Three cheers for Gregory Hopper. I only wish he had been heard before Mark Carney, the gavoon who was Governor of the BoE who so damagingly pushed hard for Net Zero based on studies like the one discussed, metastasized back to Canada where he is now working (as the Prime Minister, pray for us) to destroy our resource based economy.
Where was "peer review" in all this? From the description of the errors given here, it sounds like a reviewer w 9th Grade Math who was only half paying attention would have caught it and the paper never would have seen the light of day. Indeed, how did the Authors themselves not catch the glaring errors? Moreover, aren't Scientists submitting papers to Science Journals (especially prestigious ones) now required to submit all their data, computer programs and the like (No More Hockey Sticks, Nature!)? Also, one must ask, how many other papers w egregious but less obvious errors have slipped thru the peer preview process of Nature and other prestigious, highly influential Journals?
Great news: the Wall Street Journal must be following THB: WSJ did a piece today on the Nature retraction ‘Climate Study Retraction for the Ages’. It called the climate catastrophe narrative a ‘scandal of our age’.
“believes studying specific questions — like how to decarbonize while keeping electricity affordable — is more useful than projecting macroeconomic impacts decades down the road.”
Nuclear
Nuclear
Nuclear.
Wish I had the power to kill the Pathways Alliance carbon capture future white elephant here in Alberta, a project I will likely make out like a bandit on.
Can I still be a subscriber here when I’m a climate grifter?
The Times's coverage is pretty good--bravo for them. But I winced a little at this: "Instead of a 62 percent decline in economic output by 2100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by 23 percent." The reference to "world where carbon emissions continue unabated" is to RCP8.5.
Question on the (winceworthy) reduction in gdp: I thought RCP8.5 was based on strong global economic and population growth etc; if so it’s difficult to imagine how you’d get a contraction of 20-60% in global gdp. The two are totally contradictory.
Maybe they’re referring to reduction in gdp growth rate? (not sure that would make sense either)
Roger is more expert than I, but since he hasn't given you an answer I'll take a stab at it. Maybe if I'm sufficiently incorrect he'll circle back and give you a better answer.
As I understand it, RCP8.5 didn't have a strong economic component. Instead it was a physical science-type scenario based on high population growth and a lot of coal use--I mean, a LOT of coal use, like 10x more than at the time RCP was developed (2008-10, I believe). Also a LOT of people--I think 12 billion or so by 2100, which nobody thinks we'll reach now. But anyway RCP8.5 didn't have a real economic model other than hand-waving about how things will continue.
Now the SSPs ("shared socioeconomic pathways") ARE socioeconomic models that do specifically consider factors like economic growth in addition to emissions from fossil fuels. The SSPs were supposed to be integrated with the RCPs but basically never were. Anyway, the higher-number SSPs DO include strong economic and population growth, and people often conflate them, and that's what you may have heard.
Only when the Nobel Prize committee retracts Al Gore's prize for his horrendous movie "An Inconvenient Truth", which was filled with lies and misrepresentations and scared a generation of young people away from having children, can we say that the tide has changed.
You mean the committee that has not retracted the Suu Kyi peace prize? The statutes of the Nobel Peace Prize, and the will of Alfred Nobel that supports it, does not contain any instrument to revoke an awarded prize.
It is likely that Planck's Principle, "Science progresses one funeral at a time" will apply here... modified to "funerals" plural, given the colossal sums "invested" in fighting climate change and the number of legionnaires dependent on it.
NASA announcing the first ever global satellite mapping to "pinpoint sources of CO2 pollution", begun by the 2014 launch of OCO2, had delivered the unexpected result, (despite 5 years of analysis!) that " tropical regions are a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere" and not the "sinks" which had been the consensus view. That this information was not received with joy by the climate community and likely verboten at COP 30 in the "CO2 pollution saturated" rain forest, is hardly surprising. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
Apple carts may be upset but gravy trains are not to be derailed.
The USDA quietly removing "dietary cholesterol" as an "interest" late on a Friday may have reduced government campaigning to finger natural dietary fats as the major cause of heart disease, with hydrogenated vegetable oils and carbohydrates, especially sugars, replacing the high satiation properties of fats now considered a major driver of our obesity and diabetes epidemics. The original flawed or fraudulent research by K-ration developer, Ancel Keys, caught the attention and sponsorship of Eisenhower's physician, Paul Dudley White, and the resulting campaign became one of the most costly public health initiatives ever, with what now look like, catastrophic, counterproductive outcomes. Most doctors paid no attention.
My assumption was, as per the NASA article referenced, "where the carbon dioxide is always systematically higher or lower than in the surrounding areas... Positive anomalies are most likely sources of carbon dioxide, while negative anomalies are most likely to be sinks, or reservoirs, of carbon dioxide."
As OCO2 was tasked with "pinpointing the sources of pollution" in the original mission statement, measured CO2 concentration in the scanned atmospheric air column, it does not have a ground level focus.
Recent research has revealed that copious sources of CO2 and methane in rain forests are sub-surface bacteria (some nominal life forms are kms deep) for which trees provide a conduit to the upper atmosphere, a phenomenon demonstrated in 1907, when Francis Bushong of the University of Kansas drove a tube into a cottonwood tree and lighting the 60% methane evolved. As agency science guides for elementary students in the 1990s advised describing CO2 as "an invisible, colourless gas produced by dead animals and rotting vegetation" (correct, but avoiding mention of the familiar bubbles in fizzy drinks) this should be no surprise.
NASA's usual rapid release of preliminary data did not happen with OCO2. The first viewable graphic charts were released by enthusiasts processed from the raw data columns. They showed, as did NASA's much later, persistent high levels of CO2 over tropical areas and equatorial ocean spaces, not the fossil burning urban concentrations causing "the seas to overflow" and "the oceans to boil" as the UN head puts it.
NASA admitting that prior assumptions were "not what the data showed" and "This changes our understanding of things” were hopeful signs that real "science"of curious discovery was returning, but the "crickets" response, not so much.
Would you agree that to classify sinks or sources, you need a measurement of flux or motion, to give the direction of change? This cannot be done from static observations of the OCO2 type without making some subjective assumptions. Geoff S
All conclusions require assumptions and OCO2 has nowhere near the resolution to "pinpoint" sources or sinks. The sequential snapshots over yearly periods do elaborate on seasonal reversals in the trend, (visible on closer inspection of the Mauna Loa's single point record, usually cited as the "earth's"), in far greater detail and with geographic mapping. The assumption that higher concentrations disperse to lower areas without some intervening steering mechanism seems acceptable.
The great value of "science" has always been its tentative nature, self correcting by being always open to challenge, not bound by "settled" dogma.
It's hard to be a completely objective scientist if someone says, "Sorry, but you made a mistake." Creating 24-hour weather forecasts that people trust requires humility.
The danger of the narrative that you can see the end of the tunnel is that it could just be an onrushing train about to destroy you. The problems in science are structural and will take a long time to change. They will require changing to funding mechanisms and at least partial defunding. Trump's science appointments have been very good and they seem determined to at least try to make changes. Every time I think about the covid mass hysteria event, I realize how deeply embedded big Pharma is in the scientific establishment and the Federal government. That must end before changes will have a big impact.
There will be no substantial change until a serious number of activists are retired from the field.
There are people who cannot possibly walk back the things they have said and done starting with the gutter things Piltdown Mann said about Judith Curry.
Climate science has no credibility as long as he is part of it.
As the saying goes, science advances one funeral at a time.
It does seem like similar papers get what are likely absurd cost estimates over 15% of GDP - I would be quite interested in knowing what drives those results relative to what the mainstream IAM models get
there was a very large climate conference in Spain 11/15 . I can't seem to enter the PDF in this post...The french translation of the title is: THERE IS NO CLIMAT CRISIS...HERE IS ADOBE SUMMARY....
