The Numbers On Hotcoldwetdry Are Scarier Than We Thought Or Something

The always unhinged Bill McKibben, who uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to travel the globe and attend anti-fossil fuels demonstrations is out with a new unhinged pronouncement

Recalculating the Climate Math
The numbers on global warming are even scarier than we thought.

The future of humanity depends on math. And the numbers in a new study released Thursday are the most ominous yet.


Those numbers spell out, in simple arithmetic, how much of the fossil fuel in the world’s existing coal mines and oil wells we can burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet. In other words, if our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

What’s your guess?

Here’s the answer: zero.

That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.

Bill and his palls, who, again, use fossil fuels to travel to all the protests, want to stop all fossil fuels production. The want to Keep It In the Ground, which means stopping all new production, pipelines, etc, while forcing a reduction of production of existing fossil fuels over time by governmental regulation. For instance, a managed decline of fossil fuels of 50% by 2033.

This is literally a math test, and it’s not being graded on a curve. It only has one correct answer. And if we don’t get it right, then all of us—along with our 10,000-year-old experiment in human civilization—will fail.

Meanwhile, a new paper says that the “fingerprint of global warming” doesn’t actually exist in the real world.

Four other papers link climatic changes to, get this, the sun and natural variability. The science just keeps coming out and showing that Warmists are politically driven (and hypocritical) buffoons.

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “The Numbers On Hotcoldwetdry Are Scarier Than We Thought Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    This is where the hypocrisy of the warmists comes into play. When he says that we have to stop using carbon-based fuels now, he has to lead the way, and stop himself.

    Who knows: maybe he drives a Chevy Dolt and has solar panels and windmills to power his home, but, you’re right, he does take all of those fossil fueled plane rides, doesn’t he?

  2. john says:

    Well Dana perhaps he thinks that through his own personal use of carbon based fuels he can actually reduce the total amount of carbon being burnt. That might be too difficult for you ti understand. And of course he has many other choices now besides that “Dolt” such as the BMW i3
    Mercedes is also about to unveil a whole FLEET of electric vehicles. The days of laughing at electrics are over, now that just shows people you don’t know about the advances in technology and engineering.

  3. Dana says:

    John makes excuses:

    Well Dana perhaps he thinks that through his own personal use of carbon based fuels he can actually reduce the total amount of carbon being burnt.

    If he did something really radical, such as leading by example, he could make the same speeches and same presentations via videoconferencing.

    Think what an impact that could make: “Hi, I’m Bill McQuacken, and I’d love to be with you at this conference in beautiful Abu Dhabi, but it’s so important to save the earth from carbon pollution, that I’ll just stay at my solar-powered farm in poverty-wracked West Virginia instead.”

  4. Jeffery says:

    Without evaluating the content of the report McKibben cites, note it is not a peer-reviewed paper but a report from an advocacy group, Oil Change International.

    In the same vein, as far as I can tell the “new paper” removing the “fingerprint of global warming” typed by denier scientist Christy and weatherman D’Leo was published at WUWT. It’s filled with “mathturbation”.

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that climate scientist Teach didn’t notice that Gosselin’s “four other papers” did not link global warming to the Sun and natural variability. Hacks such as Gosselin rely on the gullibility and unjustified trust of his readers.

    1. Mediterranean circulation perturbations over the last five centuries: Relevance to past Eastern Mediterranean Transient-type events – Incarbona, Martrat, Mortyn, Sprovieri, Ziveri, Gogou, Jordà, Xoplaki et al.

    2. A 414-year tree-ring-based April–July minimum temperature reconstruction and its implications for the extreme climate events, northeast China – Lyu, Li, Zhang and Wang.

    3. Wavelet analysis of the singular spectral reconstructed time series to study the imprints of solar–ENSO–geomagnetic activity on Indian climate – Sunkara and Tiwari

    4. A 368-year maximum temperature reconstruction based on tree-ring data in the northwestern Sichuan Plateau (NWSP), China – Zhu, Zhang, Li, Gu and Wang

    A few facts:

    a. Atmospheric CO2 absorbs and retains the energy of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth causing the atmosphere and everything the atmosphere touches (land and sea) to also warm. Otherwise the Earth would be a giant ice-covered orb.

    b. Orbital fluctuations, El Ninos, La Ninas, ocean current oscillations, the strength of the Sun, albedo, volcanoes etc are ALL natural and impact Earth’s mean surface temperature. More solar energy reaching the Earth, temp goes up. More volcanic ash and aerosols, temp goes down. More ice, more reflected radiation, less warming. El Ninos release great amounts of ocean heat into the atmosphere. With La Ninas, cooler ocean waters warm, pulling heat from the atmosphere. You are correct – these are all natural phenomena!

    c. The natural events, i.e., natural variability, is superimposed on the warming being caused by “a” above – AGW.

    Demonstrating that ocean currents impact(ed) local climates and that variations in solar output changes (changed) the mean surface temperature are neither new findings nor do they invalidate that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm now.

    The WUWT denier “paper” now claims the current rapid warming was caused by the accumulated solar irradiation from long ago.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    The WUWT denier “paper” now claims the current rapid warming was caused by the accumulated solar irradiation from long ago.

    –little miss goldpuss who’s more retarded than john

    Uh, no it doesn’t. That your retarded claim, sweetie.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Cogent, life-changing argument, dogdickbreath.

  7. Jeffery says:


    Here’s a sweet-souled human interest story. Perhaps you’re so vile and pathetic because you don’t get enough positive reinforcement in your life.

    Trigger warning: has a Negro in it

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Upset much, little guy?
    Seems to happen every time your lies are exposed,

  9. jl says:

    “The numbers are scarier than we thought..”. Well, what else would you expect these clowns to say other than that? Especially because nothing “scary” has happened, they have to keep reminding the gullible that “it’s going to happen!”

  10. Jeffery says:

    The WUWT denier “paper” now claims the current rapid warming was caused by the accumulated solar irradiation from long ago.

    Suck on that dog of a “paper”.

  11. jl says:

    Except of course there’s no proof the alleged warming is “rapid”. Facts suck, don’t they?

Pirate's Cove