12 Comments

Dr. Steve Koonin has written an excellent book titled Unsettled. Dr. Koonin was an Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under President Obama. In Unsettled, Dr. Koonin identifies "The Science" of climate change, which is different than the actual science. The actual science is largely ignored, while The Science is what you see espoused by climate activists and reported by the media.

Dr. Koonin states, "The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century. Contrast that with the $150 trillion Bank of America says "net zero" will cost over 30-years.

Unsettled is a must read book. https://www.unsettledsciencebook.com/

Expand full comment

Agree completely with you about his book!

He had a portfolio of ~$150 million on climate research while at DOE and was very well informed.

He Led a seminar for the American Physical Society in 2013 that had the best detailed discussions of climate science I know of. The complete transcript of the presentations by six leading scientists and the resulting discussions are available here:

https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

Expand full comment

What this article says about banks is true not only for banks. The whole ESG theory is that businesses should disclose their risks from climate change.

Unless the business insures coastal real estate the risks over the foreseeable future are highly speculative, trivial and may be positive rather than negative. The real risk is from government climate policies.

But these policies are subject to rapid change as escalating energy costs foster a rapid backlash. All that glitters isn’t green, or renewable.

Expand full comment

I think Mr. Shellenberger hits several nails on the head with this piece, thank you, Sir.

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball won a many year, multi $million case vs one of the chief frauds pushing this farce. Put Ball defeats Mann in the search box at the website he co-founded:

principia-scientific.com dedicated to truth in science.

This repeats the beating handed out to loud-mouthed liar Al Gore by Lord Christopher Monckton. There are 60 lies and exaggerations, splitting 25/35 in Gore's film.

We are in an 8,000 year cooling trend, likely to result in a mini "Ice Age" now to 2050.

electoverse.net or .org

We shall be deliberately supremely unprepared with unreliables.

Two books: Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History.

Ideal primer for the layman: only 121 well illustrated pages reveals all.

Dr. Tim Ball names names, as this fine article does. And reveals motives:

Depopulation, De-industrialism & A One World Govt.

Heaven And Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science by Geology Prof. Ian Plimer.

This is no easy weekend must read: 500+ pages, 2,000+ references,this book goes deeply into

the realities of climate change.

John Doran.

Expand full comment

Bankers will always be with us and they will always find a way to make a profit.

It is kind of odd to claim that Stayer's charitable donations are driven by self-interest. I have met him and I believe that he is sincere in his beliefs.

I have not read Shelllenberger's book on climate change though it is on my shelf. There is at least a few months of reading ahead of it though, so I won't be getting to it anytime soon. I don't want to belabor points that he has no doubt covered. But I will put in some facts. I have reason to believe that these are reliable sources, please correct me:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

That shows that C0^2 emissions are on a pretty steep upward trajectory. The US is using less now:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

Other regions and countries like China, India and Africa are rapidly industrializing and will have to get the energy to do so from some source. So far, that has been mostly coal.

The scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming, though how much is up for debate:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The future is very hard to estimate and the quality of the geophysical atmospheric models isn't that great.

Expand full comment

Please read "Apocalypse Never" ASAP.

CO2 levels during ice ages were much higher than today.

Also add as second read , founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore PhD, book 'Fake Catastrophes and Threats of Doom' specially the chapter on CO2.

Planet Earth is a Complex Adaptive System with unpredictable outcomes. Climate cannot be modeled to predict the future. Best that can be done is to look at facts and specific actions and do more if they improve the situation. That is what those 2 books are about. Use advocacy and inquiry 1. Produce Valid information, 2. Make informed choices, 3. Apply vigilant control of the effectiveness of implemented action (C. Argyris)

Thank You Michael for your outstanding work and dedication.

Robert

Expand full comment

Apocalypse Never is an excellent book. I read it right after it came out and have referenced it in talks about climate.

Expand full comment

Good points.

The CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere has been very good for agriculture, adding about 10% to the typical crops over what would have been grown with the same inputs (seed, fertilizers, work) with the pre-industrial CO2 levels. That's why commercial greenhouses usually add CO2.

The rate of increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere (where the greenhouse effect occurs) is 1.4 C per century since 1979, when the official NASA data begin (managed by the University of Alabama at Huntsville). For what it's worth, every month so far in 2021 except October has been around 0.3 C lower than the same month in 1920.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/

Expand full comment

Very good . Will be linked in my https://cosy.com/ blog .

Having done > 20 years in lower Manhattan , now having exchanged my view of the tide going up and down on the base of the Brooklyn Bridge for watching the weather on the little bump of Pikes Peak here in the Colorado Front Range , I feel the disconnect with reality is most severe in the urban population centers , which , unfortunately dominate the popular conversation and vote .

Expand full comment

Great post, sir. Hope all is well!

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I heard a section of that conversation and I always get turned off when the term, "denier" is used to describe someone's view on a particular topic (climate denial, science denial, etc...). Well-informed Pinker should know better than to use such labels. I also found it fascinating that they ridicule those who have strong belief on the topic while simultaneously spewing their climate change narrative. It's a bit too hypocritical for me.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I think you nailed it Amy. I always, always, look at what these elites do and compare it to what they say (e.g. Obama's house on Martha's Vineyard. And don't get me started on the mask issue). You would be very hard pressed to find a media, financial, or pop-culture elite who actually lived according to their mantra. I don't see these individuals vacationing locally, attempting to shrink their carbon footprint by driving versus flying, helping poor countries transition to more efficient fuels, etc... They are interested in making rules for the plebs so they can move around unobstructed.

George Carlin summed it up well when he said, "Besides, environmentalists don’t give a crap about the planet. They don’t care about the planet; not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live; their own habitat. They’re worried that someday in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me."

Expand full comment