Should we allow the alarmists to alarm us as to climate?

[ding]

The biggest expansion of the Biosphere was when the earth was warmer than it is now.

And CO2 levels during glacial periods comes perilously close to ending all plant life.

 

[Flash]

And CO2 levels during glacial periods comes perilously close to ending all plant life.

Things like that these stupid Environmental Wackos never seem to understand.

 

[Flash]

CO2 is just as important to the Biosphere as O2.

Without it the planet will die.

 

[Libby von H]

I am a member of the Judith Curry website so can spread this to the forum.
This discussion may please both the Alarmists and also the so called deniers.
It comes close to straddling the fence. This is very simple reading and should enlighten all of us.

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis

by Iain Aitken As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against u…

judithcurry.com

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis​

Posted on October 31, 2023 by curryja | 78 Comments
by Iain Aitken
As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against us’ war of words in which both sides accuse the other of being closed-minded and refusing to accept the ‘facts’.

Instead of a respectful exchange of views and the seeking of mutual understanding and common ground we tend to find sarcasm and ridicule and ad hominem attacks, as mutually intolerant, entrenched positions have arisen based on different interpretations of the science and evidence and different perceptions of risk. What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, ‘science’) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and ‘point scoring’ over opponents (basically, ‘politics’). Lest they yield any dialectical ground to their opponents, ‘doomsters’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly natural and benign – and ‘deniers’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly man-made and dangerous.
So what is the doomsters’ story? One of the most prominent and vocal doomsters is António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, who, in August 2021, described the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report as ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk’. And in response to the news that July 2023 was likely to be the warmest July since records began he stated, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.’ So what is all this ‘irrefutable evidence’ of the climate crisis that has so convinced Guterres and his fellow doomsters? Let’s examine a few representative examples:
(1) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) will cause global warming to occur.
(2) We know, based on ice core data (and more recently direct atmospheric measurements), that in post-industrialization times the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere has already risen by about 50% to a level that is unprecedented in more than 14 million years – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(3) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that the post-industrialization global warming cannot be explained by natural phenomena.
(4) We know, based on all the leading temperature datasets, that in post-industrialization times about 1.2ºC of global warming has already occurred, a level of warming that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years (and probably the last 125,000 years) – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(5) We know, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, that the last 8 years have been the hottest years since records began and each decade since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one.
(6) We know, based on global tide gauge and satellite altimetry data, that in post-industrialization times the global mean sea level has already risen by about 9 inches as a result of global warming – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(7) We know, based on satellite observations, that Arctic sea ice has already declined by 50% and is declining at a rate of about 12% per decade as a result of global warming – and the decline rate is accelerating.
(8) We know, based on observations and attribution studies, that extreme weather around the world has already become more frequent and intense and, based on the world’s largest study of climate-related mortality, that that is already causing almost 10% (5 million) of global deaths each year.
(9) We know, based on the Paris Climate Accord, that warming must be limited to 1.5ºC to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts – and that based on the current warming trends that critical threshold may be crossed by 2030.
(10) We know that by the end of this century there could be up to 6ºC of warming (i.e. exceeding the 1.5ºC critical threshold by 4.5ºC) potentially resulting in catastrophic climate change.
The adverse climate change impacts noted above are just representative – many more could have been added, such as ocean acidification, coral reef loss, biodiversity loss and species extinctions – and that’s even before the consideration of potential ‘tipping points’ into irreversible climate change impacts. The climate crisis narrative (i.e. the cause and effect storyline) based on such evidence is simple and certain and compelling: our escalating burning of fossil fuels has caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which have in turn caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in global surface temperatures which has in turn already caused huge and unprecedented and accelerating climate change impacts on the planet and mankind – and very soon it’s going to get catastrophically worse, unless we stop climate change by stopping burning fossil fuels. In this narrative climate change is a new and terrifying man-made phenomenon, an existential threat that has arisen as an insidious ‘by product’ of rampant industrialization and capitalism and that it can, and must, be stopped by urgent global decarbonization.
So how many of the above ten statements are actually true? I would argue that all of them are true – at least exactly as worded – and assuming we accept as beyond reasonable dispute the ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions of the IPCC, the ‘internationally accepted authority on climate change’. Trusting the IPCC and believing such evidence and the frightening story it apparently tells is entirely rational and reasonable; in fact, why would any rational, reasonable person doubt it? On the face of it this evidence alone makes an irrefutable case in support of the existence of a climate crisis and it’s surely not at all hard to understand why so many people accept it – and think that those who do not accept it (the so-called ‘climate deniers’) are deluded, badly-informed, badly-intentioned, scientifically-illiterate, irresponsible fools (or are perhaps covertly in the pay of Big Oil).
But what if we don’t just accept as ‘beyond reasonable dispute’ the IPCC’s ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, its Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions, but instead consider criticisms of them by ‘denier’ scientists? In that case we find that the ‘simple and certain’ climate crisis narrative unravels and becomes decidedly complex and uncertain. I deconstruct the ten statements above and set out some of the key complexities and uncertainties in my eBook, in which I conclude that we simply don’t know (with a confidence level sufficient to inform climate policy)

