I don’t share Roger’s optimism about reality prevailing anytime soon. As he knows from personal experience and has also discussed in other contexts, scientists who don’t toe the party line on this risk their funding and careers. The reason for this is that politicians want a pretext to centralize power and control, and only a crisis will do. And the government controls a great deal of the funding for research into climate.
Note that government policies which make people poorer also have the potential to increase dependency, which has been a reliable way to build voter constituencies.
We won’t even know 80 years from now because policies which are being implemented now based on bogus assumptions will be credited for whatever happens in the future. It’s kind of like giving antibiotics to someone with a cold; the person gets better and credits the antibiotics, when in reality they would have had exactly the same outcome whether they took the antibiotics or not.
I have written a little booklet for this exact reason. I would attach it, but that doesn't work here. It is available for 99cents on Kindle. "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty" by Hisey 2022. Or anyone who sends me a normal email address will get a free pdf copy, which is in the public domain.
The need to "keep the scream alive" by treating each 10th of a degree like it's another child sacrificed to a volcano god rings pretty similar to another precautionary principle canard: the Linear No Threshold phobia that treats any radiation level as inherently evil & thus assists in the blockade against a rational zero carbon nuclear energy policy.
I don't think this is exactly "change is difficult" but "I am desperate to retain my status, grant and money-making scheme leveraging climate crisis"
And here is the kicker.
1. Even though we might agree that average global temperatures are increasing (ignoring that for the last 8 years they have been on a slight downward trend)...
2. We still do not have anything but theories based on circumstantial evidence that human activity is responsible for that warming.
3. We absolutely do not know the human or environmental impact/costs that might result from any actual long-term global warming including what measures of adaption are invented and implemented.
And so we risk making mistakes in policy that cause greater negative reciprocal impacts and costs than would avoiding those policies.
What in the world would politicians do if they can’t distract us from their utter incompetence with the invisible hobgoblins of climate change and pandemics? I ask with seriousness. Because if the public becomes desensitized to the former, you know they’ll come up with something.
"the world should still try to limit future global warming as much as possible." Take literally, this would mean bankrupting our economy with insanely expensive energy, or deliberately impoverishing everyone by greatly reducing energy production. Surely, that's not what you mean. Given that even the IPCC sees few detectable effects of warmer climate by 2100, why should we try to limit it as much as possible? (I would go further and ask why limit it at all, since I think the overall effects are are likely to be positive, or neutral at worst.)
I agree, and would add: how on Earth would anyone think we actually COULD limit future global warming, much less control the amount of CO2 released through both human and natural sources? Blithe talk about "reversing" climate change, any hint that we could somehow decide what the temperature the planet should be, what level of CO2 is optimal, and how we could recruit and coordinate the behavior of 7 billion of us, is wildly unrealistic thinking. We have barely begun to comprehend the myriad natural causes of climate change, most of which we are unlikely to be able to control, and since the vast majority of CO2 resides in the oceans, we have no control over the forces and events that result in CO2 entering or exiting the incomprehensible volume of those oceans.
So, what does a world with 2.4 degrees higher temperatures look like? How bad is that? Seems to me that’s the question to answer if we want to know whether to push policy harder.
It would be interesting to know what the 2.4 degrees is in addition to. I have tried to read about how folks calculate the global average temperature now and my eyes crossed before I could get very far. Poor data supplemented by assumed estimates is what I walked away with. And of course global average is essentially meaningless; somesmay be higher, some lower. We live in specific locations with specific historically-based climate calculations. We don't live "globally" nor do we have any sound idea what global climate has historically been so that climate calculations are possible.
Assuming we can agree on the fanciful made up numbers we want to use today.
Currently we aren't as warm as the medieval warm period, which was cooler than the roman, etc. Regardless of what any fraudulent hockey stick graphs might purport to show.
I'm betting that at 2.4c above the LIA, most people won't notice, they'll be too busy living the good life, if we don't destroy the good life with awful climate change policy.
I don't fear climate change, for me, my kids or my hoped for great grand kids.
