests and political elites always find some unfortunate schmo among the poor to carry a message to the netherworld. You won’t see Al Gore mothball his private jet or Ms. Obama reduce her vacation entourage. Nope.

    • I’m not so sure Kip. There may indeed be bifurcations around in climate, probably more associated with cold climates than with warm ones. The question is how does the risk compare to all the other risks mankind confronts.

    • “In geologic history, he Earth climate system appears to be a two-attractor system: Ice Ages and Inter-glacials. ” Now that is a strangely attractive theory! The ice age cycles have only been around for the last few million years, so maybe not, unless the first 4.45 billion years was just the transient response. Humor aside, you have some good ideas. :) The climate under two miles of ice is quite nasty!

    • Don’t forget the third state which is the iceless hothouse that existed prior to 35 million years ago when CO2 levels were not much higher than 500 ppm and sea levels were much higher. This is more relevant for the possible futures. The largest tipping points relate to ice coverage.

      • Happy father’s day, yimmy. Are you still going to be here all day entertaining us with those scintillating comments? We could do without you for a little while. Really.

      • Nah the largest tipping point is when the oceans boil.

      • “the largest tipping point is when…”

        …Big Al hops on the scale. badump bump

        This is a fun Climate Game. ;)

        Andrew

      • Nonsense JimD. See the Berner curve for Phanerozoic CO2 – levels were as high as 7000 (yes,3 zeros) ppm and there was no runaway greenhouse effect. More importantly, the configuration of the continents is very different today. Presently, ocean currents are driven by coriolis force and constrained by continents. A single super continent enables a very different climate. I think you know this, so I suspect you are being disingenuous. You can do better.

      • When you consider that the sun has been strengthening slowly and use more up-to-date paleoclimate by Royer for example, you don’t get anything like you are referring to. Only what lies ahead may be extreme.

  32. For the past 500 years, mankind has lived in FEAR OF REALITY.

    E.g., the current AGW scare is a continuation of an irrational response almost 500 years ago to the report by Copernicus in 1543 that Earth and the other planets all orbit a giant fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the solar system.

    Precise measurements and observations on the Sun and other parts of the solar system have revealed that this fountain of energy is the creator, destroyer and sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the solar system [1].

    The fountain of energy in the Sun’s core is powered by neutron repulsion, the source of energy in cores of

    1. Atoms heavier than 150 amu, like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The expanding Universe

    We cannot control, but must not fear or ignore, the pulsar at the core of the Sun that created and sustains every atom, life and world in the solar system today.

    References:

    1. “Solar Energy,” Adv. Astron. (submitted 1 Sept 2104; published privately 17 Mar 2015)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

  33. John Costigane

    Judith,

    Glad to see you are enjoying your visit here. i would like to see you appear on a TV show, preferably on the BBC, but they may well be quaking with fear at the prospect.

    My reason for joining in at US websites is the more open debate there, and playing the long game means focusing on America. Britain will be the last domino to fall.

    • Last July the BBC ordered all of it’s reporters to deny coverage of climate change denialists. Now JC is not a denialist (although Mann called her one) but I’m quite certain they would see her as one.

    • John – “…long game…America…” I recommend following the California experiment very closely. We have a large population of useful idiots that vote for all sorts of destructive nonsense.

  34. David Springer

    The pope also eschews birth control and abortion.

    I wonder if progressives that suddenly love Catholicism so much are now eschewing birth control and abortion too.

    • I’m having trouble finding quotes from the leaders of Islam that claim man made climate change is real. Anybody seen a fatwa or official Islamic statement that claims AGW is real? I would say you are in agreement with their line of thought on this subject.

      • From the article:

        Praise be to Allaah.
        The problem of global warming is regarded as one of the most serious environmental problems of our time, concerning which experts have held many conferences and published many articles about its dire consequences. These experts attribute this rise in temperature to the accumulation of gases in the atmosphere that is caused by factories, power stations and car emissions, which has led to a rise in air temperature and ocean temperature, which threatens to melt the ice-caps and cause flooding of land, which is expected to change the features of some countries completely and to change the climate of vast areas on earth.

