This story is unavailable.

David, I have given you that 1/2 the heating since 1945 is CO2.

Have you now! I remember you said ‘maybe’ and ‘possibly’ and ‘0.2C’ (clarification: I never agreed to your 0.4C, and you never divulged where your claim came from). Regardless, over 90% of those idiot climate scientists disagree with you.

That’s 0.2C in 70 years.

What the heck? I would have expected you to cherry-pick graphs that fit your pre-ordained conclusion, but the red line on your bottom graph shows a 0.65C difference between the first and last data point over a period of 38 years, whereas the one on the right shows a bit more than 0.2C in the same period, and the two graphs have markedly different shapes. Your data disagrees with itself.

By the way, estimating the climate requires a multi-year moving average. Averages over less than one year represent weather, not climate (in reference to the graph cherry-picking March 2017).

The IPCC AR5 shows a change of 0.64C over 60 years with most warming in the latter 40 years, not including the three hottest years on record (2014, 2015 and 2016).

Figure SPM.3 | Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010 period from well-mixed greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (including the cooling effect of aerosols and the effect of land use change), combined anthropogenic forcings, natural forcings and natural internal climate variability (which is the element of climate variability that arises spontaneously within the climate system even in the absence of forcings). The observed surface temperature change is shown in black, with the 5 to 95% uncertainty range due to observational uncertainty. The attributed warming ranges (colours) are based on observations combined with climate model simulations, in order to estimate the contribution of an individual external forcing to the observed warming. The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcings can be estimated with less uncertainty than the contributions from greenhouse gases and from other anthropogenic forcings separately. This is because these two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a combined signal that is better constrained by observations. {Figure 1.9}
making us spend TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS on your ideas

Come on now, let’s not exaggerate.

My favorite strategy would cost a couple billion dollars for initial R&D and would save the world a lot of money once the reactors start getting mass-produced. Parallel lines of research (solar/wind, batteries) should also be pursued.

Clean energy research is something that must be done anyway because fossil fuel reserves will eventually run out. Why not fund that research now instead of later?

Plus, doing nothing also has costs, and it seems generally agreed that action costs less than inaction.

Finally, reasonable carbon taxes in line with existing carbon taxes in other countries would cost the U.S. well below a trillion per year. Those countries are doing fine btw. My calculator says that a typical carbon tax would cost $300 billion at a midrange price of of $60 per ton of CO2, if we could manage to tax 5,000 million tons (over 90%) of CO2 emissions from the United States. Realistically I doubt we could tax 90% of emissions.

Of course, taxes are a cost for some that is balanced out by a benefit to whomever that money is spent on, whether it be clean energy programs, education, health care, or tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s not simply value wiped out of the economy. Also, such taxes are typically phased in over a period of several years, giving major energy users time to switch to clean energy if they so choose. The goal, after all, is not simply to take your money, it’s to reduce your emissions.


I don’t think I’ve heard that claim. Did some liberal pundit or politician say that? I don’t want to hear figures from anybody but climate scientists.

This is how they thought the world would react to 110PPM of CO2. This is a HANSEN graph. This is what he thought would happen.

First of all, the projected increase in that graph (red line) — which I assume is a worst-case scenario — looks to be 7.3 F which is 4 C, not 8 C. Besides that, there’s no time frame on the graph. It doesn’t say over what time period we might expect the 4C increase.

Second, while I’m not familiar with James Hansen, I’m not taking your word for it. When does this Hansen fellow claim that 110 PPM will cause an increase of 4 Celsius? Do tell.

This is not what you predicted would happen.

What is not what who predicted? What in blazes are you even talking about?

The sea levels are not rising any faster than they have for the last 200 years

So what, the NOAA is making it all up?

Then you come and say oh 97% of scientists agree some warming has occurred because of CO2.

No, “some” is not what I said. You know that. I reminded you several times. I even put the word most in bold so you wouldn’t miss it.

All the climate glitterati are con artists

Oh yeah. Climate science is so much more lucrative than the oil business. No doubt when choosing their careers, they were all like “how can I best con people with my mathematical talents? Quant on Wall Street? Nah, in climatology I can make a million a year!”

His pathetic hockey stick withdrawn from the IPCC after multiple evidence of bad science

Citation needed. (Mind you, I have never denied that one single scientist could be wrong about something. That’s why I keep bringing up the consensus. That’s about 10,000 scientists.)

1) Did you know that cities all over the world have their temperature reduced by such a large amount as 6F 130 years ago?

Say what?

2) Do you think satellite temperatures are more or less accurate than land temperatures and if you believe land temperatures are right and warmer than satellite temps please explain to me how that is possible because of co2?

I guess I could ask a climate scientist about that, or, I could just read this again. It’s very clear from that page that interpreting the satellite data is a complicated matter. If I read this right, two different organizations, UAH & RSS, appear to have interpreted the same data from the same satellite quite differently (>0.2C difference after a long period of drift). So I suppose direct thermometer readings from weather balloons and surface stations are more accurate, albeit less detailed. Both kinds of readings have uncertainties, but they are different kinds of uncertainties.

3) Tell me how after going at 0.05C/decade for 7 decades the climate is going to massively get hotter at 0.3C/decade or faster than ever recorded and why that isn’t religion?

Figure 1.4 in a recent IPCC report shows global temperatures having gone up roughly 0.6C in 40 years (1970–2010) or 0.15C/decade, including a “haitus” from 2000–2010. How do you play with the numbers to get 0.05C?

If the world doesn’t switch to clean energy (unlikely at this point, mind you, despite Trump’s efforts), my (naive) thinking is that CO2 emissions will continue to rise along a curve that looks roughly exponential for the next 50 years, as the world population rises and the poorest 7 billion people become richer and their use of oil increases dramatically. This, combined with positive feedbacks in the climate system (“committed warming”), accounts for the expected acceleration.

Figure 1.4. Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990 (in °C) since 1950 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are harmonized to start from the same value in 1990. Observed global annual mean surface air temperature anomaly, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as squares and smoothed time series as solid lines (NASA (dark blue), NOAA (warm mustard), and the UK Hadley Centre (bright green) reanalyses). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean surface air temperature change from 1990 to 2035 for models used in FAR (Figure 6.11 in Bretherton et al., 1990), SAR (Figure 19 in the TS of IPCC, 1996), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) in Cubasch et al., 2001). TAR results are based on the simple climate model analyses presented and not on the individual full three-dimensional climate model simulations. For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950 to 2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001 to 2035. The bars at the right-hand side of the graph show the full range given for 2035 for each assessment report. For the three SRES scenarios the bars show the CMIP3 ensemble mean and the likely range given by –40% to +60% of the mean as assessed in Meehl et al. (2007). The publication years of the assessment reports are shown. See Appendix 1.A for details on the data and calculations used to create this figure

Edit: IPCC AR5 SYN says “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 (medium confidence). This assumes that there will be no major […] changes in natural sources”. That’s 0.15C to 0.35C per decade. So FWIW, 0.15C isn’t much faster than before.