The document discusses the first conference held by the Association of Climate Realists (ARC) on November 15, 2025, at the Francisco Marroquín University in Madrid. The event aimed to challenge what the association calls "unjustified alarmism" regarding climate change, presenting scientific data that contradicts mainstream narratives.
Key points from the conference:
Climate Trends: ARC claims the planet is in a long-term cooling period, with the current warming trend starting in the 19th century, making it premature to attribute it primarily to human activities.
CO₂ Impact: The association argues that the effects of CO₂ on climate are unclear but highlights its positive role in increasing global vegetation by 14% since 1982, benefiting ecosystems.
Extreme Weather: Data presented suggests that extreme weather events, such as cyclones, wildfires, and floods, are not worsening. For example, Arctic ice has remained stable for 18 years, and most Pacific atolls are growing rather than sinking.
Criticism of Climate Models: ARC criticizes climate models for failing to accurately represent historical cooling and for making incorrect predictions about ice disappearance and rising sea levels.
Food Security: Experts argue that climate change has minimal impact on global food production, with hunger being attributed to poor governance rather than environmental factors.
Media Alarmism: A panel discussion highlighted how media amplifies climate alarmism without verifying facts.
The ARC concludes that there is no conclusive evidence that CO₂ is the primary driver of climate change or that its increase is harmful. Instead, they emphasize its benefits and advocate for adaptation strategies rather than drastic measures to reduce emissions. The association challenges the consensus on human responsibility for climate change and calls for a focus on scientific data over alarmist narratives.
In Hopper, he stated “One recent academic paper tested 800 plausible specifications of climate damage functions, finding that damages ranged from large economic benefits to large economic losses.”.
I can’t say I’ve ever heard of climate change potentially having “large economic benefits”.
Well, we have warmed slightly out of the coldest period in the history of human civilization, an awful period of famine, disease, migration, slaughter, etc etc
Can you see a benefit in that?
Funny how the previous (warmer) peaks were all periods of peak civilization, optimums?
Interested to hear how you categorize all of that?
R Gunther, Three benefits that have been occurring are 1) greater agricultural productivity because of more atmospheric CO2 and its CO2 fertilization effect which increases crop yields, 2) the greening of many global arid regions, including some deserts, for the same reason, and 3) fewer deaths from exposure to cold weather that is far more lethal globally than exposure to hot weather.
Roger, there is an excellent article on Page 1 of today's Wall Street Journal, entitled "Green Energy Push in Europe Backfires", by Tom Fairless and Max Colchester. It details how overestimates of potential damage from climate change have led European regulators and politicians to eliminate fossil fuels before renewables were ready to replace them. The result was a doubling of electricity prices due to green subsidies and carbon taxes. Not surprisingly, whole industries are in collapse and ordinary people cannot heat their homes through the winter's day. "Many European consumers and businesses are now stuck in the worst of both worlds." Much of this is due to magical thinking on the part of said politicians, "Very clearly the cost of the [energy] transition has never been admitted or recognized. There has been massive dishonesty involved." Kolz et al is not specifically mentioned, but the hysterical thinking behind it has been leading European pols astray since Boris Johnson's time. Here in the US, we have an opportunity to avoid the worst of the mistakes Europe has made in this critical aspect of governance.
The author of that article, although closer to reality, is still delusional or extremely poorly educated.
Renewables can never replace fossil fuels, ever. The physics of it simply will not work and all of the proposals over the last 20 years glaze over the glaring problems with mumbling about magic batteries which do not exist and probably never will.
Nuclear could do the job, mostly, but nuclear is not listed as "renewable".
Three cheers for Gregory Hopper. I only wish he had been heard before Mark Carney, the gavoon who was Governor of the BoE who so damagingly pushed hard for Net Zero based on studies like the one discussed, metastasized back to Canada where he is now working (as the Prime Minister, pray for us) to destroy our resource based economy.