I do fear climate change POLICY, which could leave me sitting here in alberta with no power during a 10 day february arctic high at -40c with no wind and solar.
An executive with Enmax recently posted an analysis, showing that Alberta had 3 level 3 grid alerts (imminent load shed) in the decade to 2017, we had 10 in the last 12 months.
I do think we are at a crucial tipping point in terms of a return to a reality-based mean. I strongly hope you could find the resources to setup a clearinghouse-type website similar to catastrophist sites like skepticalscience.com et al. I'd like to engage at the public level but I need a point-by-point reference that is scientifically sound but completely without one bit of the snark that so strongly features in the anti-skeptics' public image. Can you help?
Epstein's commentary is useful as rhetoric, but he also can't resist sounding shrill at times as befits his credential, which is a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy.
To be more blunt: there is a person who has the credentials to set up a viable clearinghouse site, and his name is Dr. Roger Pielke. The Catastrophists are clearly afraid of him, and for good reason.
Scientists don't have time to stump for Energy Sanity as Epstein does. And it is actually an Engineer's profession, not a Scientist's. And for either one it's a full time job. Most of them who do that don't have great or any qualifications in the field. The Greenie side's favorite goto energy "expert" is Mark Jacobson who is a Civil Engineer, not an energy relevant field either. And most energy lobbyists are just lawyers.
Furthermore, those who insist that you need specific letters after your name before you are worth listening to are ignoring the fact that people all over the world who have become interested in climate and who are capable of reading, understanding and absorbing new knowledge are already informing themselves about climate change. And do not forget that even if you are some kind of lettered "climate scientist" , which is still a young discipline, you are still a human being with the capacity to fool yourself and others into accepting some truly bizarre ideas. The history of science holds many examples,
Climate Science itself involves so many, many disciplines that I assert no one today can truly be a master of them all. Climate science encompasses at a mimimum :meterology, physics, mathematics, fluid dynamics, geology, thermodynamics, solar studies, astronomy, archeology, history, oceanography, plant biology, zoology, and yes, philosophy. Experts in all these specialties, and others I have left out, all have something to contribute to our understanding of the forces that drive climate on this singular planet, in the past, the present and the future. It is good minds we need now, and they can be found in any discipline.
While many here will disagree with referencing a "denier" website, this summation of all the different climate memes is still by far the best. Willis is a data wonk par excellence, rarely see him lose an argument.
Unfortunately, Mr Watts' page doesn't pass muster in terms of his understanding of the science and statistics, and of course he can't resist the snark. E.g., his understanding of Random Walk analysis is completely wrong, so I respectfully can't agree with the label "data wonk par excellence". Let's face it he is an ex-tv weatherman, so not the credentialled expert we need.
The Catastrophists are weakest now because they went demonstrably too far in their predictions, not because the basic science is wrong. The only way is to fight their soft (model-driven) science with hard (measurement-driven) science.
Patrick, i just want to point out the delicious irony of these comments and debate here on The Honest Broker, because every time i post a link to one of Roger's articles i get reliable feedback that Roger is a denier and suggestions i go to alarmist ad hominem sites like Desmogblog and skepticalscience to get the real lowdown on how Roger is a denier hack who should be deplatformed.
Roger puts up post after post on various aspects of extreme weather showing how the data does not support claims of catastrophe putting him squarely in the same camp as Willis.
I love the "he's just a meterologist" quip, based on that Gavin Schmidt is "just a mathematician" and so everything he has ever posted regarding climate should be struck from the record.
Anyway, you do you.
I prefer to read a wide variety of sources, this Substack exists BECAUSE Roger is a deplatformed denier in the eyes of the mob.
This post is done by Willis E not Anthony Watts, and he has sourced all mainstream data sources.
Cognitive dissonance is hard to overcome i get it.
This is "data", dismissing where its posted just gives people permission not to think. As we see from many of Roger's posts here, if you don't support the narrative you don't get published. And gets you squashed.
Ok, thanks for the tip that it was Willis and not Watts himself. But regardless of who did it, the RW analysis is still completely wrong, and I say this as a person who thought the post might be useful until I ran it past some statistician acquaintances.
