Please, stop lying to us!

By 2100, according to business-as-usual climate projections, temperatures will have risen by 4C and sea levels by a metre or so.

This is not true!

There are a number of projections about the future climate. All of those projections are “business-as-usual” projections. And those projections run the gamut from (to use the slightly older parlance) A1FI (Aiieee! We’re All Gonna Die!) to A1T and B1 (What the fuck was everyone worrying about?).

“Business-as-usual” refers to the interlay of population, economic growth and fossil fuel use…..without measures to change any of them. Without government measures that is. What are the possible interplays of technological, population and economic growth, without the politicians sticking their oar in?

“Business-as-usual” does not mean pick the very worst of that range of possibilities and insist that this is what will happen without intervention. But that is what is being done in near all discussions of this problem. That A1FI would be a bad out turn is accepted. That B2 would also be a bad out turn is accepted. But along with that we’ve got to also accept that B1 and A1T (looking purely at climate change that is) would be entirely acceptable out turns. A richer world, each individual vastly richer (from 5 to 11 times) and climate change nothing to worry about.

To repeat, all of these are “business-as-usual” outcomes.

And the one thing we absolutely know is that we’re not in fact going to have any at all of these “business-as-usual” outcomes. Because all of them depend upon the idea that we’re not going to have any government programs to limit emissions. Do we have government programs to limit emissions? Have we had vast sums ploughed into making solar cheaper, at a rate vastgly faster than even A1T assumes? Yes, yes, we have. Does the UK have something akin to hte carbon tax that Stern recommended? Yes, it does. Does the EU have cap and trade (however badly done)? Yes, yes it does. Do we see all sorts of people doing all sorts of things to limit emissions? Yes, yes we do.

The outcome is therefore going to be below “business-as-usual” then isn’t it? Below the range listed above?

Just to repeat once again, “business-as-usual” projections do not say 4 oC. One specific b-a-u projection says that, the worst one. Others say there’s no problem beyond something trivial.

21 thoughts on “Please, stop lying to us!”

  1. bloke (not) in spain

    With Gerbil Worming advocacy you have the same as poverty advocacy. Always ignore what’s already being done to solve the “problem”, in response to the last round of advocacy & treat it as a clean sheet. This way the “problem” can never go away & advocacy is a permanent career.

  2. You’re right, of course, but if the sky isn’t going to fall in, then there is no need for big government to prevent it.

    And what the ‘Green’ lobby really wants is big government – they don’t care about the environment at all (otherwise they would be supporting nuclear, GMOs & fracking, with appropriate regulation, and not flying to IPCC conferences all around the world).

    The latest paper, which they champion as it claims to show the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, also shows (if you believe it) that we are looking at a massive rise in temperature, due to CO2, in 100 years of… 0.36C.

    Its a scam by activists, and too many ‘scientists’ have allowed themselves to be played by the Watermelons.

  3. bloke (not) in spain

    Said this before. 0.3 degees is down at a level where you’d need quite sophisticated equipment to measure it. 0.06 degrees doesn’t exist, for practical purposes. It’d take a great deal of effort to stabilize any mass above micrograms to a uniform temperature of 0.01 degrees for any length of time. Figures like that come from averaging large amounts of data & neglecting to round. You’re actually measuring your own measurement inaccuracies.

  4. So what? my house is more than 1 meter above sea level anyway.

    I really wish these cunts would just fuck off and die.

  5. By the time nations once again get round a table in Paris in December to discuss climate change, hunger should be on the menu.

    If only. The preening popinjays of the EU and their pet NGO’s will be lavishly catered to by the finest cordon bleu chefs that oodles of deficit spending run up in the name of us pleb taxpayers can buy.

    Researchers have just warned that a new and aggressive strain of yellow rust fungus is now a threat to Britain’s wheat harvest.

    Then we’d best aggressively get to designing new fungicides and GM crops, and encouraging intensive farming industry to develop in places like Africa, hadn’t we?

    You know, all those practical measures to increase food security that the gurning green goons of the Guardian obstreperously oppose?

    Another team has calculated that average yields of wheat per field, which only two decades ago were rising rapidly, are now down 2.5%, and barley by 3.8%.