Where was "peer review" in all this? From the description of the errors given here, it sounds like a reviewer w 9th Grade Math who was only half paying attention would have caught it and the paper never would have seen the light of day. Indeed, how did the Authors themselves not catch the glaring errors? Moreover, aren't Scientists submitting papers to Science Journals (especially prestigious ones) now required to submit all their data, computer programs and the like (No More Hockey Sticks, Nature!)? Also, one must ask, how many other papers w egregious but less obvious errors have slipped thru the peer preview process of Nature and other prestigious, highly influential Journals?
Great news: the Wall Street Journal must be following THB: WSJ did a piece today on the Nature retraction ‘Climate Study Retraction for the Ages’. It called the climate catastrophe narrative a ‘scandal of our age’.
“believes studying specific questions — like how to decarbonize while keeping electricity affordable — is more useful than projecting macroeconomic impacts decades down the road.”
Nuclear
Nuclear
Nuclear.
Wish I had the power to kill the Pathways Alliance carbon capture future white elephant here in Alberta, a project I will likely make out like a bandit on.
Can I still be a subscriber here when I’m a climate grifter?
The Times's coverage is pretty good--bravo for them. But I winced a little at this: "Instead of a 62 percent decline in economic output by 2100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by 23 percent." The reference to "world where carbon emissions continue unabated" is to RCP8.5.
Question on the (winceworthy) reduction in gdp: I thought RCP8.5 was based on strong global economic and population growth etc; if so it’s difficult to imagine how you’d get a contraction of 20-60% in global gdp. The two are totally contradictory.
Maybe they’re referring to reduction in gdp growth rate? (not sure that would make sense either)
Missed this!
I’ll circle back soon!
Roger is more expert than I, but since he hasn't given you an answer I'll take a stab at it. Maybe if I'm sufficiently incorrect he'll circle back and give you a better answer.
As I understand it, RCP8.5 didn't have a strong economic component. Instead it was a physical science-type scenario based on high population growth and a lot of coal use--I mean, a LOT of coal use, like 10x more than at the time RCP was developed (2008-10, I believe). Also a LOT of people--I think 12 billion or so by 2100, which nobody thinks we'll reach now. But anyway RCP8.5 didn't have a real economic model other than hand-waving about how things will continue.
Now the SSPs ("shared socioeconomic pathways") ARE socioeconomic models that do specifically consider factors like economic growth in addition to emissions from fossil fuels. The SSPs were supposed to be integrated with the RCPs but basically never were. Anyway, the higher-number SSPs DO include strong economic and population growth, and people often conflate them, and that's what you may have heard.
By the way, SSP8.5 had such outlandish assumptions that even its creators had trouble trying to make the scenario work. You can read about this whole confusing mess in this Carbon Brief summary: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario/
RCP8.5 is still going strong! I just tweeted out a headline maker today 😎
Electricity is only around 20% of energy use, so none of the 'renewables' push can affect the other 80% in any way.
Only when the Nobel Prize committee retracts Al Gore's prize for his horrendous movie "An Inconvenient Truth", which was filled with lies and misrepresentations and scared a generation of young people away from having children, can we say that the tide has changed.
You mean the committee that has not retracted the Suu Kyi peace prize? The statutes of the Nobel Peace Prize, and the will of Alfred Nobel that supports it, does not contain any instrument to revoke an awarded prize.
This editorial appeared in The Free Press today: https://www.thefp.com/p/the-cost-of-confused-climate-science?r=2jvin&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
It is likely that Planck's Principle, "Science progresses one funeral at a time" will apply here... modified to "funerals" plural, given the colossal sums "invested" in fighting climate change and the number of legionnaires dependent on it.
NASA announcing the first ever global satellite mapping to "pinpoint sources of CO2 pollution", begun by the 2014 launch of OCO2, had delivered the unexpected result, (despite 5 years of analysis!) that " tropical regions are a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere" and not the "sinks" which had been the consensus view. That this information was not received with joy by the climate community and likely verboten at COP 30 in the "CO2 pollution saturated" rain forest, is hardly surprising. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
Apple carts may be upset but gravy trains are not to be derailed.
The USDA quietly removing "dietary cholesterol" as an "interest" late on a Friday may have reduced government campaigning to finger natural dietary fats as the major cause of heart disease, with hydrogenated vegetable oils and carbohydrates, especially sugars, replacing the high satiation properties of fats now considered a major driver of our obesity and diabetes epidemics. The original flawed or fraudulent research by K-ration developer, Ancel Keys, caught the attention and sponsorship of Eisenhower's physician, Paul Dudley White, and the resulting campaign became one of the most costly public health initiatives ever, with what now look like, catastrophic, counterproductive outcomes. Most doctors paid no attention.
Wayne,
What is your understanding of the requirements that lead a region being defined as a sink or a source from the OCO2 measurements?
Thanks Geoff S
My assumption was, as per the NASA article referenced, "where the carbon dioxide is always systematically higher or lower than in the surrounding areas... Positive anomalies are most likely sources of carbon dioxide, while negative anomalies are most likely to be sinks, or reservoirs, of carbon dioxide."
As OCO2 was tasked with "pinpointing the sources of pollution" in the original mission statement, measured CO2 concentration in the scanned atmospheric air column, it does not have a ground level focus.
Recent research has revealed that copious sources of CO2 and methane in rain forests are sub-surface bacteria (some nominal life forms are kms deep) for which trees provide a conduit to the upper atmosphere, a phenomenon demonstrated in 1907, when Francis Bushong of the University of Kansas drove a tube into a cottonwood tree and lighting the 60% methane evolved. As agency science guides for elementary students in the 1990s advised describing CO2 as "an invisible, colourless gas produced by dead animals and rotting vegetation" (correct, but avoiding mention of the familiar bubbles in fizzy drinks) this should be no surprise.
NASA's usual rapid release of preliminary data did not happen with OCO2. The first viewable graphic charts were released by enthusiasts processed from the raw data columns. They showed, as did NASA's much later, persistent high levels of CO2 over tropical areas and equatorial ocean spaces, not the fossil burning urban concentrations causing "the seas to overflow" and "the oceans to boil" as the UN head puts it.
NASA admitting that prior assumptions were "not what the data showed" and "This changes our understanding of things” were hopeful signs that real "science"of curious discovery was returning, but the "crickets" response, not so much.
Thank you, Wayne.
Would you agree that to classify sinks or sources, you need a measurement of flux or motion, to give the direction of change? This cannot be done from static observations of the OCO2 type without making some subjective assumptions. Geoff S
All conclusions require assumptions and OCO2 has nowhere near the resolution to "pinpoint" sources or sinks. The sequential snapshots over yearly periods do elaborate on seasonal reversals in the trend, (visible on closer inspection of the Mauna Loa's single point record, usually cited as the "earth's"), in far greater detail and with geographic mapping. The assumption that higher concentrations disperse to lower areas without some intervening steering mechanism seems acceptable.
The great value of "science" has always been its tentative nature, self correcting by being always open to challenge, not bound by "settled" dogma.
It's hard to be a completely objective scientist if someone says, "Sorry, but you made a mistake." Creating 24-hour weather forecasts that people trust requires humility.
The danger of the narrative that you can see the end of the tunnel is that it could just be an onrushing train about to destroy you. The problems in science are structural and will take a long time to change. They will require changing to funding mechanisms and at least partial defunding. Trump's science appointments have been very good and they seem determined to at least try to make changes. Every time I think about the covid mass hysteria event, I realize how deeply embedded big Pharma is in the scientific establishment and the Federal government. That must end before changes will have a big impact.
There will be no substantial change until a serious number of activists are retired from the field.
There are people who cannot possibly walk back the things they have said and done starting with the gutter things Piltdown Mann said about Judith Curry.
Climate science has no credibility as long as he is part of it.
As the saying goes, science advances one funeral at a time.
It does seem like similar papers get what are likely absurd cost estimates over 15% of GDP - I would be quite interested in knowing what drives those results relative to what the mainstream IAM models get
there was a very large climate conference in Spain 11/15 . I can't seem to enter the PDF in this post...The french translation of the title is: THERE IS NO CLIMAT CRISIS...HERE IS ADOBE SUMMARY....
