by Judith Curry
“Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change , siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.” [link]
“The court — which is unrelated to the European Union — ruled that Switzerland “had failed to comply with its duties” to combat climate change and meet emissions targets.
That, the court said, was a violation of the women’s rights, noting that the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees people “effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life.”
A group called Senior Women for Climate Protection, whose average age is 74, had argued that they were particularly affected because older women are most vulnerable to the extreme heat that is becoming more frequent.
“The court recognized our fundamental right to a healthy climate and to have our country do what it failed to do until now: that is to say taking ambitious measures to protect our health and protect the future of all,” said Anne Mahrer, a member of the group.”
Well fortunately I have some text prepared to help innoculate us from this fresh new climate hell of litigation.
There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
There is widespread international acceptance of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which enumerates 30 human rights. There is no mention of the word “climate” or the word “environment” in the UDHR. This is true also for the European Convention on Human Rights.
There are efforts in Europe to create a new human right to a safe, stable climate. From a decision by the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) [1]
“… environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life.”
From a 2019 Report written by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights:[2]
“There is now global agreement that human rights norms apply to the full spectrum of environmental issues, including climate change.”
Deductions based on a decision by the UNHRC and a Report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, do not create a new “human right” to be protected against the dangerous impacts of climate change. No attempt has been made by the UN to create international support for a new human right to be protected from climate change. Such a right is neither implicit or explicit in the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.
Even if Net Zero objectives were achieved globally by 2050, the climate would continue to change from natural weather and climate variability: volcanic eruptions, solar effects, large-scale oscillations of ocean circulations, and other geologic processes. Further, given the inertia in the climate system (particularly oceans and ice sheets), it would be many decades before there was any noticeable change in extreme weather/climate events and sea level rise after Net Zero was achieved.
Exaggeration of the risks from human-caused climate change lead to serious contradictions in context of the idea “that human rights offer protection against the impacts of dangerous climate change.”
Specifically with regards to the right to life, global mortality (per 100,000 people) from extreme weather and climate events have declined by 99% since 1920.[5] Between the period 1980 and 2016, global mortality (per 100,000 people) from extreme weather and climate events has dropped by 6.5 times.[6] For the mortality statistics since 1980, there is a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth.[7] Thus, an increase in wealth provides much greater and much more certain protection against climate-related risks than emissions reduction.
The trend in mortality statistics does not mean that weather and climate disasters have become less frequent or less intense. The trend implies that the world is now much better at preventing deaths from extreme weather and climate events than in the past. This has been accomplished through increasing wealth (driven by energy derived from fossil fuels), which provides better infrastructure, greater reserves, advance warnings, and greater recovery capacity.
The declining mortality statistics raise several issues and contradictions regarding the allegations that “human rights offer protection against the impacts of dangerous climate change”. What of the “rights” of people that died in the early part of the 20th century (or earlier) from extreme weather and climate events that were caused only by natural weather and climate variability? How were these deaths to be prevented at the time? Do deaths only count if they are alleged to be caused by human caused warming, but not by, for example, restricting access to safe cooking fuels?[8] Do deaths only count if they are alleged to be caused by human caused warming, but not by natural weather and climate variability? How is the cost of preventing deaths associated with extreme weather and climate events (whether natural or human caused) to be balanced with the costs of attempting to prevent the extremely larger number of deaths from a myriad of other causes?
The arguments supporting the putative right to a safe climate are significantly weakened once the adverse effects of the policies to bring about a safe climate on food production are understood. In addition, climate and energy policies have significant environmental impacts and cause environmental degradation. For instance, forest biomass-based fuel causes deforestation, and on-shore and off-shore wind turbines and solar parks may (and, in fact, do) harm the social fabric, real estate prices, nature, biodiversity, the scenery, and human health. The mining and manufacturing required for batteries, and other renewable energy-related goods and infrastructure cause adverse environmental and human health impacts, and renewable energy also causes CO2 emissions. Given that European Human Rights Court has taken the position that the right to life also protects against environmental degradation and health risks, these adverse environmental and health impacts associated with any policies to respond to the Court’s judgment would have to be taken into account.
Summary. There will be a continuing need for fossil fuels. Rapid restrictions to fossil fuels before cleaner energy is available interferes with more highly ranked sustainability goals – no poverty, no hunger, affordable and clean energy, and industry-innovation-infrastructure. There is no human right to a safe or stable climate. Apart from the lack of an international agreement, such a “right” contains too many contradictions to be meaningful.
[1] “CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 ,” United Nations Official Documents, September 23, 2020, https://www.un.org/en/delegate/page/un-official-documents.
[2] “Safe Climate: A Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment,” UNEP, October 1, 2019, https://www.unep.org/resources/report/safe-climate-report-special-rapporteur-human-rights-and-environment.
[[5] Bjorn Lomborg, “Welfare in the 21st Century: Increasing Development, Reducing Inequality, the Impact of Climate Change, and the Cost of Climate Policies,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 156 (July 2020): 119981, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119981.
[6] Giuseppe Formetta and Luc Feyen, “Empirical Evidence of Declining Global Vulnerability to Climate-Related Hazards,” Global Environmental Change 57 (July 2019): 101920, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.004.
[7] Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2020), 218.
[8] Charles N. Mock et al., eds., “Household Air Pollution from Solid Cookfuels and Its Effects on Health,” Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition: Injury Prevention and Environmental Health 7 (2017): 133–52, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0522-6_ch7.
[9] United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Right to Adequate Food, Fact Sheet No. 34, Geneva, April 2010, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/FactSheet34en.pdf
[10] United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Right to Adequate Food, Fact Sheet No. 34, Geneva, April 2010, p. 5 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/FactSheet34en.pdf
“extreme heat that is becoming more frequent”
Very brief Saharan plumes like in July 2022 and July 2019 rely on negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions and the associated more southerly and wavier jet stream. So they are more common during low solar periods, and rising CO2 forcing is expected to increase positive NAO states.
The major longer lasting positive NAO driven heatwaves are all discretely solar forced, as in 2003, 2006, 2013, and 2018, and we have actually been fortunate to have had so many warmer drier summers during a centennial solar minimum.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
The trouble with climate dissimulation like yours, is that whatever the lyrics the song is the same, and what is worse, its erstwhile facts fall flat on examination .
Not that you would know, never having taken , let alone passed a climate science course.
Our hostess’s included.
Vacuous drivel, and the dissimulation is all yours. Stop polluting the blog with your projections.
In the old days, governments used to build pyramids when they wanted to consume energy that provided no intrinsic value. At least they look cool and last a long time.
This perverse ruling suggests two insane things:
1. That human actions have caused whatever climate events that the elderly Swiss women are complaining about.
2. That human actions can miraculously ‘make climate safe’.
I lived in Switzerland for a winter 35 years ago. It was a strange one. There was an unbelievably warm and wet period running up to Christmas, rather analagous to an ‘atmospheric river’ in California. Rainfall occurred up to 3000m all over the alps, washing away almost all the non-glacier snow in Swiss Ski resorts. The hoteliers had a disastrous 8 weeks, since most people simply cancelled their bookings.
After the rainfall, there were stable high pressures from Moscow to Madrid for about 6-8 weeks. Weather was good for walking, not for ski-ing. We did a glacier ski tour normally done in March in January, and there wasn’t actually any snow atop the firn ice even at 3500m. We climbed down ladders to get onto the glacier (in March, we walked straight out of the tunnel onto snow, since metres of snow had accumulated by then).
In February, we had another unusually warm day at the end of a warm sunny week, with temperatures well over 20C at 1600m. This was followed by 5 days of snow, then rain, then snow, causing landslides to occur. Train lines were taken out. However, we were able to ski nicely for a week thereafter and then we had another week of blizzards, including hurricane force winds of 245kph at 3500m. The village I was working in was cut off for two days, trees were blocking rail lines in the valleys and children were blown so violently across the ice rink that it had to be shut for safety reasons. We didn’t demand ‘safety’, we bought ham, cheese, bread and wine and spent the windy afternoon safely indoors.
The month of April was also most unusual. It kept on snowing down to low altitudes right up to the end of the month, which didn’t help the hoteliers as they had mostly shut up until June.
That was the third bad winter in a row for the European Alps, a bit like a three year drought in California.
The next winter the snows came early, continued vigorously in December and the next few winters had some really great snow conditions.
If you want certain weather, I suggest you go live right in the middle of the Sahara desert. It may prove challenging to grow crops there, but you will know that the weather will be fairly consistent all through the year…..
Thanks Rhys
Fickle weather conditions do not prove climate change.
Empirical observations, like yours and many others, blow a hole in the models and claims of climate alarmists
Check out the effects of Tambora’s 1815 eruption on the following year’s weather. There are things which we can’t handle and it does make sense to adopt many wim-win options which work regardless of the nature, cause, Extent and direction of future climate or if a major food crop failed. The idea above seems like a job creation scheme for lawyers though.
Thanks for the prod. Checked the planetary disposition for Tambora.
Near conjunction of earth-jupiter plus new moon. Same/similar at Mt St Helens, Krakatoa, etc (and the 5th feb 2023 Turkey). The effects of the nearby planets, especially plus the position of the moon on seismic and climate, never features in modern studies. When history is replete with such connections.
(lawyers and snake oil make a good miracle mix).
This reminds me of the lyrics of Camelot:
It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That’s how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
Reminds me of protection sought from EMFs a while back. Hard to impossible for courts to deal with perceived harm and limited scientific understandings. Damage from such may greatly exceed benefits.
The next time you paint your self into a microwave oven, try quart of Roundup as a thirst quencher:
https://youtu.be/7jWyrbP0TJQ?si=BeFjrgX1k9ex8L07
Pingback: Climate Change- Old White Women Hit Hardest – small dead animals
What we have come to expect from the official scientists of climate catastrophism is all too predictable. Despite having no disenable impact whatsoever on climate, humanity is still guilty and no matter what we do or will ever do, we’re all doomed! We know what the radical climatologists are doing. The global warming establishment has become the ISIS of science, rounding up and stoning the productive for the crime of living, terrorizing the population and robbing our children of any opportunity to rise above the fear and ignorance of the society they were born into.
“The global warming establishment has become the ISIS of science, rounding up and stoning the productive ”
Citation, please.
Even California has a vote this time around: Trump or tripe in the classrooms? That’s the big Left vs. right issue that no one in the media is talking about. Nevertheless, the politically-motivated inculcation of global warming alarmism shines a spotlight on the dangers of ‘Common Core’ and a centralized, entrenched and too-big-to-fail government-education complex that determines what is written on the blackboard.
That’s the way the children of ISIS are raised- what could go wrong?
see, e.g., https://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/global-warming-a-radical-leftist-state-beheading/
Sorry old Wag- distasteful as Trump and Tripe may be, only tripe has enough nutritional value to earn its place on the prison menu.
Never mind the fact that historically many more people have died of extreme cold than extreme heat – but that doesn’t fit the Establishment’s Sacred Narrative, so here we are!
Who needs real snow when snow jobs work better in terms of political accomplishment. The gov pays better. At least short term.
Great post! Three additional points.
* Many more die from extreme cold than extreme heat – even in the US.
* We still have no evidence of increased frequency or intensity of tropical storms or tornadoes.
* The much ballyhooed increase in disaster costs is simply because we persist in putting expensive stuff in harm’s way.
What is a climate event? I thought examples were the little ice age or the younger dryas. Nobody has lived through one. Some have experienced part of one. I suppose you can say we are all experiencing the post little ice age climates but the term is nebulous and means different things to different folks so it obfuscates climate discussions. A smokey week in Montana is certainly not a climate event.
Is there a human right to have judges who are not idiots?
More Curry nonsense, for the conspiracy theory brigade
Dr D T Cummins PhD BSc DIC ARSM
So you believe someone promised a good climate? Who?
Listing all your qualifications after an opinionated statement but providing no evidence to back up your claims. That is just credentialism and a hit and run smear job isn’t it?
Damian Thomas Cummins
Your comment brought back a flood of memories about my son. Like the time 45 years ago, as a kindergartner, he was paired in a square with a little girl during a 9 zone soccer game and proceeded to introduce himself to her with his first name, his middle name, and his last name, with very distinct enunciation for each name and then told her everything about himself, including all his accomplishments during his previous 5 years, and then during break the little girl came up to her nearby mother and not realizing we were his parents, said “That kid is so weird.”
And the time that I asked him to sweep the basement and being very pleased with his work until a week later when I discovered that water was seeping up through the basement floor and looking at the flooded sump pump hole and realizing the sump pump was no longer working because he had swept all the debris into the hole thereby clogging up the sump pump.
And the times when he would watch Jeopardy with us at 7 pm and then go over to his friend’s house at 7:30 pm and watch on another channel the same Jeopardy show and wow his friend’s parents with his enormous performance at answering those Jeopardy questions.
And the time when I told him I would give him $10 if he would shovel the anticipated snow from the driveway after school and then coming home after work and seeing his friend Ed shoveling the snow instead of him and going inside to find him sipping a cola and watching TV. I asked him what Ed was doing shoveling instead of him. He said that he had told Ed he would pay him $5 to shovel. It was then that I knew he was destined for Wall Street, which is where he ended up.
Damian Thomas Cummins, thanks for a trip down memory lane.
What’s a Dick Arsemonkey?
BFD
“To any unprejudiced person reading this account the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.” ~ Freeman Dyson
Wagathon:
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
– Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009
http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
Spoken with the wisdom of a man who knows, the models can never be verified and that there’s a lot more to it than the simple mathematics a single variable catastrophist charlatans.
“I think the difference between me and most of the experts is that I think I have a much wider view of the whole subject. I was involved in climate studies seriously about 30 years ago. That’s how I got interested. There was an outfit called the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. I visited Oak Ridge many times, and worked with those people, and I thought they were excellent. And the beauty of it was that it was multi-disciplinary. There were experts not just on hydrodynamics of the atmosphere, which of course is important, but also experts on vegetation, on soil, on trees, and so it was sort of half biological and half physics. And I felt that was a very good balance.” Dyson (ibid)
“”I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change.” “I like to express heretical opinions, … ” ~ Freeman Dyson.
And of course, appeal to a dead false authority can’t tell us anything about what the climate has been doing for the last 4 years – global temperature measurements (and other measurements) can.
“Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.” ~ Dyson (ibid)
“…what the climate has been doing for the last 4 years…”
Who’s climate, compared to what, measured against what standards of authenticity?
During the Holocene, where I live was abundant in visitors from another continent, some who chose to stay in what is now the UK and British Isles.
It was a time of new enlightenment and opportunity even as the fossil fuel helped keep those folk warm at night. The land and weather promised them success from their agricultural know how and that made their travel worthwhile.
These people were anchored in their present and not afraid of silly predictive stories about what might become of them after another few decades of life.
Climates may go through myriad changes over time (short, medium, and long) and it helps to be anchored in reality and not in some mad professor’s idea of what will go wrong as compared to what could go right at the same time.
Lass,
Your quote has been trimmed to fit your need. You can’t ask a dead person about what has happened since they died. Sorry, you don’t understand.
Wag, how many decades ago was Manabe’s creaky Fortran code last run, let alone cited in theserious climate literature.
I miss Freeman , and you ought to read Disturbing the Universe- but nothing lasts forever.
Predicting climate is Bidenscience.