    In other words, crop yields are still rising, but not as quickly as they were 20 years ago.

    In each case, the scientists identify climate change as a contributing factor.

    True, but dishonest.

    What the report actually says is:

    Although impacts have been large in some areas, the aggregate effect across the continent has been modest. Climate trends can explain 10% of the slowdown in wheat and barley yields, with changes in agriculture and environmental policies possibly responsible for the remainder.

    So 90% of the slowdown in crop yield growth is down to government policy – to a large extent, the sort of “environmental” policies the Guardian loves.

    Global warming has barely begun but climate scientists have been warning about the consequences for food security for 30 years.

    Correction: global warming, as far as we’re able to tell, hasn’t happened at all for about 20 years. And eco-eschatologists have been prophesying mass starvation for centuries.

    Remember Soylent Green? Or Thomas Malthus?

    The two latest bits of research into wheat yields are not isolated indicators of tomorrow’s troubles. The big heat has yet to arrive. It will be catastrophic.

    The Climate Rapture will happen any day now. Just you wait! And then you sinners deniers will be sorry!

    Lo, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth! And the deniers will turn to George Monbiot and cry “save us, Lord! We didn’t know!”

    And Monbiot will turn his face away from them and say “Well, you know now!”

    So sayeth THE GUARDIAN.

    Another group has studied the consequences for harvests of extremes of heat and calculated that for each 1C notch in the thermometer, global wheat yields could fall by 6%.

    Could. If global temperatures were rising. Which they are not. And haven’t been since we were all bopping to the fresh new sound of The Spice Girls. And temperatures haven’t climbed despite rapidly rising CO2 emissions.

    Gosh, maybe the eco-worriers have gotten one of their basic assumptions wrong?

    Within a decade, 2.9 billion people in 48 nations will experience chronic water scarcity, another research team warns.

    Best crack on with that neoliberal economic growth so they can afford clean water, eh?

    Separately, US geologists have used historical analyses to work out what modern agriculture does to topsoil. When European settlers took the plough to the American heartlands, erosion accelerated one hundred-fold. At peak, an inch of soil was lost every 25 years. Before the Europeans, wind and water erosion took 2,500 years to remove the same thin layer.

    19th century agriculture more destructive to topsoil than preceding millenia of no agriculture to speak of SHOCKER.

    In the last year, researchers re-examined UN population projections and decided that the global numbers may not peak at 9 billion. By 2100, the world could be home to 12 billion and still rising.

    Or it could be 20 billion, due to the global Caliphate banning rubber johnnies. Or 1 billion, due to everybody becoming transgendered. Or zero, due to the zombie apocalypse. We just don’t know. These projections are worthless.

    Solutions exist but none are easy. All will require a generous adjustment between the haves and the have-nots and sustained global cooperation.

    Bollocks on stilts.

    “a generous adjustment between the haves and the have-nots and sustained global cooperation” means some form of global communism, which is the best way to ensure billions of people starve to death.

    The solution to challenges posed by population growth and any future climate change is simple, though not easy: economic growth, global trade, and scientific progress.

    If there are 12 billion human beings alive at the end of this century, wonderful! People are a Good Thing. More babies, please.

  6. This from the comments:

    “By pumping all the carbon into the atmosphere it is not just the heating of the climate that is a problem though that is the greatest problem but also the fact that there is less carbon in the earth that can be converted into plant material for us to eat.”

    Unusually insightful for the Guardian, I’d say 😉

  7. Doug – it’s worse than we thought.

    By pumping all the carbon into the atmosphere, we’re making the Earth warmer. And warm air rises. So we’re making the planet float up into the sky.

    And what is in the sky? The sun! We’ll all be burnt to a crisp when the planet floats into Sol.

