It’s 20 years since we started blogging on climate here on RealClimate (December 10, 2004). We wanted to counter disinformation about climate change that was spreading through various campaigns. In those days it was an unusual move that prompted a welcome from Nature.
One thing that I didn’t anticipate then was the vast global scale that fake news and conspiracy theories later would attain. Neither did I foresee how they would penetrate other disciplines, nor the extent of the division in today’s society between those who value truths and those who don’t.
There is one graph that perhaps tells the story of what has happened since 2004, and it’s the Keeling curve shown in the figure below. It shows the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and tells a story about the carbon cycle, involving Earth’s crust, the atmosphere, land surface, the biosphere, and the oceans.
The CO2 levels have increased at an increasing pace in the atmosphere as well as in the oceans, and the sad irony is that the rate of growth has increased after every climate summit (Conference of the Parties, also known as COP) and assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Similarly, there have been increases in other greenhouse gases, which Gavin nicely describes in his recent post Operationalizing Climate Science. In a nutshell, they are responsible for climate change, mainly due to an increased greenhouse effect. The consequence is global warming, changes to Earth’s hydrological cycle, melting ice and snow, thawing permafrost, rising sea levels and changes to the weather statistics.
This year is on track to be the warmest ever observed according to the WMO and data provided by the European Copernicus Climate Services (C3S). Our society has not been adapted to these changes, and the situation is far from stabilised.
So what has gone wrong? A recent editorial from the Guardian discusses some flaws and weaknesses of past COPs and a similar sentiment has been reported in the Washington Post.
On the one hand, there are people who have learned from the impressive efforts that have been dedicated to explaining climate change and to increasing climate literacy. One example is this video produced for the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS).
An enhanced understanding of climate change has been a force behind the growth in solar panels, wind power, and electric cars. There has also been technical progress unrelated to climate change, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), and we can now use chatGPT to respond to emails from climate deniers which was science fiction in 2004. AI is also currently revolutionising weather forecasting.
And there is a growing awareness concerning links between nature, biodiversity and climate, but we still struggle getting our main message through to everyone.
It strikes me that we still have a bad habit of speaking in a code language with confusing phrases and terminology that is only familiar for those already familiar with climate science and who already are persuaded. I wrote a post on the IPCC’s summary for policymakers (SPM) on this in 2023, but without much effect. Today there exist AI tools that can translate a scientist’s Powerpoint presentation into something that is more pedagogic and understandable for a lay person, so maybe this situation will improve.
There also seems to have been little dialogue across different sectors and disciplines and a lack of trust. Obviously, the message from climate scientists has not reached those decision-makers who could bend the Keeling curve downwards. In other words, our knowledge about climate change has not reached those leaders who may have the greatest effect on dealing with the production of coal, oil and gas. The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.
Another thing I didn’t anticipate in 2004 was efforts such as the World Weather Attribution (WWA). Attribution connects weather and climate and may remind decision-makers within the fossil sector about the fact that we share the same planet and that global warming will affect everyone, either directly or indirectly. In a recent paper (Benestad et al, 2024) we provide an even clearer picture than before of extreme temperature and precipitation having become more frequent and widespread since 1950. Such extremes have a devastating impact on both nature and society.
Finally, in 2004 I didn’t anticipate that social media, such as Twitter (now X) and Facebook, would dominate the spread of both information and disinformation. Blogs ended up in the shade of social media for years, but things are changing, spurred by scandals surrounding Facebook and X. Newspapers such as the Guardian no longer posts on X, and I’m giving BlueSky a go like many of my good colleagues. Hopefully, increased activity on BlueSky may steal some of the juice from X.
References
- R.E. Benestad, C. Lussana, and A. Dobler, "Global record-breaking recurrence rates indicate more widespread and intense surface air temperature and precipitation extremes", Science Advances, vol. 10, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ado3712
If social media “dominate[s] the spread of both information and disinformation” (which sounds right), leaving X for BlueSky is exactly the wrong thing to do now.