        We could not find anything about this in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, apart from one hadeeth which some scholars who are specialized in sharee’ah and environmental sciences say has to do with this topic, and some of the most prominent specialists in the world agreed with them, which is that the Arabian Peninsula will again become meadows and rivers. They attribute that to a complete change in the earth’s climate and the melting of the Arctic ice cap due to global warming.

        What we think is that Arabia becoming meadows and rivers again is something concerning which there is no doubt, but we cannot be certain that it will happen because of the melting of the ice cap, because that is known only to Allaah. But we mention this view because it is relevant and because it has been said by some specialists, both Muslims and kaafirs.

        The hadeeth is:

        It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until the land of the Arabs once again becomes meadows and rivers.” Narrated by Muslim (157). Meadows refers to spacious land with a great deal of vegetation.

        http://islamqa.info/en/110197

      • jim2 – Any thing official? It would be surprising to see the head cleric in Meca come out with a fatwa that says burning carbon is bad.

        But hey the pope in da’ man! I bet if I wash my solar panels with holy water they will work better too.

  35. From the Nature article “Neo-sceptics do not deny anthropogenic global warming, but minimize its projected effects..”” No they look at the data and conclude the consensus has been maxmized from the positive feedbacks in the models to the RCP8.5 emisssion scenario to the effects of warming, especially wrt “extreme weather”

  36. “neo-skepticism” As usual, I’m tired and annoyed that people publish stuff that is basically name-calling – or an attempt to seek out a really effective name to call their opponents.

    “Physicists, biologists and social scientists should be focusing more on risks, rather than simply pursuing more-precise estimates of physical parameters that are not linearly related to the most worrisome hazards.” Hmm. Not linearly related? Indeed: the most worrisome hazards are a fat tail in a pdf; they go down much faster than linearly if the ECS estimate is decreased. Does it matter to this author how likely the risks are?

  37. I think it is relevant to note in this week’s Climate Etc. column on politics and policy that the Wall Street Journal in its weekends column by Jo Craven McGinty extensively quotes Peter Gleick about California’s water crisis notwithstanding that he was caught committing identity fraud in obtaining documents from the Heartland Institute. Also, because his own institute hired their own lawyer to conduct a farcical “investigation” which supposedly cleared him but the details of the “investigation” were not released I believe that his credibility as a scientist should be shot. Apparently, not at the Wall Street Journal. This illustrates one of the most serious issues in “climate science”: there are virtually no ethical standards. (See also Michael Mann)

    JD

  38. From the article:

    Moreover, as my colleague Steven Pinker has emphasized in response to another piece I wrote about the pope’s encyclical, “The pontiff continues in the millennia-long Catholic tradition of vilifying technology, commerce, and ordinary people enjoying the fruits of material progress. So he puts the blame on economics and consumerism. But the solution to climate change is not to moralize from on high and implore people—particularly the poor people whom he claims to sympathize with—to learn to be abstemious for the common good and do without central heating, electric lights, and efficient transport. Billions of people aren’t going to do that. Not even the pope—especially not the pope—is going to do that.”

    http://thebulletin.org/pope%E2%80%99s-encyclical-environment-not-even-close8413

  39. A new take on the Pope’s encyclical. And one with which I agree, in part.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420058/laudato-si-forces-climate-challenge-activists-consider-tradeoffs-oren-cass

    “The encyclical says that ‘for poor countries, the priorities must be to eliminate extreme poverty and to promote the social development of their people.’ Developed countries, meanwhile, owe an ‘ecological debt’ to developing ones and ‘ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries.’

    These statements only compound the difficulties awaiting diplomats in Paris, entrenching the position of the developing world and driving up demands that would not have been met anyway. They are the equivalent of building momentum toward a Mideast peace summit with a declaration that Israel has no right to exist. Yes, it is a solution, but not one likely to improve the tenor of talks.”

    Restated, the author’s point is that the encyclical is not just rabidly pro-decarbonization, but so honest about it that it will pose more problems for warmists than skeptics. I agree that honest debate about how the planet is to be decarbonized would require progressives to advocate for the very type of political changes about which skeptics sound the alarm.

    His only error is in thinking progressives will even acknowledge the parts of the encyclical they find problematic. You will see cherry picked quotes galore, with no mention of the more problematic aspects of the encyclical. How many here even have even seen that the Pope wrote that environmentalism requires opposition to abortion (other than my previous comment here on the issue)?

