Skip to content

We Must Accept “Fundamental Changes To Our Way Of Life” – Tyndall’s Kevin Anderson

November 15, 2015

By Paul Homewood  




Well at least he’s honest!

Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre warns us to expect immediate and fundamental changes to their way of life, if we are to meet the 2C target:


Professor Kevin Anderson at the University of Manchester and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has published an analysis of the ‘wildly over optimistic’ IPCC projections of future global warming.

Of the 400 scenarios that have a 50% or better chance of staying below the 2°C target for global warming, 344 assume the large-scale uptake of energy technology with negative emissions. For the 56 scenarios that do not include negative emission technology, global emissions peaked around 2010.

Prof. 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 fossil fuels 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.”

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.

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.

  1. November 15, 2015 7:42 pm

    Chicken Little all over again.

    Even sillier than the boy who cried “Wolf!”

    The real fairy tales contain more truths than what is produced by “Climate Scientists”.

    This does not deny that there are REAL Climate Scientists.

  2. November 15, 2015 7:50 pm

    We may need to make changes in our life, but not due to the IPCC analysis. I’m no fan of those IPCC studies and, in my oppinion, IPCC made wrong analysis during the past years. Here’s an example: The IPCC Report from 1990 states: “Emission resulting from human activities is substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it”.

    Not everybody agreed with IPCC and its “consensus” thesis. While most of the scientists and climatologists supported it, there were also voices which contradict the conclusions of IPCC. The most important document in this regard is the “Oregon Petition” of 1998, signed by 17,000 scientists who were protesting against the Kyoto Agreement. The petition requested the acknowledgement of the following statement: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”.

    The funny thing is that now, even after more than 25 years of climate change debate, we don’t agreee and won’t be able to solve the problem.

  3. Sarah Ferguson M.I.E.T. permalink
    November 15, 2015 8:07 pm

    I did my degree in Machester – I am appalled at how far a once great university has fallen. It is a pity that our so called professors have not had a proper education. Does Anderson not realise that the Domesday Book lists vineyards all over the UK? And the Romans, I am told, grew vines along Hadrians Wall? Not to metion the fact that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and noone suffered? And the plants/crops grew very well.

  4. ronhave permalink
    November 15, 2015 8:08 pm

    Professional catastrophists like Kevin Anderson do not deserve the designation “scientist” because their stock-in-trade is alarmism from which they profit greatly in fame and fortune. They do positive harm by ignoring and denying the facts of climate as those facts have accumulated over the last century and more. These many data points show a gradual and intermittent warming of 0.8 degrees centigrade, a trivial amount with an error component nearly as large. Most persuasively, their “trend” is linear, flatly contradicting the CO2 hypothesis. The root of this pervasive alarmism is the two-century deceased Malthus; the first of the alarmism modelers, he has been proved wrong over and over again, as have been his followers, notably the mean-spirited Paul Ehrlich, whose catastrophic predictions should by now be laughable, but nobody is laughing The Club of Rome in the 1970’s also showed us models to scare us, also proved totally wrong, now nearly 50 years and counting. Obama, who I voted for twice with enthusiasm, has gone under the spell of the Rasputin “science” adviser, Holdren, a long time Ehrlich chum. I will agree this far. Climate change dogma and hysteria are very real. True liberals need to wake up to the fact that this dogma is not liberal but profoundly reactionary. These people are pure Luddites. They are disgusted with the “human footprint”, read modern civilization. They must be stopped.

  5. Biterr&twisted permalink
    November 15, 2015 8:55 pm

    “Professor” Anderson would be better suited to walking the streets carrying a “Repent the End is Nigh!” sign.
    Ever wonder where all these loonies went?
    Climate “Science”.

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      November 15, 2015 11:32 pm

      Is he the one in the middle

      • Bitter&twisted permalink
        November 16, 2015 5:10 pm

        I like it!
        Every time a climate “scientist” says something demonstrably stupid- which is most of the time- this cartoon should be shown, with their face superimposed.

  6. Graeme No.3 permalink
    November 15, 2015 9:24 pm

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate”.
    The debate has been going for 43 years and we still have no proof. Indeed the latest works show that the effect is very low.
    See David Evans work on JoNova or The Hockey Schtick which reproduces

  7. CheshireRed permalink
    November 15, 2015 9:40 pm

    It seems the further the pause extends, the less their ‘evidence’ stacks up and the worse their projections become…the MORE alarmists like Anderson double down to raise hysteria levels to Max. They’re quite shameless.

  8. November 15, 2015 9:51 pm

    What has happened to Booker’s Sunday Telegraph columns. Have the “proven science” establishment removed him?

    There is no press opposition to the fanatics as COP 21 approaches.

    Have the extremists won the climate war too.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      November 16, 2015 11:04 am

      I wondered the same. Two weeks of silence. I’d guess if he was leaving there’d be an announcement and he’d be allowed a goodbye column. He hasn’t said he’s away either so it may be he’s either under the weather or working on something big. I hope it’s not the former and definitely is the latter.

    • November 16, 2015 11:27 am

      He’s on holiday in India!