Based on what I have observed, X is not collapsing yet. Instead people with certain kind of sensitivities are leaving, or at least claiming so, trying to found a discussion of their own elsewhere. Most people on my timeline announcing exit to BlueSky are climate scientists or in general, people with environmental or nature interests, due to their hobbies or their profession. But even among these, leaving is not universal. I’d guess that it’s like Guardian: strong left-leaning identification predicts leaving. (And this includes more than sane thinking on science and climate btw.)
I’m in BlueSky myself now too, and while it may be great for small-community isolated discussions around, say, climate, weather, biodiversity etc., especially for academics, you will miss bigger audience, those who need to be informed, as opposed to your colleagues or activists. I can understand the need for professional, relatively closed and moderated discussion forum, but that is not the same as reaching the public or having influence. Influence happens at the margins, not in the center.
X may indeed collapse later. These networks are pretty much experiments, including moderation, discoverability etc. X is now trying an algorithmic feed based more on embeddings (content) and less on social network, and apparently also visibility control instead of moderation. There are problems, also some good sides, and we don’t know how it will go. I’d be pretty certain though that no network will moderate hundreds of millions of people with human workforce, it will be mostly AI if anything. (X has also made some questionable decisions incl. one on visibility of posts with links, that I’d count as counterproductive, and valid reasons to consider other sites.)
Yes, there’s Elon Musk and general shift to right in vibes. But to reach the public, you need to forget purity, especially political purity. The further one proceeds from core physics and observations, the more there’s justifiable room for opinions and wider discussions, and when it comes to public policy, political purity just doesn’t work. I mean, in a demogracy it doesn’t work. We saw that in the latest US election.
So I’d vote for being present and presenting science where people are, in a way that strips _unnecessary_ ties to political identities and activism. There’s more than enough all kinds of activism within our infosphere, we need more trustworthy neutral sources.
(On blogging, it is very much alive, just not so much as “blogs” but more as “newsletters” and Substack.)
Quote: “So what has gone wrong? A recent editorial from the Guardian discusses some flaws and weaknesses of past COPs and a similar sentiment has been reported in the Washington Post. ”
Me: How many Americans (South and North) pay one iota of attention to COP? I’ll bet less than 10% even know what it is. I’ll bet less than 1% of all Asians have ever heard of COP, and less than 0.1% of Africans. The problem is with the people who believe in AGW, but have done little or nothing to change their behavior. I’m referring to the AGW believers who can afford to do the following but have not done it: install solar panels for electricity, buy an EV, use a bike or public transportation to commute to work, buy an efficient heat pump to heat/cool their home, change their water heater to a heat pump type or a solar thermal system. Many people in the USA cannot afford to do those things, but many can and there are enough of them that it would make a difference if they did.
Quote: “Blogs ended up in the shade of social media for years, but things are changing, spurred by scandals surrounding Facebook and X.”
Me: I may have missed some, but the only “scandals” surrounding Facebook and X (when it was Twitter) that I recall are the ones where the US Government worked with them to delete posts that went against the Democrat narrative which is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution; which, for those of you not familiar with US Law, is the Supreme law of the land – it supersedes all other federal, state, and local laws. Twitter also censored conservative voices on their own as well – one incident which had consequences was on January 6 when Trump tweeted several times for the protesters to be peaceful and back the blue (capitol police) – Twitter, run by Trump-haters at the time, deleted the tweets or prevented them from being re-tweeted so that very few of the protesters ever saw them. Because the “mainstream” media hates Trump they did not report this fact so few Americans know that it happened. I doubt it even came out in the J6 investigation which was also run by Trump-haters. Thus Twitter helped to prolong the J6 protest. It is documented in this video at: 28:00, 33:28, and particularly at 59:58 and at 1:03:48:
https://rumble.com/v4648ft-january-6th-a-true-timeline-doc.html
Quote: “Newspapers such as the Guardian no longer posts on X, and I’m giving BlueSky a go like many of my good colleagues. Hopefully, increased activity on BlueSky may steal some of the juice from X.”
Do you not see the futility of this tactic? Only AGW “believers” will use BlueSky for the most part. You will be preaching to the choir, and your efforts will be wasted. You will not change many minds with that tactic. But go for it if you like preaching to the choir.