No, predicting climate, and continually improving/better understanding those predictions, is simply science. Sorry, you don’t understand the relationships between data and models nor between predictions, possibilities, and probabilities.
Polly: “Predicting climate…better understanding predictions”
LOL
Give me incremental measures of 30 years to untangle truths behind tea leaves, and I’ll give you a utopian dream.
Shortpants,
“Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
Not surprisingly, the fabrication of GCMs (General Circulation Models– the numerical models used by UN-approved global warming charlatans and climate change hoaxsters to simulate the laws of nature, the universe and everything to realize an ersatz digital reality they find useful to exaggerate the effects of CO2 on temperatures) to scare children, to stampede the superstitious and ignorant and to feather the nests of Leftist Western Academics in ivory towers who then spin prophecies of an impending Hot World catastrophe out of anti-science and hate-America babel, is not a productive activity in any economic sense. The global warming hysteria-Tower of Babel is useful only to help Leftists push their DC/Eurocommie political agenda.
Sure, Polly.
Fixing assertions upon expectations for a trend continuation isn’t skill; it’s a bookie placing a bet on odds.
I predict Biden will be President for another month, odds maker prediction skills say so, it’s science.
Climate activist Greta Thunberg gives us ’til 2030 to change our CO2-producing economies if we want to avoid certain doom. That is the ‘science’ of Western academia today.
Wagathon, this just in; humanity has 2 years left to either change climate for the better, or coffee bean production will likely be cut in half.
I wish I was kidding.
Undoubtedly Polly went long coffee beans.
Wag, can’t answer the science? Resort to conspiracy theories.
Pants, thanks for exposing us to your level of understanding of science.
Polly: “conspiracy theories”
So how can models be wrong when some appear to have guessed right over a 30 year period, no less; that’s one whole climate data point! And within a continuation trend pattern no less!!!!
Your color is as unimpeachable as your climate science cred, Polly.
“UN climate chief presses for faster action, says humans have 2 years left ‘to save the world’” ~AP (April 10th 2024) second I use
ganon
I can hear Freddie now saying “Vut, you vant me to think the Sydney Opera House is in trouble?
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/fc/12/0794D0EB-67DF-40DA-9BF4-22AB9DE45B57/IMG_9353.jpeg
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/680-140_meantrend.png
“ “There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.”
― Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
‘Every culture feels the call of conscience–the voice of internal self-criticism. But Western Christian culture, according to Nietzsche and then Freud, has conscience on steroids, so to speak. Our sense of guilt is comparatively extreme, and, with our culture of original sin and fallen status, we feel guilty about our very existence. In the belly of Western culture is the feeling that we’re not worthy… All this internalized self-loathing is the cost we pay for being civilized.’ ~Stephen Asma
Without question, MBH98/99/08 (the ‘hockey stick’ graph) is scientific fraud snd, not just because they fail ‘backcasting’ ability. That has been proven before along with the simple fact that the data upon which the GCMs are founded contain absolutely no global warming ‘signal’ whatsoever.
“If they find any real evidence that global warming is doing harm, I would be impressed.” ~ Freeman Dyson
Much like Carl Sagan, I see Billions and Billions… wasted on Hot World catastrophism fabrications.
What in the name of nuclear winter do you think you’re talking about?
Thanks, Judith.
It is notable that the Alaskan Kids Climate lawsuit (Juliana et al. vs. USA) is based on claiming the right to a “stable climate system, ” orginally filed in 2015 and still active to this day. Like a zombie it has been killed and resuscitated repeatedly. Interestingly, the US government motion to dismiss addressed directly that claim in June 2023, and has not yet been decided due to legal maneuvering, most recently 03/21/2024. The motion to dismiss includeded:
A. There is no constitutional right to a stable climate system.
B. Plaintiffs fail to allege a cognizable state-created danger claim.
C. No federal public trust doctrine creates a right to a stable climate system.
There’s more detail in my synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2023/07/08/finally-a-legal-rebuttal-on-the-merits-of-kids-climate-lawsuit/
The motion document is here:
https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2023/20230622_docket-615-cv-01517_motion-to-dismiss-1.pdf
My understanding was the justice department was pushing for the juliana kids to get dismissed , primarily to reduce the risk of losing and setting a bad precedent. Hoping for a better political climate in the courts. Better to wait several more years to get more left wing justices on the SC
Joe, that would explain why the feds put up a strong argument against the cliaim for climate protection, not to mention what other demands would arise if this one succeeds. Still a ruling on the merits taking this line would be leverage against other lawsuits like Honolulu vs. Big Oil
I’d like to read the decision. The reports make little sense. Suppose the hypothesis of CO2 being the control knob of climate were true? There is little that Switzerland could do about it. Switzerland has CO2 emissions of about 33 million MT, versus global emissions of about 37 billion, so Switzerland’s emissions are less than 0.1%. If their emissions were zero tomorrow, it would be offset by increased emissions from the rest of the world in about three months. There would be no measurable impact on climate that could be demonstrated.
This is a subset of the broader reality. All increased CO2 emissions since 1995 and all projected increases are from non-OECD countries that make up 80% of global population. Even zero emissions by OECD countries would be offset in decades by increases from non-OECD countries (4x the population and mostly energy poor) at current rates of increase.
By the way, are human rights universal? If the Swiss have a right to a perfect climate, doesn’t everyone else? Could citizens of Liberia or Chad sue in this Human Rights court that it violates their human rights not be sent to Switzerland where the weather is generally cooler? What about a billion more from tropics around the world? And is it racist if they’re not all flown to Switzerland? Many questions.
Geoff wrote:
“By the way, are human rights universal?”
Why shouldn’t they be?
Do humans all share the same basic needs?
Human rights aren’t universal as humanity disagrees among itself as to what these rights would include.
All cultures do not share the same beliefs and practices. In some cases, this leads to war. Know you enemy!
It appears that people are increasingly of the opinion that they have a right to a climate “cocoon” and that governments should enforce that right against natural changes through mandates. Well, if it’s too hot, increase the air conditioning; if it’s too cold, increase the heat… or move somewhere more amenable to your delicate condition.
Bruce, that’s an utterly simplistic image of climate change, and you know it.
There is no right to a given climate. But, that is not an excuse to not care and make it worse. I’d prefer trying to be a steward and minimize the damage caused by the self-interested who don’t care about planetary sustainability.
You prefer being an alarmist and spreading fears that a slightly warmer climate is a threat to humanity. You push others to adopt expensive technology that do virtually nothing to change humanities co2 growth curve.
Rob,
Like I said, you don’t care, and are ignorant. You make declarative statements about things you couldn’t possibly know, i.e, tell lies. I’m not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions.
If you find the climate science alarming, good for you – do something about it.
Oh my, the lunacy has set another bar… I wonder if these women ever contemplated whether they would have even made it to 74 ripe years before, or even in, the early decades of the so-called, anthropogenic CO2, climate change.
Someone better tell the volcanoes they could well be sued if the erupt without a permit
Tim: Fossil fuels burned by man emit 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes:
“Volcanic vs Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide,” T Gerlach, EOS v92 n24, June 14, 2011.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/epdf
https://news.agu.org/press-release/human-activities-emit-way-more-carbon-dioxide-than-do-volcanoes/
Seems to be a lot of trouble separating “natural” and “human-caused”. I guess the mockery and dismissal only work if “anthropogenic” is ignored.
Seems to be a lot of trouble separating “natural” and “human-caused”.
Speaking for yourself, correct?
The problem is not the dismissal of anthropogenic but the skeptics, but the complete dismissal of natural by the activists
typo – The problem is not the dismissal of anthropogenic by the skeptics, but the complete dismissal of natural by the activists
Joe, you’re confused. It is some of non-believing skeptics that completely dismiss natural climate change.
Walrus, Wrong. It is my observation on the preceding comments.
If the women had their way – an immediate restriction on fossil fuels would lead to … summer power outages putting them at a greater risk. Irony would rule.
Well thought through post except for this, “Rapid restrictions to fossil fuels before cleaner energy is available”. The inference that “cleaner energy” will be available soon is incorrect and the poltical use of the term “cleaner energy” is regretable.
People can sue or legislate all they want, but it won’t make a viable grid-scale battery appear to support unreliable wind and solar. That job will be done by natural gas, coal, and nuclear. Better just to skip the wind and solar bit.
Many places are now using 100% renewable energy. All my electricity is renewable, for example.
Renewable energy is a very small fraction (few percent at best) of total energy use. Check the statistics.
The vast majority of “places” do not use solar energy. Again, check the statistics.
If you want to use renewable energy, great, knock yourself out. However, kindly do not inflict that choice on the rest of us.
Quit conflating energy with electricity. The latter is a moderately sized sub-set of the former.
And it would be of some use to your credibility to list the countries that using only !00% “renewable energy”, including the breakup of actual energy sources in use.
Again, do not conflate “places” with “countries”.
Ianl – He gets his information from “expert” source such as marc jacobson.
Jacobson has list of countries with 100% renewable energy (or near renewable energy ) . Norway, Iceland and New Zealand with high levels of electric usage are the three countries blessed with geological features that are conducive to hydro or geothermal renewable energy. (south eastern canada also is fortunate to have high hydro electric generation.) All the other countries with ” 100% or near 100% electric generation from renewables have very low per capita electric usage.
What is humorous (or dishonest ) in Jacobson’ study of renewable energy in 145 countries by 2050, is that the projected per capita electric usage in those third world countries and the other mid level industrialized countries is the very low per capita increase in electric usage, even after those countries modernize.
There is a serious legal problem with the court’s reasoning. Climate is global, human rights are local. Human rights are constitutional rights under the constitutions of some countries. They are enforced and protected by national laws and constitutions. If you were to claim that climate change imperils your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a court in China or Russia or even in the UK or Canada the court would have to say that that language is not from their country’s constitution or laws and thus is inapplicable.
The court would or should also say that it will not grant any remedy that is legally unenforceable or demonstrably futile. So ordering the Swiss government to reduce its country’s CO2 emissions will have no discernible or measurable effect on either the global climate or the Swiss weather. Such an order should be refused.
“….human rights are local”
Humans are global. So why aren’t their rights?
> Humans are global. So why aren’t their rights?
Answer – culture.
So let me understand this. We had no capacity to accurately measure temperature until the 1950s, we cannot measure whether tornado frequency has changed or whether hurricanes have increased in strength. But we know that “global mortality (per 100,000 people) from extreme weather and climate events have declined by 99% since 1920”???? Really? Seems like we “know” with scientific certainty the stuff you want to accept uncritically, and we have absolutely no way whatever of knowing things you’d rather not know – like, um, that hurricanes are getting stronger – something that is vastly easier to determine than deaths due to heat waves in 1920, before we even had the medical knowledge to identify a heat-related death, and before the vast majority of the world even had the communications, organization and infrastructure to report numbers of deaths, causes of deaths, etc. Tell me, how many heat-related deaths were recorded in india among the penniless street people in 1922 as compared to 1927 or 1935?
An argument based on simple incredulity…
Judith wrote:
“There is widespread international acceptance of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which enumerates 30 human rights. There is no mention of the word “climate” or the word “environment” in the UDHR”
This is a very silly and immature argument. Obviously rights need to change as science & technology changes. Do you have a right to clean air? Clean water? To someone not cloning you? Do you have a right to genome privacy? Or can anyone use your genetic makeup for any reason at all?
Etc.
By the nature of their workload, Judges often have to take at face value the opinion of “experts”. Sometimes, they would make better decisions if they accessed the raw data behind the specialists’ beliefs, but then we would have Judges taking over the work of Scientists, not optimum.
In this particular matter. the claim is reported that “Because older women are more likely to die in heatwaves – which have become hotter and more common ….”
There seems to be an expert opinion that because the globe has seen an increase in temperatures, heatwaves must get hotter also. This is questionable. There is evidence that ocean temperatures have an upper barrier of 30 degrees C. The upper surface sea temperature stays at 30 C no matter what the global T does. I am not claiming that a similar barrier exists over land, where different mechanisms apply, but I am claiming that the available observations do indeed support a barrier concept for heatwaves over land.
I have studied heatwaves in Australia for many years now. Recently, I concentrated on 8 major cities, that together house about 70% of our Australian population. This is where more hospitals would be needed if heatwaves became hotter. But they have not.
Here is but one example, from Melbourne, population 5 million, where I live. I have used official daily BOM data for Tmax. A 3-day heatwave is taken as the highest average over all 3 consecutive days of Tmax. Here is the chart since 1856, of a sample of the hottest 3-day heatwaves each year for Melbourne.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/melb2024heat3day.jpg
It is clear that these 3-day heatwaves are getting cooler, by a small amount, as time passes.
People worried by this Strasbourg Court judgement about Switzerland should do more than handwringing. Get the raw data from your country, make similar heatwave graphs and argue with data. It sure beats expert opinion.
I have been giving this useful advice to all and sundry for 15 years now. The most common response is here:
https://www.geoffstuff.com/crickets.jpg
Geoff S
“Get the raw data from your country, make similar heatwave graphs and argue with data. It sure beats expert opinion.”
Sherrod – Why get the raw data when we can use the homogenized data from the experts? (sarc)
“It is clear that these 3-day heatwaves are getting cooler”
Are you sure it is clear? What is the uncertainty in your fitted slope.
Bushaw,
“These 3-day heatwaves” are the lines on the graph. The trend of the lines is shortening.
My concern is that there is no sign of a similar analysis in those parts of Switzerland that cause anxiety for these elderly ladies. What evidence exists that heatwaves are getting hotter or longer in Switzerland; and what evidence exists that any change in the future can be affected by actions of people?
People are gullible. Many think a warming climate might be alarming. Many more think it might be beneficial. People are led by one faction or another, bugger good science.
Geoff S
Geoff,
That’s OK, I understand your data misrepresentation and cherry-picking – top 100 – LOL (Use all the data, instead of truncating to that fits your story).
Didn’t answer my question: Is the uncertainty of the slope you determined greater than the slope itself? Oh wait, you didn’t determine the uncertainty, or at least are not willing to report it.
Geoff,
“what evidence exists that any change in the future can be affected by actions of people?”
The evidence is that actions of people in the past caused changes in their future. Too bad you don’t understand.
A government with any guts would immediately turn off all gas/oil/coal power stations and ban the sale of petrol and diesel. Leave it for a week and then see what the court thinks
A global riot would ensue.
This appears to be the original application for action in this ruling. It’s unclear how action taken by any government will provide a remedy to the group in question. As stated in the brief they are elderly. How can reaching any reduction of CO2 have an immediate effect on the extreme weather in the next couple of decades.
I understand the theory of protecting those of the same cohort in the year 2100, but exactly what is the chain of causality that helps this group during their lifetime? There is no remedy for the plaintiffs.
I’m not even addressing the normal debate about the attribution of extreme events to CO2 vs NV, which the filing and media coverage ignore completely.
https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2020/20201126_Application-no.-5360020_application.pdf
The science does not exist to prove the effects in a legitimate court. It will turn into a pseudo-scientific, politically oriented word salad designed to achieve an outcome versus objective truth. Unelected political operatives will decide our fate and I’m not comfortable with that. It’s the most perverted form of Fascism to think that you have freedom when you do not. This ought to scare the hell out of everyone.
Pingback: Es gibt kein Menschenrecht auf ein sicheres Klima – Schweizer Monat
“Do deaths only count if they are alleged to be caused by human caused warming, but not by natural weather and climate variability?”
