That's a point I have brought up with the Mods. If we can't limit propaganda here, at some point the forum loses it's purpose. Speaking of propaganda, crap is still crap. Like most everything from the Right these days, it's smoke and mirrors, signifying nothing.
Not sure what "the Right" has to do with any of this. To the extent their political persuasions are known, both Svensmark and Shaviv appear to be Euro-style social democrats.
Do you believe that there is a climate scam? Francis Menton has written a series of articles claiming that this is the greatest scientific fraud of all time - he specifically mentions alterations of the temperature record. Climate scientists do claim that a catastrophe is likely if the world stays on its present course for a few more decades, but I don't know of any climate scientist or expert who believes that the crisis can easily be averted if a few rich counties participate in reducing carbon emissions. This will take participation from China, India and other nations. I think he got that 10% figure from the percentage of the world's population that signed the Paris Agreement which calls for reduction in carbon emissions from the wealthiest nations. It is well known that the Paris Agreement is insufficient to meet the goal of a 2 degree maximum rise in global mean temperature from the pre-industrial times.. Francis Menton: "The scandal that I call “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time” is the alteration of official world temperature data by a small number of government employees in the US and the UK. Uniformly, the alterations have the effect of lowering temperatures early in the record, and raising recent temperatures, in order to create and enhance a warming trend that does not exist in the data as originally reported. The purpose of the fraudulent data alteration is to support the continuation of the “global warming” climate scare. To read the prior 22 posts in this series, go to this link." It can be seen from the graph below that carbon emissions must peak by 2030 and fall rapidly after that to have a 50% chance of averting dangerous climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement Effectiveness A pair of studies in Nature have said that, as of 2017, none of the major industrialized nations were implementing the policies they had envisioned and have not met their pledged emission reduction targets,[92] and even if they had, the sum of all member pledges (as of 2016) would not keep global temperature rise "well below 2 °C".[93][94] Global CO2 emissions and probabilistic temperature outcomes of Paris Agreement
shhhhh......not so loud......Greta Thunberg needs a new Tesla....she broke the last one after crashing into an Elk on her way to Pizzahut. Dad Olaf was pissed off as he needed to get to airport for his flight to Paris for the weekend shopping trip so had to take the Masserati....
Not sure what your point is. I don't have to agree with 100% of Francis Menton's presentation to appreciate his larger point that the resource imbalance in this debate is enormous. As for Paris, as Bjorn Lomborg has demonstrated, even if all the signatories fulfilled all their pledges the impact would be miniscule. The good news is, as Nir Shaviv has pointed out, we can achieve the Paris Temperature target by doing nothing.
Sorry I'm asking for proof you know that thing scientists are supposed to always look for. The evidence does not support agw.
Some useful clear thinking: Five rules for evidence communication Posted on November 21, 2020 by curryja | 46 comments by Judith Curry “Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.” Continue reading → "I just spotted this Comment in Nature: Five rules for evidence communication. Once I spotted co-author David Spiegenhalter, I knew this would be good. I have definitely been in need of an antidote to the Covid-19 and global warming propaganda that I’ve come across lately. I’m also working on a new climate change presentation; this provides an excellent check list. Here is a [link] to the article (freely accessible). . . . So how do we demonstrate good intentions? We have to be open about our motivations, conflicts and limitations. Scientists whose objectives are perceived as prioritizing persuasion risk losing trust. Inform, not persuade Offer balance, not false balance Disclose uncertainties State evidence quality Inoculate against misinformation . . . ."
Paris is a method of progress. Obviously, indicating what is needed and where we are is important, but there isn't some other method present and pegging this process as a failure based on current progress makes no sense to me. Let's remember that the USA (the nation the largest GHG emissions per capita) has addd its efforts AGAINST Paris progress. You can't make claims about the impossibility of the Paris process while totally discounting the possibility of US participation. And, suggesting we are "saved" from doing anything because of your guy is ridiculous when the entire body of climatologists in this world don't agree with him. Think what would happen if we used that kind of logic to defend ourselves against China or Russia - or COVID.
Even leaving Shaviv aside for the sake of argument, that leaves the Bjorn Lomborg analysis. Per Lomborg, even if every Paris signatory (including the US) fulfilled every pledge, the resulting global temperature difference in 2100 would be miniscule, 0.05C IIRC.
Yes - the analysis of how much is being accomplished by those who have made commitments may well be right. You may remember that I've agreed with that. I just find it ridiculous to blame the Paris direction for not succeeding when it is the USA that is working to ensure it fails. Plus, the Paris direction is NOT a one shot deal. It is a continuing effort. Evidence does not exist that it can NEVER succeed. Even with US participation it may take more steps to negotiate commitments that would do the job. For one thing, the US has gone out of its way to demonstrate that ALL agreements made by the US are tenuous at best. It would be more than prudent for other nations to see us make a commitment and then take action before they ever trust us enough to take more action in their own countries. On this issue, we are the enemy that can't be trusted.
The US position at any moment is irrelevant. The analysis predicting failure assumes full US participation. There is nothing the US can do to make Paris succeed.
"Full participation" is a meaningless phrase. The Paris process is a continuing process with NO limits other than what countries decide to do. No analysis of what the Paris process COULD achieve can possibly be limited to the state of affairs today, with the government with the largest GDP and the highest per capita output of ghg being OPPOSED to making progress.
You're avoiding the point. The Lomborg analysis assumes full US participation. The Paris Accord still doesn't work.
I suggest there is no "full US participation". The commitments that we are ignoring aren't "full participation" of anything other than that particular round of Paris negotiations. If the US were to take a look at what we can actually accomplish, I claim could easily commit to more. And, our leadership could cause other countries to commit to more, too. We made those commitments more than 5 years ago before Iowa capitalists successfully made wind the largest component of energy generation there (demonstrating the potential, not just the sole project), before other plains states saw the advantage of clean energy, too, before the full commitment of CA was known and included, before natural gas started seriously replacing coal. And, it came before potential moves such as reducing federal tax benefits to fossil fuel, before improving our local grids so that those with solar panels can take full benefit while providing electricity for others to use, thus making them more cost beneficial, before recent improvements in solar pannel efficiencey and cost reductions due to volume that have made solar cost effective for a significant percent of American homes and buildings. It also came before China became capable of exporting huge quantities of state of the art equipment for clean energy production, thus providing opportunities for countries that simply didn't previously have those opportunities. It came before increased evidence supporting taking clean energy seriously. I don't know the date of the next convention, but there is no reason to see what comes of that convention as being limited to the commitments in the last meeting in Paris.
I hope nothing comes of it, but that's just my personal view. The point here though, is that under the Paris Accord as written and agreed by all signatories, the result is negligible.
Do you think there is too hight of a cost to the US carrying out the GHG emissions "commitments"? My own view is that there are real opportunities here for citizens that don't have to do with GHG emissions - that thre are real synergies that justify action. One big one is that home solar is cost effective today, paying homeoners. But it is being slowed by the fact of so many places where people can't put power back on the grid, thus they can't get credit for their generation capacity. This is a financial opportunity for individual home owners that is being denied for reasons that just aren't justifiable. And, our grid needs to be improved, including at the neighborhood level, for other reasons, too. Also, cleaner air through mileage standards, electric transportation, etc. is an advantage for those living in cities. And, as cities like Seattle where I live need greater public transit to offload roads, allow transport for those who work in the city, but can't afford to live near their jobs, saving daily parking fees, etc. The percentage of people owning cars in many of our cities is decreasing - enough so in Seattle that we're changing building standards to reduce the amont of space that builders must reserve for cars. Electric cars are coming into their own - they have features that appeal to everyone. They will be and are being chosen by customers for reasons that aren't just "green". Again, China has grown their clean energy industry dramatically, leading in patents, manufacturing, exports, installations. Those making agreements at Paris couldn't count on having the options that are being created today. I don't disagree with your assessment of the likely impact of the last Paris commitments. I just don't see them as a limit.
I don't believe any GHG emissions limitation is necessary or worthwhile at any cost. Electric cars do not appeal to everyone. They have significant drawbacks in any context beyond urban/suburban short hauls. It's not so much having options to count on as having options that are attractive.
Well, as I mentioned there are advantages other than GHG emissions to most of the changes that would benefit GHG emissions. So, suggesting that the cost be attributed to GHG reduction isn't fair accounting. Iowa didn't go for wind because of GHG emissions. People get reduced power bills by installing solar. Etc. Electric vehicles won't appeal to everyone, at least not immediately. But, they are rapidly improving in range, in charging facilities, in speed of charge - which are really the only drawbacks. Tesla is offering 400 miles and charging that can be as little as a stop at a restaurant. Lower priced models are appearing. On the plus side, my wife hates going to service stations for gas, electric cars are quieter than any gas car can possibly be, electricity can be a cheaper fuel depending on where you are, electric cars require essentially zero shop maintenance, the interior design is not affected by the required dimensions for combustion engines. They don't emit exhaust even in your garage! They can accelerate faster than a gas car if you're into that. There is no shifting, so it's perfectly smooth. Every major manufacturer is headed toward having electric car lines today - Ford to Porsche, including SUVs and some trucks.
I am a skeptic of Bjorn Lomberg's opinions and analysis of various subjects. The 0.05 degree Celsius figure comes from emission cuts agreed on until the year 2030 and assumes a business as usual approach from 2030 to 2100. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminsti...ntastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/ Misrepresenting the impact of the Paris Agreement on climate change A claim that has been made frequently by Dr Lomborg is that the Paris Agreement will have almost no impact on climate change. He has done this by wrongly suggesting that the ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs) for emissions cuts by 2025 or 2030, which were submitted by countries before the United Nations climate change summit in Paris in December 2015, represent the sum total of action in relation to the Agreement. Dr Lomborg usually assumes that countries do not increase their emissions cuts after 2030 and that many allow their emissions to grow until the end of the century. Based on this assumption of 70 years of rising emissions after 2030, Dr Lomborg claims that the Paris Agreement would make very little difference to warming by 2100. As I and others have pointed out many times to Dr Lomborg, this is highly misleading because Article 2 of the Paris Agreement commits every Party to the Paris Agreement to the objective of “[h]olding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”. It is widely known that collectively the first set of NDCs are not consistent with this goal, but countries are due to submit more ambitious pledges by the end of 2020 and many, including the UK, already plan to cut emissions to net zero by 2050. “What will happen, then, if nations meet their promises under Paris? The United Nations organizers of the Paris Agreement once in 2015 (and never since) released an estimate of the total maximum impact of all carbon dioxide cuts promised by all nations. It provides the absolutely best-case scenario that we can hope for. This estimates a total reduction of 64 Gt carbon dioxide through to 2030. According to the UN’s estimate of 0.8F per 1000 Gt carbon dioxide, this translates to a reduction in temperature by the end of the century of about 0.05F. What this tells us is that even in an optimistic scenario, the Paris Agreement isn’t going to come anywhere close to solving global warming. It will have a miniscule impact on the temperature by 2100.” In essence, this means is that Dr Lomborg assumes that countries cut their emissions by 2030 in line with their NDCs, but then in 2031 immediately increase their emissions to follow ‘business as usual’ paths until the end of the century. And his imagined 70 years of higher emissions dominates the calculation of temperature change by 2100, which would likely reach about 4˚C in Dr Lomborg’s fictional world. This is not a legitimate assessment of the intended impact of the Paris Agreement, which explicitly aims to hold global warming to well below 2˚C.
Lomborg isn't the one doing the misrepresenting. Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05 ... www.lomborg.com › press-release-research-reveals-neg... A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global ... The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure ... Union exceeded the entire promised reductions, leaving the treaty essentially toothless. "The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100."