A New Master of Climate Disaster

I realize that Emma Thompson set the bar pretty high by proclaiming that we would achieve 4C of warming by 2030.

And while her co-religionists on the Konsensus side are willing to acknowledge she exaggerated slightly, they say it’s only by a couple of decades.

This of course is in sharp contrast to the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which reported in their most recent Assessment Report that temperatures will rise by between 0.3C and 0.7C by 2035. (They write, “The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 is similar for the four RCPs and will likely be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C.” Please see page 10 of the linked Summary for Policy Makers.) So far this century we’re not even on track to attain those modest goals.

Not to worry, however. Jonathan, writing in New York Magazine, is not about to allow Emma Thompson to be the chief doom-cryer for very long. He writes “The rise in atmospheric temperatures from greenhouse gases poses the most dire threat to humanity, measured on a scale of potential suffering, since Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany launched near-simultaneous wars of conquest.”

This is both absurd and a crying shame. Absurd because mainstream science does not share his opinion on the threat posed by climate change. A crying shame because what he writes below this tromp of doom is interesting and useful. But at least it entitles him to some interesting body art:

master of disaster

Mainstream science believes, as I wrote two days ago, that “Global warming is not expected to destroy the Earth. It is expected to be expensive, to cause loss of life due to more intense storms, to be disruptive to both industry and agriculture and to hinder development of the poorer nations of the world. These impacts are expected to kick in starting around the middle of the century. They certainly haven’t shown up yet.” I cite this report by the Potsdam Institute commissioned by the World Bank as evidence. Others might wish to look at the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers (here is the same link again), which also reports that while disruptive, expensive and potentially hazardous to many in the developing world, global warming is not expected to cause even 1% of the loss of life generated by Jonathan Chait’s recollection of World War II and its antecedent conflicts in Asia.

The reason it’s a crying shame? Chait accurately (if optimistically) charts the fall in costs of solar and wind power and points to the development of storage technology. He also details our decreased dependence on coal and gives credit to the main driver of that decreased dependence, natural gas. He also acknowledges the role hydropower has played in helping China and other developing countries reduce the rate at which coal consumption has grown in their countries.

Could have been a great article. Pity about the hyperbole. But maybe it will sell a few extra copies of the magazine.

That may be what it’s all about.

24-profits-doom

39 responses to “A New Master of Climate Disaster

  1. The AGW-driven destruction of science and society cannot be stopped without an open, permanent forum, like ResearchGate,” where supporters and critics of research findings, and editors of mainstream research journals, the news media, leaders of federal research agencies and the scientific community can DOWNLOAD, READ & RESPOND in public, affirming or denying precise experimental data and observations that indicate:

    The pulsar-centered Sun made our chemical elements, birthed the solar system five billion years (5Ga) ago, sustains every atom, life and planet in the system today and cannot be ignored in any realistic studies of, or policies to mitigate, climate change: http://tinyurl.com/nw2qg86 or

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133563_Solar_Energy

    • Any self-respecting physicist with even a basic grasp of physics would be glad to read the above paper and then post their reasons for affirming or denying

      1. Dr. Carl von Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy concept is flawed in exaggerating the repulsive forces between protons and ignoring the repulsive forces between neutrons

      2. Neutron repulsion is the main source of energy in cores of
      _ a.) Heavy atoms like Uranium
      _ b.) Some planets like Jupiter
      _ c.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
      _ d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way
      _ e.) The now expanding Universe

  2. You linked to my post with the words “she exaggerated slightly”. That is not what I said in my post. You’re misrepresenting me again. I don’t expect you to change this as this seems to be the norm with you. I’m simply here to point it out. Carry on misrepresenting me and others that you regard as part of the Konsensus (and, as I’ve pointed out before, using a “K” make you look like an idiot), and I’ll continue to regard you as dishonest. I’ll also continue to point this out when I get the opportunity.

    • K-K-ken, they’re k-k-koming to k-k-kill you! (A Fish Called Wanda)…

      Either I am foolish for ridiculing those who twist or ignore science or they are. Guess we’ll find out soon enough.