I think you miss my point though: of course it makes a big difference where it is posted. There is no dissonance involved, the question is about how to sway public opinion. My point is that to be successful, we need to fight fire with fire. Weathermen and Ayn Rand aficionados might be good at preaching to the choir, but they won't change minds.
To PJ: I am not sure what you mean "fight fire with fire" - you mean data, or as you say. "hard (measurement driven) science)? You still dismiss certain sources because they are mere weathermen or (another rather irrelevant point) Ayn Rand afficionados. Yet as I posted above, the letters after one's name do not necessarily include nor exclude people with good rational minds who have something substantial to contribute to the discussion.
I am not trying to pick a fight with you, I am trying to point out that many good minds without "climate science" science degrees can give us good data relevant to the discussion. and may indeed "change minds." You are objecting to both Watts and Epstein because of their academic credentials or lack thereof, but you yourself have not provided the evidence that would show why they do not "pass muster". Denigrating their professions doesn't sway minds either.
My purpose is this: the topic is "Catastrophe Imminent?" and I am helping to prepare a high school level debate team uphold the Against position. So play the devil's advocate and tell me what points your opponent would make. Then you need a solid counter to each and every one.
I can guarantee you will hear the "No credentialed scientists are Against" argument. My point is that that argument cannot be countered by a weatherman. You could argue that its illogical, but Public Opinion is a rhetorical debate.
No, the correct counter is to bring up Dr Pielke, and then point out that Patient-zero for Attribution studies (i.e,. Catastrophism) is Dr Friederike Otto, and her doctorate is in... the Philosophy of Science. I can't even find hard evidence that she was actually awarded an undergrad degree in Physics.
Wattsupwiththat is not just Mr Watt's site. Contributors are numerous. Quality varies a lot but there's plenty of excellent data and analysis. Watt himself has done us a great service with his surface stations project.
Based on stuff that roger has posted here, and others have posted elsewhere, this would mean that Nature, the Lancet, Scientific American, basically all of them should be taken down because they all have crap published on them.
Where do you want to start?
All i see is someone trying to avoid data they don't like.
And snark and sarcasm is the BEST response to totalitarian impulses, the soviets knew this hence their harsh crackdown on humor.
Making fun of these people is subversive and intensely needed.
I get what you are saying but consider that the site has thousands of essays and adds several more every day. Going back and evaluating all old posts isn't practical.
Excellent article! Thank you! As usual this is the sort of thing I could show my "climate concerned" friends that they would find very difficult to dismiss.
"...the world should still try to limit future global warming as much as possible. I agree." Would you consider replacing "I agree." With something like "I agree provided sufficient care is taken to ensure the costs of doing so don't exceed the benefits." It would be too easy for those who advocate that "our targets" must be met regardless of cost to say that "Even Pielke agrees that we should still try limit future warming as much as possible so we must continue to accept what many will consider an unacceptable level of pain...."
This is a fairly brief and very understandable post. Thanks! I do not mind so much that the scientific community is reluctant to acknowledge that the climate change scenario is less dire than was previously thought. What I mind is that politicians and their enablers in the electorate are spending trillions of dollars that must be repaid by future generations in a useless attempt to achieve net zero without the cooperation of China, India, and most of the world. How will we afford to invest in mitigating the effects of climate change, and in deploying future technologies such as fusion generation once they are developed? I think humans should pledge not to colonize the moon and Mars. Let's contain the stupidity and cupidity here on earth.
You want to take away the last possibility of escape from the madness on Earth? Would you also tell the people leaving European religious oppression that they cannot go to America because we should contain the oppression in Europe?
Get a grip. My last comment was intended to be humorous. If you want to be literal, however, how many humans will have the opportunity to leave earth behind? Those that do will face greater regimentation than they faced on earth - the price of staying alive in space. Most importantly, those who leave earth will take their humanity with them. Why should we think that their humanity won't eventually cause problems wherever they go?
"Get a grip"? How about giving a hint that you're being humorous? Many, many people would say the same thing in all earnest. There is so much human-hating in our culture that you cannot expect someone to take such a comment as humorous.
