IPCC scientists say it’s ‘now or never’ to limit warming
By Paul Homewood
It’s now or never! Now where have I heard that before?
UN scientists have unveiled a plan that they believe can limit the root causes of dangerous climate change.
A key UN body says in a report that there must be "rapid, deep and immediate" cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Global emissions of CO2 would need to peak within three years to stave off the worst impacts.
Even then, the world would also need technology to suck CO2 from the skies by mid-century.
After a contentious approval session where scientists and government officials went through the report line by line, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now published its guidance on what the world can do to avoid an extremely dangerous future.
First, the bad news – even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world will still warm by 3.2C this century.
This finding has drawn the ire of the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
"Some government and business leaders are saying one thing – but doing another. Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic."
That sort of temperature rise would see our planet hit by "unprecedented heatwaves, terrifying storms, and widespread water shortages".
To avoid that fate, the world must keep the rise in temperatures at or under 1.5C this century, say researchers.
The good news is that this latest IPCC summary shows that it can be done, in what Mr Guterres calls a "viable and financially sound manner".
But keeping temperatures down will require massive changes to energy production, industry, transport, our consumption patterns and the way we treat nature.
To stay under 1.5C, according to the IPCC, means that carbon emissions from everything that we do, buy, use or eat must peak by 2025, and tumble rapidly after that, reaching net-zero by the middle of this century.
"It’s game over for the fossil fuels that are fuelling both wars and climate chaos," said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the IPCC approval session.
"There’s no room for any new fossil fuel developments, and the coal and gas plants we already have need to close early."
But diets and lifestyles will also need changing, with huge scope for major carbon savings, according to the authors.
"Having the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behaviour can result in a 40-70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This offers significant untapped potential," said IPCC Co-chair Priyadarshi Shukla.
"The evidence also shows that these lifestyle changes can improve our health and wellbeing."
In practice, this means governments doing more to encourage walking and healthy eating, and putting in place the infrastructure for far more electric vehicles…
One of the most contentious aspects of the report concerns the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
This can be done in a number of different ways, including through planting trees and making changes to farming practices.
But the report finds that to keep warming from going over the dangerous 1.5C threshold, we will need more than new forests.
Keeping temperatures down will require machines to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere.
This is very contentious as the technology is new and currently very expensive.
Some participants in the IPCC process are highly sceptical that these approaches will work.
"The idea of quick emissions reductions and large negative emissions technologies are a concern," said Prof Arthur Petersen, from UCL, who was an observer in the approval session.
"There are a lot of pipe dreams in this report."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60984663
Pipe dreams indeed!
What I find amazing is the apoplectic reaction of Guterres, not to mention the absurd Matt McGrath and his chums in Greenpeace. Did not any of them actually read the Paris Agreement? If they had, they would have seen that it did nothing to cut emissions by 2030, never mind halve them. On the contrary, the actual Agreement projected a a large increase in emissions, based on the INDCs submitted by every country.
According to the IPCC Press Release, we must halve emissions by 2030:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/resources/press
That clearly is not going to happen. Even in the UK, the CCC’s Fifth Carbon Budget only targets a cut of 25%. The idea that China, India and the rest of the developing world are going to cut emissions at all is nonsensical, even if they wanted to, which they don’t.
Beyond 2030, the real pipe dreams kick in. Unproven and expensive technologies such as removing CO2 from the air and carbon capture, for instance.
There is also talk of totally reordering our lives and the cities we live in – “compact and walkable” is one phrase used. Meat eating does not escape either.
Much hope is pinned on falling costs for renewables, but the report fails to address the simple fact that intermittent wind and solar cannot run a modern economy.
But the real objective of the UN is revealed by our old friend Jim Skea. co-chair of this IPCC Working Group and long time member of the Committee on Climate Change:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/resources/press
Translation- “We in the West are consuming far too much, and it is not fair that we are richer than the rest of the world. We must make you poorer”
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Someone was saying “It’s now or never” back in 1960!
Indeed!
And – as I recollect – that was to prevent us being wiped out by the ice age brought on by excess anthropogenic emissions of particulates.
We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
More from Schneider:
“As scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
The latter quote was from Schneider’s Global Warming period, incidentally.
Well actually it was Elvis. However, I well remember your quote from Schneider.If only some of these guys knew about Henry’s Law and its implications. It is also a pity that climate change is used in the singular. I wonder what Hubert Lamb would have thought about that!