The central issue is whether there is any real linkage between rising CO2 forcing, and weather variability. It doesn’t even seem rational.
It is a central issue only for those who don’t want to believe the data. Things that people don’t understand often seem irrational.
If you have data for such a linkage, I am sure that
Friederike Otto would love to hear from you.
I’m sure she, like most, already knows. E.g.:
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature”,
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
“Contribution of climatic changes in mean and variability to monthly temperature and precipitation extremes” https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00077-4
Bushaw,
When I provided some heatwave data earlier, your comments seemed to discourage it’s further use. Cherry picking accusations, no uncertainty estimates, etc.
To answer the cherry picking part of your comments, here are my heatwave calculations for 8 cities rather than one, for 4 day-lengths of 10, 5, 3 and 1 days (not just 3 days), for all available years of data, for BOM adjusted data as well as raw.
, there are Top 40 summaries as well as all years summaries.
There are 128 graphs in this link so it takes a while to download.
You will see from this compendium that the choice of one graph over another, such as raw versus adjusted inputs, leads to rather large differences in trends. These differences are so large that they make formal calculations of uncertainty for any chosen graph meaningless. That is why I did not report uncertainty in my example, to which you objected.
All I did was to choose the simplest analytical path I could envisage, through this large mass of data, and show the results with no selective culling. That is, I did proper science but you objected. Who is correct? Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/eightheatwave2022.xlsx
BA Bushaw
That’s statistical correlations, it’s not a linkage. I have correlations for the solar forcing of all the major heatwaves they are looking at. The global mean temperature is irrelevant.
sherro,
Thanks for the full data sets. It seems that there is a discernible increase in the intensity (average wave-day temperature) over the years for most (all?) the cases.
Ulric,
There is lots of evidence, not least of which is underlying physical causality. If you are not familiar with the evidence, I doubt I can help much.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
Mr. Lyons’ views seem a trifle dated; to catch up, he should read Sir John Tyndall’s excellent 1859 account of radiative thermal forcing by gaseous carbon compounds , here’s an excerpt:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/climate-wars-salt-talks.html
You’re on the wrong page, the bone of contention is the purported link between rising CO2 forcing (or mean temperature) and heatwaves.
It’s all sordid double-speak. Net Zero will make net zero difference to the weather, and the consequence of the whole charade is that people will be less able to afford protecting themselves against hot and cold weather.
Funny, I thought you said “The central issue is whether there is any real linkage between rising CO2 forcing, and weather variability.” Now it seems that the real issue has suddenly switched to conspiracy theories, and making pronouncements that are false personal opinion (“Net Zero will make net zero difference to the weather”).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00077-4
Ulric,
With increasing average global temperature, temperature variability gets larger, and the bigger positive excursions are on top of the higher average. You should try to understand the relationship between climate and weather.
That’s garbage, major European heatwaves like in 2003 and 2018 cannot occur without their discrete solar forcing, the global mean temperature is irrelevant. Which is why net zero is irrelevant.
BA Bushaw writes:
“You should try to understand the relationship between climate and weather.”
I have understood it thoroughly, none of the ‘bigger positive excursions’ would happen without their discrete solar forcing, so they are a cause of climate variability. Europe had its greatest known heatwave in 1540, in the US it was in 1936. July 1757 was hotter than July 2003 in Paris, and England had its hottest month since at least 1659, in July 2006. Obviously these have nothing to do with the global temperature, but they all share the same Jovian ordering of the solar signal, so the next one is fully predictable, which is in 2116.
What discrete solar forcing caused the record temperatures of the last 12 months? (Clue, solar forcing is declining). Despite your claim, it seems you don’t understand much.
On the contrary, you don’t understand much about climate, negative NAO drives a warmer North Atlantic (AMO), and is directly associated with El Nino conditions. They both impact cloud cover. I understand enough to have predicted the deeper negative NAO conditions of July-August 2023 months in advance. I had been looking at analogues of 2023 at least 5 years ago, and was certain of a very wet UK summer.
I understand the difference between internal stochastic oscillations and solar forcing.
If you understood the nature of the solar forcing you would not be subscribing to the supposition that the oscillation causing the heatwaves is internal and stochastic.
Il live in a cold country, it’s winter during six months a year. Even in Spring and Autumn, I have to wear warm clothes when I go outside, otherwise I can die from hypothermia. I have a right to a warm climate, don’t I. This is absurd.
Pingback: There is no human right to a safe or stable climate - Climate- Science.press
“No attempt has been made by the UN to create international support for a new human right to be protected from climate change.”
Really? That may be true of the World Court, but thousands of quango reps went to UNEP’s last Congress of Parties for exactly that purpose
“ Ethiopia announced earlier this year its plan to ban the import of all non-electric automobiles, becoming the first country to outlaw the entry of internal combustion engine vehicles.”
For some this might seem to be a visionary action to combat global warming. But is it reflecting priorities for Ethiopians? Only 54% have access to electricity. Per Capita nominal GDP is $1,000. Only 9% have access to basic sanitation facilities. Basic water supplies are available to only 50% of the population and 38% of children under 5 are stunted.
And what effect on global temperatures will this decision have? Incalculably too small even think about. Guess who thinks this is a cool idea. Not the skeptics.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/ethiopia-ban-on-gas-vehicles/
cerescokid wrote:
And what effect on global temperatures will this decision have?
It will have one Ethiopia’s worth of influence.
Will you match their contribution? Because that’s what it takes.
Apple – Your response shows your delusions. similar to marc jacobson of 100 % renewable “in-fame” .
Jacobson’s projections have an increase in per capita electric usage of around 10% through 2050 for the sub saharan africa.
Like Jacobson, your solution is to permanently condemn the impoverished regions to the world to perpetual poverty.
Joe, that makes absolutely no sense at all.
02
Did my point fly completely over your head? Why are you and your ilk condemning these people and their descendants to permanent poverty? Their action does absolutely nothing to reducing global temperatures and their inaction might contribute to an improved standard of living for future Ethiopians. You enjoy the benefits of centuries of economic prosperity and yet you so callously have no regard for the denial of those same benefits to them.
Pingback: There is no human right to a safe or stable climate – Watts Up With That?
The third paragraph quotes the Euro Convention re protection from climate. The seventh para says that Convention does not mention climate. What gives?
‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices. ~Philip Stott
Pingback: There is no human right to a safe or stable climate. | ajmarciniak
Anti-scientific behavior didn’t begin with the AGW alarmist weather cult but they have made it impossible to separate church and science from any legitimate scientific discussion about climate. Even the language has been corrupted. Climate Change?
And which pulpit are you preaching from? It’s pretty easy to separate: science has evidence, church does not.
Many of the scientific predictions of AGW alarmists never occur. Humanity has adapted to the changing climate very well. What climate change threat will humanity not adapt to easily.
AGW True Believers simply assume global warming is manmade. There are no peer-reviewed studies that rule out ‘natural, internal climate cycles’ — i.e.,‘natural, internal variability’ — as the real cause of 20th century warming.
And, that is the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming. The ‘null hypothesis,’ according to Dr. Spencer, has never been rejected, i.e., “THAT NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY CAN EXPLAIN EVERYTHING WE SEE IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM.” ~Dr. Roy Spencer, 2-Feb-2011 [Emphasis added]
‘Natural climate variability is the null hypothesis. No one has ever ruled it out. They have only come up with a potential alternative explanation, which is fine. But it is being advertised as some sort of ‘proof’, which it is not.’ (Ibid.)
Famine. Thanks for your opinions. Problem is, scientists are not alarmists (they try to find the “truth” as close as can be discerned) and that is why I pay attention to the scientists and their ability to provide evidence, not you.
Wag,
Of course, it hasn’t been ruled out. Dr. Spencer is right, – the is no proof in real science. The null hypothesis just has a very low probability as compared to A-GHGs (and feedbacks there from) being the major cause of rapid warming over the last 60 years, which has very high probability.
You ask for the proof of a negative – silly.
The climate has been changing and the human population continues to climb. Less food shortages than ever before thanks to fossil fuels. Try again. You philosophy sees only the negative
Rob,
Your powers of foresight are amazing.
BAB
You are an alarmist who fears that which is not frightening.
Rob,
Thanks for your thoughts – you make your feelings clear.
Wagathon wrote:
AGW True Believers simply assume global warming is manmade. There are no peer-reviewed studies that rule out ‘natural, internal climate cycles’ — i.e.,‘natural, internal variability’ — as the real cause of 20th century warming.
What natural factors are causing modern warming?
Rob Starkey wrote:
Humanity has adapted to the changing climate very well.
How so?
David Appell | April 12, 2024 at 2:55 am |
Rob Starkey wrote:
Humanity has adapted to the changing climate very well.
How so?
Appel – must be nice living in a bubble where you have no concept of reality!
Joe,
It must be nice thinking an insult is an appropriate response when you don’t have an answer. The intellect is overwhelming – not!
ganon
Concluding someone is living in a bubble is an observation. Making observations is an essential part of the scientific method. Thus, Joe was engaged in the scientific method.
My observation is that anyone who is aware of these failed analyses 45 and 41 years ago and still believes we have an imminent threat of meters of sea level rise is living in a bubble.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-05101533-down.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
Kid,
You are still living 40 years in the pasts and not providing references or quantification for your claims. Science gains knowledge; apparently you do not. I do not believe in your “an imminent threat of meters of sea level rise”. I believe sea level may rise by another foot by 2050 and maybe 3 feet by 2100, consistent with currently observed acceleration (NOAA) So, I guess you are the one living inside a bubble that doesn’t include current science.
As per your 1st “reference” (1979 newspaper clipping). Unnamed scientists said sea level could (note the subjunctive) rise “many feet” but without a time frame given. Named scientists calculated coastline changes with 15 and 25 ft. sea level rise. They did not say when, or if, that would happen, certainly they didn’t say “imminent”. So really, you are just making up stuff about things that didn’t happen 40+ years ago, in a rather sad effort to discredit science that you don’t like.
Apple cant fathom the humanity adapting to climate change, so he snarkly asks “how So?”
Its pointed out that it is nice to life in a bubble detached from reality
BaB attempts to display his knowledge, wisdom and intellect by accusing me of insulting Apple because I dont have any answers
Over the last 50 or so years, the worlds population has increased by a few 100m, significant decreases in hunger , substantial increases in food production, substantial increases in wealth
In spite of the obvious, BaB & Apple cant figure out the “how so?”
So who is being overwhelmed with the intellect – or the lack of intellect by the intellectuals?
“I believe sea level may rise by another foot by 2050 and maybe 3 feet by 2100”
This shows how you beliefs are separate from reality. Not unless there is a major change in the rate of sea level rise. I’ve been reading about it for 20 years and am unalarmed by that which is occurring
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Rob,
I more or less agree with the median cases projected by NASA and NOAA, not you. Believing anything you say would be the separation from reality. Too bad your scope of attention is limited to the last 20 years – you might try looking at SLR for the last 2000 years, what it is doing now, and the range of things real scientists believe could happen in the future.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
Nonetheless, thanks for your unsupported opinions – they are entertaining.
ganon
We are 1/3 of the way toward the up to 12 feet by 2100 analysis by EPA yet SLR is only 3%. That is a big whiff in any universe.
That failure is only the baseline of the totality of evidence as to why cataclysmic SLR is extremely doubtful.
I’ve shared with you previously the following: Hundreds of tidal gauge graphs which don’t show significant and obvious acceleration. Studies identifying significant levels of uncertainty in the satellite data (Prandi .062mm/yr2 and Ablain .07mm/yr2). Kleinherenbrink 2018 ..
“ Note that the inability to state that an acceleration is present with certainty using satellite radar altimetry does not imply there is no acceleration at all. Its estimated value in this study is actually in line with the results of the 20th-century tide-gauge-based GMSL reconstruction by Dangendorf et al.17, notably 0.018 ± 0.016 mm yr−2. The uncertainties in the altimetry-derived estimate, however, cause the same acceleration to become statistically equivalent to zero at a 95%-confidence level. It should be stressed that, based on the decadal behavior of GMSL as shown in the same study, we need to be careful with comparing accelerations from records of different length.”
And papers not shared previously
Errors and uncertainty in ocean mass estimates
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/411/2022/
“Cumulative effects lead to errors in GMSL estimates from ∼0.8 to ∼3.2 mm”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC014785
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 12, 2024 at 7:07 pm |
Rob,
BaB writes :
” and the range of things real scientists believe could happen in the future.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
Bab – Real scientists dont put their names on pseudo science – too bad BAB cant tell the difference
BaB Provides us with this Gem:
” and the range of things real scientists believe could happen in the future.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
Bab – Is there a new Pulitzer Prize category for Science Fiction?
3x-4x the current rate of sea level rise!
Real Scientists are not going to be fooled – Real scientists are not going to promote junk science – Ganon – another story
Kid,
Do you understand what “up to” means? I think you do, but practice willful ignorance.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 13, 2024 at 9:26 am |
“Kid,
Do you understand what “up to” means? I think you do, but practice willful ignorance.”
BAB – you cited a paper that is pure junk science – yet you have the audacity to accuse someone of being ignorant!
Joe, I cited a technical report from NOAA. Yes, you are ignorant.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 13, 2024 at 9:42 am |
Joe, I cited a technical report from NOAA. Yes, you are ignorant.
Ganon – a 4x increase in rate of SLR rise in 30 years. The NOAA is promoting junk science and you are too ignorant to pick up on the crap. Even after 3 others have pointed out why it is junk science, you show your ignorance by doubling down on stupidity.
Tell us why you worship junk science!
joey not a climatescientist wrote:
Humanity has adapted to the changing climate very well.
How so?
Appel – must be nice living in a bubble where you have no concept of reality!
A meaningless response with no ideas in it at all.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Many of the scientific predictions of AGW alarmists never occur.
There most meaningful prediction is, the world has warmed. And it is. 50 years ago, someone like you would have scoffed at the idea.
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
Wagathon wrote:
AGW True Believers simply assume global warming is manmade. There are no peer-reviewed studies that rule out ‘natural, internal climate cycles’ — i.e.,‘natural, internal variability’ — as the real cause of 20th century warming
Show me ANY study in ANY field that disproved the null hypothesis
Rob Starkey wrote:
The climate has been changing and the human population continues to climb. Less food shortages than ever before thanks to fossil fuels.
Are there actually less food shortages? Show that data.
In any case, the adaptations are due to *energy* availability. That energy need not come from fossil fuels.
And besides, FFs change the climate for the next 100,000 years at least.
cerescokid wrote:
My observation is that anyone who is aware of these failed analyses 45 and 41 years ago and still believes we have an imminent threat of meters of sea level rise is living in a bubble.
So standard is predictions made 45 years ago, not today?
BTW, Exxon was spot on:
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
http://bitly.bz/UfBUD
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 13, 2024 at 9:42 am |
Joe, I cited a technical report from NOAA. Yes, you are ignorant.
That was not a technical report – Ignorance is with the person that cant tell the difference. 4x the current rate of SLR – that is beyond the RCP8.5 level of Sci-Fi
Joethenonscientist,
Yes, it is a published technical report with references (try reading the report and references therein, particularly since you have none of your own). Also, try reading the NASA report on sea level rise that I also referenced. Just because you don’t like something, you don’t get to define what it isn’t.