• whether carbon dioxide is the main (let alone sole) controller of the Earth’s climate system
• whether rising carbon dioxide levels are on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
• whether the post-industrialization global warming has been abnormal (even over the last 2,000 years)
• how much of the post-industrialization global warming has been human-caused
• whether global warming is currently accelerating
• whether our warming climate system is on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
• how much of the post-industrialization sea level rise has been human-caused
• whether the sea level rise is currently accelerating
• whether global decarbonization would materially reduce future sea level rises – and whether global decarbonization is anyway the most cost-effective policy for addressing future sea level rise
• whether the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been abnormal
• how much of the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been human-caused
• whether the Arctic sea ice loss is currently accelerating
• whether recent extreme weather events have been abnormal
• whether recent extreme weather events have been human-caused
• whether extreme weather events will become significantly more frequent and intense as a result of global warming
• whether exceeding 1.5ºC of warming would be ‘dangerous’
• whether achieving net zero by 2050 (in order to limit warming to 1.5ºC) is technically feasible (never mind geopolitically realistic)
• whether achieving net zero by 2050 would materially improve the climate in this century
• how much further global warming there will be this century and whether it might lead to ‘catastrophic’ climate change.

All of this can be summarized in one word: doubt. Doubts about the reliability of the science, doubts about the reliability of the climate models, doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC, doubts about the scale of future warming, doubts about the scale of the climate change risks (i.e. doubts about the scale of the possible adverse impacts and the probability of their occurring), doubts about the wisdom of the 1.5ºC warming ‘threshold’ – and doubts about the wisdom, not of decarbonization, but of precipitate and precipitous decarbonization (as epitomized by ‘net zero by 2050’ policies) that may do more socioeconomic harm than good largely as a result of the vast transitional costs and societal impacts of such fast and radical decarbonization and the current lack of affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels. Basically, the ‘irrefutable evidence’ that there is a climate crisis is not, perhaps, so irrefutable. So when António Guterres asks, ‘Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency?’, the answer is, yes, many people can – and for very good reasons.
The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story. It largely expunges all the scientific complexities, unknowns and uncertainties, all the benefits of global warming and higher carbon dioxide levels, all the serious difficulties, costs, impacts and risks of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels – as well as expunging the option of simply adapting to living in a warmer world as an alternative (to net zero) policy response. It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity (with a presumption of guilt) – but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury. It has apparently been found guilty, not on the basis of certainty, not on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, not even on the basis of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ but simply on the basis of the possibility that it could be guilty, if not now, then in the future.
The ‘deniers’ (more accurately described as ‘doubters’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very high, that the possible worst case climate change outcomes are extremely unlikely to occur and that the socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are unacceptably high. The ‘doomsters’ (more accurately described as ‘believers’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very low and that however unlikely the worst case outcomes might be they are nevertheless possible and are so very bad that the very high socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are almost irrelevant. Both positions are rational and reasonable and worthy of intelligent debate – there is no ‘correct’ position. There does, however, appear to be a politically correct position and that, of course, is the position of the ‘doomsters’. To put it another way, the statements, ‘Climate change is probably not a very serious problem but net zero by 2050 probably is’ and ‘Climate change is possibly a very serious problem and net zero by 2050 possibly isn’t’ are not incompatible. Furthermore both sides agree that human activity, in particular our burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to a warming, changing climate – the debate is about how much we are contributing and how dangerous that warming actually is. On which basis there appears to be more uniting the two sides than dividing them.
Whether the IPCC’s theory and climate models are reliable (at least reliable enough to be fit to inform climate policy) is just a matter of opinion. Whether carbon dioxide is the ‘control knob’ of global warming is just a matter of opinion. How emissions will evolve this century is just a matter of opinion. Whether natural climate variability can partially (or even largely) explain the post-industrialization global warming is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate sensitivity is relatively low or high is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming there will be this century is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming is ‘dangerous’ is just a matter of opinion. Whether renewables technology will evolve quickly to deliver affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate policy should be predicated on plausible/likely outcomes or worst case possible outcomes is just a matter of opinion. There is no ‘right’ answer to the climate change problem.
In summary, believing that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must eradicate fossil fuels as fast as possible is rational and reasonable – as is doubting that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must be very circumspect about how deeply and how quickly we eradicate fossil fuels (because the radical decarbonization ‘cure’ may be worse than the climate change ‘disease’). That simple claim may horrify ‘deniers’ and ‘doomsters’ alike, who both tend to a belief that they have the monopoly on rationality and reasonableness – which is why accepting this would be an excellent first step to reducing the current polarization of attitudes to the issue. To approach the truth about climate change you really do need to hear both sides of the story – and they are both good stories. At the very least, given all these doubts, if a climate crisis really exists then it is a very curious one.

