Good News: We Have Just 10 Years To Save The Planet From ‘Climate Change’ (Again)

Because all the other time frames to save Gaia from minuscule increases Warmists say is caused by Mankind’s output of carbon pollution have failed (along with all their other predictions), it’s time for another

(Breitbart) In the latest in radical climate doomsaying, a new report warns that fossil fuel consumption will need to be reduced “below a quarter of primary energy supply by 2100” to avoid possibly disastrous effects on global temperatures.

In their report, titled “Pathways for balancing CO2 emissions and sinks,” a team of eight scientists warns that “anthropogenic emissions need to peak within the next 10 years, to maintain realistic pathways to meeting the COP21 emissions and warming targets.”

The statement was immediately repackaged by environmentalists to read: “Scientists say we have ten years to save the earth.”

As is always the case in studies of this sort, the scientists juggle dozens of variables, none of which is entirely predictable and which taken together tell us virtually nothing about the future of the environment.

Doesn’t matter. Warmists have their marching orders, irregardless of all the previous failed prognostications of doom in 10 years (there are plenty more to list), doom in 500 days, the Arctic is doomed in this year and that year and the other year, and so forth. Heck, some say we don’t even have 10 years till humans are extinct from AGW.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “Good News: We Have Just 10 Years To Save The Planet From ‘Climate Change’ (Again)”

  1. JGlanton says:

    This AGW belief system reminds of Heaven’s Gate. Heaven’s Gate members believed the planet Earth was about to be recycled, and that they should divest themselves of all worldly goods, and the only chance to survive was to leave the planet before a certain date. AGW activists believe that the planet is going to become uninhabitable by a certain date, and that we must divest ourselves of our capitalist goods and lifestyles, or we will have to leave the planet.

  2. Stosh says:

    All this warmth and CO2 is going to spur plant growth so the earth is overwhelmed with grass and trees. Have to bring back timber logging in a big way, and riding mower prices will be through the roof. Prepare people!!!!

  3. Jl says:

    It’s ten years. It’s always been ten years, and always will be ten years away. That way it can’t be falsified

  4. Jeffery says:

    this warmth and CO2 is going to spur plant growth so the earth is overwhelmed with grass and trees

    One could conclude that, IF CO2 were the only determinant of plant growth. Water, soil nitrogen, correct temperature, pollinators, etc. The climate changes resulting from the rapid increase in CO2 changes the rain patterns, distribution of insects and birds, and doesn’t increase the soil nitrogen supply.

    AGW belief system reminds of Heaven’s Gate

    Heaven’s Gate was not supported by 97% of climate scientists and every major scientific body.

    • M.Nobody says:

      Obama said “99% of the WORLDS scientists are in agreement with me on this.”and not a question need be raised. So relax,We shall be saved.

  5. Zachriel says:

    The statement was immediately repackaged by environmentalists to read: “Scientists say we have ten years to save the earth.”

    The probability of crossing a tipping point, meaning an abrupt and irreversible change to the climate, increases with rising temperature; however, the precise levels are uncertain. Setting interim goals is a reasonable response, rather than waiting until irreversible changes are imminent.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      First y’all type: “the precise levels are uncertain”…
      Precise levels of what?
      Probability, temperatures, climate “change”?
      Why yes, yes they are.

      Then y’all type: “… irreversible changes are imminent.”
      Well, yes, yes they are.

      Here have a cookie, kiddies!

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Oh, BTW, what are reasonable responses to imprecise levels of uncertainty?

  6. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Precise levels of what?

    The precise amount of surface warming required to reach a tipping point.

    There are multiple possible tipping points due to the various positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system. One of the largest positive feedback is due to melting ice. Ice has a high albedo (reflectivity) which helps cool the Earth’s surface. However, if something warms the surface, ice will decrease, reducing the planet’s overall reflectivity, causing additional warming. Conversely, if something cools the surface, ice will increase, causing additional cooling.

    The Earth appears to have two widely disparate stable points, and like a seesaw, oscillates between a state where the Earth is largely ice-free, and one where the Earth has extensive ice caps.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The precise amount of surface warming required to reach a tipping point.

      But you stated the precise levels are uncertain.

      • Zachriel says:

        drowningpuppies: But you stated the precise levels are uncertain.

        That’s correct. The precise level is uncertain, but there is high likelihood concerning the general range at which tipping points will be reached.

  7. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: what are reasonable responses to imprecise levels of uncertainty?

    It depends on the error-bars and the consequences of various actions. While the precise heat required to cross various climate thresholds is not known, there is a strong likelihood of crossing critical thresholds at 2-3°C. Without some sort of response, humans will almost certainly pass that threshold at some point this century.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Without some sort of response, humans will almost certainly pass that threshold at some point this century.

      Apart from y’all going from uncertainty to almost certainly, now you go from a reasonable response to some sort of response to imprecise levels of uncertainty.

      I’m confused.

  8. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: I’m confused.

    Yes. We can see that.

    While we can’t say with certainty that a tipping point will be reached at 2.13°C or 2.56°C (precision is lacking), we can say with strong probability that the tipping point will be reached somewhere between 2-3°C.

    • Zachriel says:

      High precision means a narrow probably distribution around the mean value. The distribution in this case is fairly wide, largely spread across values from 2-3°C.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      While we can’t say with certainty that a tipping point will be reached at 2.13°C or 2.56°C (precision is lacking), we can say with strong probability that the tipping point will be reached somewhere between 2-3°C.

      So now we’ve gone from uncertainty to a strong probability of 2-3°C?

      Keep digging that hole, kiddies.

      • Jim Jones says:

        You’ll have to excuse Zachriel, drowningpuppies, cultists cling tightly to their scriptures.

  9. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies:

    So now we’ve gone from uncertainty to a strong probability of 2-3°C?

    Not sure why you are having troubles with the concept. You might be quite certain a car is traveling in the range of 50-100 kph without knowing its precise speed.

    High precision means a narrow probability distribution around the mean value. The distribution in this case is fairly wide, largely spread across values from 2-3°C. For example, the range may be 2.45 ±0.01 °C (2 sigma); so we have a 95% confidence the value is between 2.44-2.46°C. On the other hand, we may have a range of 2.5 ±0.5 °C (2 sigma); so we have a 95% confidence the value is between 2-3°C. The certainty is the same, but the precision is higher in the former.

  10. Jim nase says:

    Save us Algore

Bad Behavior has blocked 5047 access attempts in the last 7 days.