The document discusses the first conference held by the Association of Climate Realists (ARC) on November 15, 2025, at the Francisco Marroquín University in Madrid. The event aimed to challenge what the association calls "unjustified alarmism" regarding climate change, presenting scientific data that contradicts mainstream narratives.
Key points from the conference:
Climate Trends: ARC claims the planet is in a long-term cooling period, with the current warming trend starting in the 19th century, making it premature to attribute it primarily to human activities.
CO₂ Impact: The association argues that the effects of CO₂ on climate are unclear but highlights its positive role in increasing global vegetation by 14% since 1982, benefiting ecosystems.
Extreme Weather: Data presented suggests that extreme weather events, such as cyclones, wildfires, and floods, are not worsening. For example, Arctic ice has remained stable for 18 years, and most Pacific atolls are growing rather than sinking.
Criticism of Climate Models: ARC criticizes climate models for failing to accurately represent historical cooling and for making incorrect predictions about ice disappearance and rising sea levels.
Food Security: Experts argue that climate change has minimal impact on global food production, with hunger being attributed to poor governance rather than environmental factors.
Media Alarmism: A panel discussion highlighted how media amplifies climate alarmism without verifying facts.
The ARC concludes that there is no conclusive evidence that CO₂ is the primary driver of climate change or that its increase is harmful. Instead, they emphasize its benefits and advocate for adaptation strategies rather than drastic measures to reduce emissions. The association challenges the consensus on human responsibility for climate change and calls for a focus on scientific data over alarmist narratives.
In Hopper, he stated “One recent academic paper tested 800 plausible specifications of climate damage functions, finding that damages ranged from large economic benefits to large economic losses.”.
I can’t say I’ve ever heard of climate change potentially having “large economic benefits”.
What benefits might they be?
Well, we have warmed slightly out of the coldest period in the history of human civilization, an awful period of famine, disease, migration, slaughter, etc etc
Can you see a benefit in that?
Funny how the previous (warmer) peaks were all periods of peak civilization, optimums?
Interested to hear how you categorize all of that?
To underscore D Allen’s points, previous warm periods were referred to as ‘The Medieval Climate Optimum’ and ‘The Roman Climate Optimum’.
R Gunther, Three benefits that have been occurring are 1) greater agricultural productivity because of more atmospheric CO2 and its CO2 fertilization effect which increases crop yields, 2) the greening of many global arid regions, including some deserts, for the same reason, and 3) fewer deaths from exposure to cold weather that is far more lethal globally than exposure to hot weather.
Another arrow for our climatic economics quiver.
Roger, there is an excellent article on Page 1 of today's Wall Street Journal, entitled "Green Energy Push in Europe Backfires", by Tom Fairless and Max Colchester. It details how overestimates of potential damage from climate change have led European regulators and politicians to eliminate fossil fuels before renewables were ready to replace them. The result was a doubling of electricity prices due to green subsidies and carbon taxes. Not surprisingly, whole industries are in collapse and ordinary people cannot heat their homes through the winter's day. "Many European consumers and businesses are now stuck in the worst of both worlds." Much of this is due to magical thinking on the part of said politicians, "Very clearly the cost of the [energy] transition has never been admitted or recognized. There has been massive dishonesty involved." Kolz et al is not specifically mentioned, but the hysterical thinking behind it has been leading European pols astray since Boris Johnson's time. Here in the US, we have an opportunity to avoid the worst of the mistakes Europe has made in this critical aspect of governance.
"before renewables were ready to replace them"
The author of that article, although closer to reality, is still delusional or extremely poorly educated.
Renewables can never replace fossil fuels, ever. The physics of it simply will not work and all of the proposals over the last 20 years glaze over the glaring problems with mumbling about magic batteries which do not exist and probably never will.
Nuclear could do the job, mostly, but nuclear is not listed as "renewable".
Nuclear was formally added to EU green energy taxonomy in mid 2022.