She is one of my favorites. I spent about 6 months researching climate matters and I conclude , it's a huge shuck.
Al Gore must be one of the dumbest thngs breathing. Nothing there. As an ex-programmer I KNOW those models are crap.
Maybe just maybe we need them, need to aim for reliable models but as they are now they are crap.

Did no one learn from the guy at Imperail and his models

“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?” « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

statmoddev.stat.columbia.edu

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

 

[Robert W]

She is one of my favorites. I spent about 6 months researching climate matters and I conclude , it's a huge shuck.
Al Gore must be one of the dumbest thngs breathing. Nothing there. As an ex-programmer I KNOW those models are crap.
Maybe just maybe we need them, need to aim for reliable models but as they are now they are crap.

Did no one learn from the guy at Imperail and his models

“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?” « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

statmoddev.stat.columbia.edu

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

The way they lit their hair on fire in the first place either means they are stupid or have in mind some plot that involves the loss of human freedoms.

 

[Crick]

Al Gore must be one of the dumbest thngs breathing. Nothing there. As an ex-programmer I KNOW those models are crap.

Did you code models?

 

[abu afak]

I already addressed this. There is nothing unusual about this interglacial period at all.

Except it is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more CO2. See?

View attachment 857978

Ahhh, that John Englander Graphic is from THIS page:
and it DESTROYS YOU FOREVER.

The Connection: Sea Level, Global Warming, and CO2 - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert​

Over the long term, global sea level, global average temperature and the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) move together – in synchronization. When there is a shift in long-term average global temperature the polar ice sheets increase or decrease in size. Over decades of warming, the ice sheets get...

johnenglander.net

"""
[. .. .. .]

• ""With each “ice age cycle” as they are commonly called, global average temperature swings 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) warmer and colder, and sea level moves up and down almost 400 feet (~120 meters).
• As the atmosphere changes temperature, the ocean slowly follows. It can take almost a thousand years for the oceans to fully reach a new equilibrium temperature. When the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide as can be seen in the way that carbon dioxide (CO2) follows global average temperature. That oceanic release of CO2 shows up as increased levels in the atmosphere. You can see that the level of CO2 ranged in a pattern from 180 – 280 ppm (parts per million) throughout this 400,000 years. Obviously, until recently that was natural — not caused by human influence.
• About two hundred years ago, when we began burning fossil fuels in greater and greater quantities, it changed the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, dramatically. Note the circle in the upper right of the chart at the end of the green line – CO2, which now shows as a vertical upward line on this scale chart. The vast burning of fossil fuels correlates well with this rapid increase in CO2 level. The latest measurement is 415 ppm, 40% higher than in the last few million years. It was demonstrated two hundred years ago, that carbon dioxide had an amazing effect to trap heat, even though it is absolutely invisible. It came to be known as a greenhouse gas due to its property to trap heat like the roof of a greenhouse. So, rather amazingly temperature and carbon dioxide will move together though either one can lead the other.
• During the industrial era, Earth has warmed about one degree Celsius, which is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The global goals are all stated in Celsius. You have likely heard of goals to keep the total warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. On our current path, unless we make some big changes in the next decade, we are headed to three or four degrees of warming.
• Because Earth is now Warmer due to the effect of Humans, we have Broken Out of the Natural ice age cycles. Rather than starting the slow cooling era into the next ice age, we have now Broken out of those Natural cycles and into a New Era of Super Warming. The Human Driven warming “force” is about 80 times stronger than the natural cooling force.

I offer this graphic as one of the simplest ways to communicate two things. 1) that current “global warming” was Triggered by Humans and is a Sharp Departure from the Natural Climate Change Cycles, and 2) that sea level is going to rise for a long time, due to the temperature and CO2 level being far above normal. The warmer the temperature, the more the ice sheets melt, pushing sea level higher."""""

`

You poached an UNCONTEXTED graphic that just shows what I said, an Rapid and UNNATURAL Spike in CO2, with just a Lag in Ocean and Air Temp ensured to follow.

YOU LOSE BY YOUR OWN SOURCE.... Once IN CONTEXT

You FILTHY LYING POS with 50,000 LYING "Natural Interglacials" IN fact refuted even with your Uncontexted graphic showing only the UNNATURAL CO2 Spike with the lag yet to come

Ding is now Dung. Finished Forever.
`

 

[Dagosa]

It's OK, Cricky, you can be the Deacon of the AGW cult church.

Ok Marion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am a member of the Judith Curry website so can spread this to the forum.
This discussion may please both the Alarmists and also the so called deniers.
It comes close to straddling the fence. This is very simple reading and should enlighten all of us.

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis

by Iain Aitken As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against u…

judithcurry.com

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis​

Posted on October 31, 2023 by curryja | 78 Comments
by Iain Aitken
As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against us’ war of words in which both sides accuse the other of being closed-minded and refusing to accept the ‘facts’.

Instead of a respectful exchange of views and the seeking of mutual understanding and common ground we tend to find sarcasm and ridicule and ad hominem attacks, as mutually intolerant, entrenched positions have arisen based on different interpretations of the science and evidence and different perceptions of risk. What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, ‘science’) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and ‘point scoring’ over opponents (basically, ‘politics’). Lest they yield any dialectical ground to their opponents, ‘doomsters’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly natural and benign – and ‘deniers’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly man-made and dangerous.
So what is the doomsters’ story? One of the most prominent and vocal doomsters is António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, who, in August 2021, described the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report as ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk’. And in response to the news that July 2023 was likely to be the warmest July since records began he stated, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.’ So what is all this ‘irrefutable evidence’ of the climate crisis that has so convinced Guterres and his fellow doomsters? Let’s examine a few representative examples:
(1) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) will cause global warming to occur.
(2) We know, based on ice core data (and more recently direct atmospheric measurements), that in post-industrialization times the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere has already risen by about 50% to a level that is unprecedented in more than 14 million years – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(3) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that the post-industrialization global warming cannot be explained by natural phenomena.
(4) We know, based on all the leading temperature datasets, that in post-industrialization times about 1.2ºC of global warming has already occurred, a level of warming that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years (and probably the last 125,000 years) – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(5) We know, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, that the last 8 years have been the hottest years since records began and each decade since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one.
(6) We know, based on global tide gauge and satellite altimetry data, that in post-industrialization times the global mean sea level has already risen by about 9 inches as a result of global warming – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(7) We know, based on satellite observations, that Arctic sea ice has already declined by 50% and is declining at a rate of about 12% per decade as a result of global warming – and the decline rate is accelerating.
(8) We know, based on observations and attribution studies, that extreme weather around the world has already become more frequent and intense and, based on the world’s largest study of climate-related mortality, that that is already causing almost 10% (5 million) of global deaths each year.
(9) We know, based on the Paris Climate Accord, that warming must be limited to 1.5ºC to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts – and that based on the current warming trends that critical threshold may be crossed by 2030.
(10) We know that by the end of this century there could be up to 6ºC of warming (i.e. exceeding the 1.5ºC critical threshold by 4.5ºC) potentially resulting in catastrophic climate change.
The adverse climate change impacts noted above are just representative – many more could have been added, such as ocean acidification, coral reef loss, biodiversity loss and species extinctions – and that’s even before the consideration of potential ‘tipping points’ into irreversible climate change impacts. The climate crisis narrative (i.e. the cause and effect storyline) based on such evidence is simple and certain and compelling: our escalating burning of fossil fuels has caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which have in turn caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in global surface temperatures which has in turn already caused huge and unprecedented and accelerating climate change impacts on the planet and mankind – and very soon it’s going to get catastrophically worse, unless we stop climate change by stopping burning fossil fuels. In this narrative climate change is a new and terrifying man-made phenomenon, an existential threat that has arisen as an insidious ‘by product’ of rampant industrialization and capitalism and that it can, and must, be stopped by urgent global decarbonization.
So how many of the above ten statements are actually true? I would argue that all of them are true – at least exactly as worded – and assuming we accept as beyond reasonable dispute the ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions of the IPCC, the ‘internationally accepted authority on climate change’. Trusting the IPCC and believing such evidence and the frightening story it apparently tells is entirely rational and reasonable; in fact, why would any rational, reasonable person doubt it? On the face of it this evidence alone makes an irrefutable case in support of the existence of a climate crisis and it’s surely not at all hard to understand why so many people accept it – and think that those who do not accept it (the so-called ‘climate deniers’) are deluded, badly-informed, badly-intentioned, scientifically-illiterate, irresponsible fools (or are perhaps covertly in the pay of Big Oil).
But what if we don’t just accept as ‘beyond reasonable dispute’ the IPCC’s ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, its Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions, but instead consider criticisms of them by ‘denier’ scientists? In that case we find that the ‘simple and certain’ climate crisis narrative unravels and becomes decidedly complex and uncertain. I deconstruct the ten statements above and set out some of the key complexities and uncertainties in my eBook, in which I conclude that we simply don’t know (with a confidence level sufficient to inform climate policy)

• whether carbon dioxide is the main (let alone sole) controller of the Earth’s climate system
• whether rising carbon dioxide levels are on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
• whether the post-industrialization global warming has been abnormal (even over the last 2,000 years)
• how much of the post-industrialization global warming has been human-caused
• whether global warming is currently accelerating
• whether our warming climate system is on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
• how much of the post-industrialization sea level rise has been human-caused
• whether the sea level rise is currently accelerating
• whether global decarbonization would materially reduce future sea level rises – and whether global decarbonization is anyway the most cost-effective policy for addressing future sea level rise
• whether the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been abnormal
• how much of the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been human-caused
• whether the Arctic sea ice loss is currently accelerating
• whether recent extreme weather events have been abnormal
• whether recent extreme weather events have been human-caused
• whether extreme weather events will become significantly more frequent and intense as a result of global warming
• whether exceeding 1.5ºC of warming would be ‘dangerous’
• whether achieving net zero by 2050 (in order to limit warming to 1.5ºC) is technically feasible (never mind geopolitically realistic)
• whether achieving net zero by 2050 would materially improve the climate in this century
• how much further global warming there will be this century and whether it might lead to ‘catastrophic’ climate change.

All of this can be summarized in one word: doubt. Doubts about the reliability of the science, doubts about the reliability of the climate models, doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC, doubts about the scale of future warming, doubts about the scale of the climate change risks (i.e. doubts about the scale of the possible adverse impacts and the probability of their occurring), doubts about the wisdom of the 1.5ºC warming ‘threshold’ – and doubts about the wisdom, not of decarbonization, but of precipitate and precipitous decarbonization (as epitomized by ‘net zero by 2050’ policies) that may do more socioeconomic harm than good largely as a result of the vast transitional costs and societal impacts of such fast and radical decarbonization and the current lack of affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels. Basically, the ‘irrefutable evidence’ that there is a climate crisis is not, perhaps, so irrefutable. So when António Guterres asks, ‘Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency?’, the answer is, yes, many people can – and for very good reasons.
The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story. It largely expunges all the scientific complexities, unknowns and uncertainties, all the benefits of global warming and higher carbon dioxide levels, all the serious difficulties, costs, impacts and risks of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels – as well as expunging the option of simply adapting to living in a warmer world as an alternative (to net zero) policy response. It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity (with a presumption of guilt) – but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury. It has apparently been found guilty, not on the basis of certainty, not on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, not even on the basis of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ but simply on the basis of the possibility that it could be guilty, if not now, then in the future.
The ‘deniers’ (more accurately described as ‘doubters’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very high, that the possible worst case climate change outcomes are extremely unlikely to occur and that the socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are unacceptably high. The ‘doomsters’ (more accurately described as ‘believers’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very low and that however unlikely the worst case outcomes might be they are nevertheless possible and are so very bad that the very high socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are almost irrelevant. Both positions are rational and reasonable and worthy of intelligent debate – there is no ‘correct’ position. There does, however, appear to be a politically correct position and that, of course, is the position of the ‘doomsters’. To put it another way, the statements, ‘Climate change is probably not a very serious problem but net zero by 2050 probably is’ and ‘Climate change is possibly a very serious problem and net zero by 2050 possibly isn’t’ are not incompatible. Furthermore both sides agree that human activity, in particular our burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to a warming, changing climate – the debate is about how much we are contributing and how dangerous that warming actually is. On which basis there appears to be more uniting the two sides than dividing them.
Whether the IPCC’s theory and climate models are reliable (at least reliable enough to be fit to inform climate policy) is just a matter of opinion. Whether carbon dioxide is the ‘control knob’ of global warming is just a matter of opinion. How emissions will evolve this century is just a matter of opinion. Whether natural climate variability can partially (or even largely) explain the post-industrialization global warming is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate sensitivity is relatively low or high is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming there will be this century is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming is ‘dangerous’ is just a matter of opinion. Whether renewables technology will evolve quickly to deliver affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate policy should be predicated on plausible/likely outcomes or worst case possible outcomes is just a matter of opinion. There is no ‘right’ answer to the climate change problem.
In summary, believing that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must eradicate fossil fuels as fast as possible is rational and reasonable – as is doubting that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must be very circumspect about how deeply and how quickly we eradicate fossil fuels (because the radical decarbonization ‘cure’ may be worse than the climate change ‘disease’). That simple claim may horrify ‘deniers’ and ‘doomsters’ alike, who both tend to a belief that they have the monopoly on rationality and reasonableness – which is why accepting this would be an excellent first step to reducing the current polarization of attitudes to the issue. To approach the truth about climate change you really do need to hear both sides of the story – and they are both good stories. At the very least, given all these doubts, if a climate crisis really exists then it is a very curious one.

1) People should be able to say what they want, it's called freedom of speech
2) People should be able to counter what they say, it's called freedom of speech.
3) We don't know what's going on.

The problem with number 3 is that too many people don't have enough control. In the past we'd have just turned to a God or gods or a god or whatever to give us that control. Rain dancing springs to mind. "Do this dance and then God will listen to you and he'll sort it all out".

The problem is, this doesn't work and never has.

So, people want to look like they're in control (especially politicians) so they can tell the ignorant masses that everything will be okay if only we do this or that.

On the other side are those who say "if we ignore the problem, it'll go away"

Clearly neither side is right.

The right approach is to look at science, see what it tells us and try and understand it more. How much can we control, how much can we prepare for what we can't control?

 

[Dagosa]

The right approach is to look at science, see what it tells us and try and understand it more. How much can we control, how much can we prepare for what we can't control?

Yup,
We have, with over 97% consensus.

 

[Dagosa]

I am a member of the Judith Curry website so can spread this to the forum.

Then you know that Curry supports AGW and climate change.

 

[Robert W]

Then you know that Curry supports AGW and climate change.

Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science

Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around

www.eenews.net

The climatologist, who distinguished herself in the field decades ago with research into the Arctic and the causes of the climate feedback that have shaped the region, writes a blog called Climate Etc. It is by turns academic and inflammatory.

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

 

[Robert W]

1) People should be able to say what they want, it's called freedom of speech
2) People should be able to counter what they say, it's called freedom of speech.
3) We don't know what's going on.

The problem with number 3 is that too many people don't have enough control. In the past we'd have just turned to a God or gods or a god or whatever to give us that control. Rain dancing springs to mind. "Do this dance and then God will listen to you and he'll sort it all out".

The problem is, this doesn't work and never has.

So, people want to look like they're in control (especially politicians) so they can tell the ignorant masses that everything will be okay if only we do this or that.

On the other side are those who say "if we ignore the problem, it'll go away"

Clearly neither side is right.

The right approach is to look at science, see what it tells us and try and understand it more. How much can we control, how much can we prepare for what we can't control?

Recall when it was Trump being mocked for asking if man can manage climate and put an end to hurricanes?

Suddenly alarmists went crazy and denied the premise of Trump's question.

Yet today we are told that there is a consensus among scientists that man can control climate. Clouds can be seeded of course, but they are already there. So can man manufacture clouds? So alarmists, can man manufacture clouds?

 

[Dagosa]

Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science

Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around

www.eenews.net

The climatologist, who distinguished herself in the field decades ago with research into the Arctic and the causes of the climate feedback that have shaped the region, writes a blog called Climate Etc. It is by turns academic and inflammatory.