  8. bloke (not) in spain

    “Within a decade, 2.9 billion people in 48 nations will experience chronic water scarcity, another research team warns.”
    Been thinking on that one.
    Let’s take them at their word. Sea level are going to rise DISASTROUSLY®ipcc
    I’m giving up on the plans for a beachside casa in Valencia. Flat as a pancake.
    But. Over the other side of the Med we’re going to have a bloody great inland sea in North Africa. There’s a whole lot of Libya below sea level now. Where the old one was. Hence there’s going to be a lot more evapouration from all that new ocean surface (& from the sea now above my Valencia building plot). And with a climate ameliorated by the rolling waves south of Tripoli the Sahara’s going to look a lot like..well…Valencia is now.
    So I’m changing my location for building plots. And investigating tomato growing.

  9. So Much for Subtlety

    Doug – “Unusually insightful for the Guardian, I’d say ;-)”

    Someone is trolling them. Where is Steve? Anyone seem him lately?

    No one is that dumb.

  10. “there is less carbon in the earth that can be converted into plant material”

    Yup. I’m out every night shovelling coal onto the vegetable plot.

  11. “Agriculture consumes 70% of the worlds water”

    Pure Malthusian dialectic device. The water doesn’t actually get consumed. It is cycled.

    I despair.

  12. So Much for Subtlety – Where is Steve? Anyone seem him lately?

    Not sure if trolling Steve… :-/

    No one is that dumb.

    Oh I dunno.

    There was an article about witchcraft in the Guardian last week. The comments were pretty funny. Seems a few Guardianistas reckon they can cast spells and summon “entities”.

    Though to be fair, I happen to know witches are real, cos I’ve been divorced once.

  13. About a decade back, somebody wrote into the Sydney Morning Herald proposing dredging under one of the city’s bridges to lower the water levels in response to rising sea levels.

    Incidentally, if anyone wants to know how much the sea levels have risen, anywhere in the world, simply consult a nautical chart. They’re the things sailors use to make sure they don’t rip the bottom of their boat out or catch it on a bridge, so it’s safe to say they have skin in the game, more so than a Guardian columnists. Well, here’s the thing: they haven’t changed in centuries. You’d have thought it sea levels were rising the first people to record it would be those who make nautical charts. Apparently not.

  14. A few years ago, an article like that in the Guardian would have had Alarmists out in their droves, demanding the end of capitalism to save Gaia.

    Now, there are hardly more than a page of comments, and precious few ‘recommends’. Even Tim got some.

    Now the capitalist bashers are on the Islamist, NHS and ‘financial’ (word used in the loosest possible sense) articles.

    Times are changing but not quickly enough.

  15. Just a pointer. If you press and hold the alt key and then key 248 on the keypad (doesn’t work on the number keys on the qwerty section) you will get the degree sign; so not much use on a smaller laptop. You can find all of the ASCii codes at

    Quite useful if you want to call someone a Çûñ▀ without the abuse checker dissing your post.

  16. Figures like that come from averaging large amounts of data & neglecting to round. You’re actually measuring your own measurement inaccuracies.

    Exactly, and it’s a common mistake, even in my line of work. I got a bollocking for doing just that at school once. See here.

  17. So Much for Subtlety

    bloke (not) in spain – “Figures like that come from averaging large amounts of data & neglecting to round. You’re actually measuring your own measurement inaccuracies.”

    Which is also why the models are crap. You are taking those inaccuracies and multiplying them together a few times. Then repeating that for every square kilometre or so of the planet’s surface. Then repeating that by simulating a long time span – your computer has to do another set of calculations for each month or week or whatever time frame you have picked, going forward however many years into the future you wish to go.

    Multiplying one inaccuracy by another inaccuracy does not produce a more accurate figure. It does not produce one that is just twice as inaccurate either. And the models have to do tens of millions of them.

  18. Quite useful if you want to call someone a Çûñ▀ without the abuse checker dissing your post.

    You don’t need to resort to accented chars if you just want to call someone a сυη𝗍. Or worse, a ☭

  19. bloke (not) in spain

    No. It doesn’t make the models crap. But it alters the interpretation of them. A 0.01°C annual rise in temperature doesn’t add up to a 1° C rise in a century. A 0.1°C rise in a decade might. A 0.5°C rise in 50 years raises the likelihood. But “hottest year ever!” based on +0.01°C over a 2 decimal place previous average is purest bollocks. Way down in amongst the noise..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *