@smokingtyger Richard Crim who IS a climate scientist has been saying the same things (with charts!) for a while now. He is in agreement with Hansen and extends the analysis. Bottom line: our fate as a species is pretty much sealed. I have personally moved through the five stages of grief about that and I now accept we are where we are.
So. In the short term we should be doing every sensible thing to prepare and minimize to the extent possible human suffering.
I think we are going to be “taking stock” at the end of the year just how bad things are getting already. The LA fires were just the opening act.
What about minimizing the suffering of all of the other life on this planet that were the cause of their suffering? Why is it ALWAYS so anthropocentric?
Good commentary about Hansen. I find it almost pathetic that people with much lower levels of expertise try to puff themselves up by criticizing Hansen. Yes, what about our grandchildren? I wouldn't want to be the grandchild of someone whose focus is scoffing at Hansen. Edith
I asked my son, who is now 42, to not have children back in 2017. I would be happy to have him married, but I am not willing to have a grandchild starve to death. (This was me, who had been buying cute baby clothes in thrift shops for years.) I believe that the climate crisis will end in a lack of food for everyone on the planet. Only Scandinavian countries and California have already met the 2030 climate goals. I believe the evidence shows that most people, especially out of government, have no understanding of what is happening, because they have an inability to understand consequences. We can do our best and cross our fingers, but unless countries get rid of their ignorant oligarchs, our species has no chance.
"Unfortunately, many high-profile, public climate change risk assessments are significantly underestimating risk because they exclude many of the real-world impacts of climate change, such as the impact of tipping points, extreme events, migration, sea level rise, human health impacts or geopolitical risk."
"Furthermore, they calculate ongoing economic growth, even in a hothouse world, with climate damages being lower than growth assumptions. These results conflict with scientific predictions of significantly reduced human habitability from climate change."
“These (mainstream) risk assessments are precisely wrong, rather than being roughly right.”
They forecast 2 Billion dead at +2°C of warming, which will happen over the next 10 years.
They forecast 4 Billion dead at +3°C of warming, which they assign a 50% chance of hitting by 2050.
Yes, I saw it and downloaded it. All kudos to them, I don’t think other nations’ actuaries have banded together to explore in the manner actuaries are best at, namely being sensible about the assumptions of long-term predictions. I haven’t read it yet but must do so.
This is “almost certainly” how it will be unless v.strong avoidance action (big reductions in our consumption) in the next 5 years. The reason to identify risks is to avoid them, not to “hit” them.
"if you look closely at the world and observe what is actually happening, the consensus models are not serving us well." Exactly. The changes that you see happening if you spend any time observing the natural world are alarming. For years now I have had the sense that the science has been over cautious. I also think it likely that sea level rise is lagging temperature rise primarily because the increase in temperature is so fast. And this presents a whole other set of problems when it comes to preparedness.
Adjusting for the known transient influences of ENSO, volcanic aerosols and the solar cycle shows accelerating global warming quite clearly, above the 95% confidence level. Tamino (aka Grant Foster) shows this at - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/01/28/every-tenth-matters/
This warming ought to be no surprise given that atmospheric CO2 is at record high and the emissions driving the enhanced greenhouse effect have not (yet) stopped rising.
A general comment about IPCCs approach vs Hansen is that Hansen says IPCCs climate sensitivity is based on sort of an averaging of models only whereas Hansen et al is based on not just models but models averaged with observations of actual climate response history (called paleoclimate data). Paleoclimate has a lot of feedbacks baked in whereas models don’t. I think Hansen said in his opinion models are weak or ignore ice reflectivity (albedo) and aerosol effects. Also possibly ocean mixing effects. I forget exactly. Don’t quote me on that. I don’t read his papers trying to understand every little thing bc I’m a bit lazy and I can see the bottom line unfold… we are royally screwed.
Still, the hope thing hangs about - technology will save us, or God, or world government cooperation, or it's just cyclical, or it's many decades away. While continuing to mitigate, we need to seriously review how we live and then, if we (you) haven't already, move to adaptation.