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

Wrong bubba.
Read your own reference.
“Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example”
THAT MEANS SHE BELIEVES IN AGW.
Case closed

 

[Dagosa]

today we are told that there is a consensus among scientists that man can control climate.

You’re making up shit bubba….quote it or stop polluting the internet with bullshit. No climate scientist ever said we can control the environment like a thermostat.

 

[Dagosa]

So, people want to look like they're in control (especially politicians) so they can tell the ignorant masses that everything will be okay if only we do this or that.

Wrong. The people who write the legislation involve all of the industries and businesses who themselves are availed to the evidence.

 

[Dagosa]

Clearly neither side is right.

But only you can see it, right ?
Sure, keep telling yourself that.

 

[ding]

Ahhh, that John Englander Graphic is from THIS page:
and it DESTROYS YOU FOREVER.

The Connection: Sea Level, Global Warming, and CO2 - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert​

Over the long term, global sea level, global average temperature and the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) move together – in synchronization. When there is a shift in long-term average global temperature the polar ice sheets increase or decrease in size. Over decades of warming, the ice sheets get...

johnenglander.net

"""
[. .. .. .]

• ""With each “ice age cycle” as they are commonly called, global average temperature swings 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) warmer and colder, and sea level moves up and down almost 400 feet (~120 meters).
• As the atmosphere changes temperature, the ocean slowly follows. It can take almost a thousand years for the oceans to fully reach a new equilibrium temperature. When the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide as can be seen in the way that carbon dioxide (CO2) follows global average temperature. That oceanic release of CO2 shows up as increased levels in the atmosphere. You can see that the level of CO2 ranged in a pattern from 180 – 280 ppm (parts per million) throughout this 400,000 years. Obviously, until recently that was natural — not caused by human influence.
• About two hundred years ago, when we began burning fossil fuels in greater and greater quantities, it changed the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, dramatically. Note the circle in the upper right of the chart at the end of the green line – CO2, which now shows as a vertical upward line on this scale chart. The vast burning of fossil fuels correlates well with this rapid increase in CO2 level. The latest measurement is 415 ppm, 40% higher than in the last few million years. It was demonstrated two hundred years ago, that carbon dioxide had an amazing effect to trap heat, even though it is absolutely invisible. It came to be known as a greenhouse gas due to its property to trap heat like the roof of a greenhouse. So, rather amazingly temperature and carbon dioxide will move together though either one can lead the other.
• During the industrial era, Earth has warmed about one degree Celsius, which is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The global goals are all stated in Celsius. You have likely heard of goals to keep the total warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. On our current path, unless we make some big changes in the next decade, we are headed to three or four degrees of warming.
• Because Earth is now Warmer due to the effect of Humans, we have Broken Out of the Natural ice age cycles. Rather than starting the slow cooling era into the next ice age, we have now Broken out of those Natural cycles and into a New Era of Super Warming. The Human Driven warming “force” is about 80 times stronger than the natural cooling force.

I offer this graphic as one of the simplest ways to communicate two things. 1) that current “global warming” was Triggered by Humans and is a Sharp Departure from the Natural Climate Change Cycles, and 2) that sea level is going to rise for a long time, due to the temperature and CO2 level being far above normal. The warmer the temperature, the more the ice sheets melt, pushing sea level higher."""""

`

You poached an UNCONTEXTED graphic that just shows what I said, an Rapid and UNNATURAL Spike in CO2, with just a Lag in Ocean and Air Temp ensured to follow.

YOU LOSE BY YOUR OWN SOURCE.... Once IN CONTEXT

You FILTHY LYING POS with 50,000 LYING "Natural Interglacials" IN fact refuted even with your Uncontexted graphic showing only the UNNATURAL CO2 Spike with the lag yet to come

Ding is now Dung. Finished Forever.
`

Actually it doesn't which is why you couldn't explain how it did in 25 words or less. You are really horrible at articulating your opinion.

That graphs shows lots and lots of climate fluctuations within glacial and interglacial periods, shows the current interglacial is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial, show the current glacial has 26 ft shallower seas than the previous interglacial and has 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial.

So which one of those points do you believe that plot destroys again? Because that plot shows everything I just said.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wrong. The people who write the legislation involve all of the industries and businesses who themselves are availed to the evidence.

You think that's how US politics works huh?

 

[Dagosa]

You think that's how US politics works huh?

They work for Biden. He has a thriving economy with enough money to pay your SS, Medicare and infrastructure. What did trump give you other than 90 indictments ?