Staying alive in space requires close attention to certain things. It does not require regimentation of life in general. The vastness of space is a frontier for experimentation. Of course humans (so long as we remain human in space -- a big assumption) will bring their problems with them but our problems change over time. We do actually make progress.
I apologize for not giving a hint. I am not a "human hater" - far from it. However, I have a less optimistic view of humanity's future in space than you do. As best I understand the situation, the U.S., India, China and Russia are competing (not cooperating) in a race to explore a region of the moon which each country hopes to be the first to occupy. In this situation we seem to be exporting our earth-based conflicts and competition into nearby space. My belief is that if humans cannot get along on earth they also will not get along in space.
China and India are spending billions on renewables but still need to raise their per capita GDP so it’ll take a while to turn the ship around. As RPJ is telling us here though the ship *will* turn around.
Billions are not trillions. Meanwhile, China is bringing online almost one new coal-fired power plant per day. Given that the Chinese economy is at risk of collapse, and that China's most important goal appears to be conquering Taiwan, I do not expect much good news about net zero from China anytime soon.
Had to look it up and found this interesting analysis with the following quote:
“Spending on renewable energy [in China] will average nearly $250 billion a year between 2021 and 2023, *close on the levels of every rich nation put together*…”
Everyone knows Hydro is a practical renewable energy. That's where most of China's renewable expenditure goes. Wind & Solar are just a money grubbing scam to pretend you are doing something when really you're not. Worst of all, is when they pretend one unit of wind & solar displaces one unit of coal electricity. It doesn't. In fact it may displace zero units of fossil energy.
China's real effort to replace fossil is centered on Nuclear. They have plans of spending $440B for at least 150 new reactors built in the next 15yrs:
I do not know how much China is spending on renewable energy, nor does anyone else outside the CCP. Chinese-provided data are notoriously unreliable. I suspect that most Chinese spending on renewable energy is related to China's evident desire to supply the world with electric vehicles. You probably know that production of electric vehicles is not a clear win for net zero. My proposed profit motive for Chinese expenditures on development of EVs is consistent with China's profit motive in expanding use of coal power.
The factor that I rely upon to decrease human-caused climate change is a decrease in the number of humans. This will occur with virtual certainty without requiring the approval of any government or the development and deployment of any impossibly expensive new technology. All it requires is the continued availability of inexpensive birth control, and the continued unwillingness of most people to bear the costs of raising multiple children.
China is already losing population., according to the 2022 report. It's population will collapse to perhaps 800 million in 2100 compared to the 14 billion now.
But of course 4C, 2.4, 1.5C are all opinions based on a theory and encapsulated in models that have no more basis is reality than Obi-wan fixing it with the force.
You may be right, but you may also be wrong.
Reading the news, the climate/insane are certainly not giving anything up.
Just last night the cbc implied that the Mackenzie River is likely to run dry due to climate change, a nonsensical idea but let’s just say it anyway.
Good luck waiting and watching - They really do think we are fools and couldn't care less what we think. Kerry, like all politicians, is nothing but a bad actor in a bad movie, and reads whatever is presented to him on the teleprompter
Thanks Roger - that post was worth a year’s subscription in itself. Possibly the most important post you’ve written.
I don’t share Roger’s optimism about reality prevailing anytime soon. As he knows from personal experience and has also discussed in other contexts, scientists who don’t toe the party line on this risk their funding and careers. The reason for this is that politicians want a pretext to centralize power and control, and only a crisis will do. And the government controls a great deal of the funding for research into climate.
Note that government policies which make people poorer also have the potential to increase dependency, which has been a reliable way to build voter constituencies.
We won’t even know 80 years from now because policies which are being implemented now based on bogus assumptions will be credited for whatever happens in the future. It’s kind of like giving antibiotics to someone with a cold; the person gets better and credits the antibiotics, when in reality they would have had exactly the same outcome whether they took the antibiotics or not.
Hi
I have written a little booklet for this exact reason. I would attach it, but that doesn't work here. It is available for 99cents on Kindle. "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty" by Hisey 2022. Or anyone who sends me a normal email address will get a free pdf copy, which is in the public domain.
The need to "keep the scream alive" by treating each 10th of a degree like it's another child sacrificed to a volcano god rings pretty similar to another precautionary principle canard: the Linear No Threshold phobia that treats any radiation level as inherently evil & thus assists in the blockade against a rational zero carbon nuclear energy policy.
I don't think this is exactly "change is difficult" but "I am desperate to retain my status, grant and money-making scheme leveraging climate crisis"
And here is the kicker.
1. Even though we might agree that average global temperatures are increasing (ignoring that for the last 8 years they have been on a slight downward trend)...
2. We still do not have anything but theories based on circumstantial evidence that human activity is responsible for that warming.
3. We absolutely do not know the human or environmental impact/costs that might result from any actual long-term global warming including what measures of adaption are invented and implemented.
And so we risk making mistakes in policy that cause greater negative reciprocal impacts and costs than would avoiding those policies.
What in the world would politicians do if they can’t distract us from their utter incompetence with the invisible hobgoblins of climate change and pandemics? I ask with seriousness. Because if the public becomes desensitized to the former, you know they’ll come up with something.
"the world should still try to limit future global warming as much as possible." Take literally, this would mean bankrupting our economy with insanely expensive energy, or deliberately impoverishing everyone by greatly reducing energy production. Surely, that's not what you mean. Given that even the IPCC sees few detectable effects of warmer climate by 2100, why should we try to limit it as much as possible? (I would go further and ask why limit it at all, since I think the overall effects are are likely to be positive, or neutral at worst.)
I agree, and would add: how on Earth would anyone think we actually COULD limit future global warming, much less control the amount of CO2 released through both human and natural sources? Blithe talk about "reversing" climate change, any hint that we could somehow decide what the temperature the planet should be, what level of CO2 is optimal, and how we could recruit and coordinate the behavior of 7 billion of us, is wildly unrealistic thinking. We have barely begun to comprehend the myriad natural causes of climate change, most of which we are unlikely to be able to control, and since the vast majority of CO2 resides in the oceans, we have no control over the forces and events that result in CO2 entering or exiting the incomprehensible volume of those oceans.
So, what does a world with 2.4 degrees higher temperatures look like? How bad is that? Seems to me that’s the question to answer if we want to know whether to push policy harder.
It would be interesting to know what the 2.4 degrees is in addition to. I have tried to read about how folks calculate the global average temperature now and my eyes crossed before I could get very far. Poor data supplemented by assumed estimates is what I walked away with. And of course global average is essentially meaningless; somesmay be higher, some lower. We live in specific locations with specific historically-based climate calculations. We don't live "globally" nor do we have any sound idea what global climate has historically been so that climate calculations are possible.
I know there are typos in there. Sorry.
Its 2.4 higher than pre-industrial, so maybe similar to the Roman Warm Period, a "golden age".
I'll take it if we get there.
That's about 1-1.4 deg "warmer" than today. BFD!
Mark
Call it 1.3.
Assuming we can agree on the fanciful made up numbers we want to use today.
Currently we aren't as warm as the medieval warm period, which was cooler than the roman, etc. Regardless of what any fraudulent hockey stick graphs might purport to show.
I'm betting that at 2.4c above the LIA, most people won't notice, they'll be too busy living the good life, if we don't destroy the good life with awful climate change policy.
I don't fear climate change, for me, my kids or my hoped for great grand kids.
I do fear climate change POLICY, which could leave me sitting here in alberta with no power during a 10 day february arctic high at -40c with no wind and solar.
An executive with Enmax recently posted an analysis, showing that Alberta had 3 level 3 grid alerts (imminent load shed) in the decade to 2017, we had 10 in the last 12 months.
A true existential crisis.
I do think we are at a crucial tipping point in terms of a return to a reality-based mean. I strongly hope you could find the resources to setup a clearinghouse-type website similar to catastrophist sites like skepticalscience.com et al. I'd like to engage at the public level but I need a point-by-point reference that is scientifically sound but completely without one bit of the snark that so strongly features in the anti-skeptics' public image. Can you help?
https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/do-not-declare-a-climate-emergency
Epstein's commentary is useful as rhetoric, but he also can't resist sounding shrill at times as befits his credential, which is a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy.