1) The primary threat presented by climate change is that it will destabilize the global geopolitical order, leading to conflicts involving nuclear weapons. Once the nuclear threshold is crossed, the situation can spiral downward at incredible speeds.
2) There is actually no proof that life is better than death, and at least some reason to question that very common assumption. This is something to keep in mind when considering major disruptions to the status quo. Whether death is bad depends on what death actually is, and while there are many theories on the matter, nobody actually knows.
May I point out that Richard Crim's substack post yesterday identifies that if you add the effects of methane CH4 emissions to CO2 emissions, a combined measure called CO2(e), then greenhouse gases aren't just 435ppm but already 530ppm. That would equate to a temperature rise of 5*C to 6*C already baked in. Literally!
CO2(e) will cause the same amount of warming as CO2. The issue is, for how long?
For example, Hansen puts the CO2(e) level at around 530ppm. That will "pull up" the Rate of Warming (RoW) and increase temperatures BUT only for about 30-40 years. Because the CH4 will breakdown over that time span.
After that, the RoW will begin to fall back to what is supported by the CO2 level. ALTHOUGH temperatures will probably not decline.
So, in our example the CO2(e) level is at 535ppm. Using Hansen's climate sensitivity numbers this means about +6°C of warming over baseline. At 535ppm(CO2e) the RoW is "boosted" up to +0.5°C/decade because of the Earth Energy Imbalance being so large.
Now, suppose we ban natural gas tomorrow. As well as sealing all the wells and emptying the pipelines. The CH4 level stops increasing and the CO2 level is at 425ppm and increasing at +3ppm/year. What happens?
The RoW starts declining as the level of CH4 declines over a 30 year timeframe. It drops down to the level that is supported at what the CO2 level will be in +30 years.
So, 30 years x +3ppm/year = about +90ppm of CO2 or about 515ppm(CO2) at the point that the influence of CH4 falls to zero. Which is likely to mean +6°Cod long term warming.
The amount of warming by 2050 will be about +1.5°C OVER the +1.6°C we are seeing today.
That's a BIG part of WHY +3°C by 2050 with 4 billion dead is becoming the MOST LIKELY scenario. Trying to use natural gas as a "bridge fuel" just resulted in accelerating the speed of the warming.
Richard: Your assumption that methane might fall back is surely flawed - it seems to me that methane under Artic and Greenland ice, still to come from Siberian permafrost, under Antarctic ice, perhaps even from methane clathrates under fast-warming seas, are far more likely to accelerate than decline. And the few (wildly varying) estimates of methane quantities I have seen suggest truly massive quantities may yet be released.
I would suggest that methane may be the new driving force for climate change for the next century, exceeding CO2 emissions in effects. And taking away any mechanism for humans to reduce future global heating.
I'm a retired physician/psychiatrist living in lovely little Marietta, Ohio for the past 4 yrs. and following the weather, as it seems to be getting hotter nearly yearly. So, I discovered the EU's gold standard climate change service, C3S, and their "Climate Pulse" page. On June 5, 2024, they published "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action" and reported a 0.75 degC over the 1991-2020 baseline, which I make out to be 0.75/3.5yrs = 0.214 degC annual average. Now, I call the reader's attention to the first line of the 2-3-25 Hansen, et.al., paper, "Global Warming Has Accelerated:...", which is 90% incomprehensible to me, except for the first line: "Global temperature leaped more than 0.4 degC (0.7 degF) DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS...", which to me gives an average annual increase of 0.4/2 = 0.2 degC annually for 2023-2024, right? ALL of the rest of the very dense and incomprehensible paper I leave for the experts. BUT, what this ole doc sees is two highly respected climate science agencies reporting 0.2 degC annual global average surface temperature (GAST) increases for the previous two years, right? All the graphs of annual temp increases clearly are on an upward trendline, right? So, doesn't common sense suggest an ongoing annual increase of at least 0.2 degC? And, doesn't that portend 2 degC by 2027, the 3 degC warning of a 20% die off of humans from extreme heat and its consequences by 2032, and a possible extinction level 6 degC by 2047? If so, doesn't that suggest that even James Hansen is way underestimating the near term consequences of global heating? Thank you, Susan, for all you're doing and have a blessed evening. Gregg Miklashek, MD
Nevermind your nation; we are not, as a WORLD, as a SPECIES, taking it seriously. And we won’t ever begin. You don’t have to understand why we’re completely screwed, you can just look. That includes human behaviour. We’ve got the pedal to the metal while politicians lie about unachievable Net Zero.