      On Wednesday, 9 September 2015, The Lukewarmer's Way wrote:

      >

      • Gee. How collegiate. How polite. How typical. You Konsensus Juliet’s work so hard at cultivating the veneer of being the grownups in the room, and then something like this strips it all away.

        On Wednesday, 9 September 2015, The Lukewarmer's Way wrote:

        >

      • Predictive texting is sometimes surreal. You’re not Juliet’s, nor even Romeo’s. Kultists, one and all, now and until the end of time.

        On Wednesday, 9 September 2015, The Lukewarmer's Way wrote:

        > Respond to this comment by replying above this line > New comment on The Lukewarmer’s Way > > *Tom Fuller commented on A New Master of Climate Disaster > * > > I realize that Emma Thompson set the bar pretty high by proclaiming that > we would achieve 4C of warming by 2030. [youtube … > > Gee. How collegiate. How polite. How typical. You Konsensus Juliet’s work > so hard at cultivating the veneer of being the grownups in the room, and > then something like this strips it all away. > >

    • ATTP – “Carry on misrepresenting ……. and I’ll continue to regard you as dishonest.

      Pot calling kettle black. Only this week you deleted one of your own comments on your own Blog because you made unfounded allegations, which when challenged, you were unable to support. Hypocrite.

  3. ATTP – my humble apologies for wrongly accusing you of deleting your September 5, 2015 at 9:59 pm comment – I missed it in a search.

    However, you (somewhat dishonestly) did not allow through moderation my response requesting evidence of the claims, which were untrue.

  4. ATTP – Somewhat ironic considering your statement of September 7, 2015 at 6:27 am in that post

    “Attributing views to people that they have not explicitly expressed is something I see on pseudo-skeptic blogs. I’d rather not see it here.”

    It’s also interesting that none* of the commenters on your post has acknowledged that Emma Thompson’s job as a successful actress is to be convincing with fiction.

    * Or, maybe a similar comment has been made, but not allowed through moderation.

    • I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Why is it ironic? I’m not attritbuting views to people that they have not explicitly expressed. Also, of course Emma Thompson is an actress and of course – as an actress – her job is to be convincing with fiction. I don’t get why that’s relevant or why it matters that noone has made that point.

  5. Poor Emma. Trying to look wise with no one reviewing her lines for her. Great actress, but her annoying ignorance in the science world, and apparent willingness to be a marionette makes her increasingly difficult to watch on screen.Then again, as ATTP does point out, perhaps actors in general are drawn to promoting climate fear because they are attracted to doing what they do best: fool people by persuading them fiction is credible.
    This reminds me of another middle aged crisis climate promoter, Al Gore, and his serious talk about the millions of degree temperatures that exist in the interior of the Earth.

    • Since I’m here

      Then again, as ATTP does point out, perhaps actors in general are drawn to promoting climate fear because they are attracted to doing what they do best: fool people by persuading them fiction is credible.

      I said no such thing. Is being dishonest just the norm amongst people who spend their time complaining about CAGW and alarmism. So divorced from reality that making stuff up just seems normal?

      • ATTP,
        I just flew in from Ireland to the US and am suffering jet lagged exhaustion.
        Do please forgive me for confusing your quote of Joe Public’s interesting insight with one of your dreary derivative self absorbed assertions.
        You really must bark around the margins because even a third rate teacher realizes that the cliamte doom is just not happening, so to keep the fear alive you must distract endlessly about how someone may have quoted or God forbid, mis-attributed you. Because after all it is all about you. The issue- that there is no way that we are going to see 4.0oC increase in global temps this century and that to claim otherwise is to deny science, is far beyond you, apparently.

      • The issue- that there is no way that we are going to see 4.0oC increase in global temps this century and that to claim otherwise is to deny science, is far beyond you, apparently.

        If you’re really suggesting that we cannot possibly see a 4.0oC increase in global temperatures this century is complete bollocks, and would indicate that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Your comment is, however, somewhat hard to interpret, so maybe you aren’t actually saying this. Jet lag?

      • Well, hell, I’ll say it. There’s no way 4C is happening this century. I am fairly convinced that 2C will happen, right around 2080, but 4C? In 84 and a half years?

        Not happening.

      • Well, hell, I’ll say it. There’s no way 4C is happening this century. I am fairly convinced that 2C will happen, right around 2080, but 4C? In 84 and a half years?

        And that illustrates a large part of the problem with this entire topic. You (and Hunter, I think) feel perfectly comfortable stating something as a fact, even though it is not definitively true. The amount we will warm by 2100 depends both on climate sensitivity, on our emission pathway, and on the significance of carbon cycle feedbacks. It is not true that there is no way 4C is happening this century. In saying this, you’re illustrating that you may well be no more informed than Emma Thompson, which is somewhat ironic, given the topic of this post. On the other hand, I suspect you are more informed than Emma Thompson, so I’ll refer back to my first comment on this post.

      • Hey ATTP: Why is it okay for you to come here and call me an idiot while you won’t let me comment on your blog?

        Have you no sense of shame, or no sense of how ridiculous it makes you look?

      • Tom,
        I’ve told you before, you are welcome to ban me any time you like and I will not even whine about it. However, while you refer to my posts in a dishonest way, I will reserve the right to come here and defend myself until such time as you do ban me. Of course, I’m not defending myself in the hope that you will behave in a more honest fashion, it’s simply intended to illustrate that you’re not.

        The subtlety that you may not be appreciating is that I do not ban people who I may refer to in my posts and if I do ban someone I discourage them from being discussed in the comments.

      • Oh, baloney you old crone. Of course I’m giving my opinion and of course it’s an opinion of a non-scientist.

        But it’s not an uneducated opinion. Mathematical decay constrains the possibilities of large temperature rise in 85 years. Mitigation efforts are not standing still and as last year’s emissions show, they are having an effect. China is coming to grips with its coal use–did you even read Chait’s article?

        You Konsensus fools sit and egg each other on to bigger claims of potential disaster, neglecting all the observation-based new estimates of sensitivity. You gloss over NOAA’s estimate of sea level rise at 1.7 mm/year. You pretend that all glaciers everywhere are melting to nothingness, that Greenland’s ice cap is not in fact gaining mass, that the WAIS is a proxy for all of Antarctica.

        Oooooh, but Lomborg!

      • Oh, baloney you old crone. Of course I’m giving my opinion and of course it’s an opinion of a non-scientist.

        Emma Thompson may have got things wrong, but she at least tried to qualify what she said. You didn’t even bother trying.

        But it’s not an uneducated opinion. Mathematical decay constrains the possibilities of large temperature rise in 85 years. Mitigation efforts are not standing still and as last year’s emissions show, they are having an effect. China is coming to grips with its coal use–did you even read Chait’s article?

        I’ve no idea what you mean by “Mathematical decay” and I doubt you do too. Something that you (and many others) typically fail to acknowledge is that many who highlight the risks associated with climate change are hoping that we do take it seriously so that we actively try to avoid reaching something like 4oC by 2100. That doesn’t mean they think that we will. It means that they’d really rather we didn’t.

        You Konsensus fools sit and egg each other on to bigger claims of potential disaster, neglecting all the observation-based new estimates of sensitivity. You gloss over NOAA’s estimate of sea level rise at 1.7 mm/year. You pretend that all glaciers everywhere are melting to nothingness, that Greenland’s ice cap is not in fact gaining mass, that the WAIS is a proxy for all of Antarctica.

        Well, this is complete and utter tosh. What you (and many others) do is make something up so that you can then criticise those with whom you’re choosing to disagree. That you do this is why I regard you as either dishonest, or stupid, or – quite possibly – both.

      • And you call other people stupid? You think because you note that Emma is incorrect that that gets you off the hook for all the other garbage you swallow hook line and sinker and regurgitate on your blog?

        Bill McKibben–the moron who called Obama a denier? Free pass from K-k-k-Ken. “Maybe – as a campaigner – Bill McKibben’s goal is simply to get a message out, and to try to make a strong and convincing argument.”

        Al Gore? Free pass from Ken. “Thats not a prediction that it would be all gone by now. It’s pointing out that some researchers have warned that summer Arctic sea ice could be gone by now, but not a prediction that it actually would be.”