Tell us, do you have to work hard for the lack of substance, facts, and references; or does it come natural with the ignorance and conspiracy theories.
David Appell | April 13, 2024 at 6:36 pm |
joey not a climatescientist wrote:
Humanity has adapted to the changing climate very well.
How so?
Appel – must be nice living in a bubble where you have no concept of reality!
A meaningless response with no ideas in it at all.
Apple – You got what you call a meaninglesss response because you are living in a bubble. Ie a detachment from reality.
Do you need a brief history lesson?
Over the last 50 years, the last 100 year, the last 150 years with the rising temps over those years – what you would call climate change
World population has increased a few billion
Food production has increased dramatically
the % of the world population suffering from hunger has decreased dramatically.
Life expectancy has increased dramatically.
simply put, Anyone with basic knowledge knows that humanity has adapted to climate change extremely well. Quit throwing insults to anyone when you dont understand the basics
Apples response to Rob S
Are there actually less food shortages? Show that data.
Thats a stupid response , even by Appel’s standards.
Its well known that throughout human history, starvation has been an ever present threat almost everywhere on the planet, until recently. due to significant improvements in farming, for the first time ever, the vast majority of the worlds population is not imminently threatened by starvation,
That fact is common knowledge, Only someone living in a bubble could possibly be unaware of common knowledge
ganon and Appell are befuddled when exposed to the actual science about uncertainties in SLR. They think it has all the simplicity of measuring the surface of a backyard fishing pond.
“ A review is given of 30 trend models applied in the field of sea level research
Varying trend patterns can be found for the same data depending on the method chosen”
Reading various studies confirms these findings.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC010716
“ The sea state bias (SSB) is among the time-variable corrections that are applied to sea surface height estimates from satellite altimetry. With a mean of 5 cm and a time-variable standard deviation of 2 to 5 cm in the open ocean it is currently one of the largest sources of uncertainty linked with the altimetric signal”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034425718304188
“ In general, ocean tides are known in the open ocean region to an accuracy of approximately 2 cm, however, models show large discrepancies between one another and compared to in situ observations in the coastal region”
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3869/2021/
“ When all the contributions are combined, we find that the barystatic sea-level trends regionally ranges from −0.43 to 2.55 mm.year−1 for 2003-2016, and from −0.39 to 2.00 mm.year−1 for 1993-2016, depending on the choice of dataset. When all types of uncertainties from all contributions are combined, the total barystatic uncertainties regionally range from 0.62 to 1.29 mm.year−1 for 2003-2016, and from 0.35 to 0.90 mm.year−1 for 1993-2016, also depending on the dataset choice. We find that the temporal uncertainty dominates the budget, although the spatial-structural
15 also has a significant contribution.”
https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-80/esd-2021-80.pdf
Wagathon wrote:
AGW True Believers simply assume global warming is manmade. There are no peer-reviewed studies that rule out ‘natural, internal climate cycles’ — i.e.,‘natural, internal variability’ — as the real cause of 20th century warming
It’s a process of elimination. Are there any legitimate studies showing that natural factors can account for modern warming?
‘A piece of wood brought Christian Schlüchter Bernese geologists in conflict with climate research’ (see, the Christian Schlüchter interview in Der Bund). Schlüchter learned that Hannibal didn’t cross the icy Alps: his army crossed a forest. Meanwhile, we all learned that glaciers come and go on a lot faster Earthly timetable than we realized (i.e., they were gone both 2,000 and 4,000 years ago not just 10,000 years ago) and, the reason for their demise obviously had nothing to do with us moderns injecting our CO2 into the atmosphere
Applying the Discombobulating Principle to the global warming problem, nothing explains the level of certainty about AGW theory in the field of climatology that ultimately is not merely, cosmological. AGW theory can never be reduced to a falsifiable hypothesis and therefore it has no practical utility outside of making something that is unimaginably complex appear to be insanely simple: like modeling nature by fitting a least squares trend-line to a haze of points, tra-la.
“Philosophy has revealed the means to resolve this problem. Science may not do proof, but it certainly does do disproof. So although it may not be possible for climatologists to prove their case conclusively, it is possible to look at the contrary hypothesis and refute it. And the contrarians do have a hypothesis: it is that man-made carbon dioxide will not have a severe effect on global climate. This angle transforms the debate into a question about the degree to which the global climate will change given the known increase in greenhouse gases.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Climate_Science_and_Falsifiability
The cure for corrupted Western academia is more good science to force the bad science out but we’re not getting that because government has something to gain from promoting bad science.
As usual, devolve to a conspiracy theory.
Wagathon wrote:
The cure for corrupted Western academia is more good science to force the bad science out but we’re not getting that because government has something to gain from promoting bad science.
See, this is all you have: whining about some purported “corruption,” without a lick of evidence.
How do you take yourself seriously?
Wagathon wrote:
Applying the Discombobulating Principle to the global warming problem, nothing explains the level of certainty about AGW theory in the field of climatology that ultimately is not merely, cosmological.
You need to STFU and provide *evidence* of what is causing modern warming if it’s not anthropogenic CO2. Stop your amateur philosophizing and provide the EVIDENCE,
Michael Crichton nailed the logic employed by the Left in his lecture about aliens causing global warming –i.e., they believe, the burden of proof is on the deniers. The Taliban burned teachers alive in front of their students yesterday because the terrorists believe little girls shouldn’t go to school. It’s not always easy being a denier and perhaps deadly in Afghanistan but, being a climate change refusnik in America is the only moral course to take.
Jungletrunks, you wrote,
“So how can models be wrong when some appear to have guessed right over a 30 year period, no less; that’s one whole climate data point! And within a continuation trend pattern no less!!!!”
what actually happened was this: in the early 1990s climate scientists predicted not just that the planet would warm (let’s call that a 33% bet, the other options being cooling and staying about the same), but that we would warm faster than any previously measured warming, that the warming would continue decade over decade rather than reverting to the mean, and that it would head into a historically unprecedented range. this is an extraordinary prediction of something that had never happened before. the accuracy of that prediction is extremely powerful evidence that those scientists you ridicule were absolutely correct and the hardcore skeptics were as wrong as it is possible to be.
I’m not holding my breath for a mea culpa.
You’re so educated, D.
1990’s? Think earlier.
Fascists led the charge on global warming–the green movement in general, actually. The before included some of the first alternative energy proposals–the use of wind for power generation, for example.
Hermann Flohn, an Adolph acolyte, wrote one of the first papers on global warming. Flohn’s “green” cred facilitated his promotion as chief meterologist for the Luftwaffe. Post war he heavily promoted climate change.
Flohn’s efforts seem to have caught on.
Alarmist purveyors, like you and Polly, think that a 100 year warming temperature trend is beyond the pale; though it’s a laughable time measure for Mother Nature who easily entertains the warm embrace of tea parties lasting centuries beyond the human sensibility of a lifespan.
Nature works on scales exceeding what you believe is reasonable.
Politics is your comfortable fit, D, Goebbels blazed the trail for your religious ascension.
DanB | April 11, 2024 at 12:36 pm | Reply
“…what actually happened was this: in the early 1990s climate scientists predicted not just that the planet would warm (let’s call that a 33% bet, the other options being cooling and staying about the same), ”
Why would you assign 1/3-1/3-1/3 probability?
The general trend has been warming since the mid/late 1800’s . The typical length of short term trends has been 150-300 years over the last few thousand years. Thus, Climate scientists modelling a continued warming at a point in time that is roughly 100 years into the trend, isnt that much of a risk.
In others words, should the climate scientists really be giving everyone high fives for predicting a continuation of the same trend
well, yes and no.
in the 120 years from 1860 to 1980 the temperature warmed a total of 0.4 degrees. in the 40 years from 1980 to 2020 we warmed nearly a full degree, or about eight times as fast. that’s not exactly “the same trend”. instead of reverting to the mean, as you might expect, models correctly predicted that the rate of warming would increase radically and temperatures would enter an unprecedented range.
DanB
Where are you getting your information
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
Are you just cherrypicking your start and end dates?
Models wrong?
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
http://bitly.bz/UfBUD
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc
Understand that models CANNOT MAKE PREDICTIONS.
Dr. Curry,
You are misstating the finding in the paper you cite.
You claim that the paper shows that global mortality rates from climate disasters (per 100,000 people) have decreased 6.5-fold.
But this is from the article you link to:
“The vulnerability of population is quantified as “mortality rate” (Jongman et al., 2015; Peduzzi et al., 2012), i.e. the ratio between the people killed (Rfat) by a climate disaster and the people exposed to the hazard (Rp-exp).”
In other words, the article NEVER claims that global mortality from climate disasters has fallen six-fold. It states that mortality ***per climate disaster event*** has declined. A huge difference. In fact, if you look at charts in the paper, is shows a small INCREASE in global mortality of the last 30 years.
I don’t know where your second claim of a 99% decrease since 1920 comes from, but I am guessing it is based on the same “per event” metric.
Separately, I find it not a little surprising that a skeptic such as yourself accepts a reconstruction of climate deaths in 1920 uncritically, when clearly such a reconstruction is next to impossible. Seems when reconstructions fit your perspective, you state them as fact, when they don’t, there are huge issues with the reliability of the data.
Danb –
considering that
A) changes in the frequency of climate disasters (also known as weather events ) show no discernable trend over the last 100 or so years, and
B) mortality is down significantly from weather events (primarily due to better structures, better early warning, early detection),
The estimate from the paper of 6.5x decrease seems reasonable.
It’s not an issue of whether a six-fold decrease is a reasonable estimate since, as i said, the article itself shows that it is wrong. It shows that deaths due to extremely weather events are slightly up over the last 30 years.
DanB
Where are you getting your information?
https://twitter.com/latimeralder/status/1703310338668614005
Deaths are slightly up over 30 years – The data shows otherwise. Even if deaths are up slightly , it is statistically insignificant.
joetheclimatescientist,
you said, “even if deaths are slightly up, its statistically insignificant.”
sorry did i miss something? I was pointing out that Dr. Curry’s claim of a six-fold decrease in mortality was way way way off base – or, if i am being generous, simply worded in such a way that any reasonable reader would assume she is claiming an overall six-fold decrease in extreme weather-related deaths – when in fact deaths have slightly increased. you’ve completely switched the point to whether the INCREASE in deaths is statistically significant. whether it is significant or not, it clearly shows that Dr. Curry’s statement is wrong.
So this guy says global warming MAY increase deaths in the future, but this is nothing more than speculation.
Professor Guo, from the Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, said this shows global warming may “slightly reduce the number of temperature-related deaths, largely because of the lessening in cold-related mortality, however in the long-term climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden because hot-related mortality would be continuing to increase”.
https://www.monash.edu/medicine/news/latest/2021-articles/worlds-largest-study-of-global-climate-related-mortality-links-5-million-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures
Cold kills more people than hot.
Where things are now is interesting, but not nearly as interesting as the trajectories. Cold deaths are decreasing, and heat deaths are increasing.
jim2,
Aren’t you the guy that claimed man-made molecules like PFAS & PFOS forever chemicals were practically harmless? It must twist your knickers to hear that the EPA has to step in and regulate you ‘free market’ capitalists. Too bad the public has to pickup the bill to clean up this mess.
“New EPA limits on ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water could could cost $3.8 billion per year to implement”
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/10/forever-chemical-pfas-pfos-regulation-to-cost-1point5-billion-annually-.html
jack – regarding the micro plastics / forever chemicals you mentioned
I am not going to address the specifics of the proposed rules nor the pros/cons of the proposal.
Just noting the concept of marginal costs marginal benefit analysis. vastly better than “cost v benefit analysis” which often leads to erroneous conclusions.
During the 1990’s (clinton adminstration as I recall) there was a proposal to reduce naturally occurring arsenic in public water supply which occurs primarily in the western US.
That proposal obviously sounded great and extremely beneficial. The catch was that the expected increase in life span was trivial, maybe in the range of one to two weeks compared 75-80 years. The same amount of money could be spend on other programs, etc that would have significantly greater improvements in health and life spans. Basically , money was being shifted from high return programs to low return / low value programs.
In absolute numbers the deadliest hurricane in the US was in 1900, where 8000-12000 deaths occurred. I’m not sure how deaths from hurricanes here can be said to be increasing.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf
Deaths are not a great metric for hurricanes because of better communication, warning systems, building codes, and predictive modelling; as well as differences in landfall topology and population distributions. Better would be simply frequency of hurricanes by class (table 7 of your reference). Quite simply, the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes have all been increasing.
Thanks for the reference. It would be interesting to see an update with data since 2010.
I get using ACE or frequency to determine if hurricanes are getting worse or better, but what really matters to humans is the effects on our lives, property, and overall cost of living.
Ok, Table 3b, damage cost in constant 2010 dollars. Five of the Top six were in the 2000s, and that doesn’t include those since 2010.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 14, 2024 at 3:03 pm |
Ok, Table 3b, damage cost in constant 2010 dollars. Five of the Top six were in the 2000s, and that doesn’t include those since 2010.
BAB – repeating a common talking point yet very misleading talking point
A ) “adjusted for Inflation” sounds like that the data is adjusted for proper comparison – apples to apples – but it is not.
B) omits two important factors – those comparisons dont account for population group nor for greater increase in wealth, larger structures, more opulalent structures, etc ( ie the typical 1940’s / 1950’s ie 1,200 sqft wood cladded home vs more modern 2500sqt homes, brick marble counter tops etc
Sea level is higher, hurricanes are stronger, more people are living where they shouldn’t (many because they share your denials), the damages are greater.
Your rejections are not convincing, the literature you cite is.
BaB your arrogance is inversely proportional to your ignorance.
A complete deflection of the points on the rising costs of disasters, Again demonstrating you dont have a minimum level of knowledge of the subject matter to actually respond to the points raised. You shift the topic because you dont understand the basic.
Joe, sometimes (much of the time) you get desperate. Your reference (table 3b) and my comments both directly address the increasing (real) cost of hurricane damage. The only deflection here is your claim that discussing the subject is a deflection. Ah well, stupidity is often desperate.
Population growth and the associated increase in property is the largest factor in the increase in the real costs of damages associated with weather events . Omitting that factor in those studies is intentionally deceptive.
M,
“Omitting that factor in those studies is intentionally deceptive.”
Yeah, except they don’t omit those. Footnote to table 3b.
Maybe you should read (and understand) the paper before you make up false objections.
Ganon’ sfirst deceptive post – BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 14, 2024 at 3:03 pm |
Ok, Table 3b, damage cost in constant 2010 dollars. Five of the Top six were in the 2000s, and that doesn’t include those since 2010.
One of Ganon’s posts denying his deception BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 15, 2024 at 10:56 am |
M,
“Omitting that factor in those studies is intentionally deceptive.”
“Yeah, except they don’t omit those. ”
Ganon Tell us where you admitted your original comment was incorrect / deceptive? ie based on omission of an important metric.
Tell us again where you corrected the deceptive claim that 5 of the 6 were in the 2000’s
I referenced a table in a paper that Jim2 cited, which describes the normalization procedures both in the text and table captions. If you didn’t read the paper, that’s your problem. It doesn’t justify being an antagonistic, lying ass.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 15, 2024 at 1:05 pm |
I referenced a table in a paper that Jim2 cited, which describes the normalization procedures both in the text and table captions. If you didn’t read the paper, that’s your problem. It doesn’t justify being an antagonistic, lying ass.
BAB – It certainly doesnt justify being an “antagonistic l… ..S”
you are the one that repeated the intentionally deceptive claim “Five of the Top six were in the 2000s, and that doesn’t include those since 2010.”
Who is the liar
1) the person repeating deceptive claims
2) the person pointing out the deceptions
3) the person attacking others when their deceptive claims are exposed.
“5 of 6 of the most costly since 2000”
you are still citing the data for table 3A yet defending your statements as if the data you cited is valid under 3B
Both tables 3A and 3B and the text describe what is in the given tables. If you can’t read, not my problem.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 15, 2024 at 1:38 pm |
Both tables 3A and 3B and the text describe what is in the given tables. If you can’t read, not my problem.”
Ganon – You cited the data in 3A without noting the proper adjustment – that is flat out dishonest , then later tried to pretend that it was based on 3b.
You still havent admitted your data was based on the deceptive 3A. Just like many AGW activists, you have a serious problem with honesty.
“ “Two years left to save the world”: Top UN climate official elevates the stake.
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/11/un-simon-stiell-climate-stakes?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social
The fact that these kinds of articles have been getting worldwide coverage for several decades, proves how gullible and/or amnesiac the global population is. Doesn’t it ring just a little hollow?
It’s fun to see the climate change catastrophe charlatans wet themselves because a chunk of ice breaks off Antarctica but… it’s sad to see how quickly they can destroy a country when an ignorant Leftist majority votes them into power.
Does the Left really believe in sustainability? How about a sustainable economy where the productive do not have to apologize for succeeding at providing value to society?
Hmmm.
So I saw this:
Do deaths only count if they are alleged to be caused by human caused warming, but not by, for example, restricting access to safe cooking fuels?[8]
And I expected the citation to take me to a resource that describes “restricting access” to safe cooking fuels (presumably by big bad climate “alarmist” or the woke mind virus or some such boogieman). But what I found was an article (paywalled) that seems to describe the harms caused by lack of access to safe cooking fuels.
Curious, that.
J
I’m noticing a crescendo of celebrities vowing to emigrate if youknowwho is elected. Maybe there will be so many that they can start their own country. They could call it CryBaby Nation.
The Council of Europe and its European Court of Human Rights have no power to force a member country to do anything. The Council of Europe can kick out a member state, but with rulings like this one, that would be an advantage, not a punishment.
Lawyers have spent the past few days searching for superlatives strong enough to encapsulate what they say is a new world order surrounding climate litigation.
The main takeaway, they all agree, is that the era of vague net zero pledges is over, and governments everywhere have just been put on notice.
The trigger is a case heard by the European Court of Human Rights. In its April 9 ruling, the ECHR sided with a group of elderly Swiss women who said Switzerland violated their rights by contributing to climate change, which in turn exacerbated heat waves that ended up threatening their health.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-12/swiss-women-open-litigation-floodgates-in-new-era-for-net-zero
Pingback: Uudised maailmast: USA teadusrahast Wuhani koroonalaboris, soosegaduses laste õigest ravist ja teadlane Inimõiguste Kohtu kliimaotsusest - Vabaduste portaal
Beyond this Swiss lawsuit, the concept of ‘human rights’ is being twisted to and fro. The globalists (remember, both left and right) are planning to be the ultimate arbiters of not only how a human right is defined, but when ’emergencies’ dictate their suppression for ‘the good of all’.
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1778721247741833245
A dysfunctional Western academia delivers the sermon that the empowering of the radical environmentalism and Leftist agenda of Climatists is the only thing we can do to save the planet. Just like the Politburo of Russia, Western schoolteachers now believe it is their duty to save the world by eliminating Amerianism (i.e., it’s the socialists’ collectivism versus the Founders’ individualism; government programs versus free enterprise; Utopianism and hypocrisy versus self-actualization and existentialism, helplessness versus rational self-interest).
But we made some squiggly lines on a chart…
Andrew
Yep. The QBS+ crowd is making up rights for themselves coming and going, then stripping away the rights of women and parents. Women and parents need to stand up and fight like h*ll!
Nice post, Bill.
The evolution of globalist ambition:
Germany 1932, a Democratic Republic. Germany 1934, not a Republic.
Germany post 1945, a Republic again.
2030 and beyond…Germany, the U.S…Republics?
Who will battle a new global axis if no nation states exist to battle a new aurhoritarian global order–global neofascists?
The Left don’t think realistically ahead, ever, relative to ramifications for their global idealistic goals; otherwise they’re either sadists, or emotive ideological crib bound ingrates incapable of thinking beyond inbred feelings–probably.
Trunks … thanks
> emotive ideological crib bound ingrates incapable of thinking beyond inbred feelings
LOL! Could be.
Weimar Germany was doomed from the start. One thing they had going for them was Max Weber. Absolutely brilliant guy. Had he lived it might have been a bit different. But … maybe not, as the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century German innovations with the bureaucratic state might have brought us to this point anyway. Centralized power always seems to attract more power. The self-interest of the structure, and its inherent superior ability at social control, eventually over shadows/displaces its initial mission. Bureaucracies may be birthed through democracies, but they are not democratic institutions. That makes them attractive to the … inbred.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Beyond this Swiss lawsuit…
Blah blah, who cares. All you and others here are complaining about 4-level issues when the real issue is, THE WORLD IS WARMING FROM ANTHROPOGENTIC EMISSiONS FROM USING FOSSIL FUELS.
Your posts show you are desperate to deny the science. but you can’t, so you focus on meaningless, made-up things.
Warming is a lot better than cooling.
Puddin’ Head and the Dimowit war on fossil fuels continues.
Biden Plans Sweeping Effort to Block Arctic Oil Drilling
Half of National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska could be off-limits
Companies say plan would violate leases, kill investment
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-11/biden-plans-sweeping-effort-to-block-arctic-oil-drilling
The main reason the US economy is doing well is because Trump opened up federal lands for development. Billions of dollars that were being sent offshore are now being spent in the USA. What Trump allowed to be developed won’t last forever and needs to be expended upon for the USA to continue its boon.
Biden is against this and advocates for the US to buy from foreign sources.
you have not even the tiniest idea what you are talking about. this is a fairy-tale hidden within a delusion locked in a fantasy. there is not one economist on the planet who would agree with this or even, for that matter, know what in the world you are talking about. instead of inventing stuff out of your imagination, why not first take a basic intro to economics class, and then study what trump actually did and didn’t do and its overall impact, read what actual economists say, and then come back and explain which lands were opened, how much economic activity has been generated from those lands relative to the size of the overall economy (it’s beyond microscopic) and you might have a micron of an idea of what you are talking about.
Dan
1. Did Trump open up a vast amount of federal land to oil exploration and development?
2. During Trump’s term did oil production in the US rise substantially until covid hit?
3. Didn’t point 1 & 2 result in billions of dollars staying in the USA vs being sent to foreign countries.
jim2, you might want to look at what Steve Bannon said about US oil production and the messaging MAGA should sent to supporters of Jill Stein. The gist of it being that her supporters should be reminded that the US is producing more oil than ever before. But of course they must take care that this message doesn’t bleed over to the MAGA base…
The fact remains that Biden has limited oil leases on Federal lands and halted new LNG projects. The fact that we are producing more oil and gas than ever is a testament to the power of capitalism and free markets. Capitalism and free markets cause a robust economy, which in other words means a rich society. That money fuels medical research, scientific research, technological progress, and thereby a comfortable, full life. It all takes money.
Green energy or black, this looks interesting.
The Century-Old Transmission Line Is Getting a 21st Century Upgrade
Startup TS Conductor has created a wire that’s lighter and can carry up to three times more electricity. The result: fewer towers and lower project costs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-12/california-startup-builds-power-line-to-improve-ailing-us-electricity-grid
Pingback: Swiss grannies upstage Greta as court rules on climate ‘rights’ - Politics, Policy, Political Views
Time to add a new category to, LGBTIQA+ to include elderly Swiss grandmothers affected by climate change due to government inaction, e.g., CCVs…AGW-caused Climate Change Victims. Only impediment despite finding in their favor by court is that there are no CCVs.
The real victims are scientific skeptics who are confronted with the unavoidable realization that honor and integrity can no longer be taken as foundational principle. The scientific method depends on honesty. Politics is different–there is no honesty in politics and that is why the politicization of science is the death of science.
A shorter and more meaningful term for those who don’t play the game is QBS+.
LGBTQQIP2SACCVs
Kid,
You are free to believe and cherry-pick as you choose. Even if you actually believe what you say, it doesn’t mean you are right. I’ll go with the reputable sources, which do not include you.
Joe
“Tell us why you worship junk science!”
Can’t do that because I don’t. I pay attention to real, citable, science. And since you don’t seem to be able to do that – just false conspiracy theories and insults – your unsubstantiated attacks and denials carry no weight with me. But, thanks for the entertainment.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Striking that you would post a link to a dubious SLR based on an absurd rate of SLR, then defend it because it was done by “scientists”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
“Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 – 12 inches (0.25 – 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 – 2050), ”
The projections of a 10-12 inch SLR in 26 years is based on projections stemming from RCP 8.5 on Steriods.
Few, if any, reputable consider RCP 8.5 remotely plausible, much less realistic. Likewise, a 10-12 inch SLR rise in less than 30 years is neither remotely plausible nor realistic.
Is that your definition of “real, citable, science.”
Is there a reason you posted a second link with realistic projection of SLR
“By the end of the century, global mean sea level is likely to rise at least one foot (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels, ”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Its very immature of you to insult everyone when you are the one who is having trouble distinguishing between quality scientific analysis & hyped studies
You just make stuff up. The 10-12 inches by 2050 is based on the median scenario, not the most extreme worst case as you claim. Maybe you should actually read the report, instead of scanning for things where you think you can construct a (false) denial.
I defend the work because it is based on measurements, made and analyzed by scientists. I much prefer that to the personal opinions and fabrications of someone who clearly, has no understanding of non-linear dynamics and interlinked feedbacks and someone who thinks non-quantitative words/phrases like “absurd” or “neither remotely plausible nor realistic” are rebutals.
Thanks for your thoughts, but I’m not convinced – I’ll go with the scientific analysis of NOAA, NASA, and many other scientific bodies, over the unsupported opinions and fabrications of some unknown M. Starkely.
Bushaw –
1) Did you read the report where it provided a detailed “scientific ” explanation for why the change in the rate of SLR is going to be 3x the current rate.
2) Did you read the report where it provided a credible scientific reason for why the rate of SLR at the end of the 26 year period needs to be 5x-6x in 2050 to achieve the projection of 10″ to 12″ global SLR.
3) did you use your superior math skills to cross check the math.
4) did you perform any other form of due diligence to ascertain the reasonableness of the projection
5) Did you compare the 4x rate of SLR with other scientific studies showing significantly less rates of SLR.
M.
No, I didn’t read any of those things. You’d have to give actual quotes and page numbers so I can find what was really said, in context, before I’d accept any of your interpretations as correct. I stand by what I said and what NOAA and NASA have said. Do you understand feedback networks and non-linear dynamics? So you don’t like their results – doesn’t change them. I have given the median projections and recognize that the uncertainties based on societal response are fairly large (1.5 – 7 feet in 2100). What do you predict for GMSLR in 2050 and 2100, and based on what -you don’t like it so they can’t be realistic projections?
If it gives you some kind of reference frame, GMSL is still 3 to 5 meters below what was reached in the last interglacial (Eemian), and that was without a 50% increase in CO2 (and other GHG increases) from human activities.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35007053
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 14, 2024 at 10:20 pm |
“M.
No, I didn’t read any of those things. You’d have to give actual quotes and page numbers so I can find what was really said, in context, before I’d accept any of your interpretations as correct.”
Bushaw
Funny I didnt read any of those things either – because the scientific explanation for the 3x increase in the rate of SLR is not there.
I cant give you quotes or cites – because they are not there
Get the picture – Good job exposing yourself
M.
So you are a liar and just make up crap. I already knew it since I have actually read the report, but thanks for admitting it.
BAB’s comments :
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 14, 2024 at 3:03 pm |
Ok, Table 3b, damage cost in constant 2010 dollars. Five of the Top six were in the 2000s, and that doesn’t include those since 2010.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 14, 2024 at 9:44 pm |
Joe, sometimes (much of the time) you get desperate. Your reference (table 3b) and my comments both directly address the increasing (real) cost of hurricane damage.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 14, 2024 at 11:00 pm |
M.
So you are a liar and just make up crap. I already knew it since I have actually read the report, but thanks for admitting it.
Response – BAB – Your claim of 5 of the top 6 were in the 2000’s if from Table 3A not 3B – yet you defended your claim because you cited 3B while never admitting the data was from 3A.
That is the dishonesty which you consistently have been wrong. You continued to insult everyone even though you were the one being dishonest.
Actually, I was referring to the first column of Table 3B (which happens to agree for 3A). I gave the reference and told you to read both tables, and their footnotes, for yourself. If that is dishonesty, so be it, but I think you are just angry.
How about a human right to spend your money as you see fit, rather than how the government wants to spend it??
But Australians have been promised that cleaner energy would equal cheaper energy, and yet, power bills have only risen since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a global price shock.
…
Yes, renewables are the “lowest cost, new form of generation”.
But building the wind and solar farms at the scale required to replace coal, together with the batteries needed to store the power, and the new network of transmission lines to distribute that power to consumers will involve tens of billions of dollars’ worth of investment.
The Australian Energy Market Operator’s own figures suggest the transition will cost around $383 billion between now and 2050.
When asked who pays, Dimery replied: “it all comes from consumers, whether through the bill directly or through the tax base.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-12/power-prices-to-rise-in-clean-energy-transition/103696450
jim2 wrote:
How about a human right to spend your money as you see fit, rather than how the government wants to spend it??
So you’re angry about paying more for unleaded gasoline and a catalytic converter on your car?
All you care about is yourself. No one else. You’re narcissistic and selfish. All that matters is your wallet.
Mr. Appell, I think we’re all hoping that you know your climate basics better than you know jim2. Otherwise you have been wasting all of our time for years now.
Appell,
Your comment implies that the element lead Pb is a serious toxin for humans. There is ample evidence of its toxicity at high levels of ingestion. These cases cause about 15 death certificates in the USA each year, many of these from illegal alcohol stills.
The alleged problem arises when LNT, Linear No-Threshold theory is used to project the harm straight to zero dose, leading to the claim that no Pb level is safe.
If you use conventional dose/harm studies instead, Pb damage at low levels is in very complicated territory. The main focus is now on claims that Pb affects the brain, leading to various forms of reduced intelligence like IQ, particularly in the very young. It is near impossible to measure IQ accurately in a baby, but that type of procedure is standard official belief that demonises Pb.
The reverse causation idea, that kids of lower IQ are/were more likely to ingest old paint and soils, is sidelined. So we have banned leaded gasoline for cars and trucks, at an enormous public cost, less efficient fuel and more CO2 per mile emitted.
If you study the Pb hate advocacy literature, you will find numerous papers whose breathtaking assumptions are low quality and anti-science, driven by belief in a story that pays the salary. It’s gotta stop.
Yes, I have hands-on experience including a law suit where we prevailed.
Geoff S
jungle,
Thanks, for further confirmation.
Jim is selfish.
All Jim thinks about is himself.
Jim imagines he lives in 1850s Montana.
Jim won’t participate in modern society. He has good reasons, you know.
Capitalism and free markets have freed people from manual labor, heated our homes, shed light all over, made life much more comfortable, and extended our life span. That’s the short list.
jim2 wrote:
Capitalism and free markets have freed people from manual labor, heated our homes, shed light all over, made life much more comfortable, and extended our life span. That’s the short list.
Capitalism has never been practiced anywhere, ever.
It’s only pretend capitalism, full of government subsidies & government bailouts. As something I saw recently said, “If capitalism is so great, why does socialism have to bail it out every 10 years?”
Pretty true.
And that’s before the realization that capitalism has polluted the water and air and ocean. Many fish can no longer be eaten, due to mercury poisoning. Burning fossil fuels prematurely kills 1 in 5 people on the planet and changes the climate for at least 100,000 years. The planet is warming at a rate that is practically unprecedented. The ocean is acidifying at a fast rate.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/42784265198016401/
David Appell | April 14, 2024 at 10:12 pm |
“Burning fossil fuels prematurely kills 1 in 5 people on the planet ”
Apple – its been explained to you numerous times why the claim is pure BS – yet you repeat repetitively .
use some basic logic
Joe,
Or should we call you “Orange” – you probably think you are clever – not. Haven’t you learned that questionable claims without substantiation are worth no more than the substantiation given? (nothing)
Here is something to explain premature deaths caused by climate change – not that I expect you to read or understand it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w
(See – it’s not all that hard to provide links, if you have/know what is in them – I just have to assume that you don’t, and don’t really know what you are talking about – but that’s pretty obvious).
Ganon
All you are doing (along with Apple) is that you lack any ability to recognize bad science . I am well aware of the study and similar studies that are junk science.
The 1 in 5 deaths due to carbon is pure BS. Most people have the skill set to recognize junk science – you not only lack the ability, but you worship junk science.
“1 in 5 deaths due to carbon”
22.3% of the global population smokes. I suppose it’s a coincidence this data aligns to 1 in 5 carbon deaths from the ankle biting climate propagandist crowd.
The local DA, Polly, et al: these manufactured citation consensus fools could broaden their Google for brains searches, and possibly stumble into salient facts–alas, honesty is counterproductive for political hack activists.
Short pants,
Yes, I like to expand my Google searches to new areas. Currently, I find the psychology of climate change denial interesting, but not too surprising. Also, the type of people that tend to believe and repeat false conspiracy theories.
You are full of it Appell. It’s certainly true that now in the US capitalism is highly distorted by government regulations. It is not and has never been perfect, but nevertheless, it’s the best way to run an economy if you value wealth.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4][5] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.[6][7][8] In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Polly,
And I see pollitically motivated hyperbolic climate fatalism as disturbed, though also interesting. BTW, your not an ostrich, pull your head out of the dirt; most on CE believe there’s some amount of AGW, you didnt know that because your sensibilities are skewered by activism, not science.
You’re the “type of” colorfully derranged bird who can’t distinguish false conspiracy theories, though you will use one, or deny one when it fits your narrative: Climategate never happened; 1 in 5 die because of AGW.
Jungletrunks,
I’m tired of you telling me what I know and think. You have no idea, and are just a childish ass.
The local DA is clueless.
Capitalism is only broken “because” of soft socialism. Socialists takes capital from capitalism, then give it back to capitalists when socialists pick winners and losers.
Thatcher once said that socialism works until it runs out of other people’s money. Socialism is an enormous ponzi scheme, redistributing a weakening base of capital generarion, all the while importing cheap labor to keep the population curve inclined so that inflation dilutes debt.
Polly, why do I care what you’re tired of? I mostly know what you think because you say what you think.
Stop preening, your scalp is getting thin.
You are right, you know SOME of the things I think, because I say them. I’ll repeat the last: you are a childish ass, and add; with nothing important to say.
Yea, yea, pollyana virtue signaling. We get it.
How about I give you a proxy gold star for your self important beliefs, just so you feel good about yourself as a geriatric armchair climate science QB bench sitter–one who advances climate science with deflective, selective opines. Though wouldnt that be called a QB sneak?
; with nothing important to say.
Trunks,
Thanks for the confirmation: a childish ass with nothing important to say.
LOL, I think that retort should be framed and hung over your teams gaseous locker room stall.
Jungletrunks wrote:
“1 in 5 deaths due to carbon”
22.3% of the global population smokes. I suppose it’s a coincidence this data aligns to 1 in 5 carbon deaths from the ankle biting climate propagandist crowd.
Absolutely not. Read the science:
“Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem,” Karn Vohra et al, Environmental Research, Volume 195, April 2021, 110754.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickley/files/vohra_2021_ff_mortality.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-kills-one-five-people
jim2 wrote:
You are full of it Appell. It’s certainly true that now in the US capitalism is highly distorted by government regulations. It is not and has never been perfect, but nevertheless, it’s the best way to run an economy if you value wealth.
Why?
Prove it.
Not with something you had to cut-and-paste, but in your own words and, moreso, your own experiences.
1 in 5 deaths due to carbon
Apple we have all read the “science “
It’s junk science!
Quit worshiping your false god. Learn the difference
Just when you think there is no other way for the EV push to go South, we get this …
Electric car sales already are in a funk in key markets around the globe. Challenges finding enough repair technicians threatens to further stifle demand in the UK, where consumer uptake has stagnated for the better part of two years.
A dearth of mechanics trained to handle the most advanced EV fixes is helping to drive up repair costs, according to insurers and repair companies like the AA, which provides roadside assistance across the UK. Add in expenses like long wait times for replacement parts, and underwriters are opting to total cars with relatively benign damage — prematurely consigning electric models to the junk heap. M/i>
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-13/ev-mechanic-shortage-inflates-uk-repair-costs-sends-cars-to-junkyard
“ German minister threatens ‘indefinite driving bans’ on weekends”
Others have suggested speed limits as a way to meet their climate goals. At what point does all this become ludicrous given the efficacy of EVs reducing CO2 and the uncertainties of reducing temperatures through the reduction of CO2.
Maybe the Germans can just go back to the horse and buggy on weekends and open up more biergarten close to home.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-cars-volker-wissing-minister-suggests-indefinite-driving-bans-on-weekends/
Judith, I don’t get emails of comments here, even though I signed up. What’s going on? You’re really blocking me??
Don’t let the Noid get you, David. ;)
Overpopulation— Acid Rain— Ozone Hole— Nuclear winter (Kuwati Oil Fires)— SARS— Fracking— Fukushima (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, The China Syndrome)— Rising Seas— Polar Bear Deaths— there is no end to what we can choose to be insanely worried about. A push by those who are politically and ideologically motivated is all it takes to get the ball rolling. All it took to commence a pogrom against modernity was to trot out all of the fearmongering from the Ozone Depletion hoax and simply substitute CO2 for CFCs.
‘How many people remember the peril of nuclear winter? Crichton shows how the entire concept was “from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign” conducted for political ends. A Washington DC public-relations firm was paid $80,000 to publicize the research. The first appearance of the work in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature was in the December 23, 1983, issue of Science (Turco et al., 1983). But the dangers of nuclear winter had been heralded nearly two months earlier by Carl Sagan in the October 30, 1983, issue of Parade magazine, a supplement to Sunday newspapers (Seitz, 1986). By 1986, it was apparent that the conclusions of Turco et al. (1983) were suspect, and that the entire field of research was highly politicized. Writing in the January 23, 1986, issue of Nature, K. A. Emanuel (1986, p. 259) noted that “nuclear winter research…has become notorious for its lack of scientific integrity.”’ ~David Deming
“there is no end to what we can choose to be insanely worried about”
There is no end to what the willfully ignorant choose to dismiss, despite the evidence. I wonder why – afraid?
Western academia sacrificed truth, honor and ethics on the altar of the Leftist political convenience and moral relativism. The result is a feckless population of suckers who want to be lied to, are incapable qualitative and quantitative reasoning- even common sense- and, who seek only to exploit the works of the productive and even deface the achievements of others (like, e.g., the inanity of gluing their worthless hands to famous works of art). With the liberal fascists of AGW Hot World alarmists we have government bureaucrats who are blowing the public purse on feckless speculations about the future and betting the free enterprise economy in the bargain based on the fears of Western climatists whose predictive abilities have been shown to be no better than a room full of monkeys throwing darts at charts.
Wag, seek help.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 14, 2024 at 11:52 am |
Wag, seek help.
Pot meet kettle!
Joe, you too. Some sort of scientific education, and knowledge gained there from, might be helpful.
You know the whole specter of AGW lunacy is falling down when the global warming catastrophists get increasingly shrill and moronic like children gluing their untalented hands to famous works of art.
At this point in the march of civilization, a growing sector of mankind has managed to attain a degree of mastery over the whims of fate that would otherwise limit our future. At the same time, from the relative safety and security that such mastery affords many in the group, a smaller group of global warming fear mongers essentially point to their comfort as proof that man is destroying itself as it destroys the Earth and wants to limit our future.
This sort of thing has been happening throughout human history. What is new in human history now, however, is that instead of standing on a street corner in NY with a clapboard sign saying, “All is Doomed,” we are paying government witchdoctors to tell us, “All is Doomed.” For the most part, these global warming alarmists are enjoying lifetime employment in the failed public-funded education system, engaged all the while in corrupting the minds and spirits of our young and destroying civilization from within like a cancer.
The fabricated consensus of the global warming complex has been what is now seen as the partnership model —i.e., mutual-interest-community-action instead of science. “‘Does the moon revolve around the earth?’ We would say “yes.” And, no one would ever preface that by saying, ‘well, the consensus of scientists says this.’” ~Michael Crichton
All is not doomed, despite your best efforts to make it so.
“Is it the policy of the Ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that Iran wants to destroy the United States?” the Texas Republican Ted Poe, of the House Foreign Relations Committee, asked Secretary of State John Kerry, on Tuesday.
“I don’t believe they’ve said that,” Kerry replied. “I think they’ve said ‘Death to America!’ in their chants.” ~ The New Yorker
If climatology is to be considered a real science and not just an exercise in numerology that should be given the seriousness we accord to the ancient science of astrology, we must trust climatologists. There’s the rub: we don’t. Politically approved, establishment science has proven itself to be nothing more than a useful hoax and scare tactic – a soapbox – that helps Leftists advance an ideology that Americanism is evil.
So, you have nothing but repeating the same political conspiracy theories over and over again. And of course, every time you say “we”, I expect you really mean “I and people like me”.
Question: Did AI teach you to write like that – lots of flowery word constructions with very little content?
Guessing that’s as close as you’d ever come to a compliment, intended or not. Interesting, the times we live in when respect for integrity, truth and the scientific method is confused with some artificial and reality.
Thank you for answering my question – by not answering it. Enjoy your journey.
Modern climate change alarmism is based on fake news that’s based on phony science that’s based on the misuse of continuously adjusted research data, poor statistics and unverifiable computer models. It is a knowing outright corruption of raw science without accountability of any kind, all made-up by a sycophantic culture of interrelated, self-reinforcing, self-serving gurus (elevated far above their competence for ideological reasons) who practice the art of superstitious preconceptions and flawed conclusions to push a politically-correct voodoo.
Wag, Nope, modern climate change alarmism is based on extensive scientific research data and evidence. But you wouldn’t know about that, and are not able to refute it. Keep practicing your prose – you might be able to write romance novellas someday.
‘RIVERS WILL RUN RED! OCEANS WILL BEGIN TO BOIL..’ Dr. Hansen
What is in store for us after A.I. Chatbots discover Nietzsche or… Wagathon? New Truth or Old Truth or Woke Truth or… the truth?
do you live on planet earrth? or some other planet? Because on planet earth, establishment science has been proven to be correct, and the skeptics were proven wrong as regards to co2 and warming. this happened gradually over the last thirty years but has been undeniable for at least 15 years. it’s as though you’re claiming “we will never land a man on the moon.” it’s over. you got it wrong. period. end of story.
Reality speaks louder than religious climate change preachers…
‘With no consensus on the science, the film takes a look at the goals and practices being implemented by each ideology. On one side there are grabs for more government control, regulation, a loss of personal freedom and centralization of power; all in the name of Climate Change.’
Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) (2023) – IMDb
Here’s a great piece at Nova’s.
Calling the Greens bluff? EV Sales fall 30% in Germany and Minister threatens to ban cars on weekends
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/04/calling-the-greens-bluff-ev-sales-fall-30-in-germany-and-minister-threatens-to-ban-cars-on-weekends/
Jo Nova has a great piece on EVs in Germany. Can’t post a link apparently, but I’m sure you can find it.
First heard something about that Friday, the idea that the electricity used to heat the EV would be taxed. Having to do with the fact that EVS are not paying any gasoline taxes and yet, the image you conjure up is garmers leaving the meeting hall in Wisconsin stopping at the window to remotely turn on the heat in their EV so it’ll be warm and waiting when they step outside, knowing full well that the electricity that charged the batteries in the EV did not come from renewables.
Germany is even colder. ‘Unfortunately, in its passion to lead the pack, Germany didn’t quite do its math. It has not created nearly enough renewable energy to replace the nuclear and coal that it is determined to phase out.’ ~agi
Nevertheless, Climate Change propagandists continue to claim their looney doomsday prognostications are all, e.g., ‘based on extensive scientific research data and evidence. But you wouldn’t know about that, and are not able to refute it,’ so… just trust me!
Don’t trust me, just read the references I provide. I do the same for you – oh, wait.
Quote:
Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth)
March 27, 2024
This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) have ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.
‘But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.’ (ibid)
The Delphic pronouncements of global warming alarmists have increasingly taken on an air of the macabre. About the very best you can say about any of them now is to compare them to the boy who cried, Wolf! Academia’s incessant, crying wolf! about dangers that never materialize and being admonished by these hypocrites who at every turn undermine the seriousness of their warnings by their own actions, serve only to blunt the usefulness of all warnings and interfere with society’s ability to assess and avoid real risks.
Judith, I still can’t receive comments by email. Please stop blocking me.
David,
Only “like”s and posts (leading articles), not comments, have email notifications available. If you’d like to query Dr. Curry about it directly, her email address is in the “About” button at the top of this website.
BA Bushaw wrote:
David,
Only “like”s and posts (leading articles), not comments, have email notifications available
I don’t think so. In the not-very-distance past I’ve received all comments from a post I commented on.
Ok, not my experience. Good luck.
Jungletrunks should stop behaving like a child.
Polly, says the surrogate momma hen coddling our local child.
Jungle,
Well yeah, people that act like belligerent children, need to be treated accordingly.
Polly “the parrot in white coat”. Now this bird gives clinical advise–must be the bad seed he incessantly consumes.
trunks,
At least the bird knows the difference between a verb and a noun.
Polly, you mean like verbing? To use a noun as a verb? With your empty spattering about, take it to the avian grammar board of squawks you specialize in. Who gives a flip about your chirps. You’ve got nothing, you now argue grammar, how quaint.
The local DA should stop his incessant blog sniveling and instead query his psych ward supervisor. It’s probably a dosage issue. Dr. Curry doesn’t have the requisite pharmacy license to fill his needs.
Why is no one suing the PR or China? The no.1 CO2 emitter by far. Not on Soros WEF agenda?
because… Hot World prognostications and belief are social and political science and More like religious beliefs as opposed to reason-based natural science.