Alvis Parsley according to the respected scientific journal, the Beano.
A Dandy reply. Thanks Colonel Mustard.
Where does the 3.2c from now to 2200 come from? Current warming is about 0.13c per decade
My data says 0.07c per decade when averaged over the last 100yrs. Given climate bumps up and down in its cycles we cant use a period of less than a century as an indicator, and even thats too short. Over 1000yrs the climate has changed by 0.0c a decade. Over 2000yrs its changed by -0.02
Priority reference file for this gem ,please. With full attribution and source detail or it will scoffed at by the BBC’s cadre of correspondents, commentators and non scientific experts saying that it is only “my data”.
Of proof were needed that they’re all stark, staring bonkers, that piece provides it
If proof..
“fairer’ society. Yup. That’s the real drive behind this. They can all go fuck themselves.
By “fairer” they mean poorer. Except for them.
There really is a weird mentality amongst some that thinks we’ve all got far to wealthy.
Well, the plebs have too much…. Population reduction, wealth reduction. We will have nothing and be happy….
The IPCC is the brainchild of Maurice Strong, a billionaire socialist working closely with the UN. At the Rio conference of the IPCC in 1992 Maurice Strong made this statement to thousands of supporting fans and international leaders:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Isn’t ‘billionaire socialist’ a contradiction in terms? Surely socialism demands wealth distribution??
“Surely socialism demands wealth distribution??”
Only from the little people to the billionaire Socialists.
Back in the mid-1960s I travelled a little behind the Iron Curtain, a Hungarian summed it up:
“You can always tell the Communists, they’re the ones in the big black cars”.
I believe the same Maurice Strong became head of Ontario Hydro in 1992.
Here he introduced ‘green energy’ ideas which, of course, failed. Sometime after that he settled in China.
Oh no not again – we’re all doomed I tell ye, doomed. (the old ones are the best)
Stop rolling your eyes, Fraser!
“Much hope is pinned on falling costs for renewables, but the report fails to address the simple fact that intermittent wind and solar cannot run a modern economy.”
Regardless of costs or efficiency, no wind and solar can be manufactured and installed without vehicles that require the use of fossil fuels. The same is true for carbon capture and geological storage facilities. We simply cannot go forward with these idiotic plans to reduce CO2 emissions to zero and net-zero when fuels from oil will be required to transport anything significant during the transition to an all-electric world. We can’t build the present using tools from the future.
Never it is then!
The Greenpeace spokesperson said “There’s no room for any new fossil fuel developments, and the coal and gas plants we already have need to close early.”
That’s a real vote winner.
Who are these so-called “scientists”. I want to see their credentials and their background with climate science. I am dubious.
Where is their theory and the evidence to back it up?
And the evidence needs to be auditable, and audited, and publicly discussed: not in the BBC way, but between people who have some idea of Scientific aims and methodology as well as a grounding in basic Science. Otherwise time will be wasted explaining Ohm’s Law to those who will reject it because everyone explaining it will have some sort of connection to an evil industry.
Whilst there are tentative stirrings from some individuals featuring on GB News -such as Mark Steyn, Leo Kearse and Lembit Opik, we are still a very long way from a proper, scientifically informed debate on AGW. With Ofcom overseeing the media, censorship on many such contentious issues has become quite common. How much pain will the western public have to suffer before they rise up against the lunatics ruining our lives and country in the name of their lunatic religion? Already, the media and talking heads are diverting blame for the rise in energy costs onto fossil fuels, with no mention of the 25% domestic green levies and industry carbon taxes. The increased European dependence on Russian fossil fuel has been key to much of the current energy chaos. The UN, Nato and the EU are now attempting to use this chaos as a vehicle to ‘wean’ the west off fossil fuels. It is worth carefully considering exactly what part these overarching bodies have played in the long-term, historic evolution of the current Ukraine conflict.
Joan, I think if you look at the list of authors of this IPCC report and their credentials, ‘social’ science qualifications seem to predominate. I imagine half of them would lack the technical knowledge to change the batteries in a remote control never mind explain how current battery storage capabilities would help power a modern, industrial economy.
That is really my point. You hear on the media, “scientists say” or “experts say” and I am always shouting “what makes them a scientist or an expert?” The statements w/o revealing their qualifying credentials are meaningless.
Ms. Gibson,
Dubious is such an understatement ! 150 years of research in planetary terms is little more that the Flea on The Elephant. Today we are in the 9th warming period of the Holocene. Planet Earth has experienced 5 Global warming periods Warmer than today. The Middle Ages Warming Period that had Vikings living an agrarian lifestyle in Greenland ended a mere 500 years ago. Deaf, Dumb and Blind are the researchers who pursue this madness.
Does Humanity need to clean up it’s act? . . . YES ! Are we causing Global Warming? . . NO!
https://www.academia.edu/49537285/Climate_Change_A_fresh_Perspective
https://www.academia.edu/51184433/Climate_Change_For_the_21_st_Century
Common sense and a view to History is absent from the IPCC and their ‘Scientists’ . . .
Jim:
I prefer Ernest Brahma’s (author of Kai Lung books) summing up — Deaf, Blind and devoid of the faculty of reasoning.
Several decades ago, I remember talking w/ an atmospheric chemist at WVU. He said they could not determine the chemical reactions taking place as it happened so rapidly. Now, my late father was a chemist as was the older of my 2 older brothers (even my mother). The other brother is a physicist. I leave those fields alone. I am the botanist…plant taxonomy and plant ecosystems person. I have always loved geology and paleobotany. I even had a Devonian paleobotanist on my doctoral committee at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I have often said that one semester of geology or paleobotany would suffice to show that climate has changed drastically. Up until recently, it was thought that changes came gradually. Now we are realizing that often the changes in climate, etc. can be triggered quite suddenly.
Science does not require degrees (although they can be useful for the gained knowledge which comes from serious research, methodology and the ability to reach conclusions….if one uses it). Science requires curiosity, observation, actual facts and the ability to reach reasonable conclusions. This is not the singular domain of the “scientists” or “experts”…..whomever they are.
Recently, I have been following YouTube series from Central Washington University on the geology of the Pacific Northwest. Oh, my…..new techniques are allowing them to peel back more of the onion, but what a geologic mess. And there are arguments. Scientists often do not want to give up their long-held beliefs and will argue to the death and even try to harm careers of those who differ. Sounds familiar. The difference is that we have those who have politicized things for their own gain and power. That is very destructive as it will be a long time, following serious changes, before the general public will “trust the science” again. And, for good reason.
The Pacific North West, where I live, has had tremendous change! This is called ‘The Great Bear Rain Forest’. NOT when the Axial Seamount is Erupting ! after years of observation I wrote this based on scant research, but it does raise questions and, I might add, eyebrows . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling
Which has caused me to observe these things . . . The Heat Energy stored for Billions of years at the core of Planet Earth being released by lava flow from beneath the Oceans during Warming Periods is little known. However. We do know that tectonic activity is increasing today in ways never before ‘recorded’ since humans have been able to measure quake activity. Rising water levels due to the global melting of Glaciation is putting downward pressure on the lithosphere, tectonic plates, beneath the Oceans. This in turn applies pressure on the Mantle which causes increased movement of Lava and increased secretion at ‘Hot Spots’ beneath the Earth’s crust.
For the last 30 years there have been signs of ‘unusual’ activity in places that had not previously been active during Human observation. Volcanoes before the study of The Axial Seamount began were ‘cone structures’ now we have learned of lava flow along the Seafloor at seams over 2 km in length. On the Indo-Austral sub plate we have had 3 ‘Lateral Quakes’ registering over 8 since 2012. No tsunami . . . no big deal ! but down there beneath the waves some ‘Heavy Shit’ is going on. the quake of 2012 was a separation of more than 100′, laterally. NEVER before witnessed at ANY quake zone . . . Ever ! Any where ! Humans know more about the surface of Mars than we know about what is going on right here on Earth below the Oceans.
Not so long ago, the largest submarine volcanic eruption ever recorded began on 10 May 2018 off the eastern shore of Mayotte, one of the Comoros group of islands east of Mozambique and north of Madagascar. Again, you want to measure the effects of this, please do. But please, do NOT discount the magnitude of these eruptions. This is ancient ‘Stored Energy’ being released in Volumes Never Before Recorded since scientists began to study our world.
On July 18th, 2011 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), declared, in Scientific American, that More Than 50% of the heat that keeps Planet Earth Warm in the Universe, comes from the fission reactor at the Earth’s core. This volcanism becomes a dynamic part of an Increase beyond the norm of 50% by way of typical ‘Radiated Heat’ through the crust of the Earth. We can Not know what we have Not studied. This Kind of research goes counter to ‘Man Made’ theology of Global Warming and would be VERY difficult to get funding to research. The embers of scientific evolution are burning.
It is our responsibility in the Scientific community to examine these new sources of energy never before seen at this magnitude.
My Thoughts . . .
Nobody of any repute – other than disrepute – will work for the IPCC. There was a rebellion back in the SAR days when a number of contributors went to court to have their names removed from the report as it was a misrepresentation of the science. And anyone of note in their field will not be allowed to take part as they might actually use proper data and tell the truth, not that they would apply anyway.
The clock is ticking on Harrabin ‘s retirement more like.
Is it grant application time for the eco loon academics looking to keep their climate models updated?
This same Matt McGrath?
The mid-1930’s remain the warmest within living memory. Put another way, there has been no noticeable warming since that time ?
But since then, CO2 levels have increased near 50%. Clearly, CO2 has had no obvious effect in that more than 8 decade period.
Why then are we even thinking about CO2, except perhaps in ways to increase its levels to aid crop production ?
This century, we are told, has seen no warming, with the last7+ years cooling ?
Where is the error in the above ?
No Error . . . Just NO willingness to publish !!
Once people realise the historic background of the IPCC and it’s socialist founder Maurice Strong, it becomes clear that the core motivation behind the AGW agenda is quite literally that old chestnut- Marxist ideology – to destroy (specifically) western capitalism. Other forces are equally being weaponised to collapse western society through cultural iconoclasm; mass immigration, the toppling of Christianity, the debasement of the family and escalating identity politics. This all works towards their utopian equality by levelling down to third world living conditions.
It seems that the UK will finally deliver some tanks to the defense of Ukraine. I sincerely hope that they are not powered by batteries but by energy intensive fossil fuels. It would be inconvenient if the tanks had to stop fighting to have their batteries charged for many hours,
Me thinks “scientists” in “UN scientists” is the wrong word.
Scientivists? Scienceyists? Any other suggestions?
Sirentists?
Nice. Or how about lying toerag pieces of shit?
CO2 will continue to rise at say 2ppm+ a year for the foreseeable future. What will all these IPCC lunatics do when nothing much happens weatherwise? Go away and hide?
It will be interesting to see how they explain the possible effect of Solar Cycle 25 take place and CO2 continues to rise – as it will!
Oops, link:
Solar cycle 25 is ahead of schedule…
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/news/view/466/20220411-solar-cycle-25-the-overachiever.html?fbclid=IwAR0EeE6f5V11ijp1JOsE2JW_QFRZJ2UXxYNLnytH2viCJkvi6ZSr-pmA8xU.html
They’ll furiously be tweaking all their computer models and graphs.
Skea’s quote is diabolical. The tosh these people come out with is breathtaking. The lie is beginning to slip further every time we are fed yet another last chance final warning from the ever more desperate climate alarmist blob.
Did anyone else tune into the excellent Richard Tice show on Talk Radio today? A sane voice in the mainstream media wilderness.
Yeeeaah , it’s a remix of that perennial favourite ” 100 months to save the planet ” by Charlie Chuckles and the Chinless Wonders * . Get hep to the groove daddy – O !!!
* Originally released on Global Elite Records 156 months ago .
If “it is now or never” then clearly it is
never because the list of major projects
are not going to happen.
We are doomed? No chance
So since we have a choice I chose never
Here is my take on the IPCC report:
https://www.cfact.org/2022/04/08/the-dread-1-5-degree-target-is-dead/
1.5 cannot be done. What will the alarmists do without a target?
Wreck out lives trying?
There was never any scientific basis for the 2° target either, David. The figure was plucked out of the air by Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (by his own admission) to keep the politicians happy (simple-minded souls that they are!)
Why anybody thought 1.5° made any more sense, heaven knows!
I don’t know what they were teaching at Lisbon 50 years ago but Gutierrez somehow came out of it with a physics degree which, one would hope, would have helped him avoid the more blatant idiocies coming out of the UN.
Evidently not!
The origins of 2 degrees goes back further than Schellnhuber, it was first mentioned by economist William Nordhaus in 1975, also not a “Climate Scientist”.
CAN WE CONTROL CARBON DIOXIDE? William D. Nordhaus June 1975 http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/365/1/WP-75-063.pdf
“As a first approximation, it seems reasonable to argue that the climatic effects of carbon dioxide should be kept well within the normal range of long-term climatic variation. According to most sources the range of variation between climatic (sic) is in the order of ± 5 °C., and at the present time the global climate is at the high end of this range.
If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.
In 1977, 45 years ago, Nordhaus produced a follow up paper:
“Strategies for the Control of Carbon Dioxide” http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d04/d0443.pdf
He said the range of variation within a stable climatic regime “such as the current interglacial”, was 2°C, whereas in his first paper he had said 1°C.
In 1990, the UN AGGG (United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases), sought a maximum 1 degree rise. That came from Climate Conferences in 1986 and 87, pre-IPCC. That then morphed into 1.5 degrees and back into 2 degrees.
In 1995, Schellnhuber, (former Director of the Potsdam Institute and Climate Advisor to the Pope), promoted 2 degrees via the German Advisory Council on Global Climate Change. He has claimed 2°C as “his” ever since. It was essentially based on the simplistic logic of Nordhaus and was adopted by the EU in 1996.
After Paris, 1.5 degrees was resurrected as the new mantra for the activists, with Greenpeace using the Small Island States to push it.
The media and politicians glibly speak of 1.5 degrees with no reference points and no knowledge of what it means. In fact, we have only 0.3 degrees to go! The sheer hubris of thinking they can control global temperatures at all, let alone to fractions of a degree, is astounding.
Quote right ! We can say however that between the lows and the highs of the Holocene the range has been 2 degrees . . . Naturally . . . Without Human assistance . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth
That the science of CO2 on temperature is little understood seems to be of no consequence to the modellers.
The 1.5 deg K limit is a good example of the Fear-triggers described by the noble Christopher Booker: i.e. a slightly believable fact that cannot be proven or disproven but can be advocated loudly by believers as proven.
Throughout the Holocene temperatures have varied 2 degrees K . . . 1.5 . . . Big deal !
A small point Jim, unlike other temperature scales conventionally Kelvin doesn’t take a “degree” designation.
Heaven only knows why!
Good point. My Physics teacher at school would give you a detention if you got units wrong – writing ‘gms’ for grams – oh no no no! ‘gms’?! he would bawl – “grams times metres times seconds – what kind of unit is that?!” We learned quickly.
‘Unsustainable meat’ is one of the new buzz phrases. It’s all over Twitter. Yet more projection nonsense.
Likewise ‘UK’s draughty and poorly insulated housing stock’. Really? Since when has the UK explicitly had the worst-insulated housing in Europe?
I’d love to see their workings and evidence for that claim.
There is a complete misunderstanding regarding the output of the IPCC: Scientists provide input with their conclusions. That input is cherry picked and the conclusions of the individual scientists are rewritten and sexed up by political activists who “are” the IPCC: Ask yourselves IF the output of the IPCC is science firstly, why is the organisation called the “intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and not the trans national science panel on Climate Change? If it were the latter then there would be scientists putting their names to the output who could then be cross examined. The IPCC is a left wing political spawn of a left wing UN, it is a perversion to call any of its output “science”.
The IPCC was created to underpin the UNFCCC and provide the proof for anthropogenic global warming. That is why it ignores any papers, data or evidence to the contrary. It is a global warming advocacy group.
The IPCC’s brief was to ONLY look at human-caused warming, and ignore anything natural. That’s how divorced from reality they are. As they say, the clue is in the name ‘interGOVERNMENTAL”, i.e. inherently unscientific.
I can recommend Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise’s book “…Delinquent Teenager…” book, a damning expose of the IPCC.
Counter-intuitively the IPCC was created before the UNFCCC. IPCC happened in 1988, sponsored by UNEP and WMO, with their First Assessment Report in 1990. UNFCCC was created in 1994 and the first Conference of the Parties, COP 1, was in Berlin in 1995.
The IPCC has Guidance Note for Lead Authors. They have always had problems with uncertainty, these guidance notes help them to turn uncertainty into “probabilities” and “likelihood”. A quick glance through these cornucopias of word salad, demonstrate clearly that IPCC reports are not “settled science”, but largely opinion.
Click to access AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf
Click to access The-concept-of-risk-in-the-IPCC-Sixth-Assessment-Report.pdf
Mr. Red . . . Re: Unsustainable Meat . . . A view from my youth
How to separate facts from ‘qualified answers’?
One early example . . .
I once went to a ‘Green Peace’ canvassing booth that was raising money to stop ‘the slaughter of White Seal Pups’ on their birthing grounds off the coast of Newfoundland. I asked the young woman working the booth if she was a vegetarian? ‘Yes of course’ was her answer, “she was against the killing of all animals”. So, then I asked if she ate rice or noodles? She said “yes”. So, I suggested that her answer made her an advocate for the mass slaughter of 60 million Buffalo . . .
I informed her that the rice she ate and the flour in her pasta both were grown on the very Plains where the Buffalo once had roamed. She was ‘shocked and angry’ and asked me to leave her booth because “she supported no such thing”.
I took this stand with this young woman as a twelve-year-old boy . . . The story of humanity is complex. That complexity cannot be overlooked or whitewashed to make one point that fails to grasp the enormity of our global construct and Humanity’s place in all of its dynamic facets. We must consider the good, the bad and the ugly in all.
I despise the concept of people speaking out of both sides of their mouth – more and more every day !
Elitist Environmentalist Propaganda falls into this trap . . . Every Day . . .
The Media refuses to be seen pointing out the hypocrisy . . .
Yes. Pretty darn annoying isn’t it. It will all play out the way it’s going to play out (which I know is not saying anything give me a moment). People will not go along with this stuff if and when the shit properly hits the fan – money talks – just like Boris just announced the building of a bunch of nuclear power plants – to almost no mass-media complaints. Can you imagine that a few years back – everybody was terrified of nuclear. Now look. All change. Humans are amazing creatures – they continually fuck up but they also do amazing stuff – and they will not willingly commit mass suicide or set a path to poverty and oblivion if they suddenly realise what the fuck is going on. We are starting to realise what is going on. Things will change.
“Climate change is a result of more than a century of unsustainable energy and land use”. Jame Skea.
The weasel words are clever. YES fossil fuel usage is unsustainable because there is a finite quantity of hydrocarbons in the world in commercially accessible accumulations. Yes the population has been increasing so we use more land.
Other than that our mathematical physicist friend is demonstrating profound ignorance regarding Geological History to make such a fatuous and fundamentally false statement. Does he not know that climate has been changing continuously for 4.5 BILLION years and NOT just for 100? Is he suggesting that there was NO climate change before we went all “unsustainable” and increased life expectancy and reduced mortality and invented things to ease man’s burden? Shame on us all!
Touché . . .
I choose “never”.
All proposed mitigation actions are morally and economically insane and will kill more people than CO2 ever would. Also 2XCO2 is empirically around 0.5C/doubling, so is effectively harmless.
They are kidding. ‘Never’ isn’t a real choice.
is this General a climate scientist? Are all these people who issued this report, Climate Scientist?? are there any from New Zealand. thank you…from Trevor .
Each of their pronouncements become louder and louder because they know time is running out on their scam. It’s been cooling recently and there aren’t enough people stupid enough to believe warming causes cooling. Though there are plenty of them.
Unfortunately a few years back when I spoke to a “physicist” working in “climate science” he actually had the nerve to say that the mass of the atmosphere has no effect on the carrying thermal capacity of the atmosphere. Between grants, stipends, and salary he was getting 250,000$ a year and had positions on his staff at 80,000$ plus bonuses for physics that agree with him, he filled those slots quickly.
What has happened to Bobn up thread.Some nuggets of good info,a request to enlighten us Bobn,and you”ve disappeared.
If you cannot verify what you say,please do not say it .
“the dangerous 1.5C threshold”
One of the prime beliefs of ClimateDelusion is the idea of some temperature threshold.
There is no scientific basis for such a belief – it is purely political, and assiduously promoted by the UN. Nothing special will happen when the global temperature reaches the 1.5C threshold.
There is no 1.5C threshold, nor is there a 2C threshold. They started with the higher threshold and switched to the lower one when it became clear that it would take a long time to reach the higher one. All for political purposes.
And let us remember that this threshold is judged against a period of time which had the coldest climate since the end of the last glacial period some 11,000 years ago.
The temperature threshold used to be 2 degrees, so if we just wait long enough, it will get down to zero. Even so, any such target is utterly ridiculous, and tries to master nature, which is impossible. I just wonder how long or what it will take for them to realise, as they are already in denial of the last ~20 year temperature hiatus..
Over 200 years ago, in 1803, William Henry discovered the law of partial pressures.
which I think is still in operation ! I wonder what Henry would say to those proposing to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, bearing in mind the oceans cover 70% of the earths surface !
I just hope this brilliant idea is sold to and exploited by Bill Gates inc or to Mark Zuckerbucks inc.
I fear if Boris got a hold of it, Britain would quickly become a world leader in this new technology !!!
Yes I made a similar point to catweazle666 near the top of this string.