        When Lord Deben libels Matt Ridley? Oh, that’s okay. “To be fair, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen Matt Ridley being actually rude, but he does seem to make a habit of making fairly basic mistakes and then complaining when criticised.”

        Well, at least you could write about physics, right?

        No–you end up with egg on your face every time:

        “So, I think that clears up one of Roger’s questions. The reason for the discrepancy is – I would suggest – simply because Roger’s calculation isn’t correct, not because there really is some kind of major discrepancy between model estimates and observations. Apologies, of course, to Gavin for butting in🙂

        Edit and acknowledgement: I’ve just realised – and Chris Colose has confirmed – that the temperature feedback includes the lapse rate, so Roger’s feeback estimate is about right.”

        It’s not that you were wrong. Again. It’s that you had to wait for Colose to confirm it.

      • Tom,
        Oh, you’ve gone and found the bits where I was wrong and acknowledged it. Horror of horrors, I sometimes make mistakes. When I do I acknowledge them. You, on the other, appear to be fundamentally dishonest and proud of being so. As I said before, if you keep dishonestly representing my posts, I’ll keep pointing out that you’re doing so. You could always stop doing so.

        Also, what I said about Al Gore is true. Someone pointing out what some studies have suggested might happen, is not someone making a prediction that it will happen. This isn’t even complicated. Are you simply insisting on sounding like a complete fool?

        Anyway, I’ve got much better things to do. Feel free to continue dishonestly representing what others say. I guess that if doing otherwise would harm the narrative that you want to promote, than that’s what you have to do. At the end of the day, your behaviour reflects on you more than me. I don’t particularly care that you choose to make stuff up, but it is good – now and again – to point out that you’re doing so.

      • It’s not that you were wrong. Again. It’s that you had to wait for Colose to confirm it.

        Oh, and this took a few minutes, you ignorant plonker!

      • Well, actually, we’re both wrong. Chris Colose posted his comment at 10:35pm. I wrote this comment at 10:20pm, pointing out the error before Chris Colose left his comment. I don’t expect you to correct your claim, though. That would be out of character.

      • Typical whining. You want me to acknowledge that you made (yet another) mistake? Sure. You’re as wrong about what you wrote about Colose’s confirmation as you are about everything else.

        That better?

      • Tom,
        I’m not whining. I don’t care what you think or say. I’m showing you that I did not wait for Chris Colose to point it out, since I’d already realised myself. That you will not acknowledge this is not surprising at all. As I’ve already said, you appear to be proud of your dishonest behaviour. Also, the Bill McKibben quote of mine is taken out of context (I wasn’t excusing a mistake). Again not surprising. Anyway, this is probably enough of this. If it bothers you that I regard you as dishonest, you could always try to not be so dishonest. Just a thought, mind you.

      • I don’t think you’re intentionally dishonest. Misleading, yes. Purposefully obtuse, yes. Stupid, probably. Small souled, certainly. Hypocritical? Bing, bing bing–we have a winner.

      • Tom,
        I’m pointing you to things that you have claimed/suggested, that are simply not true and that you appear completely unwilling to retract or change. For example, my post did not suggest that what Emma Thompson said was a slight exaggeration, and I did not have to wait for Chris Colose to realise I had made a mistake. Hence I regard you as dishonest. Not complicated. Do I really care what you think about me? Not really. However, if you ever were to point to something that I’ve said that you regard as not true, or something that you regard as hypocritical, I would at least consider it. Would I immediately agree? Well, of course not. I would fully expect it to be a dishonest representation of what I’d said or done. That appears to be your norm; make something up so that you can then criticise what someone has supposedly said, but which they haven’t actually said. Very convenient. However, that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t at least consider the possibility that I was wrong, or that I had behaved hypocritically. You could try it sometime. You may actually discover that people are more impressed by your honesty, than you currently seem to realise.

      • Wow. You’re still here. You’re still calling me names. And you still won’t let me comment on your blog.

        If you want evidence of hypocrisy, there it is.

