Climate scientist hits out at IPCC projections

October 13, 2015 by Sam Wood
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

As a new chairman is appointed to the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) a University of Manchester climate expert has said headline projections from the organisation about future warming are 'wildly over optimistic.'

In an article published today in Nature Geoscience Professor Kevin Anderson says that IPCC claims that "global economic growth would not be strongly effected" are unrealistic and that if we are to meet the 2C warming target wealthy and high emitting individuals will need to make dramatic cuts in the energy they use and in the material goods they consume - they will have to accept immediate and fundamental changes to their way of life - at least until the transition away from is complete

Professor Anderson also says that many climate scientists are censoring their own work in order for their results to be more politically palatable, something that does society a "grave disservice."

Professor Anderson's claims are a wake-up call to Professor Hoesung Lee, who was installed at the new IPCC chair last week and are well timed in the lead-up to the climate negotiations in Paris, which take place later this year.

A statement last year from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that "to keep a good chance of staying below 2 °C, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40–70 per cent globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100", and that mitigation costs would be so low that "global economic growth would not be strongly affected."

Professor Anderson notes "If the IPCC's up-beat headlines are to be believed, reducing emissions in line with a reasonable-to-good chance of meeting the 2 °C target requires an accelerated, but still evolutionary, move away from fossil fuels; they notably do not call for an immediate and revolutionary transition in how we use and produce energy. Yet, in my view, the IPCC's own carbon budgets make it abundantly clear that only a revolutionary transition can now deliver on 2°C."

According to Anderson, the IPCC's positive outcomes are: "Delivered through unrealistically early peaks in global emissions, or through the large-scale rollout of speculative technologies intended to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

"In stark contrast, I conclude that the carbon budgets associated with a 2 °C threshold demand profound and immediate changes to the consumption and production of energy.

"The complete set of 400 IPCC scenarios for a 50% or better chance of meeting the 2 °C target work on the basis of either an ability to change the past, or the successful and large-scale uptake of negative-emission technologies. A significant proportion of the scenarios are dependent on both. That is unrealistic."

According to IPCC research, it is cumulative emissions of CO2 that matter in determining how much the planet warms by 2100. The IPCC concludes that no more than 1,000 Gt of CO2 can be emitted between 2011 and 2100 for a 66% chance, or better, of remaining below a 2 °C rise.

However, between 2011 and 2014 CO2 emissions from energy production alone amounted to about 140 Gt of CO2. To limit warming to no more than 2 °C, the remaining 860 Gt of CO2 (out to 2100) must be considered in relation to the three major sources of CO2; those released in cement manufacture, changes in land-use and, most importantly, energy production.

Anderson concludes: "The severity of such cuts would probably exclude the use of fossil fuels, even with carbon capture and storage (CCS), as a dominant post-2050 energy source. If we are to meet the 2C target, us wealthier high emitting individuals, whether in industrial or industrialising nations, will have to accept radical changes to how we live our lives – that or we'll fail on 2°C.

Explore further: Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel

More information: Kevin Anderson. "Duality in climate science," Nature Geoscience (2015). DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2559

Related Stories

Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel

January 17, 2014

The next 15 years will be vital in determining whether global warming can be limited to 2C (3.6F) by 2100, with energy and transport presenting the heftiest challenges, according to a draft UN report.

Time running out to reach 2 C warming target: UN experts

November 2, 2014

Time is running out to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the United Nations' climate experts said Sunday, warning that current trends in carbon emissions will lead to disaster.

What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5 C?

May 21, 2015

Limiting temperature rise by 2100 to less than 1.5°C is feasible, at least from a purely technological standpoint, according to the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers at the International ...

Accounting for short-lived forcers in carbon budgets

July 15, 2015

Limiting warming to any level requires CO2 emissions to be kept to within a certain limit known as a carbon budget. Can reducing shorter-lived climate forcers influence the size of this budget? A new IIASA study published ...