Or, learn from Trump. Go into the war zone to spread your message. He campaigned in places many thought he would be unwelcome – the Bronx, Madison Square Garden, CNN, Dearborn, etc. He got YUGE enthusiastic crowds of voters who were fed up with 4 years of Harris/Biden failure, and that caught the attention of other voters in NYC and in NY – for a Republican he did very well in the general election in both. Of course much of the attribution for that would be due to the exceptionally poor Harris/Biden record, but I think his presence in those places made a difference.
to Mr. Know It All and others FYI
Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads by Matt Taibbi et al
About US Government/Intel Agency controlled, manipulated and orchestrated censorship on social media outlets
https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter
Both Twitter and Facebook banned Donald Trump in January 2021
From ABC Australia news in depth – public media
Did banning Trump fuel his comeback? | America’s Last Election: EP 6 | If You’re Listening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nziiH-lbT8
Answer is YES – to a degree. Polling stats said it did. It’s not a bad program despite being ‘politically’ biased. by default and not entirely objective. And only 20 minutes, so I know I know far more about these matters than the journalist does.
But the Taibbi and Shellenberger’s expose is more damning – as was the exposure of ‘RussiaGate’ as a complete fraud. And the tip of the iceberg of corruption by a establishment media-government nexus between intel agencies and political activist ‘thinktanks’ etc Then there’s the WMD lies, Libya and Syria CW lies as well — all very coordinated. Today we have to deal with “evil bad North Koreans in Russia” lies.
It never stops and will not be stopped short of a social-political revolution. But that is only likely to arrive after the looming “economic and societal collapse”.
Trump is still a “dick” but there are far more bad apples than him running the real show. Trump is merely another symptom of a deeply dysfunctional nation.
D: as was the exposure of ‘RussiaGate’ as a complete fraud.
BPL: No, it was not.:
https://www.salon.com/2020/07/02/as-russian-bounty-scandal-unfolds-remember-this-robert-mueller-found-plenty-of-collusion/
There’s one born every minute. And you are one of them Barton.
Dharma wrote: “… the exposure of ‘RussiaGate’ as a complete fraud”
That is a crude, clumsy, clownish LIE. You are either profoundly ignorant and abysmally stupid, or you are a deliberate liar.
With all due respect, your endless, interminable, meandering, off-topic, belligerent, arrogant, abusive and dishonest posts are a sewer of narcissistic self-indulgence and contribute NOTHING of value to this site.
Just go away.
Whatever. Take your own advice.
8000 historical citations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjYVka6u10
Go read a book and get a clue – “Beauty fades but dumb lasts forever. ” Judge Judy
D(h)arma(h) “ Take your own advice.
“Just go away.” applies to the TROLL whose endless, interminable, meandering, off-topic, belligerent, arrogant, abusive and dishonest posts, [at a rate of over 110 posts in 3.5 weeks] ,a sewer of narcissistic self-indulgence and contribute NOTHING of value to this site. If you haven’t figured it out – it’s you.
Now go away or we will mock you the second time. (Fetchez la vache!)
KIA: The problem is with the people who believe in AGW, but have done little or nothing to change their behavior.
BPL: N0, the problem is with people like you who constantly bring up red herrings.
People not making the changes they _are_ in control of: the 5 ‘kitchen table decisions’ which represent a good chunk of decarbonisation, _is_ part of the problem. It’s not all of it by any means (agriculture, industry, energy sector are all separate), but it really does matter.
If everyone changes their heating, cooking, hot water, and transport to electric whilst also adding local storage and supply, next time one of those needs replacing, along with the supply being greened-up, then that is decarbonisation before your very eyes.
People who are able to do this but don’t are impeding the transition.
I’m not sure why you think that is a red herring.
This pod on Rewiring America makes the case well: https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-is-electrification-going
https://www.rewiringamerica.org/
(And yes I’ve done my biking, PV, hot water, cooking, and storage starting in 2008. The heat pump is coming this year and the EV probably 2026).
I’ve enjoyed every minute of it. I know some of my posts have been negative or even disruptive, and for that I am truly sorry. You guys are doing great work and I hope you continue it as long as possible.
Barton Paul Levenson says “[…] and for that I am truly sorry”
Sorry, I do not believe you. Your behaviour belie your words.
D: Sorry, I do not believe you. Your behaviour belie [sic] your words.
BPL: Wow, Dharma has a low opinion of me! I’ll go find a dark corner to cry in.
Dharma: this is obnoxious, and wrong, 1 of 16 ‘recent comments’ as you exploit this platform; it undermines the material about which you care so much. Are you incapable of seeing yourself as others see you?
I suggest you stop exploiting the generous hosting of this comment section, forcing us to scroll past your domineering rudeness.
Consider the authors of the many fine resources you quote here, and ask yourself if they would appreciate you undermining the knowledge you so arrogantly present in an effort to bludgeon us into learning what we already know.
in re to Susan Anderson, 24 Nov 2024 at 11:40 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827363
Dear Susan,
As the fine resources cited by Dharma include everything starting from Nate Hagen over anonymous trolls on various websites and ending with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, I believe that many of these subjects would indeed appreciate his/her/its frantic activity.
Best regards
Tomáš
I challenge anyone to replicate a numbered list of every single Source / Citation – original info by + presented by who and when with the link – I have made in November or October and post it to this forum for all to see.
Present all the facts at once for all to see at once. I dare you.
Reply to Susan Anderson
“Are you incapable of seeing yourself as others see you?”
Absolutely yes. I’m no fool. Take the log out of your own eye lady.
Your middle name is ‘Karen’ yeah?
Of course, as Eleanor Roosevelt never said “Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People”. Myself, I would expect the idea is that a “fool”,/i> would absolutely possess what would be described as a ‘small mind’
– Susan Anderson: “Are you incapable of seeing yourself as others see you?”
– Darma: ” Absolutely yes. I’m no fool.”
– Sorry, I do not believe you. Your behaviour belie [sic] your words. ;-)
Reply to Susan Anderson
Frankly I find your repetitive comments to me the most obnoxious and abusive of all.
There’s no accounting for taste. So God created the Scroll Wheel Mouse. Use it. I do.
RealClimate is a great resource for Non-Climate Scientists who become their company’s ‘point person’ on decarbonisation.
It was my go-to resource when I had this role.
Sincere thanks to Gavin, Rasmus and others for providing it.
One important thing seems to be routinely overlooked. In order to make the transition to alternative energies and also feed eight billion stakeholders, conventional vehicles will be used. for transportation. There are very few EVs doing any of that. What this means is more oil will be needed and used until the transition is mostly complete. There are no viable alternatives going forward. We can expect to see another new record for atmospheric CO2 every year for quite a while. Infrastructure improvements and adaptations should be phased in and expensive mitigations phased out. None of them can work at scale anyhow.
KT: In order to make the transition to alternative energies and also feed eight billion stakeholders, conventional vehicles will be used. for transportation. There are very few EVs doing any of that.
BPL: I pass electric buses every day (Pittsburgh Regional Transit). Some companies are producing electric trucks and construction vehicles. Too few now does not mean too few forever.
KT: “There are very few EVs doing any of that.”
MWS: In Oslo, nearly all buses are electric now. Last winter, there was a problem with some buses losing charge too quickly on very cold days, but the problem was mostly logistical, not planning for having a “Very Cold Day” reduced departure plan, like the reduced departure Sunday/Holiday plan, so more buses could be recharging.
And most taxis in Oslo are electric now, and all the trains except a few freight locomotives.Even the ferries in Oslo harbor are electric.
They’re building a new subway line from Oslo out to where the Fornebu airport used to be. They have dug the biggest hole I have ever seen, and a lot of the earth movers they used to dig dirt were electric.
Ken Towe wrote: “There are very few EVs doing any of that … There are no viable alternatives going forward.”
EVs are already viable and are already replacing fossil fueled vehicles in many applications.