Hansen has been scare mongering for many years….. first with his debunked hockey stick and then with many papers that that use predictive models that never predict reality over time.
Many scientists are now declaring no climate emergency even though they all agree the planet is slightly warming due to its natural cycles.
This may help provide some information for those interested in some climate reality and truth.
Obviously, you haven't kept up with the science. The hockey stick has been well supported.
Wiki: "More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."
It eradicated the other more significant warming periods that have preceded the one we are in now.
Take a look at the material I provided and you will see that the hockey stick is bunk.
Mann and the IPCC are falling into scientific dispute with other scientists that have far better data and logic.
How can we even trust the UN leaderships policy documents when they don’t even match with the scientific sections of the IPCC. Read Koonin’s book Unsettled.
Its even clear that the funding that has created the climate emergency industrial complex has even made the peer review process a politically subjugated activity that has to stay on the narrative to keep the snouts in the funding trough.. very sad..
The climate realists such as CLINTEL and CO2COALITION are getting to the truth of the science far more.
Look, if you guys want to argue with Exxon engineers and scientists, be my guest. Exxon has every reason to agree with you since they could face regulatory efforts, but instead, they have admitted what other scientists have been saying since 1988. (In fact, their own scientists predicted global warming in the 1980s as well.) Here's the Chairman's recent comments:
Please... one Eng from the past and a politically correct CEO and we should all go along with the scam...stop clutching at straws.... yes the planet is warming its done it before we may have participated but its not an emergency.. OK
The scientists at Exxon did not know how to translate this energy absorption in to climate impacts. They agreed it might cause warming but did not understand the heat distributions. We barely do today. Oil company execs are spineless (for some reason).
The hockey stick has been debunked and decoded to be full of poor choices by its author.
The fact that the fastest growing countries (in energy use) are all climate skeptics does not allow unilateral responses that make sense. The proposed cure is worse than the disease.
It is you who are behind the times. Climate catastrophism is all about the funding of scientists, 97% of whom then 'oddly' agree with the concept. It's yet another grift.
Have you not noticed that the earth is now perceived to be cooling, that CO2 is necessary for life and that corrupt billionaires like Gates are funding alternative foods (made of bugs) and trying to stop cow flatulence -- and making money hand over fist on all of it?
Carbon capture is another nonsense, which involves trading carbon contracts and making money - for what? It's like crypto currencies, money for nothing.
None so blind as those that will not see --- the pure corruption involved.
I don’t want to diminish the pain of those at the sharp end of extreme weather or inept adaption policies in challenging local climate conditions. And such ineptness will get reflected in insurance rates as they mirror risk.
But the risk is not generated by planet level climate change although smart adaption is always wise and the best approach.
Our adaptive capability correctly supported and undertaken with realistic policies has reduced our deaths and per person expense to such weather extremes by a 10 times reduction factor in the last 100 years and is being driven by the power of fossil fuels and predictive technology.
And yes the sun will continue to shine or if not that WILL be a climate emergency 😊
Absolutely agree with you on this. The corruption around the climate catastrophism may be exposed by the US finding that they have been contributing huge amounts of money unknowingly to the IPCC and other organisations who have much to gain from this global climate change fiction.
I'm concerned that those people quoting the IPCC here have no concept of what the IPCC stands for and where the original 'data' came from - some made-up charts relating to extremes of temperature, none of which have ever been borne out.
I'm flabbergasted that the world didn't end, drown or boil in 1980, 1990, 1995, 1998, 2000 .... as predicted!
You are very ignorant and angry man who has no knowledge what-so-ever about any aspect of climate science. Why don't you crawl back down in the hole you crawled out of and troll there.
I am sorry you feel threatened by the high level and growing skepticism that we have a climate emergency. And this skepticism is well documents by a growing body of very capable scientists that now dispute the so-called emergency consensus and narrative that is being disproved with not only failed predictions, but past data that does not support any form of climate emergency or that humans have anything to do with the naturally changing climate.
Yes… some people are angry as they have been lied too…. and this view is growing.
Thankfully, some politicos have realized the scam and are directing policies away from NetZero and its disastrous impact on national prosperity.
I am quite happy to back up any statements with data but only you can define them as facts as I agree its a challenge to get to the truth in something so politically subjugated as climate change policies…
If you cannot face this kind of discussion maybe Substack is not a good idea for you and a more safe space is called for. Many of us keep our sites open for general discussion to learn from others in terms of viewpoints and information however weird we see the others position. And for me I never make it too personal unless it’s a return reply. Some site owners cancel anything they don’t like in the comments, and they always find that they end up with parrots in an echo chamber for members, and those sites are to be avoided.
@smokingtyger Richard Crim who IS a climate scientist has been saying the same things (with charts!) for a while now. He is in agreement with Hansen and extends the analysis. Bottom line: our fate as a species is pretty much sealed. I have personally moved through the five stages of grief about that and I now accept we are where we are.
So. In the short term we should be doing every sensible thing to prepare and minimize to the extent possible human suffering.
I think we are going to be “taking stock” at the end of the year just how bad things are getting already. The LA fires were just the opening act.
What about minimizing the suffering of all of the other life on this planet that were the cause of their suffering? Why is it ALWAYS so anthropocentric?
Good commentary about Hansen. I find it almost pathetic that people with much lower levels of expertise try to puff themselves up by criticizing Hansen. Yes, what about our grandchildren? I wouldn't want to be the grandchild of someone whose focus is scoffing at Hansen. Edith
I asked my son, who is now 42, to not have children back in 2017. I would be happy to have him married, but I am not willing to have a grandchild starve to death. (This was me, who had been buying cute baby clothes in thrift shops for years.) I believe that the climate crisis will end in a lack of food for everyone on the planet. Only Scandinavian countries and California have already met the 2030 climate goals. I believe the evidence shows that most people, especially out of government, have no understanding of what is happening, because they have an inability to understand consequences. We can do our best and cross our fingers, but unless countries get rid of their ignorant oligarchs, our species has no chance.
Ellen I agree with you 1000% and I say that as an obstetrician. I am filled with absolute horror for what's to come
Thanks Susan, I really appreciate all your reporting. As an ex-actuary I’m watching what happens in the insurance sector with dread.
Do you have thoughts on this report?
https://actuaries.org.uk/document-library/thought-leadership/thought-leadership-campaigns/climate-papers/planetary-solvency-finding-our-balance-with-nature/
They find that.
"Unfortunately, many high-profile, public climate change risk assessments are significantly underestimating risk because they exclude many of the real-world impacts of climate change, such as the impact of tipping points, extreme events, migration, sea level rise, human health impacts or geopolitical risk."
"Furthermore, they calculate ongoing economic growth, even in a hothouse world, with climate damages being lower than growth assumptions. These results conflict with scientific predictions of significantly reduced human habitability from climate change."
“These (mainstream) risk assessments are precisely wrong, rather than being roughly right.”
They forecast 2 Billion dead at +2°C of warming, which will happen over the next 10 years.
They forecast 4 Billion dead at +3°C of warming, which they assign a 50% chance of hitting by 2050.
Yes, I saw it and downloaded it. All kudos to them, I don’t think other nations’ actuaries have banded together to explore in the manner actuaries are best at, namely being sensible about the assumptions of long-term predictions. I haven’t read it yet but must do so.