Recommended for you

66 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

philstacy9
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 13, 2015
Religion creates its own reality and defends that reality.

http://www.breitb...-change/

http://thefederal...elusion/
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
It is refreshing to hear a scientist point out that the goals of the IPCC will require draconian reductions in energy usage.

Professor Anderson correctly noted that wealthy individuals [nations] will have to accept a severe reduction in their life style. What he fails to mention is that such reductions in energy usage dooms a large part of the global population to death in a world where the benefits of energy are devoted to poor populations.
katesisco
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 13, 2015
I believe the idea that our CO2 is responsible is incorrect. The heating seems to be core driven. Heat rising upward leads to evaporative condensing and hence snowfall. Scientists investigating the ice ages asked: "Where did the moisture come from to fall as snow/"
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
Phone won't allow me to edit. Last line should say denied to poor populations instead of devoted.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
This is nothing yet.

You worry about CO2? Worry about industrilization and population increase in AFrica and in muslim countries...you've seen nothing yet.

If you want to stop CO2 production, you're going to need a U.N. Resolution limiting africans and Muslims to 2 children per woman for at least 2 or 3 generations, AND enforcing it, so these lunatics don't keep having 8 kids per generation when they can't feed the ones they have now...

If the projected population increase for Africa over the next century comes true, then you've seen nothing. They'll cut down EVERY tree in the Amazon to use for lumber, and to clear land for farms to import food, and the oceans will be over-fished until everything but Jellyfish and aquatic worms goes extinct.

This is an even bigger threat than practically any direct pollution scenario you can imagine.
Returners
1 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2015
Phone won't allow me to edit. Last line should say denied to poor populations instead of devoted.


In other words, food exports and lumber exports from the Western Hemisphere to Africa and muslim nations would definitely have to stop, not only because it is a direct source of pollution, but also because Africans and muslims irresponsibly reproduce like rabbits, without regards to the damages to their own resources, ecology, and social structure...see what happened in India and China before they got some common sense and slowed down their reproductive rates. Now there are so many people jammed in small areas that its' like a colony of ants or something.

So, when you keep giving hand-outs to these poor africans, they keep making more babies, who will be the next generation of poor africans who need a hand-out.

The U.S. government subsidizes the price of food to keep it artificially low to help poor people, which is dumb because much of our economy is grain....
gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
If we are to save ourselves, we must do a world-wide full-court press against Climate Change.

Can we do it with the Deniers and their Big Money owners? Not until they are informed and can make more intelligent choices. If not, we will make those choices for them.

Sorry.
Returners
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
If we are to save ourselves, we must do a world-wide full-court press against Climate Change.

Can we do it with the Deniers and their Big Money owners? Not until they are informed and can make more intelligent choices. If not, we will make those choices for them.

Sorry.


You don't understand how stupid people are, and that includes scientists.

Some of the highest paid people in the western world are circus clowns, and many of the even higher paid people are their bosses.

You want to cut the lifestyles of wealthy people?

Fine.

Start with the billionaires, millionaires, and half-millionaires and actually make the crooks pay taxes.

Put a salary cap and total compensation cap on entertainers and athletes, so you quit concentrating wealth in the hands of punks who make 40,000sq ft houses, and rape women and murder people on the weekend, and get away with it by buying off judges.

Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2015
If the players leave to antoher country?

Fine. We don't need them.
We don't need to be paying Peyton Manning or Drew Brees 20 million dollars a year to throw a football for God's sake. That's INSANE.

They shouldn't make any more money than anybody else, and if they have a problem with it, there's the road, jackass, you're fired.

We pay actors and athletes 200 times more than a senator. Some of them make even more than that...and I question whether our Senators should be paid as much as they make, given the fact they never seem to do their jobs either.

All of these bozos should be capped around 100k per year income, plus hazard pay in case of injury. Roughly the same as a lineman or something liek that, maybe less. 100k max for a starter, and like 50k for a bench warmer.

Got a problem with it? You can always go be a construction worker and work 5-6 days a week instead of one...

