Climate Realism

Lomberg: The Paris Accord

That’s  right, if everyone meets their goals, and right now the US is the only nation on track, the reduction in projected temperature in 2100 would be under 0.05F. Note that Lomberg is NOT a skeptic. He accepts the UN projections, he just follows through to the consequences

That’s what we’re going to throw away our standard of living for generations to do.

36 thoughts on “Climate Realism

  1. So, the goals set in the Paris Accord do not go far enough to save the planet from looming climate disaster. Your conclusion – do nothing. There is an alternative conclusion if that is a fact – do more. We only have one planet.

    The standard of living of most Americans is being far more damaged by the “conservative” plutocrat policies that you support than by anything green energy policies will do. Given your devil-take-the-hindmost view of society, your stated concern about damage to “our standard of living” rings pretty hollow.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The developing world, especially Chins and India but also Africa, has no intention of meeting their Paris goals. anyway. The US going alone will make no difference,

      So, no matter what, we’re going to have to build some levees and seawalls, There is nothing to gain by wrecking our economy so we won’t be able to afford to buils them.

      Like

          1. I disagree. If we don’t begin the adaptation process and lead the world in changing it, that is akin to doing nothing. The only thing worse would be to continue to pump crap into the air and other sections of the environment and expect things to get better.

            You remember leadership, don’t you? I know the country has been void of it from January 2017 til January 20th this year. But now it is back and you can’t stand it.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. If your mind isn’t totally closed, I suggest you get Lombergs book and read it.

            Even Climate Czar Kerry has conceded that what the US does will make no difference.

            Like

          3. Wow, you really have an aversion to reality.

            I’m not a denier and I don’t know any.

            But I do question the degree to which CO2 is capable of raising global temperature. and I disagree with making useless gestures that won’t change the outcome instead of making preparations to adapt.

            If you want to debate what I believe, we can do that but I’m not going to debate figments of your imagination.

            Like

          4. Sorry, but anyone who espouses the belief that man-made issues have not accelerated climate change is avoiding the scientific evidence of 95% of climate specialists qualifies as a a denier to me.

            The science is there if you are willing to accept it. But by your own words, you don’t.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Don’t you ever get tired of fighting people who don’t exist?

            I have not claimed that human activities have not affected climate. I do assert that the the IPCC models exaggerate that effect, and science backs me up on that.

            There is no 95% consensus among scientists for catastrophic climate change.

            Like

          6. “Even Climate Czar Kerry has conceded that what the US does will make no difference.”

            He conceded no such thing though I notice that the lying liars of “conservative” media tried to spin it that way. And you, of course, check any critical thinking skills at the door when it comes to parroting their climate lies. So you spread their spin instead of the truth. Is that what you call “adult?”

            In speaking about President Biden’s climate agenda Kerry said . . .

            “He also knows that Paris alone is not enough — not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s emissions — global emissions — come from outside of U.S. borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved.”

            “The problem isn’t solved” is VERY different from your claim that what we do will make no difference. For starters, a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would make a difference even if no other country did a thing. But more importantly, Biden is re-engaging in the global effort that Trump punted on. If we are going to persuade others to act, we must act ourselves. Not hard to understand.

            This is very typical. A leader speaks frankly and truthfully. Immediately his words are cherry-picked and twisted. It happens all the time. Those who want to be thought of as carrying on “adult” and “civil” dialog on the issues of the day should not support such dishonesty.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. No, a total reduction from us, which isn’t possible, would not help a bit.

            Once again, if Tanzania needs a locomotive and we make it impossible to make it here, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t get made, it just means it gets made in China instead.

            There is absoulutley no gain.

            Like

          8. I guess you missed the point so let me put it more plainly. You lied about what Kerry said. Or cluelessly repeated a lie. Lying is not good. Kerry did not “concede” anything, much less what you claimed. His words were quite clear. And his point was that we cannot solve this global problem on our own. Which is a true statement distorted into something else by lying liars.

            Your “argument” about locomotive manufacturing is as lame and simplistic as ever. It kind of begs the question because it is based on an assumption that you want to prove – that renewable energy is bad.
            But even if renewable energy is marginally more costly than fossil energy, the energy content of manufacturing is very small percentage of the cost of producing a product. There are far more important competitive factors that determine where things get made than their energy inputs.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Sure there are other costs of manufacture, but any one of them, including the electricity, can price you out of the market, and there is a lot of electricity used to make a locomotive.

            But it could be the energy cost for a ton of soybeans or any other consumer or capital good. The point is that driving it overseas does not eliminate the energy cost, and CO2 emissions, it just moves them.

            And Kerry did say that even if we went to zero emissions, it would not solve anything. It is not me that is trying to slip a lie through.

            Like

          10. You can deduce anything you want from false premises. Your a priori premise that green energy will only push the manufacture of goods somewhere else is . . . Buzz. False. Why? Because you take the POSSIBILITY of an international competitive situation being so close that an increase of the cost of a minor input (energy) CAN conceivably – in your imagination – drive you out of business as if that remote possibility is a certainty. Business just does not operate that way. What is possible is very different from what is likely.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “It is not me that is trying to slip a lie through.”

            Oh really? You think people here can’t read? Going to try to bluff past the truth that Kerry’s simple factual statement was misrepresented?

            Well, that is clearly the way you people roll.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Kerry’s full statement establishes just what I said, What the US does will not make a difference,

            No one other than the US is even close to meeting their pledges under the Paris Accord, and few in the developing world have any intention to even try. And even if they did, it would make less than 0.05F difference by 2100. Kerry plainly said that 90% of emissions are from outside the US already. and Africa is just starting to industrialize, and they have a lot of coal. China is helping them mine it and build coal fired power plants to use it.

            So, short of genocidal war in which we wipe put much of the developing world and never allow the survivors to industrialize, our emissions here will make no difference.

            Wishing and virtue signaling will not change that.

            Like

          13. “Kerry’s full statement establishes just what I said, What the US does will not make a difference”

            Buzz. Wrong. The point of what Kerry said is that what the US does WILL make a difference and in fact is critical. His comment about our ability to only directly curtail 10% of the worlds emissions – not insignificant in itself – was teeing up the fact that the crisis is global and that American leadership is critical. If we do not act forcefully to curb emissions there is no chance to persuade others to do so.

            Lying liars spread the word that Kerry said that fighting climate change is hopeless but Biden is making us sacrifice anyway for some nefarious reason. THAT is the story you are spreading. It is a lie.

            Liked by 2 people

          14. Repeating the same deceptive description doesn’t make it any more valid.

            It is tedious to try to explain this over and over to those who just will not do the work to understand.

            At this moment, the US going to zero emissions would possibly lower the 2100 global average by some fraction of a degree, but only if nothing else changes.

            The RCP8.5 scenario, which is the only one producing warming sufficient to force adaptations, is based on rapid industrialization of the developing world.

            In that scenario, the entire US contribution would be made up by 3rd world increases in just a few years. Whatever might happen in 2100 would happen anyway in 2103 or so even if we went to zero CO2 here.

            So, no, nothing we do would make any siginificant difference. Even Kerry knows that, and I suspect you do too, you just think you can fool some people.

            As far as leadership is concerned, for the developing world, with its high birthrate which has been uninfluenced by attempts at education for decades, it is either develop or die, and no amount of virtue signaling by the US and Europe is going to get them to watch their children starve to death.

            Note the future third world increases based on coal

            https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/

            The best way we can contribute to overall CO2 reductions is for us to continue rapid innovation and efficiency increases, and to share those products with the rest of the world. And to show the developing world how to use fracking to get natural gas to reduce their use of coal.

            But we can’t do that by becoming a third world nation ourselves.

            Like

          15. “It is tedious to try to explain this over and over to those who just will not do the work to understand”
            Well, that is something we can agree on.

            Let me respond to your claim of intellectual superiority by saying that I understand the issues every bit as well as you do. However, my opinions based on the evidence provided by the science are not determined by the kind of self-centered ethical system that yours are. Nor do I have to cherry-pick to find reasons to take the issue seriously.

            Leaving aside all the models and quibbles about how soon or if disaster will occur, the human race must transition to renewable sources of energy and it must undo the gargantuan damage that has been done to the global environment. We owe it to future generations – a concept alien to you – to make a start. If nothing else, we should try to husband irreplaceable fossil energy sources for their benefit.

            Ironically, the start that we should make will not require sacrifice. It will be good for our economy to lead the world to renewable energy and energy efficiency not the disaster you are always throwing out.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2019/04/22/renewable-energy-job-boom-creating-economic-opportunity-as-coal-industry-slumps/?sh=20d7b4c53665

            Liked by 1 person

          16. The Forbes sales pitch notwithstanding, premature discouragement of fossil fuel use would very definitely negatively impact our standard of living, particularly in rural America.

            I do agree though that preserving fossil fuels, for future use is worthwhile. particularly liquid petroleum. Transitioning to electric cars for urban and light suburban use makes sense to preserve the energy dense fuels for aircraft and boats where electric power in contrary to the limits of physics.

            But for now, transitioning to natural gas for electric generation as a bridge to nuclear is the way to go.

            Like

          17. Take away the regulatory and artificial incentives that distort the market and that changes.

            Small electric cars and minivans make economic sense.

            The Electric Hummer is a virtue signaling toy for eh very wealthy

            Like

          18. No Hummer signals any kind of virtue to me. But, it is not the only choice for those rural folks who will want a EV Pickup. There are several in the pipeline for about half the price of this Hummer thing.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. For what it is worth, I view your claims that we will be “wrecking our economy” by transitioning to renewable sources of energy and by using energy more efficiently as unsupported doctrinaire baloney. That view of your claims is reinforced every time you throw out one of your overblown “alternative facts” in support. For example, you say that no one will be able to afford a car because EVs cost $100,000 when already the market is full of options for far less than half that. And so on.

        The economy of the future will be different. It need not be worse.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. …”more costly choices for no increased value”…

            Unicorn thinking. You absolutely refuse to accept the fact that the costs associated with renewable energy sources are coming down. Until you get over that hump, you will never have anything positive to even consider.

            And the increased value you so desperately seek is not going to happen by continuing to use outdated dirty energy sources. The costs in health alone is never taken into consideration in your “equations”.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Flint, MI residents might have something to say about that. The least expensive route for water turned out to be a disaster.

            Or the burning of the Cuyahoga River was the result of the least costly disposal of effluents.

            Oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf has caused a reduction in natural wetland barriers that mitigate hurricane damage.

            Scrubbers for power plants did not make electricity any better or cheaper. But Northern Europe was getting acid rain from our Ohio Valley power plants.

            Increases in value are not just for the specific profitability of products and services. Externalities are hugely important when it comes to determining costs to citizens, here and abroad.

            As we are learning about COVID, national borders mean zip when it comes to Mother Nature’s impacts on planet Earth.

            Liked by 3 people

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s