    • Gary, I’m fine with a papacy (though not with this sly mediocrity, Francis), I’m fine with church (and secular) opposition to abortion, and I’m fine with ever-increasing population in a world where people just can’t die fast like in the good old days. Since the only population control that’s any good is the growth and eventual dominance of a middle class, I can hardly object to assisting others to get what I have, especially since their benefit can be mine.

      Now, how does this airhead pope (or whoever writes his material) expect those third world bills to be paid “by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy” in the developed world? GHG-spouting Asia already makes all that affordable stuff we (and Francis) like to buy and use. The developed world is already assisting the formerly impoverished world by being its customer. Should we make ourselves poorer customers as well as shrinking our capacity to give aid? The richest country in the world, Norway, was utterly impoverished after WW2. Did we help it, or Japan, by limiting our consumption or incomes in the 1950s?

      One good bout of volcanism in an underpowered world could thin population the old-fashioned organic way. Have these meddlesome priests even thought about real-thing climate change? They think we should pay an “environmental debt” by “decarbonising”? We need to get richer in the least wasteful ways while reducing energy dependency and costs. That means no more white elephants or goat-sacrifices to Gaia. And – never mind the scandals – elect George Pell pope. (Can be done. Papal elections are a bit like climate data. Where there’s a will…)

      • A couple of pieces the Pope should read in today’s Australian. Andrew Smith of Shell notes: “…we must remember that no nation has prospered or progressed by demonising, or stopping its citizens accessing, the most cost-efficient forms of ¬energy. Rather, we must factor into our choices the carbon impact of the energy we use. … Economic sustainability can be delivered only by creating the right balance and encouraging consumer choice, which in turn will deliver politically sustainable outcomes. All participants in our national energy debate should remember that moves to remove consumer choice or value will ultimately fail and in the process hamper Australia’s prosperity, putting at risk jobs for our children.

        [My letter to The Australian on this: “Andrew Smith’s article is timely and excellent, except for one thing. I disagree with Smith’s assertion that no reasonable voice would suggest that as a society we should ignore sustainability. The nature of existence is constant change: nothing is sustainable. We need a mindset attuned to responding positively to our ever-changing world, not one which assumes that we should be constrained by existing parameters.”]

        Brett Hogan of the IPA writes: “It is clearly just as important to people in India and the developing world as it is to people in Australia that their electricity system is reliable and affordable. Yet while the Indian government is pursuing policies to provide a higher standard of living for its people, Australian coal activists want to deny them that choice. The morality of seeking to deny people in other countries the privileges that we enjoy here, when we have to ability to help out, is deeply suspect.

        “While solar and wind power may very well have a place in future world energy supply, not even the most earnest activist can change the laws of physics and force solar power to work at night or in cloudy weather, wind power to work in calm conditions, or hydro-electric power to work in times of drought or in areas without large rivers or mountains. Increasing the supply of Australian coal to India would permanently improve the lives of millions of people — a goal worthy of strong public and policymaker support.”

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/meeting-energy-needs-must-remain-a-matter-of-choice/story-e6frg6zo-1227408623949

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/increasing-coal-export-to-energy-hungry-india-a-worthy-cause/story-e6frg9if-1227408537859

        Faustino

      • richardswarthout

        Mosomoso

        You’re right. I am a devoted Catholic and a lay minister in the church. This pope is an embarrassment, but fortunately encyclicals carry little weight. And this one has enough equivocal and confusing statements to be filed in the category of unimportant, unrealistic, and soon to be forgotten documents.

        Congratulations to you, Beth, and all our friends down under on the football win over Brazil.

        Richard

      • mosomoso,

        “Now, how does this airhead pope (or whoever writes his material) expect those third world bills to be paid ‘by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy’ in the developed world?”

        My understanding of the process is that a lot of the writing is done first by underlings in the Vatican. But the final product undoubtedly reflects the thought (or lack thereof) of the Pope. He has to approve the final draft. And this document is frankly an embarrassing effort.

        I have seen defenses in various sites on the web, and they invariably discuss only select passages of the encyclical. No conservative or skeptic that I have seen is actually defending the economic and historical illiteracy that permeates this monstrosity (including the passage you point out).