        Do I think you care about my opinion? You’re still here. You’re still insulting me. And you still won’t let me comment on your blog.

        So, yes. I think you care about my opinion of you.

      • Wow. You’re still here. You’re still calling me names. And you still won’t let me comment on your blog.

        If you want evidence of hypocrisy, there it is.

        I disagree. Hypocrisy would be me writing about you on my blog and not allowing you to defend yourself. Hypocrisy would be me complaining if you banned me from your blog. I haven’t done either. The only reason I’m here is because you chose to link to my post from here and chose to suggest that it said something that it had not. You could always choose to not link to posts on my blog, or you could choose to at least represent them moderately accurately.

        I’ll even quote from my post that you claimed had suggested that what Emma Thompson had said was a slight exaggeration

        Implying that this could happen in a a few years time is a huge exaggeration.

        I only use the word exaggeration 3 times. The only time I quantified it, I said huge.

        Do I think you care about my opinion? You’re still here. You’re still insulting me. And you still won’t let me comment on your blog.

        Yes, I am insulting you. I think it’s warranted. And, yes, I won’t let you comment on my blog given that I regard you as dishonest. If that bothers you, you could always try to behave honestly.

        So, yes. I think you care about my opinion of you.

        You can think this, but it’s not true. Every now and again I find myself interested in trying to establish if someone who has misrepresented me is willing to correct their misrepresentation. They almost never are. It’s almost always a waste of time pointing it out. That doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t do so.

  6. Hi Alex, I’ll take outliers for $100 please…

    Relative to 1850–1900, global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) is projected to likely
    exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence). Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5
    (high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6
    (medium confidence). {2.2.1}
    The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely
    to be 0.3°C to 1.7°C under RCP2.6, 1.1°C to 2.6°C under RCP4.5, 1.4°C to 3.1°C under RCP6.0 and 2.6°C to 4.8°C under
    RCP8.59
    . The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean (Figure SPM.6a, Figure SPM.7a). {2.2.1,
    Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2, Table 2.1}

  7. I just read Dr. Betis’ comment about the Thompson BBC piece, here

    In a related discussion, The Guardian’s Mr Nuccitelli told my cousin that Dr. Betts was using A1F1 from AR4 to feed his GCM. If this is true, I think this is another case of a pretty decent fella (Betts) doing goofy research using an unrealistic scenario.

    • ATTP,
      If you actually think that we could get a 4.0oC rise in temps from the current *this century* you are not much brighter than a sack of hammers.
      The climate is “changing” with the excitement of paint drying.
      We are in the year 2015 and warming for the past nearly 20 years has been so small as to be indistinguishable from 0 in the view of fair minded reasonable people.
      It takes huge data torture and lying by climate doom promoters to even get a slight rise in this period. And the past ~150 years of “dangerous climate change” (you fools actually use that term with a straight face) has been at most ~1.0oC.
      You clowns will continue playing “Where’s Waldo” with the heat… is it in the deep oceans unmeasured but real? Is it hiding in the troposphere? Is it lurking like a commie under the bed in the guest room? Whatever inner demons have led you and your fellow true believers to this intellectual dead end of projection and secular apocalypse deserve the ridicule the future will give you. You certainly deserve it today.

  8. It appears to me that Tom is essentially right. ET is, according to Gavin, right with her big picture. Funny. Tells a lot about Gavin’s position.

    While attp says ET was wrong, her panicky and clearly incorrect message is still kind of accepted as good messaging. I really do not get this, I’m that thick, but luckily I’ll probably be here in 2035 to witness how much GISS is then adjusted compared to 1986-2005. Then I can add scary quotes. On how much climate ‘could’ warm between 2016 and 2035.

    Again too bad I can’t invest on end-of-warming futures. ATTP would surely enjoy on my economic stupidity.

    • ET’s hysterical fundamentalist climate obsessed outburst is useful for the more cynical climate hacks. She is seen as a well loved actress, and not as an easily manipulated loon who can enthusiastically parrot lines she has been taught to say.

  9. Pingback: Is a 4C Temperature Rise by 2100 Feasible? Possible? Likely? Certain? | The Lukewarmer's Way

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s