‘the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.’ ~(The Movie, ibid)
Antonk: Why is no one suing the PR or China?”
Because China is aligned with UN politics. China and its synergistic axis has more than enough agency to pull UN strings.
Because then someone would have to sue the USA because they are the second-highest country with by far the highest per capita emmisions.
God bless you, Judith.
If we had a right to everything we consider desirable, there should be effective means to achieve them. In many cases there are. Climate is not one of those. Of those that are achievable, most require effort and in many cases luck. Not great luck, usually, just average luck.
As we know, CO2 is not in control of climate at this time, at these levels.
And we are not in control of CO2.
Lawyers need to be restricted to their competence. Which does not include science. Nor, in some cases, logic.
jimmww wrote:
As we know, CO2 is not in control of climate at this time, at these levels.
And we are not in control of CO2.
Such bald and utterly stupid ignorance.
I’d stay anonymous too if I were you.
Pingback: Wissenschaft war gestern – zurück ins Mittelalter!
The only right we have is to learn to adapt to a changing climate. Having done so has reduced human deaths by 99% over the past 100 years.
Adapt! Worth every penny we put into it.
Changing the climate! Not worth a single penny. Just wasting money that could be used to adapting which has worked for over a 100 years!
Mike wrote:
The only right we have is to learn to adapt to a changing climate. Having done so has reduced human deaths by 99% over the past 100 years.
No dude.
That reduction in deaths (for which you provided no evidence) has come from technology–better weather prediction, better warmings, better communications, better housing. Is that merely “adaptation.” Or is that normal progress? What about now, when the climate is changing faster than any known period in the history of the planet?
The extensive investigation used data from monitoring equipment installed in 600,000 vehicles, including gasoline, diesel and plug-in hybrid models across Europe.
The findings were particularly striking for plug-in hybrid vehicles, where real-world emissions were found to be 3.5 times higher than the figures claimed by manufacturers. On average, these vehicles were reported to emit 40 grams of CO2 per kilometer, but the actual emissions measured were 139 grams per kilometer, which is comparable to traditional, non-electric-assisted models.
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/rym1bp9gr
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard P. Feynman
Understanding the AGW belief system is necessary to get the complete picture of what was happening. As a belief system, AGW is not science and like religion it has its own reality outside our physical world. So, unsurprisingly a raft of superstitious beliefs abound although cloaked in assumed environmental instead of supernatural terms.
Understanding the psychological basis of AGW denial and diminution is necessary to get the complete picture of what is happening.
The ability to reason may be innate but logical thinking does take work. Keep at it. Absent psychological problems, it can be acquired by those who a desire to think rationally. The movie mentioned above might be a good place to start for those who’ve been brainwashed.
According to Dr. Happer, Earth is actually CO2 deprived.
Wagathon wrote:
According to Dr. Happer, Earth is actually CO2 deprived.
Why?
And that doubt goes both ways.
cerescokid wrote:
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard P. Feynman
Do you know what Feynman accomplished in his career, his main body of work?
Do you?
Was QED a culture of doubt, or a culture of science?
Do you know how well Feynman’s theory predicts g-2 for the electron? Do you even know what g-2 means?
If not, look it up.
What part of ‘CO2 is a harmless chemical’ is not understood? An example of Leftist AGW alarmist productivity is to apply more and more controls to individuals’ access to energy to create more and more economic slaves. There would be no humanity without global warming and CO2. The past 650,000 years of the Earth’s geological history as embodied in the Vostok ice cores tell us that current atmospheric levels of atmospheric CO2 is actually at a low point in. Dr. Will Happer’s testimony before the U.S. Senate established that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
“What part of ‘CO2 is a harmless chemical’ is not understood?”
All of it, particularly, “is not”. It depends on the concentration. To prove your point, please sleep in a room with 10% CO2.
“The past 650,000 years of the Earth’s geological history as embodied in the Vostok ice cores tell us that current atmospheric levels of atmospheric CO2 is actually at a low point in.”
False – highest CO2 concentration in 650 k years of Vostok ice cores was about 300 ppm. It is currently about 425 ppm, and the last time it was this high, the temperature was 3-4 C higher than it is now; wait for equilibrium,
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121&trk=public_post_comment-text
Dr. Happer’s fields of study are optical pumping and atomic spectroscopy. To quote him on climate is the logical fallacy of appeal to false authority. But, if that’s all you’ve got . . .
‘Though CO2 concentrations briefly peaked 320,000 years ago at 300 ppm, the average for the past 800,000 years was 230 ppm (Luthi 2008). The average CO2 concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times our current amount and 2.5 times the worst case predicted by the IPCC for 2100.’
Moreover, historical data shows that CO2 concentrations increased global warming. They did not precede global warming.
‘Our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average CO2 concentration in more than 600 million years.’ ~ Co2 coalition
CO2 concentrations increased after global warming. They did not precede global warming.
Wagathon wrote:
CO2 concentrations increased after global warming. They did not precede global warming.
You mean even though we’re pumping CO2 *DIRECTLY* into the atmosphere, temperature somehow managed to lead it?
Is temperature clairvoyant?
So you were wrong – thanks for admitting it.
the claim that co2 concentrations increased after warming is of course so misleading as to be essentially false. increases in co2 often followed initial warming, and preceded more extensive additional warming. this is known as a positive feedback loop. initial warming releases co2 which then causes additional warming. of course, you don’t really care about facts or you wouldn’t post such nonsense. yes, c02 concentrations were much, much higher. and what do you think the temperatures were like? lower or the same or a lot, lot higher? take a wild guess.
A human signal does not exist at all without manipulating the data and pointing to statistical models that real world observations invalidate altogether. The only correlation observed between increased CO2 and global warming, is the other way around: the historical record shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow periods of global warming. The lag time is measured in centuries — 1000±500 years (Wahlen et al. 1999).
Wagathon wrote:
A human signal does not exist at all without manipulating the data and pointing to statistical models that real world observations invalidate altogether.
Do you turn on your car’s engine only after the atmospheric temperature has gone up?
Or do you turn on your car’s engine whenever you need it, regardless of the outside temperature?
Why do the Earthly model-makers of global warming believe they can deal with lag times like we see in the example above –e.g., 13 to 130 years? Consider that we are not even aware of all the natural phenomena that take place around us — as we look back in time at past weather to tease out future trends — all of which are involved in climate change that we only understand, after-the-fact.
‘Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds
Scientists have confirmed that a “stabilizing feedback” on 100,000-year timescales keeps global temperatures in check.’ ~MIT News
The MIT thing isn’t so new. It’s called the long carbon cycle. IT demonstrates just how important CO2 is for controlling earth’s temperature (yeah, the “control knob”).
Yes. See
“The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html
and his scientific publications.
Wagathon wrote:
What part of ‘CO2 is a harmless chemical’ is not understood? An example of Leftist AGW alarmist productivity is to apply more and more controls to individuals’ access to energy to create more and more economic slaves.
This is just a bald, stupid statement.
You want to know who is controlling you? Government surveillance post-911. Large governments everywhere sucking down all Internet traffic, including yours. Tight surveillance of where and when you fly. Inability to cross borders without tight scrutiny. Government controlling your food supply, your fuel supply, hackers reading all your data and perhaps even shutting down your computers, your health insurance company knowing your entire medical situation and history and making decisions on your care instead of your doctor. Do I have to continue.
And of all that, your complaint is that you’re not allowed to pollute, prematurely kill 1 in 5 people on the planet, and change the climate for the next 100,000 years. Right….
Wagathon wrote:
There would be no humanity without global warming and CO2.
Humans and Neanderthals didn’t live during the last icy age?
The past 650,000 years of the Earth’s geological history as embodied in the Vostok ice cores tell us that current atmospheric levels of atmospheric CO2 is actually at a low point in.
“Low” is a judgement. Justify it.
Dr. Will Happer’s testimony before the U.S. Senate established that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
Happer has never been impressive. In what way is the planet “starved of CO2?” Please specify.
For those who think the imprimatur of NOAA or NASA, or any other federal agency, for data is reason to blindly accept it as fact they should think again.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLNuOTHXsAAzcXG?format=png&name=small
Thanks, looking forward to reading this from a lukewarmer.
India complains about hot summers whilst burning coal to beat the band. Why should we in the US suffer higher electricity prices due to unreliable wind and solar while China and India burn coal?
For starters, the 1,050-megawatt coal plant, one of the region’s largest, was supposed to shut down. Opened four decades ago, the facility is too cramped to install retrofits to meet the government’s pollution norms, prompting India’s power ministry to plan its closure by 2022. Yet the facility continues to run at full blast, clocking 90% utilization in February. Aging boilers guzzle coal from mines nearly 2,000 kilometers away — a transport distance that only adds to the nation’s emissions footprint.
Electricity consumption in India is growing at the fastest rate of any major economy, driven by rising temperatures and incomes, which have pushed up sales of power-intensive appliances like air conditioners. That explosive equation has exposed the country’s teetering grid. Though Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promised to rapidly build out solar and wind generation to replace polluting fossil fuels, his administration hasn’t been able to keep up with demand, giving a second life to old, inefficient coal plants like the one in Tuticorin.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-15/modi-promised-less-coal-more-green-energy-for-india-that-s-not-quite-happening
because it’s not unreliable, it’s safe and clean, it does not cause death and sickness from black lung disease and air pollution, and it does not require mountaintop removal that turns magnificent countryside into ruins. if india wants to let its citizens die of black lung, we need to do so as well?
You are living in the past, Dan.
https://www.businessinsider.com/india-harnessing-renewable-energy-through-worlds-biggest-solar-farm-2022-11
jim2 wrote:
India complains about hot summers whilst burning coal to beat the band. Why should we in the US suffer higher electricity prices due to unreliable wind and solar while China and India burn coal?
What makes you think US electricity costs are rising?
Last I looked, late 2022, real cost/kWh had been falling since at least….
AI will drive growth in natural gas usage for electricity.
How Electric Utilities Will Handle Booming AI Datacenter Demand
Get ready for more gas plants.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-15/how-electric-utilities-will-handle-booming-ai-datacenter-demand
‘But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.’ ~ Michael Crichton our team says yes they did stop
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html
‘most important challenge facing mankind’
See above (Michael crichton’s speech before the Commonwealth club)
21 year-old talk given by a fiction writer. LOL, getting desperate there.
‘And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism [and now, Hot World hysteria]. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.’ (ibid)
To the reasonable, rational and common sense mind, science will always make more sense.
Wagathon wrote:
To the reasonable, rational and common sense mind, science will always make more sense.
What part of climate science is wrong?
And why are you qualified to make that judgement?
Wagathon wrote:
‘But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.’ ~ Michael Crichton our team says yes they did stop
Michael Crichton?
MICHAEL CRICHTON??
You’re going to have to do a lot better. What was Crichton’s expertise in climate science?
Do better.
Why somebody would discuss CO2 ?
CO2 is a trace gas. CO2 doesn’t affect Earth’s temperature whatsoever.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Western liberals take turns scaring each other in the dark. But, the ‘new approach to environmentalism’ — according to Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace who authored “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout) — ‘requires embracing humans as a positive element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake.’ Patrick has essentially outed Leftists as perpetrators of an anti-humanist and anti-capitalist agenda by eco-commies.
Wagathon wrote:
Western liberals take turns scaring each other in the dark. But, the ‘new approach to environmentalism’ — according to Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace who authored “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout)
Let’s look at what Patrick Moore wrote when he was being paid by the nuclear industry:
“Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.”
– Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
– https://t.ly/AeKwm
– http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
==
“….nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”
— Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
via http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/09/when-patrick-moore-warned-about.html
==
“When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear.”
– – Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
– http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
– via http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/09/when-patrick-moore-warned-about.html
==
“Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress,” David Appell, 2/25/14.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/dr-patrick-moore-just-misled-congress.html
Patrick Moore’s get real message to the IPCC-
‘Thus, the warming effects of CO2, CH4, and N2O are too small to measure. The invalidity of the methane and nitrous oxide values indicates the GWPs of the remaining approximately sixty chemicals in the Table 2.14 list are also invalid. A recommendation is that the IPCC consider revising or retracting the GWP values in Table 2.14.’
https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2024.20.05
Now I’m being blocked for writing about Patrick Moore. SMH.
“Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.”
– Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
– http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
==
“….nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”
— Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
==
“When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear.”
– – Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
==
“Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress,” David Appell, 2/25/14
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/dr-patrick-moore-just-misled-congress.html
==
Can’t provide too much evidence here!!
And let’s not forget this absolute gem from Patrick Moore, refusing to drink the glyophate he said “you can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jWyrbP0TJQ
Major kudos to the interviewer and his team…. And this is Wagathon’s hero!
Because you are wrong.
Meanwhile, anti-America liberal fascists attach themselves to and stand in the way of every project that would uplift humanity, much like idiots, gluing their hands to the works of famous artists. Free Enterprise capitalists productive Americans are artists who bring the goods and services people want and need or they don’t eat.
Wagathon wrote:
Meanwhile, anti-America liberal fascists attach themselves to and stand in the way of every project that would uplift humanity, much like idiots
Examples please?
Obamacare?
The Inflation Reduction Act?
Prosecuting Jan 6 criminals?
Student loan relief?
and many more.
or do you mean Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy?
We also need a change when it comes to dealing with the weather and how we think about climate. When it comes to the science of climate, the huge ‘cone of uncertainty’ tells us that despite spending billions of dollars we still don’t have a handle on the ‘God factor.’
“In short,” says Bjorn Lomborg (The Wall Street Journal), “climate change is not worse than we thought.” The only alarming thing about climate change has been bad policy decisions based on, “exaggerated, worst-case claims,” that according to Lomborg, “ignore a wealth of encouraging data.”
‘It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected.’ ~Bjorn Lomborg
Somebody’s fibbing. From 2008 – 2023, GMST increased 0.634 C, 1.41 F. [Hadcrut 5.0.2.0]
Bjorn’s data (IPCC-6) is probably 5 years old. Mine is up-to-date through the latest full year.
Wagathon wrote:
“In short,” says Bjorn Lomborg (The Wall Street Journal), “climate change is not worse than we thought.”
At least he no longer denies climate change.
So will most of you, if you are smart.
If you aren’t, it is irrelevant.
Meanwhile, Bushaw continues to drown this blog with multiple comments.
I was chided by Bushaw for daring to link to an example of some of my research data, was accused of cherry picking. No apology came when I showed the full set of straight data in 128 graphs, each of which took my personal, unpaid time to make.
In contrast, I have seen no original climate data from critic Bushaw. All that Bushaw is doing in Wikipedia emulation, showing pro-CAGW links thought useful, as if we readers are incapable of searching and filtering. Remember how early Wiki articles on global warming were ratted systematically by “Stoat” aka William Connolly, altering, censoring, spinning one-sided RealClimate material? Real harm to good science resulted.
The Bushaw comments demonstrate a mind intent on conforming to the Establishment story, denouncing scepticism and repressing new ideas. What value is that? Are we stupid to follow the Establishment when it comes to harm from Covid vaccines? Or wise to argue against?
I detest censorship, so I do not ask for Bushaw to be banned from this otherwise excellent blog. I do not see any intellectually motivated reason for Bushaw to flood this particular site – all I see is time-consuming pushing of a point of view. All I can offer is a caveat emptor each time you encounter yet another Bushaw comment. Eventually, Bushaw will get tired of doing nothing better than day after day of same old, same old.
Such repeated negativity is hard to fathom.
Geoff S
Sorry I hurt your feelings. Yeah, I did accuse you of cherry-picking; data selected for only the “top 100 incidences” and a single graph that appears to be selected for zero slope (note the correlation coefficient). You responded and provided the full data sets (and I thanked you), and they nearly universally showed that there was statistically significant positive slope: increasing average temperature of heat strokes of your selected durations. As, I’ve said many times, skepticism is a two-way street – sorry you don’t like it.
“I have seen no original climate data from critic Bushaw”
If you mean analysis of publicly available data – like yours – then you haven’t looked, things I have posted here, e.g.:
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
https://mega.nz/file/omdizYYK#14vzHFCUn6qgx2CEor3vcXNlt_RSld7t2QMHqAu1_nA
Please, do send Dr. Curry a request for my banishment. I’m sure she is aware of most of my posts (and provocations); ocassionally some do not make it through.
Huh? To hurt feelings one must bring something illustrative beyond personal boastful color.
Polly in white coat: “Yeah, I did accuse you of cherry-picking” [as Polly walks down the Left aisle with a basket full of cherries]. It’s “…a two-way street – sorry you don’t like it”. Well yea, hehe! High five on that one, our fine feathered friend. Polly who has no fives to hand out though.
Side note: Dr. Curry doesn’t banish; though Polly’s filtered protectionist ideological envelope does. The local DA will undoubtably scornfully commiserate–our Polly will address with a retort as a colorful pugnaciously clawed hen does.
Polly repeats: To hurt feelings one must bring something illustrative beyond personal boastful color.
Bushaw,
Who ares about hurt feelings, apart from snowflakes?
There were two points to my comments:
1. You are commenting excessively on this blog. People with more blog manners do not do that.
2. The heatwave data that I showed, as noted many times before, contradicts the Establishment credo that “heatwaves are becoming longer, hotter and more frequent”. (Many references exist. A person with your intellectual coverage will have seen some, no need for me to link). I was trying to show those interested in data that the Establishment view is not supported in some places of importance, partly because the most cited Establishment references cherry pick time periods, few starting before 1950. I was inviting you to exercise your mind on the question of whether it is more valuable to correct an Establishment misconception that sways policy globally, than to converse about personal hurt feelings as if one-upmanship was in play. I don’t play that game.
Geoff S
Judith, I’m still blocked from receiving comments from here via email. Why?? Please fix this, unless it’s deliberate, and if it is at least tell me why.
02
Have you ever read about the term paranoia? Why on earth would Judith ever block you? You never say anything of much value and you certainly haven’t falsified anything she has written. Relax, nobody is out to get you.
I’ll share a quote attributed to one of the most well known professional golfers of the 20th century and whose name was on my first set of golf clubs given to me in 1962.
“ You’re only here for a short visit. Don’t hurry, don’t worry. And be sure to smell the flowers along the way.”
― Walter Hagen
Pingback: Court jesters - Climate Discussion Nexus
Te =255K is purely theoretical, because it is not the temperature of Earth, but the alleged temperature of something, that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy as Earth.
That Te =255K the alleged temperature of something, is calculated by reversing the S-B emission law formula, by assuming the not reflected part of the incident solar energy is entirely absorbed and evenly distributed on the planet surface, and then it is isotropically IR emitted.
–
Also, we have already demonstrated, the S-B emission law doesn’t apply on the surface’s lower temperatures, the Law doesn’t apply at the terrestrial temperatures.
Quote:
“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.”
Richard Feynman
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The best thing the farmers could do about this CO2 sequester project is just say no. The effort is in place so ethanol can be sold to other countries who want a “carbon neutral” product. If the US farmers don’t participate, the “carbon neutral” fuel will be more expensive, causing the entire edifice to collapse.
When executives in 2021 announced plans to build the largest carbon capture-and-storage project in the world beneath the heart of the US grain belt, they thought the pitch was a compelling one. The venture, which soon gained the backing of energy billionaire Harold Hamm, would catch, transport and trap emissions from ethanol plants in the upper Midwest, allowing the corn industry to compete in lucrative new markets like low-carbon jet fuel.
It hasn’t gone as planned. After regulator pushback and vocal opposition from farmers who don’t want to be anywhere near a project they claim tramples on landowner rights, Summit Carbon Solutions has gone back to the drawing board to revise the pipeline’s path 6,300 times. The project’s expected start has been delayed until early 2026, two years later than initial projections, with the estimated cost nearly doubling to about $8 billion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-13/summit-carbon-pipeline-in-us-corn-belt-awaits-state-permits-farmer-support
We are so lucky to have the UN. They are going to fix everything and life will be peaches and cream and a bowl of cherries.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity.
https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals
At least they are trying. What are you doing, other than your schadenfreude news clips? All they tell us is, change is not easy – why do you take so much joy in that?
If it’s impossible or just plain stupid, the left-tards will try it anyway.
As Polly suggests: when Fascists try, at least they’re doing something, same with Marxists—change is not easy, after all. The next question for Polly is for him to describe what’s exactly relevant, and why?
From jim2’s favorite source:
Is this one of those alarmist alarms that never happened?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-16/record-ocean-temperatures-are-plunging-the-world-s-coral-reefs-into-crisis
This is a byproduct of a world with over 8 billion humans on a path to reach 10 billion. Humanity will adapt just fine.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 17, 2024 at 9:23 am | Reply
From jim2’s favorite source:
Is this one of those alarmist alarms that never happened?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-16/record-ocean-temperatures-are-plunging-the-world-s-coral-reefs-into-crisis
Bushaw:
Probably the same alarm as the great barrier reef collapse due to global warming:
https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22
https://youtu.be/Y3Ph9QwW5-E
it’s just so comical, calling people to action to end poverty! omg, how silly. actually trying to help people! actually wanting to relieve suffering! hahaha. gosh those lefties are a riot. they want to help others! hahahaha!
BA Bushaw wrote:
At least they are trying. What are you doing, other than your schadenfreude news clips?
Yes, Jim2 is stuck in a culture war. He clearly can’t relate it to reality. It’s thinks that polluting the atmosphere and water really sticks it to the liberals! And he’ll eat mercury and inhale dirty air to prove it.
Fortunately he is also utterly irrelevant about such questions.
The “it’s proof of global warming” du jour is about the heavy rain in Dubai. As always, it’s more complex than portrayed by the media. A cloud seeding program was implemented, which might have had an impact. Beyond that, where there is flooding involved, the immediate focus should be on how has the natural drainage capacity been altered by man with increases in impervious surfaces and what adaptation has been built into the infrastructure. Nature doesn’t stop being nature just because we decide to build there.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/23/3363
From the beginning, Western academia’s meme of supposed science-based conclusions about human-caused global warming has never been anything more than a hoax and scare tactic. Why else would it come down to the Democrat Party pointing to imagined evils from Bush to Trump, scientific skeptics of AGW and the evil ‘right wing’ represented by those engaged in the business of living, i.e., free enterprise capitalism in America? The answer is obvious. Leftist dogma and liberal Utopian ideology is religious zealotry grounded in a fear-based hatred of all creeds and screeds that are foundational to notions of individual liberty. Why else would all they chant for are policies that hinder American exceptionalism in favor of oil producing dictatorships and totalitarian nations around the world, like Russia, China, Iran, Argentina, none of whom have the slightest care about Western academia’s Hot World wet dreams?
What’s going on is the Left’s strategy is no different than 9/11 jihadists: the enemy of reason holds a knife to the neck of a stewardess and John Wayne the pilot comes out of the cockpit to face off a crazy man, unaware of a bigger plan; that plan has the suicide jihadist’s two comrades stab the pilot in the back, cow the passengers and fly the ship into oblivion. That is what the Left is doing to America.
AGW has never been a scientific issue. It’s been a political issue from the beginning. Why else would it be a Left vs right issue? It’s not conservatives or Republicans that are marching in the streets chanting ‘Death to America.’ It’s all coming from the Left. Western academia is now in the business of rewriting history to the extent that it is now denying the Holocaust ever happened.
It is easy to Google that in China, ‘More than 1,000 coal plants are in operation, almost 240 planned or already under construction.’ Moreover, the hypocrisy of DC/Democommie energy policy is palpable as US energy producers are throttled but despots, religious fanatics and autocrats in Russia and Iran to Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are begged to pump more oil and are then flooded with cash at heady market rates. But, the public may be catching on to the insanity of the Hot World religion and politics that the fake news MSM, the half-baked educational industrial complex and Leftist blue state politicians have been dishing out since the ’90s.
Great minds of woke academia in its religious zeal to save the planet from America with its emphasis on individual liberty, self-actualization, personal responsibility and capitalism prefer to continue addressing non-problems and deceiving the public about an impending Hot World climate doomsday if America outproduces its anti-democratic, anti-western competitors.
Don’t worry, all! Jeff Bezos is coming to the rescue!
https://qz.com/jeff-bezos-earth-fund-100-million-ai-climate-change-1851413819
This is what you see when reality does not comport with the Climate Change Catastrophe narrative.
Despite this increasing awareness of the grave threat posed by runaway global warming, American banks are nevertheless increasing their bets on the industry most responsible for its acceleration. A group of US regional banks is ratcheting up lending to oil, gas and coal clients, grabbing market share as bigger European rivals back away. The list of fossil fuel funders includes Citizens Financial Group Inc., BOK Financial Corp. and Truist Securities Inc., according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The companies have climbed between 13 and 40 steps up the league table for Big Oil financiers since the end of 2021, placing them among the world’s top 35 banks by number of deals. Fifth Third Securities Inc. and US Bancorp, already in the top 30, both ascended 10 steps in the same period.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-18/climate-change-s-physical-risks-are-catching-up-with-banks
jim2 wrote:
“Despite this increasing awareness of the grave threat posed by runaway global warming, American banks are nevertheless increasing their bets on the industry most responsible for its acceleration. A group of US regional banks is ratcheting up lending to oil, gas and coal clients”
Really??
This week’s US coal production was down 9% from a year ago:
http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/weekly/tables/weekly_production.php
Coal is the filthiest energy source that’s available. Why is Jim in favor of it??
Only about 60% of electrical energy is converted to hydrogen energy. Then there will be more losses when the hydrogen is consumed. Such a deal I have for you!
Size: 2.2GW electrolyzer production plant, powered by 3.75GW of behind the meter solar and wind power with additional renewable energy drawn from the ERCOT grid during periods of low prices.
https://www.ghi-corp.com/projects/hydrogen-city
Interesting to know what was happening 2,000 years ago, especially since the Medieval Warming Period was warmer then than it is now-
‘The researchers found that after a few hundred years of a warm, wet, stable climate known as the Roman Climate Optimum, a sharp downward temperature trend began around 130 CE and continued well past the arrival of the Antonine Plague in 165 CE. Temperatures never returned to the warmth or stability of the early Roman Empire. The Plague of Cyprian hit around 251 CE amid another rapid temperature decline that lasted half a century. The first plague pandemic arrived in roughly 541 CE, when temperatures were near the lowest measured over the entire record.’
Study finds that three of the most severe plagues to ever hit humanity happened during cooling periods.
A 70,000-year cold spell ending ~125,000 years ago nearly resulted in the extinction of sapiens.
Wagathon says:
A 70,000-year cold spell ending ~125,000 years ago nearly resulted in the extinction of sapiens.
Says who?
You mean people without no technology whatsoever had trouble surviving in the cold? That’s evolution by natural selection, buddy.
I am reminded of a Unitarian minister who always used to say your life (religious) philosophy needs to be like good plumbing: it has to hold water. In other words, the cure needs to allow a good future, and being a nationalist, I would say, needs to allow a strong USA. In any case, U.S. Liberals want iPhones to be manufactured but where? They also want absolute zero pollution. How do we make stuff? Unclear, but we are promised utopia if we follow the US Liberal recommended formula.
i have never met a liberal who wanted “absolute zero pollution”. as nearly all of my friends and family consider themselves liberal, along with most of my work colleagues, and not a single one wants this, expects it, has ever mentioned, i can say with certainty that this claim is false. what we do want is a sustainable future, and with seven billion people on the planet, that involves cleaning up after ourselves, just as families do after meals. yes, it’s a pain. nobody likes doing dishes, but we do them. and we also need to control pollution.
The poorest Nations have the worst environmental pollution problems…
Wagathon wrote:
The poorest Nations have the worst environmental pollution problems…
Not smart.
Which nations have emitted the most carbon pollution?
The most aerosol pollution?
Is saving money more important than slowing climate change, or do increased damage losses exceed the cost of mitigation? Here is a new analysis:
“We compare the damages to which the world is committed over the next 25 years to estimates of the mitigation costs required to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement … we find that the median committed climate damages are larger than the median mitigation costs in 2050 (six trillion in 2005 international dollars) by a factor of approximately six”
“The economic commitment of climate change”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0
I think they are underestimating the costs and impacts to the broader degradation of the global biosphere. It took us over 50 years to realize that PFAS and PFOS (a family of man-made molecules with over 2,500 derivatives used in hundreds of thousands of manufactured products) are one of the most insidious and dangerous pollutants since leaded gasoline.
Just to cleanup our water supply in the US it will take tens of billions and that’s not including our lakes and rivers. Global cost would be many trillions more.
Known dangers to humans include: metabolic disorders, decreased fertility in females, developmental delays in offspring and increased risk of some prostate, kidney and testicular cancers.
Free WP link : https://wapo.st/4aG14kO
Why do we think just our species will be affected by these extinction accelerants??
I think our species will be least affected, it is very hard to get other species to build and use purification systems.
Other species will adapt to the climate, but won’t adapt to 8 to 10 billion hum.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Other species will adapt to the climate, but won’t adapt to 8 to 10 billion hum.
“hum?”
Gross under estimation of mitigation costs
Gross over estimation of damage costs
Other than that – great agenda driven / advocacy driven presentation
How do you know? Your personal opinions don’t count for much. The paper explains the methodology and how they reach their conclusions – you don’t.
BAB – Yes the paper explains their methodology and how they reach their conclusions.
It doesnt change the fact that they grossly over estimate damage costs and greatly understatement mitigation costs
Why do you worship advocacy junk science instead of having understanding of the basics. have you ever thought of performing any level of due diligence instead of just worshipping the BS
Yes, Joe – I do due diligence based on my scientific experience. You don’t pass muster. The papers that I read, and reference, do.
Repeating your opinion does not make it true. It does explain switching to personal attacks when you can’t substantiate your opinion.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | April 19, 2024 at 9:56 pm |
Yes, Joe – I do due diligence based on my scientific experience. You don’t pass muster. The papers that I read, and reference, do.
BaB – You must be working with a highly distorted definition of ” due diligence ” .
If you had drilled down into the underlying macro economic assumptions, you would have noticed they are highly speculative. Almost Paul Erhlich level speculation.
Joe,
Empty drivel. Why don’t you enumerate the “underlying “macroeconomic [sc] assumptions” that you tell me I would have noticed are highly speculative (as if you would have any idea as to what I notice) and provide supporting evidence for the same? I don’t give a … about your undereducated personal opinions.
Pingback: Ret til solskin og mindre tyngdekraft – Tu Ne Cede Malis