        My impression of the man about two years into his papacy is that of one who makes a great show of humility (staying in a small apartment, no Popemobile) while demonstrating intellectual vanity, not in the principles he supports, but in his own ability to ‘fix’ the world. He is rather clearly in the process of purging the Vatican of conservative dissent.

        Like the typical hard left progressive, he is confident that he and those like him could run the world much better than the stupid saps who vote in elections. He is like a modern Pharisee, whose self-perceived superiority is defined not by his adherence to biblical mandates, but by devotion to the dictates of political progressivism.

      • Understandable the Pope’s stand on abortion but not
        on contraception. Most families don’t go fer the round
        dozen, I’d surmise, and hard on third world women who
        might prefer just two or three children.

      • Richard,
        Thanks fer congrats on football win.
        Serf down under.

      • beththeserf,

        The ‘consensus’ on birth control is no different from the consensus on globalwarmingclimatechange. Everyone knows with certainty the right position, without any need for real thought, because…well…everybody just knows.

        The Catholic Church’s position on birth control is based on not just moral, but prudential reasons as well. Like any good skeptic, it would be well to at least wonder what those reasons might be.

        Oh, and from my reading of history and politics, family size in poor countries is based more on the need to have someone support you in your old age than anything else. People have kind of known how to minimize their own birth rate for a pretty long time, when they want to.

      • Don Monfort

        The peronista pope ain’t shiite. Who cares what he says.

      • Gary M, I am familiar with the reasons, number 1
        original sin. Bein’ a serf, don’t care fer top down
        authority taking a narrow view of the freedom given
        to God’s creatures, including women, to decide fer
        themselves how they should live. No disrespect
        intended to those who adhere to religious doctrines.

      • Gary M’s : family size in poor countries is based more on the need to have someone support you in your old age than anything else

        Correct.

        Additional factor is lack of education. Which is why it has been long known that the best return on the dollar is to invest in education, particularly the women.

    • patmcguinness

      ”These statements only compound the difficulties awaiting diplomats in Paris, entrenching the position of the developing world”

      Bingo. It is ethically comprehensive, economically ignorant, scientifically naive, … and politically unhelpful.

      Unhelpful at least to warmist in the UN because the moral formula the Pope advances is the rich developed world has overconsumed and owes a debt to the poor nations. So the poor nations are off the hook in this calculus. Wasn’t that tried in Doha and elsewhere. Basically the poor nations will be arguing “we should be able to develop like the west did, with coal plants galore, unless THEY pay for the solar and other RE technologies.”

      Meanwhile, Obama’s EPA is passing regs that will cost American electricity users something like $300 billion now until 2030, for a few thousandths of a degree impact on climate. Like paying $10,000 for a homepathic cure for athelete’s foot. Bizarre. Chance of USA ponying up money for the poor nations while at the same time the poor nations do not restrain themselves is … um, small.

  40. richardswarthout

    I’m watching the news and the gatherings in Charleston South Carolina. The people are coming together in prayer and unity. Sometimes we see, after mass shootings and the deaths of African-Americans, protests and violence. But this is not happening in Charleston. In fact, just the opposite. It is pleasing to see.

    Richard

  41. David L. Hagen

    Biased Advisors
    The Pope’s greatest error was in excluding advisors who did not agree with the climate alarmists (atheists) who had his ear.
    Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

    The Pope has rudimentary training in chemistry, but appears not to have applied that or critically read the document in his name.
    Is Pope Francis a Chemist?

    • David L. Hagen

      What’s more infallible? The Pope or the climate models?

      We are presently seeing a disturbing warming of the climatic system

      Laudato Si Section 23
      There has been no global warming for 18 years 6 months! from RSS data.
      The Pope joins the EU in a sad world of make believe

      There are two great acts of political make-believe in our time, so all-pervasive that it is hard for us to grasp just how much effect they are having on our lives . . .When future historians come to look back on our age, few things will puzzle them more than the extent to which our politics became so dominated and bedevilled by two belief-systems, each based on an obsessive attempt to force into being an immensely complicated political construct which defied economic, psychological and scientific reality.