This is “almost certainly” how it will be unless v.strong avoidance action (big reductions in our consumption) in the next 5 years. The reason to identify risks is to avoid them, not to “hit” them.
"if you look closely at the world and observe what is actually happening, the consensus models are not serving us well." Exactly. The changes that you see happening if you spend any time observing the natural world are alarming. For years now I have had the sense that the science has been over cautious. I also think it likely that sea level rise is lagging temperature rise primarily because the increase in temperature is so fast. And this presents a whole other set of problems when it comes to preparedness.
Well-written article about Hansen's concerns. We are heading faster than ever to a dire future.
Adjusting for the known transient influences of ENSO, volcanic aerosols and the solar cycle shows accelerating global warming quite clearly, above the 95% confidence level. Tamino (aka Grant Foster) shows this at - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/01/28/every-tenth-matters/
This warming ought to be no surprise given that atmospheric CO2 is at record high and the emissions driving the enhanced greenhouse effect have not (yet) stopped rising.
A general comment about IPCCs approach vs Hansen is that Hansen says IPCCs climate sensitivity is based on sort of an averaging of models only whereas Hansen et al is based on not just models but models averaged with observations of actual climate response history (called paleoclimate data). Paleoclimate has a lot of feedbacks baked in whereas models don’t. I think Hansen said in his opinion models are weak or ignore ice reflectivity (albedo) and aerosol effects. Also possibly ocean mixing effects. I forget exactly. Don’t quote me on that. I don’t read his papers trying to understand every little thing bc I’m a bit lazy and I can see the bottom line unfold… we are royally screwed.
Still, the hope thing hangs about - technology will save us, or God, or world government cooperation, or it's just cyclical, or it's many decades away. While continuing to mitigate, we need to seriously review how we live and then, if we (you) haven't already, move to adaptation.
Yeah, Mighty Mouse is definitely to going to come to save the day unfortunately.
Two quick things…
1) The primary threat presented by climate change is that it will destabilize the global geopolitical order, leading to conflicts involving nuclear weapons. Once the nuclear threshold is crossed, the situation can spiral downward at incredible speeds.
2) There is actually no proof that life is better than death, and at least some reason to question that very common assumption. This is something to keep in mind when considering major disruptions to the status quo. Whether death is bad depends on what death actually is, and while there are many theories on the matter, nobody actually knows.
Thank you for this most excellent and apprehendable analysis, Susan
May I point out that Richard Crim's substack post yesterday identifies that if you add the effects of methane CH4 emissions to CO2 emissions, a combined measure called CO2(e), then greenhouse gases aren't just 435ppm but already 530ppm. That would equate to a temperature rise of 5*C to 6*C already baked in. Literally!
The only thing I wonder about is - is it raw co2 doubling, or will it be co2 equivalent doubling. Because in co2(e), we will double in the late 2030s.
It matters and it doesn't matter.
CO2(e) will cause the same amount of warming as CO2. The issue is, for how long?
For example, Hansen puts the CO2(e) level at around 530ppm. That will "pull up" the Rate of Warming (RoW) and increase temperatures BUT only for about 30-40 years. Because the CH4 will breakdown over that time span.
After that, the RoW will begin to fall back to what is supported by the CO2 level. ALTHOUGH temperatures will probably not decline.
So, in our example the CO2(e) level is at 535ppm. Using Hansen's climate sensitivity numbers this means about +6°C of warming over baseline. At 535ppm(CO2e) the RoW is "boosted" up to +0.5°C/decade because of the Earth Energy Imbalance being so large.
Now, suppose we ban natural gas tomorrow. As well as sealing all the wells and emptying the pipelines. The CH4 level stops increasing and the CO2 level is at 425ppm and increasing at +3ppm/year. What happens?
The RoW starts declining as the level of CH4 declines over a 30 year timeframe. It drops down to the level that is supported at what the CO2 level will be in +30 years.
So, 30 years x +3ppm/year = about +90ppm of CO2 or about 515ppm(CO2) at the point that the influence of CH4 falls to zero. Which is likely to mean +6°Cod long term warming.
The amount of warming by 2050 will be about +1.5°C OVER the +1.6°C we are seeing today.
That's a BIG part of WHY +3°C by 2050 with 4 billion dead is becoming the MOST LIKELY scenario. Trying to use natural gas as a "bridge fuel" just resulted in accelerating the speed of the warming.
Richard: Your assumption that methane might fall back is surely flawed - it seems to me that methane under Artic and Greenland ice, still to come from Siberian permafrost, under Antarctic ice, perhaps even from methane clathrates under fast-warming seas, are far more likely to accelerate than decline. And the few (wildly varying) estimates of methane quantities I have seen suggest truly massive quantities may yet be released.
I would suggest that methane may be the new driving force for climate change for the next century, exceeding CO2 emissions in effects. And taking away any mechanism for humans to reduce future global heating.
I'm a retired physician/psychiatrist living in lovely little Marietta, Ohio for the past 4 yrs. and following the weather, as it seems to be getting hotter nearly yearly. So, I discovered the EU's gold standard climate change service, C3S, and their "Climate Pulse" page. On June 5, 2024, they published "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action" and reported a 0.75 degC over the 1991-2020 baseline, which I make out to be 0.75/3.5yrs = 0.214 degC annual average. Now, I call the reader's attention to the first line of the 2-3-25 Hansen, et.al., paper, "Global Warming Has Accelerated:...", which is 90% incomprehensible to me, except for the first line: "Global temperature leaped more than 0.4 degC (0.7 degF) DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS...", which to me gives an average annual increase of 0.4/2 = 0.2 degC annually for 2023-2024, right? ALL of the rest of the very dense and incomprehensible paper I leave for the experts. BUT, what this ole doc sees is two highly respected climate science agencies reporting 0.2 degC annual global average surface temperature (GAST) increases for the previous two years, right? All the graphs of annual temp increases clearly are on an upward trendline, right? So, doesn't common sense suggest an ongoing annual increase of at least 0.2 degC? And, doesn't that portend 2 degC by 2027, the 3 degC warning of a 20% die off of humans from extreme heat and its consequences by 2032, and a possible extinction level 6 degC by 2047? If so, doesn't that suggest that even James Hansen is way underestimating the near term consequences of global heating? Thank you, Susan, for all you're doing and have a blessed evening. Gregg Miklashek, MD
#FasterThanExpected is the new normal.
Nevermind your nation; we are not, as a WORLD, as a SPECIES, taking it seriously. And we won’t ever begin. You don’t have to understand why we’re completely screwed, you can just look. That includes human behaviour. We’ve got the pedal to the metal while politicians lie about unachievable Net Zero.
Hansen has been scare mongering for many years….. first with his debunked hockey stick and then with many papers that that use predictive models that never predict reality over time.
Many scientists are now declaring no climate emergency even though they all agree the planet is slightly warming due to its natural cycles.
This may help provide some information for those interested in some climate reality and truth.
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/there-is-no-climate-emergency
Obviously, you haven't kept up with the science. The hockey stick has been well supported.
Wiki: "More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
We are up on it ..... We have just so much information on how this hockey stick is a rigged data set.. even the IPCC stopped reporting using it..
Climategate Hide the Decline Backgrounder - Climate Discussion Nexus
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/climategate-hide-the-decline-backgrounder/
It eradicated the other more significant warming periods that have preceded the one we are in now.
Take a look at the material I provided and you will see that the hockey stick is bunk.
Mann and the IPCC are falling into scientific dispute with other scientists that have far better data and logic.
How can we even trust the UN leaderships policy documents when they don’t even match with the scientific sections of the IPCC. Read Koonin’s book Unsettled.
Its even clear that the funding that has created the climate emergency industrial complex has even made the peer review process a politically subjugated activity that has to stay on the narrative to keep the snouts in the funding trough.. very sad..
The climate realists such as CLINTEL and CO2COALITION are getting to the truth of the science far more.