To be more blunt: there is a person who has the credentials to set up a viable clearinghouse site, and his name is Dr. Roger Pielke. The Catastrophists are clearly afraid of him, and for good reason.
As someone with a doctorate in philosophy, I'm curious why you would think philosophers uniquely "shrill".
Doctorate, not at all. But a BoA and nothing farther: yes, in my experience. Epstein is a dilettante. To sway public opinion, we need scientists.
Scientists don't have time to stump for Energy Sanity as Epstein does. And it is actually an Engineer's profession, not a Scientist's. And for either one it's a full time job. Most of them who do that don't have great or any qualifications in the field. The Greenie side's favorite goto energy "expert" is Mark Jacobson who is a Civil Engineer, not an energy relevant field either. And most energy lobbyists are just lawyers.
Furthermore, those who insist that you need specific letters after your name before you are worth listening to are ignoring the fact that people all over the world who have become interested in climate and who are capable of reading, understanding and absorbing new knowledge are already informing themselves about climate change. And do not forget that even if you are some kind of lettered "climate scientist" , which is still a young discipline, you are still a human being with the capacity to fool yourself and others into accepting some truly bizarre ideas. The history of science holds many examples,
Climate Science itself involves so many, many disciplines that I assert no one today can truly be a master of them all. Climate science encompasses at a mimimum :meterology, physics, mathematics, fluid dynamics, geology, thermodynamics, solar studies, astronomy, archeology, history, oceanography, plant biology, zoology, and yes, philosophy. Experts in all these specialties, and others I have left out, all have something to contribute to our understanding of the forces that drive climate on this singular planet, in the past, the present and the future. It is good minds we need now, and they can be found in any discipline.
While many here will disagree with referencing a "denier" website, this summation of all the different climate memes is still by far the best. Willis is a data wonk par excellence, rarely see him lose an argument.
All mainstream data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Unfortunately, Mr Watts' page doesn't pass muster in terms of his understanding of the science and statistics, and of course he can't resist the snark. E.g., his understanding of Random Walk analysis is completely wrong, so I respectfully can't agree with the label "data wonk par excellence". Let's face it he is an ex-tv weatherman, so not the credentialled expert we need.
The Catastrophists are weakest now because they went demonstrably too far in their predictions, not because the basic science is wrong. The only way is to fight their soft (model-driven) science with hard (measurement-driven) science.
Patrick, i just want to point out the delicious irony of these comments and debate here on The Honest Broker, because every time i post a link to one of Roger's articles i get reliable feedback that Roger is a denier and suggestions i go to alarmist ad hominem sites like Desmogblog and skepticalscience to get the real lowdown on how Roger is a denier hack who should be deplatformed.
Roger puts up post after post on various aspects of extreme weather showing how the data does not support claims of catastrophe putting him squarely in the same camp as Willis.
I love the "he's just a meterologist" quip, based on that Gavin Schmidt is "just a mathematician" and so everything he has ever posted regarding climate should be struck from the record.
Anyway, you do you.
I prefer to read a wide variety of sources, this Substack exists BECAUSE Roger is a deplatformed denier in the eyes of the mob.
Sigh.
This post is done by Willis E not Anthony Watts, and he has sourced all mainstream data sources.
Cognitive dissonance is hard to overcome i get it.
This is "data", dismissing where its posted just gives people permission not to think. As we see from many of Roger's posts here, if you don't support the narrative you don't get published. And gets you squashed.
Entirely up to you.
Ok, thanks for the tip that it was Willis and not Watts himself. But regardless of who did it, the RW analysis is still completely wrong, and I say this as a person who thought the post might be useful until I ran it past some statistician acquaintances.
I think you miss my point though: of course it makes a big difference where it is posted. There is no dissonance involved, the question is about how to sway public opinion. My point is that to be successful, we need to fight fire with fire. Weathermen and Ayn Rand aficionados might be good at preaching to the choir, but they won't change minds.
“Ok, thanks for the tip that it was Willis and not Watts himself.”
This tells me you didn’t even bother to look, you saw the website link and immediately moved to ad hominem.
You can even see you are the problem, can you.
To PJ: I am not sure what you mean "fight fire with fire" - you mean data, or as you say. "hard (measurement driven) science)? You still dismiss certain sources because they are mere weathermen or (another rather irrelevant point) Ayn Rand afficionados. Yet as I posted above, the letters after one's name do not necessarily include nor exclude people with good rational minds who have something substantial to contribute to the discussion.
I am not trying to pick a fight with you, I am trying to point out that many good minds without "climate science" science degrees can give us good data relevant to the discussion. and may indeed "change minds." You are objecting to both Watts and Epstein because of their academic credentials or lack thereof, but you yourself have not provided the evidence that would show why they do not "pass muster". Denigrating their professions doesn't sway minds either.
My purpose is this: the topic is "Catastrophe Imminent?" and I am helping to prepare a high school level debate team uphold the Against position. So play the devil's advocate and tell me what points your opponent would make. Then you need a solid counter to each and every one.
I can guarantee you will hear the "No credentialed scientists are Against" argument. My point is that that argument cannot be countered by a weatherman. You could argue that its illogical, but Public Opinion is a rhetorical debate.
No, the correct counter is to bring up Dr Pielke, and then point out that Patient-zero for Attribution studies (i.e,. Catastrophism) is Dr Friederike Otto, and her doctorate is in... the Philosophy of Science. I can't even find hard evidence that she was actually awarded an undergrad degree in Physics.
That is a winning argument.
Wattsupwiththat is not just Mr Watt's site. Contributors are numerous. Quality varies a lot but there's plenty of excellent data and analysis. Watt himself has done us a great service with his surface stations project.
I understand that, but if he's functioning as editor he needs to get rid of the junk. Leaving up subpages that are not just wrong but laughably wrong is self-defeating. E.g., that one on RW analysis which has his byline: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/01/analysis-says-noaa-global-temperature-data-doesnt-constitute-a-smoking-gun-for-global-warming/
Based on stuff that roger has posted here, and others have posted elsewhere, this would mean that Nature, the Lancet, Scientific American, basically all of them should be taken down because they all have crap published on them.
Where do you want to start?
All i see is someone trying to avoid data they don't like.
And snark and sarcasm is the BEST response to totalitarian impulses, the soviets knew this hence their harsh crackdown on humor.
Making fun of these people is subversive and intensely needed.
I get what you are saying but consider that the site has thousands of essays and adds several more every day. Going back and evaluating all old posts isn't practical.
"... reality is persistent."
I'll be "leveraging" that one!
"You can ignore reality but it won't ignore you".
Not sure who said that originally, i find multiple sources.
Excellent article! Thank you! As usual this is the sort of thing I could show my "climate concerned" friends that they would find very difficult to dismiss.
"...the world should still try to limit future global warming as much as possible. I agree." Would you consider replacing "I agree." With something like "I agree provided sufficient care is taken to ensure the costs of doing so don't exceed the benefits." It would be too easy for those who advocate that "our targets" must be met regardless of cost to say that "Even Pielke agrees that we should still try limit future warming as much as possible so we must continue to accept what many will consider an unacceptable level of pain...."
Exactly. I cannot square "do everything possible" with all the great stuff Roger writes which shows that there is no crisis.
The religion is crumbling, the Gods are nothing but false prophets, our sins don’t matter.
This is a fairly brief and very understandable post. Thanks! I do not mind so much that the scientific community is reluctant to acknowledge that the climate change scenario is less dire than was previously thought. What I mind is that politicians and their enablers in the electorate are spending trillions of dollars that must be repaid by future generations in a useless attempt to achieve net zero without the cooperation of China, India, and most of the world. How will we afford to invest in mitigating the effects of climate change, and in deploying future technologies such as fusion generation once they are developed? I think humans should pledge not to colonize the moon and Mars. Let's contain the stupidity and cupidity here on earth.
You want to take away the last possibility of escape from the madness on Earth? Would you also tell the people leaving European religious oppression that they cannot go to America because we should contain the oppression in Europe?
Get a grip. My last comment was intended to be humorous. If you want to be literal, however, how many humans will have the opportunity to leave earth behind? Those that do will face greater regimentation than they faced on earth - the price of staying alive in space. Most importantly, those who leave earth will take their humanity with them. Why should we think that their humanity won't eventually cause problems wherever they go?
"Get a grip"? How about giving a hint that you're being humorous? Many, many people would say the same thing in all earnest. There is so much human-hating in our culture that you cannot expect someone to take such a comment as humorous.
Staying alive in space requires close attention to certain things. It does not require regimentation of life in general. The vastness of space is a frontier for experimentation. Of course humans (so long as we remain human in space -- a big assumption) will bring their problems with them but our problems change over time. We do actually make progress.
I apologize for not giving a hint. I am not a "human hater" - far from it. However, I have a less optimistic view of humanity's future in space than you do. As best I understand the situation, the U.S., India, China and Russia are competing (not cooperating) in a race to explore a region of the moon which each country hopes to be the first to occupy. In this situation we seem to be exporting our earth-based conflicts and competition into nearby space. My belief is that if humans cannot get along on earth they also will not get along in space.
China and India are spending billions on renewables but still need to raise their per capita GDP so it’ll take a while to turn the ship around. As RPJ is telling us here though the ship *will* turn around.
Billions are not trillions. Meanwhile, China is bringing online almost one new coal-fired power plant per day. Given that the Chinese economy is at risk of collapse, and that China's most important goal appears to be conquering Taiwan, I do not expect much good news about net zero from China anytime soon.
Had to look it up and found this interesting analysis with the following quote:
“Spending on renewable energy [in China] will average nearly $250 billion a year between 2021 and 2023, *close on the levels of every rich nation put together*…”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/07/16/china-energy-renewables-boom-fuels-coal-expansion/f195ad9e-241d-11ee-9201-826e5bb78fa1_story.html
Everyone knows Hydro is a practical renewable energy. That's where most of China's renewable expenditure goes. Wind & Solar are just a money grubbing scam to pretend you are doing something when really you're not. Worst of all, is when they pretend one unit of wind & solar displaces one unit of coal electricity. It doesn't. In fact it may displace zero units of fossil energy.
China's real effort to replace fossil is centered on Nuclear. They have plans of spending $440B for at least 150 new reactors built in the next 15yrs:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s
I do not know how much China is spending on renewable energy, nor does anyone else outside the CCP. Chinese-provided data are notoriously unreliable. I suspect that most Chinese spending on renewable energy is related to China's evident desire to supply the world with electric vehicles. You probably know that production of electric vehicles is not a clear win for net zero. My proposed profit motive for Chinese expenditures on development of EVs is consistent with China's profit motive in expanding use of coal power.
The factor that I rely upon to decrease human-caused climate change is a decrease in the number of humans. This will occur with virtual certainty without requiring the approval of any government or the development and deployment of any impossibly expensive new technology. All it requires is the continued availability of inexpensive birth control, and the continued unwillingness of most people to bear the costs of raising multiple children.
China is already losing population., according to the 2022 report. It's population will collapse to perhaps 800 million in 2100 compared to the 14 billion now.
Great piece.
But of course 4C, 2.4, 1.5C are all opinions based on a theory and encapsulated in models that have no more basis is reality than Obi-wan fixing it with the force.
You may be right, but you may also be wrong.
Reading the news, the climate/insane are certainly not giving anything up.
Just last night the cbc implied that the Mackenzie River is likely to run dry due to climate change, a nonsensical idea but let’s just say it anyway.
Good luck waiting and watching - They really do think we are fools and couldn't care less what we think. Kerry, like all politicians, is nothing but a bad actor in a bad movie, and reads whatever is presented to him on the teleprompter
"But change is here. Who in the climate community is go to lead?"
Should be "But change is here. Who in the climate community is going to lead?"
Frank
Frank, you are a gift, thanks!