      One of these was the peculiar way in which Europe’s politicians, with full support from the US, had set out to unite their continent under a form of supra-national government unlike anything the world had seen before. The other was the way those same politicians fell for the idea not just that human activities were disastrously changing Earth’s climate, but that by taking the most drastic measures they could somehow change it back again. . . .
      The essence of the “European” fantasy was not just that it could gradually weld all Europe together in “ever closer union” by overriding and eliminating the kind of nationalism which had led to wars; but that it could continually expand its own “empire”. We now see in all directions how that sense of national interest cannot be eliminated. . . .
      Similarly, the last desperate throw by the EU and the US to achieve a world agreement next December to “halt climate change” is not going to succeed, not just because the “science” on which it is based is so increasingly questionable, but because the emerging powers of the East, led by India and China, are simply not prepared to go along with it. If the West wishes to commit economic suicide, so be it. In their own national interest, they are not willing to follow. . . .

      • patmcguinness

        That make-believe is based on the wish-fulfillment belief that if you say something long and hard enough, you make it true. If only you BELIEVE, like Peter Pan, you can make things come true.

        This is not old time religion, this comes from watching too many Disney movies.

  42. Thought fer Terday’s Solstice.

    ‘Who so ever shall take upon him to choose and alter,
    usurps the authority of judging, and should look well
    about him and make it his business to discern clearly
    the defect of what he would abolish and the virtue of
    what he is about to introduce.’

    Montaigne.

  43. What’s the cost of CO2 emissions abatement with wind turbines?
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17447&page=0
    Comments welcome

  44. David L. Hagen

    EPA Climate Rule Will Result In Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Doubling
    June 20th, 2015 by James Ayre

    A new report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that the new carbon emissions rules from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) will result in coal-fired power plant shutdowns potentially more than doubling.

    To be more specific, the new rules (which are being supported by the Obama administration) could result in a projected 90 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power plants being retired by the year 2040. This compares against the roughly 40 GW of coal-fired power plants that would likely be shutdown anyways by 2040 in the absence of the new carbon emissions rules.

    Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan, EIA Release date: May 22, 2015

  45. WTI crude oil still around $60. Price risk is probably weighted to the downside. The rig count shows signs of stabilizing.

  46. A couple of health related topics noted above. Another notable publication is the latest Lancet/UCL commission report on health and climate change.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60931-X/abstract

    As far as I can see so far having only got through about a third of it, the report avoids providing a concise summary of the health impacts of climate change (this is also missing from the previous 2009 Lancet piece on climate change, and IPCC 5). This is surprising (or not), since it is very easy to find – because the WHO website provides the data according to high income, upper middle, lower middle and low income countries. Without challenging the assumptions, the WHO estimate that climate change has resulted in 140,000/ year excess mortality thus far, and increasing to 250,000 per year in 2030 – 2050.

    So even accepting that the WHO estimates are correct, the impact of climate change at present is, for high income countries 230 deaths or 0.002% of all cause mortality, and 0.06% for Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). For all other countries, the corresponding numbers are 0.32% mortality and 0.2% DALYs. This shows 2 things – one for high income countries the effect is so small it can barely be measured, and secondly if low income countries become high income countries the health impact of climate change should virtually disappear.

    The WHO state that these estimates are likely to be underestimates – but even if they are 10 or 20 times underestimated – for high income countries this is still barely 1 % of the global burden of disease. In 2009, the Lancet claimed that climate change was the great public health threat of the 21st century. In 2015, the emphasis has changed slightly, now – adaptation and mitigation is now the greatest public health opportunity of the 21st century. Either way – surely an amazing exercise in exageration and confabulation

  47. Leading German solar players call for end to minimum price

    Polysilicon producer Wacker, wholesaler and EPC Baywa r.e. and MVV, one of the lager utilities in Germany, have met in Berlin to announced that they will take a strong position in the upcoming discussions concerning the punitive tariff duties on Chinese solar modules and the minimum import price agreement (MIP).

    “All trade barriers should end,” says Christian Westermeier, vice president marketing, sales & application engineering at Wacker Chemie. He includes in his demand not only to abolish minimum prices on crystalline modules imported into the EU, but also the duties on solar glass imported to the EU and the minimum price agreement which Wacker has itself with the Chinese government on polysilicon imported to China.

    […]

    Representatives of all three companies assume that photovoltaic system prices could half in the coming five to seven years. Thus, photovoltaic energy generation would arrive by 2020 to 2022 on a cost level where it would be attractive to investors without any subsidy, added Holger Krawinkel, Head of Customer Experience at MVV Energie.