Look, if you guys want to argue with Exxon engineers and scientists, be my guest. Exxon has every reason to agree with you since they could face regulatory efforts, but instead, they have admitted what other scientists have been saying since 1988. (In fact, their own scientists predicted global warming in the 1980s as well.) Here's the Chairman's recent comments:
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/viewpoints/reframing-the-climate-challenge
Please... one Eng from the past and a politically correct CEO and we should all go along with the scam...stop clutching at straws.... yes the planet is warming its done it before we may have participated but its not an emergency.. OK
The scientists at Exxon did not know how to translate this energy absorption in to climate impacts. They agreed it might cause warming but did not understand the heat distributions. We barely do today. Oil company execs are spineless (for some reason).
The hockey stick has been debunked and decoded to be full of poor choices by its author.
The fact that the fastest growing countries (in energy use) are all climate skeptics does not allow unilateral responses that make sense. The proposed cure is worse than the disease.
It is you who are behind the times. Climate catastrophism is all about the funding of scientists, 97% of whom then 'oddly' agree with the concept. It's yet another grift.
Have you not noticed that the earth is now perceived to be cooling, that CO2 is necessary for life and that corrupt billionaires like Gates are funding alternative foods (made of bugs) and trying to stop cow flatulence -- and making money hand over fist on all of it?
Carbon capture is another nonsense, which involves trading carbon contracts and making money - for what? It's like crypto currencies, money for nothing.
None so blind as those that will not see --- the pure corruption involved.
Yes insurance companies see no issues
Homeowners insurance rates are dropping
The sun is shining
Everything is great
I don’t want to diminish the pain of those at the sharp end of extreme weather or inept adaption policies in challenging local climate conditions. And such ineptness will get reflected in insurance rates as they mirror risk.
But the risk is not generated by planet level climate change although smart adaption is always wise and the best approach.
Our adaptive capability correctly supported and undertaken with realistic policies has reduced our deaths and per person expense to such weather extremes by a 10 times reduction factor in the last 100 years and is being driven by the power of fossil fuels and predictive technology.
And yes the sun will continue to shine or if not that WILL be a climate emergency 😊
Am glad I rent
Let someone else deal with the disaster if it occurs
Where I live occasionally has massive hurricanes very occasionally
The local forest has massive oaks hundreds of years old felled by a hurricane
Who’d a thought
Absolutely agree with you on this. The corruption around the climate catastrophism may be exposed by the US finding that they have been contributing huge amounts of money unknowingly to the IPCC and other organisations who have much to gain from this global climate change fiction.
I'm concerned that those people quoting the IPCC here have no concept of what the IPCC stands for and where the original 'data' came from - some made-up charts relating to extremes of temperature, none of which have ever been borne out.
I'm flabbergasted that the world didn't end, drown or boil in 1980, 1990, 1995, 1998, 2000 .... as predicted!
You are very ignorant and angry man who has no knowledge what-so-ever about any aspect of climate science. Why don't you crawl back down in the hole you crawled out of and troll there.
I am sorry you feel threatened by the high level and growing skepticism that we have a climate emergency. And this skepticism is well documents by a growing body of very capable scientists that now dispute the so-called emergency consensus and narrative that is being disproved with not only failed predictions, but past data that does not support any form of climate emergency or that humans have anything to do with the naturally changing climate.
Yes… some people are angry as they have been lied too…. and this view is growing.
Thankfully, some politicos have realized the scam and are directing policies away from NetZero and its disastrous impact on national prosperity.
I am quite happy to back up any statements with data but only you can define them as facts as I agree its a challenge to get to the truth in something so politically subjugated as climate change policies…
If you cannot face this kind of discussion maybe Substack is not a good idea for you and a more safe space is called for. Many of us keep our sites open for general discussion to learn from others in terms of viewpoints and information however weird we see the others position. And for me I never make it too personal unless it’s a return reply. Some site owners cancel anything they don’t like in the comments, and they always find that they end up with parrots in an echo chamber for members, and those sites are to be avoided.