The sports and media industries are criminal.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2015
All this money should be going to thngs like energy infrastructure, roads, bridges, levees, dams, etc.

Instead, because you know, everyone is a moron, it gets concentrated in the hands of circus clowns and their owners.

CEO salary and compensation should be capped, especially in cases where the company fails to turn a profit.

That's NOT "communism", for any of you Retardigans reading this. That's "common sense".

You shouldn't be paying circus clowns and failed corporate leaders more than you pay the President, Doctors, or Senators.

Nothing wrong with sports or entertainment in principle, but the insanity has to stop somewhere.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I seriously doubt God is pleased when they write a football player a multi-million dollar contract, while retardigans simultaneously cut taxes on the very rich to pad their own pockets, and plan to cut benefits to the elderly and sick.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2015
Hey conservative retardigans:

And pay attention, someone should read this to EVERY hypocritical presidential candidate this year.

"He who robs from the poor and he who gives to the rich shall both come to want."

That's in teh proverbs.

Conservative republicans?

God is not pleased with your offerings, which you claim you give in private. Your hands are full of blood.

Financial firms and insurance agencies:
Your hands are full of blood, because you use false standards of currency manipulation to rob people of their investments while you profit in secret.

I do not believe God will be pleased with you crooks.

WE need the relative value of currencies to be fixed by the U.N. and revised from time to time by majority vote and ratified by the nations with veto power. The currency market scams which create stock bubbles every 5 or 10 years must stop. The Swedish banks who facilitate corruption and organized crime must be reeled in and held accountable too.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (17) Oct 13, 2015
"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.

I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence." -- Freeman Dyson

"The polar bears will be fine".
Robert_D
1 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2015
I'd like to suggest a modest proposal: Mass sterilization of citizens of all 1st world countries, and confiscation of all energy using appliances. Oh, and of course it will be necessary to confiscate any armaments owned by the citizenry.
marcush
4.4 / 5 (21) Oct 13, 2015
It always amazes me the collection of loons that comments at this science oriented site. Any mention of climate change and they come running. From a certain perspective it is almost humorous....
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
I believe the idea that our CO2 is responsible is incorrect. The heating seems to be core driven. Heat rising upward leads to evaporative condensing and hence snowfall. Scientists investigating the ice ages asked: "Where did the moisture come from to fall as snow/"

No one give a toss about your "belief" my friend.
Show us the science that under-pins you "belief".
From your comments you don't seem to have the slightest idea of atmospheric physics.
jeffensley
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2015
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/19/global-warming-professor-kevin-anderson-cuts-back-on-washing-and-showering-to-fight-climate-change-admits-at-un-climate-summit-that-is-why-i-smell/


Yeah I looked him up to see if he was walking the walk and ran across that. At least he's not being a hypocrite.
my2cts
4.5 / 5 (17) Oct 13, 2015
"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.

I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence." -- Freeman Dyson

"The polar bears will be fine".

Do you consider it possible that Dyson is wrong?
He seems to be your only source.
Are you cherry picking again ?
plasmasrevenge
1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
One of the main differences between religious doomsday and scientific doomsday is that the science prophecy positions humans as essentially in control of the situation. Scientists feel confident in their attacks on religion, but religion simply adapted the mythological archetypes from the Pagans, which is where this notion that man is not in control of his environment originated. The scientific story encourages us to adopt narratives about how dumb those Pagans must have been about their environment to believe that. Meanwhile, one of the world's leading plasma physicists -- Anthony Peratt -- has linked a majority of the more abstract Petroglyph drawings to forms he's observed in high-intensity plasma laboratories. Those observations provide a possible explanation for the Pagans' worldview, but scientists are by now so wrapped up in the popularity of their own narrative that they cannot even be convinced to consider such claims.
plasmasrevenge
1 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2015
BTW, Dyson nailed his claim that scientists act tribally. That was an epic essay.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
" Meanwhile, one of the world's leading plasma physicists -- Anthony Peratt -- has linked a majority of the more abstract Petroglyph drawings to forms he's observed in high-intensity plasma laboratories."
---------------------------------------------

The "History" channel was right? Ancient aliens had fusion?
my2cts
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
BTW, Dyson nailed his claim that scientists act tribally. That was an epic essay.

We all act tribally, so that was easy.
my2cts
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
" Meanwhile, one of the world's leading plasma physicists -- Anthony Peratt -- has linked a majority of the more abstract Petroglyph drawings to forms he's observed in high-intensity plasma laboratories."
---------------------------------------------

The "History" channel was right? Ancient aliens had fusion?

The guy is an AA believer.
Holy spaghetti, you are right, gkam.
plasmasrevenge
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2015
Re: "The "History" channel was right? Ancient aliens had fusion?"

Peratt used government supercomputer off-cycles to triangulate the positions of atmospheric plasma disturbances, using the petroglyph locations and perspectives as a guide, and under the premise that the sky was simply different back then. Peratt is of course a peer-reviewer for IEEE and a former adviser to the Department of Energy, as well as an operator of one of the most significant plasma laboratories on the planet (the z-machine).

It used to be that we encouraged scientists to pursue novel lines of investigation. And we today take for granted numerous technologies which resulted from that lack of hostility to new ideas. Never forget that the large bulk of the 500 Nobel laureates got their ideas funded before 1970, when there was far less ideology involved in decisions to fund.

The rules that apply to research funding we see in place today, by contrast, constitute an experiment.
plasmasrevenge
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
Don't forget as well Plato's own thoughts ...

From Plato's Dialogues at https://books.goo...pg=PA367

"Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burned up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving around the earth and in the heavens, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth recurring at long intervals of time"

...

"All of these stories, and ten thousand others which are still more wonderful, have a common origin; many of them have been lost in the lapse of ages, or exist only as fragments; but the origin of them is what no one has told"

---

Plato of course had no idea what gravity is, but what he describes sounds remarkably like a catastrophe and a recurring debris field.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2015
Close the airports! Shutter Boeing! Just for starters.
my2cts
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015

Peratt used government supercomputer off-cycles to triangulate the positions of atmospheric plasma disturbances, using the petroglyph locations and perspectives as a guide, and under the premise that the sky was simply different back then. Peratt is of course a peer-reviewer for IEEE and a former adviser to the Department of Energy, as well as an operator of one of the most significant plasma laboratories on the planet (the z-machine).

So when did he become a nutter ?
plasmasrevenge
1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
What we see happening in the climate sciences is really kind of sad: They first of all completely ignore all evidence suggestive of transient events so that they can treat the uniformitarian assumption as though it is a fact. That assumption suggests that what we see happening today can basically be used to project both backwards and forwards, reliably. That sweeping assumption acts as the basis for their extreme trust in radiocarbon dating and their decision to only build out one single timeline chronology. Dates which do not fit that timeline are basically thrown away, and if the laboratory operators are to be trusted, this is around half of all submitted.

The climate scientists seem to place no importance at all upon images by Firestone of meteorites embedded within mammoth tusks, nor mammoth carcasses draped with a black radioactive mat filled with exotic isotopes.

Their advocacy is honestly quite dangerous in the way that it distracts us from other discoveries.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2015
Not a huge shock. Like most bureaucratic bodies, the IPCC is notoriously conservative and the work they base their meta-analysis on is also conservative because scientists are as well.

We've long commented that statements like "we need to limit the Earth to 2 degrees" are hugely optimistic statements that fail to take into account the documented impacts of that kind of change and that it's politicians, rather than scientists, making those statements.

We've also commented that statements like, "we wil reach 2.5 dgrees by 2100" are massively underestimating the warming effect of our current emissions policies.

"The severity of such cuts would probably exclude the use of fossil fuels, even with carbon capture and storage (CCS), as a dominant post-2050 energy source."

Exactly. We could have made this shift gradually but deniers and vested interests stymied this necessary transition. Now we have to cut hard and fast and soon.
rolf_dupont_hansen
5 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2015
Well its not like we do not have the key technologies now or right on our doorstep and just need a better political climate and more ressources to development and deploy.

Key Technologies are:

Advanced nuclear power (like LFTR and LFR) combined with renewables.

Closed cycle high efficient farming like hydro and aeropondic.

It will very fast cut our emissions and make a lot more area for the nature to bind the carbon in the soil which is what we want to limit acidification of the sea and hinder collapse of the ecosystems.
Egleton
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2015
Now would we be needing Cold Fusion or not? Tricky. Very tricky!
http://ecat.com/
Patented and replicated by Parkamov. (That's an Italian and a Russian, slug-a-bed Americans. )
http://coldfusion...onsumes/
I am dreadfully sorry that the empirical evidence offends your hallowed theory. Suck it in. You will recover.
philstacy9
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2015
"Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.
The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a 'mini ice age' by 2030. "
http://www.expres...ool-down
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2015
Well, gosh phil, all the 97% who think their evidence points to other conclusions must be wrong.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2015
There are lies, damned lies and AGW Cult "science".
Then there are nutters like Anderson, who has cut back on washing himself. I guess in the hope that his stench would mask that of his lies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2015
If we are to save ourselves, we must do a world-wide full-court press against Climate Change.

Can we do it with the Deniers and their Big Money owners? Not until they are informed and can make more intelligent choices. If not, we will make those choices for them
Whew georgie youre so butch!

In the meantime you will be followed and your lies exposed and your made-up facts dismantled. And the good people here will be warned as to what you are, what you have done here, and what you are capable of.

Guaranteed.

Hows that for butch?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2015
"Hows that for butch?"
----------------------

It's hilarious.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2015
"Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.
The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in applied mathematics ...
http://www.expres...ool-down


David Evans, an engineer with ONE published paper (1987) that wasn't on climate science, has published a blog post on his wife's blog. Evans, who is not a climate modeller, is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute.

Evans' contention - that climate models are wrong because they fail to take into account negative feedback mechanisms that don't exist - is as farcicle as that article
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2015
Which just goes to say that for all the Popperian blather about "real science", deniers will believe anything that strokes their prejudices regardless of how obviously fabricated it is.

And for all the "common sense" anti-intellectualism behind the yells of "appeals to authority" when we refer to the considered opinion of people in the field, everyone who refers to this piece of nonsense yells "SIX DEGREES" like that is their total argument for why this piece of garbage should be preferenced over 200yrs of science by people actually in the field.

I have degrees and have done statistical modelling for the Australian government. Maybe I should write a blog post and you can unquestioningly accept that too.

Oh, the best bit of this transparent farce - Evans has been recycling this "opinion" since 2008. But his year that "cooling will totes begin" keeps having to be pushed back. It's 2017 now - I best it changes to 2019 soon.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2015
Well, gosh phil, all the 97% who think their evidence points to other conclusions must be wrong.


Appeal to majority is a fallacy.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2015
Well, gosh phil, all the 97% who think their evidence points to other conclusions must be wrong.


Appeal to majority is a fallacy.


Case in point
my2cts
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2015
There are lies, damned lies and AGW Cult "science".
Then there are nutters like Anderson, who has cut back on washing himself. I guess in the hope that his stench would mask that of his lies.

There are also people who are "not even wronger than wrong".
You are in that category.
https://en.wikipe...en_wrong
https://en.wikipe...an_wrong
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2015
Just until Africans gain enough IQ points to drive cars and have coal fired power plants. The CO2 will rise twice as fast!
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2015
Returners, this is not an attack. Your bad dreams are taking their toll on your consciousness and attitude. You have been abused as a child, from the contents of your dreams. It is niot uncommon. Ask for an SSRI and see someone about it.

Really. I have too many friends with the same thing.
my2cts
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2015
Just until Africans gain enough IQ points to drive cars and have coal fired power plants. The CO2 will rise twice as fast!

So you are a _racist_ religious nut.
Jahweh made a big mistake in creating you.
Soon the floods will come to wipe you out.
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2015
I just would like someone who believes in this 3C AGW as this idiot who now runs the IPCC to show me on a graph how they expect that to happen because to me it looks like you are all mathematical morons. To get to 3C or even 2C by 2100 requires temperature change accelerating massively and not stopping between now and 2100. While you may "believe" that it is frankly completely impossible to support scientifically based on the evidence. Please tell me what were your SAT math scores and tell me how much temperature change you expect in the next 85 years and then explain to me when you expect the acceleration in temperatures to kick in and how much and why. I will accept that you believe such things but you can't expect anyone else to actually believe this will happen any more than if I said that the moon will crash into the sun next week. Everyone accepts CO2 acts logarithmically. How much CO2 would be needed to get what you claim? Dudes you're stupid and everyone knows it.
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2015
I can't believe a science journal actually prints such crap. I wonder do we have to wait till 2099 for you guys to go... oh yeah, i guess you can't get another 2 degree rise in temperature in one year ... we're screwed. Okay we admit it was a stretch but hey all the models said we'd be here. The probability of them being correct at this point is 0.0000000001 out of a million chance but that is still some chance so we are still in the game. Just wait, next year will be unbelievably hot. i promise That's when the tipping point happens and the ocean disgorges all its heat and temps rise to 100C uniformily all over the globe. Don't we have something better to spend our money on?
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2015
Talk about mental delusion. This guy expects rich people to give up their lifestyles. Even Al Gore didn't give up his lifestyle. He was preaching the end of the world while spending 800/month on heating his pool in his Atlanta mansion, one of his 4 mansions. Global Warming is always rated as last of any priority of any country in the world of any problems pointing out that cognitive dissonance is alive and well. People can spout gloom and doom and then turn around and say its below their favorite home team getting a new quarterback. Nobody cares. This guy took the job because he's probably the only one who cared and wasn't scared of getting embarrassed every few years trying to put a report together that hides the decline. Its so ludicrous he says that climate scientists are withholding papers that show massive impact because they dont want to lose funding. Since when does that happen? This is actually getting funny its so ludicrous.
trxtgreen
not rated yet Oct 17, 2015
It used to be erroneously considered politically incorrect to say that Earth won't warm up because Global Warming isn't real, but now it would seem it's more politically incorrect to say that Global Warming is real and the warming will be far worse than what the scientists have said. No one wants to hear it, but it's probably true. Funny how things change.
cjones1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2015
Pshaw! A greater danger is a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) causing an EMP which takes out our electric grids and cause modern society to shut down. Casualties are estimated in the millions caused by food & medicine shortages.
my2cts
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2015
@john_mathon
AGW is real, as Exxon proved in the 70's. The real problem we are facing is to convince idiots like you, of which there are quite a few.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2015
Pshaw! A greater danger is a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) causing an EMP which takes out our electric grids and cause modern society to shut down. Casualties are estimated in the millions caused by food & medicine shortages.

What should we do, make our infrastructure more robust or stick our head in the sand?
Your answer please. Now make the same decision about AGW.
fay
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2015
. We could have made this shift gradually but deniers and vested interests stymied this necessary transition. Now we have to cut hard and fast and soon.


i think its better to implement mature superior technologies late and fast than to implement the immature inferior ones too soon. In future it will be by FAR easier to implement renewables than it is today. Both politically (if the agw is true of course) and economically.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2015
fay, we have already waited too long.
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2015

i think its better to implement mature superior technologies late and fast than to implement the immature inferior ones too soon.

On what grounds? How much better? If you want to drive a decision an arbitrary guess is not good enough.
In future it will be by FAR easier to implement renewables than it is today. Both politically (if the agw is true of course) and economically.

But then it may be too late because the damage is done. Use your brains.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2015
fay, we have already waited too long.

Yep, all your neighbours got solar panels, but not you.
Oh wait... when you say WE it does not include you, the Pathological Liar and Hypocrite.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2015
But then it may be too late because the damage is done. Use your brains.

Yep, use your brains. Tell us the date you stopped using electricity and fuel that were generated from fossil fuels.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2015
This is such a furphy. Or should I say "yet another furphy". I may be an amazing individual but I can't singlehandedly restructure the world economy away from fossil fuels. So whether I drive a car is irrelevant - especially since car emissions are little compared to energy generation for large corporations. As an individual I lobby for global policies that will reduce emissions. At that point, my electricity becomes emissions free.

I have, however, installed solar panels, limited my car driving, given up red meat to reduce agricultural emissions, refuse to purchase products from companies known for deforestation, and hang out on science websites exposing pea-brained sloganeers for being pea-brained sloganeers. You're all welcome
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2015
"Hows that for butch?"
----------------------

It's hilarious.
-And theyre laughing at you, not with you.

"If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind. He does bizarre and self-destructive things because consequences that would fill the ordinary man with shame, self-loathing, and embarrassment simply do not affect the psychopath at all. What to others would be a disaster is to him merely a fleeting inconvenience."
ab3a
4 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2015
Regardless of what the good professor thinks, people will continue to use the resources they need to improve their lives. Any government that opposes them will fall apart or, worse, be replaced by a coup.

To make things better, we need better technologies. We can not conserve our way out of this problem. We need to invest in newer technologies. Excoriating the wealthy for living they way they want to is not likely to make that happen.
geokstr
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2015
Well, gosh phil, all the 97% who think their evidence points to other conclusions must be wrong.

You mean that long ago debunked "survey" that arrived at the 97%, right.

It always amazes me that once a leftist hears a "fact" that confirms his own bias, and who swears by his own logic and love for the scientific method, that "fact" will imbedded in his brain forever as "truth" no matter how often and how thoroughly it gets debunked later.

We'll be hearing about how 1-in-5 coeds are violently raped on campus, how a 12 year old Muslim genius re-invented the clock for which he was viciously attacked by Islamophobes, and how you can keep your own doctor for the next 1,000 years.

Leftists love them some taqiyyah.
leetennant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2015
Regardless of what the good professor thinks, people will continue to use the resources they need to improve their lives. Any government that opposes them will fall apart or, worse, be replaced by a coup.

To make things better, we need better technologies. We can not conserve our way out of this problem. We need to invest in newer technologies. Excoriating the wealthy for living they way they want to is not likely to make that happen.


Thank you. I'm glad you agree. It's about time we moved away from ancient, polluting technology and invested in better options. I'm so glad you're finally on board with our entire argument.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2015
"We need to invest in newer technologies."

Who is we?

Govts have been 'investing' for decades in fusion .....where is it?

Get govts out of the way, let investors keep profits, if any, earned from their investments.
ab3a
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2015
"We need to invest in newer technologies."

Who is we?


Not all investigations are fruitful right away. Nuclear research suffers from political and image problems as much as anything else. I consider it a longer term solution. There are also fuel cells, hydrogen storage technologies, new materials, new processes to move energy, and so on. Somewhere in this morass is a solution.

And then, there is also the issue of once a technology is discovered, you'll need entrepreneurs and engineers to capitalize on those discoveries.

"We" is all of us. Government, Venture Capital, Academia, scientists, marketing, finance, and sales.

In other words, some of these discoveries are so long term and so risky that it practically takes government funding to make it happen --if it can happen at all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2015
Somewhere in this morass is a solution.


takes government funding


And this leads to the state, with help from 'donors', picking winners and losers with plundered wealth being used to fund companies that go bankrupt, like Solyndra.

'Liberals' keep whining about all the cash stashed overseas and are chomping at the bit to plunder that wealth.
Too bad they refuse to comprehend that if that earned wealth was reinvested, and not plundered, 'we' might just have the new technologies.
But socialists are too greedy to plunder the wealth of others.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2015
"It always amazes me that once a leftist hears a "fact" that confirms his own bias, and who swears by . . . . "

-------------------------------------------------

"WMD!"

Paid for that Bush War yet?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.