  9. CC Reader permalink
    November 16, 2015 12:01 am

    “Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics —
    A mistake in the climate model architecture changes everything—trapped energy just reroutes to space on another path

    Dr David M.W. Evans
    15 November 2015
    Project home page:
    The basic climate model, the application of “basic physics” to climate, is essentially why es- tablishment climate scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory, despite considerable con- trary empirical evidence.
    Dating back to 1896, the model contains serious architectural errors. Fixing the architecture but keeping the basic physics, future warming due to carbon dioxide is a fifth to a tenth of official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since the 1970s was due to rising carbon dioxide.
    Increasing carbon dioxide reduces the heat radiated to space by carbon dioxide (the “thicker blanket”). In reality, the blocked heat mainly just reroutes out to space by being radiated from water vapor instead, all in the upper atmosphere. In the climate models, however, the blocked heat travels down to the Earth’s surface where it is treated like extra sunlight, and less heat is radiated to space from water vapor.
    This modeling error went unnoticed for a hundred years presumably because people focused on the values of the parameter values in the model—such as how much heat is trapped by in- creasing CO2—rather than on how the model combines them to estimate future warming.

    Essays. A few introductory essays will be posted here soon.
    Synopsis (pdf, 1.1 MB).
    Spreadsheet (Excel, 250 KB). Contains the alternative basic climate model, as applied to recent decades. Also contains the OLR model, and a computation of the Planck sensitivity/feedback.”

  10. John F. Hultquist permalink
    November 16, 2015 1:32 am

    I could not tell that he is a confirmed member of the CAGW society. Is he?
    I thought he was commenting on the science fiction he’s been reading and saying “Folks, it ain’t going to happen.”

  11. Manfred permalink
    November 16, 2015 5:21 am

    Kevin Anderson, a UN lap dog barking on command to the mantra of “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (Draft outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda. Sixty-ninth session
    Agenda items 13 (a) and 115. Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up
    to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields)

    28. We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services. Governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-State actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns, including through the mobilization, from all sources, of financial and technical assistance to strengthen developing countries’ scientific, technological and innovative capacities to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.

    Eco-totalitarian bureaucracy looks like this. Spurn, as you would a rabid dog, taxation without representation.

  12. Coeur de Lion permalink
    November 16, 2015 8:16 am

    I fear the upcoming BBC three- parter on “climate change”. If it’s even handed j’ai mon chapeau prey a manger

    • November 16, 2015 4:21 pm

      I’m sure that your hat is totally safe in the hands of the BBC.

  13. NeilC permalink
    November 16, 2015 9:47 am

    People that say “we must accept fundamental changes to our way of life” should all set the rest of US an example by doing it themselves. No travel by any means other than on foot, no use of anything made from carbon, and no use of electricity with any hint of fossil fuel generation.

    Will they, no of course not, they just tell US what we have to do. Hypocrits.

  14. November 16, 2015 12:25 pm

    “high emitting individuals will need to make dramatic cuts in the energy they use and in the material goods they consume”. Let me know when Al Gore, Obama, Richard Branson and Di Crapprio have done it, then.

  15. November 16, 2015 12:44 pm

    The “The fundamental change to our way of life” I’m looking forward to is days, weeks, months and years of NOT having these nitwits in my face and on my radio.

  16. Keith Gugan permalink
    November 16, 2015 1:49 pm

    Good news about Booker. But Sundays are not the same without him.

    Coming to Kevin Anderson however, I have tried to get his background from sources available to me, but unsuccessfully so far. I like to establish whether the person I’m being lectured by has the necessary rigour in his scientific development to be worth listening to. You know the sort of thing – established university, decent research, significant experience, sound colleagues, reputable sources, some lengthy probation and solid reviews of published papers.

    From what I have seen, is it my impression alone or does he come over to others too as a Pop star or DJ. Someone with all the razzamatazz but no serious substance.

    I see in his vehemence £-signs glinting before him as the gullible dash to get him on board. What a disaster.

  17. Dave Ward permalink
    November 16, 2015 1:50 pm

    “Even sillier than the boy who cried “Wolf!””

    Prof Anderson isn’t alone: Those of us who live in Norwich (home of the UEA), have to put up with regular scaremongering from local Green Party mouthpiece Rupert Read:

    A few days ago his latest diatribe made prime spot in the Eastern Daily Press letters page. A quick search reveals that it was merely an edited version of this “Opinion” piece in the Grauniad:

    Add that to the recent, equally scaremongering, rubbish from two local doctors (one of which Paul featured earlier), and I am really losing the will to live… I often reply, but know from experience that anything too controversial (i.e. “inconvenient” facts) will either not get printed at all, or edited to change the meaning completely.

  18. November 16, 2015 4:43 pm

    Has Anderson considered the “self-censorship” of his colleagues is due to the totally unrealistic outcome if they took their own studies assumptions and logic seriously? That only truly bizarre endpoints come with standard IPCC “science”? To get published and not look the fool, they then have to backoff the results of their own work.

    Investment houses have this problem, only they release the results and get us all excited into ruination.

  19. manicbeancounter permalink
    November 16, 2015 7:23 pm

    Kevin Anderson says

    Prof. 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

    To reduce GHG emissions by over 50% from the 49GtCO2e that the IPCC estimates was emitted in 2010 will require more than reductions by a few individuals. The entire emissions of Australia, Canada, EU, Japan and USA were about 13GtCO2e. To get to the emissions level actually means middle income countries like China, Indonesia and Brazil radically reducing their emissions, along with making sure that India, Bangladesh and Nigeria never increase theirs. If Prof. Anderson did the arithmetic he would find that the statement is untrue.

  20. Billy Liar permalink
    November 17, 2015 1:24 am

    There goes my corporate jet. 😦

  21. Brian H permalink
    November 19, 2015 3:19 am

    The falsity of the CO2-warming connection makes the whole Anderson position ludicrous at its root.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: