Dear Mr. McKibben: Fuck off, you’re lying

With the climate talks in Paris now over, the world has set itself a serious goal: limit temperature rise to 1.5C. Or failing that, 2C. Hitting those targets is absolutely necessary: even the one-degree rise that we’ve already seen is wreaking havoc on everything from ice caps to ocean chemistry. But meeting it won’t be easy, given that we’re currently on track for between 4C and 5C.

We are not on track for 4 or 5 oC. Nowhere near.

That is, in fact, the outcome that we know isn’t going to happen.

To get to that figure we would have to be following RCP 8.5, or perhaps A1FI from the earlier models. Both of which require that we use ever more coal. Not just more coal to provide more energy as the economy grows, but a greater proportion of coal in our energy mix.

And yet solar is already cost comparable in some parts of the world and will become ever more so into the future. So we won’t therefore be using more coal as solar becomes cheaper than it. Humans just don’t work that way.

What’s worse is that you know this. Thus you’re lying.

At which point, fuck off.

14 thoughts on “Dear Mr. McKibben: Fuck off, you’re lying”

  1. even the one-degree rise that we’ve already seen is wreaking havoc on everything from ice caps to ocean chemistry.

    Yet those who depend on nautical charts for their livelihoods and personal safety haven’t bothered to update them to show the supposed new depths. Why would that be, then?

  2. >To get to that figure we would have to be following RCP 8.5, or perhaps A1FI from the earlier models.

    Er… even that’s rubbish too.

  3. Its ALL bullshit and they are ALL liars.

    The thing to get mad about is how we have stood by and allowed such a bunch of watermelon freaks to gain the power, influence and money that they now have.

  4. People still believe – even our genial host still believes – that we can a) twiddle the CO2 knob in the atmosphere, b) actually make a predictable difference to the average temperature of the earth and c) pass a fucking law to ‘limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees’

    It’s madness! It’s fucking stark raving fucking bonkers, loony toons, psychopathic, schizophrenic, bi-polar insanity!!

    The idea that last weeks gabfest by a load of parasitic, leaching bureacrats can in any way affect the climate of the planet is just… AAAARGH!!

  5. and just to state the absolute obvious: there is no evidence whatsoever that any temperature increase we have already seen has led to any negative effects.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Yet those who depend on nautical charts for their livelihoods and personal safety haven’t bothered to update them to show the supposed new depths. Why would that be, then?”

    Because its rising, not falling and that would be a serious concern.

    Big boats don’t go anywhere a safety margin of 2m or whatever they latest scare is about rising sea levels so that sort of variation isn’t going to make much difference anyway.

    Those of us in small boats who do push it a bit don’t rely on charts to be that accurate as we know that they were done originally with things like dodgy plumb lines. Even updated ones shouldn’t be trusted that much because a high can push the water down by 0.5m.

    I always add in a safety margin of 1m (I’m conservative) when I’m anchoring or looking to go over a bar, and with those its done on a rising tide for obvious reasons.

    The people who do need to be concerned are Harbour Masters, who need to think about their defenses, and those responsible for sea locks. On the positive side there won’t be as much spent on dredging channels.

  7. Because its rising, not falling and that would be a serious concern.

    Unless you’re passing under a bridge.

    Those of us in small boats who do push it a bit don’t rely on charts to be that accurate as we know that they were done originally with things like dodgy plumb lines.

    True, but as somebody who uses nautical charts have you noticed how often they’re updated? Some date from Napoleonic times. If the sea is rising enough to threaten nations and start wars, you’d have thought a sailor or two might have asked for an update or two.

  8. “yet solar is already cost comparable in some parts of the world”

    Those being the parts that are turned towards the Sun at that particular time, of course, not the other parts.

  9. Kevin B>

    What is so implausible about it? The basic idea is plenty plausible: if you were asked to design a programme to emit enough CO2 into the atmosphere to actually start to affect something as large as the planet, you’d probably say ‘it’d be hard; you’d have to get hundreds of millions of people to each burn kilos of fuel every day for more than a century’ or some such. That’s what we’ve done, though. It really is the scale of action that could have an effect.

  10. Maybe they can call this the Canute proclamation

    Though at least he was apparently trying to prove a point and didn’t believe he could change the tides.

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    In answer to your second point the important charts, eg Solent, are updated almost in real time nowadays as boats are stating to connect their depth sounder to the Internet and feedin it back to charting companies.

  12. Isn’t the general idea that anything up to 2.5 degrees is roughly beneficial anyway (overall at least)? So actually 1.5 degrees is a sub-optimal rise.

  13. @ Andrew Duffin
    A decade ago, solar panels were cost-competitive for house-holders in Southern California compared to what the residential consumer paid for electricity, which included generation cost transmission losses and returns on capital (depreciation plus profits) for the generator, grid company and retail distributor.
    Most electricity is used during daylight hours. Look up national grid statistics or the reasons for building/tunnelling Dinorwic.

Leave a Reply

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