Not long ago there were very few smartphones. In fact there were none. Likewise desktop computers and flat screen TVs. And today many younger folks have never even seen a rotary-dial landline phone, or a typewriter, or a bulbous, flickering “picture tube”. In the not too distant future fossil fueled passenger vehicles will be a primitive curiosity like a Model T today.
Given the fact that the world is not timely mitigating Climate Change, and has limited funding to do so, there is a great need for cost-effective solutions.
One such approach could be, on underutilized land, to deploy extraordinarily Cost-Effective and Acreage and Time-Efficient, Nature-Based Solutions, to maximize the full potential of Photosynthesis, which is not only among the least costly ways to capture CO 2, at $35/Ton, but can also contribute to an expanding Bio-Economy and new jobs.
However, to do this well, the world needs to know what are the top 10 plants and trees which will capture the most CO 2/Acre/5,10 & 15-Year Periods.
We then need to maximize the sequestration of the captured Carbon, by converting the resulting Biomass into a variety of Climate-Smart Bio-Products.
I hope you will join me in urging that governments, universities and research institutions quickly conduct the credible analyses required to determine what are the top 10 plants and trees which will capture the most CO 2/Acre/5,10 & 15-Year Periods.
Be careful when you talk about “underutilized” land. Look close enough, and you’ll probably find someone is actually using it in most cases. And, as a forest ecologist, I know that there are a million good reasons to plant a tree, but carbon sequestration is usually way down that list.
The problem with bioenergy is that .trees and algae all eventually die and the oxygen that was created will be used by aerobic respiration to recycle the biomass back to CO2 and water. It’s part of Nature’s carbon cycle.
The problem with sequestration is a quantitative one… not enough can be stored to affect the climate. One ppm of CO2 is 7.8 billion tons. Storing one will have no effect at all.
Ken Towe, there is no problem with bioenergy in terms of its carbon cycle. Bioenergy is ueful precisely because the carbon cycle you talk about is CARBON NEUTRAL. We arent increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Its completely innacurate to say that sequestration cannot effect the climate. CO2 does not stop having a climate effect at some arbitrary concentration. The effect of carbon sequestration in forests would just be smallish due to land availability issues.
The carbon cycle is neutral until some of the biomass is buried away from the oxygen created. That’s why the percentage ratio between oxygen and CO2 is ~525 to one, but was the reverse billions of years ago. Don’t forget that biomass includes biocarbonate…limestones. Humans cannot duplicate that sequestration except in trivial amounts.. And even that requires transportation energy to get it done.
in Re to Ken Towe, 24 Nov 2024 at 11:15 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827362
Dear Ken,
There are publications concluding that reforestation of parts of Amazonia that resulted in 16-17th century from depopulation of this region due to diseases brought from Europe might have contributed to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration decrease noticed in ice cores from this era and to the northern hemisphere cooling known as the “Little Ice Age”.
See for example
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254228011_The_Columbian_Encounter_and_the_Little_Ice_Age_Abrupt_Land_Use_Change_Fire_and_Greenhouse_Forcing
There are, however, also results contradicting this hypothesis:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305419300220
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827362
I think that it is not yet clear enough in which extent the biosequestration of carbon dioxide, e.g. by reforestation, could or could not contribute to global warming mitigation.
It is, however, quite clear already now that, although actively supported by many states, “biofuel” production and/or direct “biomass” burning for energy production hardly represent good ideas for global warming mitigation, because
(i) direct solar energy exploitation is more efficient than the indirect one exploiting biomass,
(ii) “biomass” production is an ecological crime, contributing to soil and biodiversity destruction.
Greetings
Tomáš
please no
ClimateSmart™ is a symptom of phony environmentalism and bad teaching.
Land must not be financialized and valued in global carbon markets.
Land must not be commodified or traded based on speculative CO2 pricing.
No matter how polished the marketing materials may be, or how many smooth talking salespeople come knocking, land must not be treated as an asset tied to the whims of such schemes.
They will strip you dry, and the erosion of community and functional ecologies will only increase.
I wonder if it would help if the climate science community would strike the “if a miracle happens” lines from the temperature prediction graphs.
Looking at a graph with three future temperature projection possibilities, where the top one has been tracking historical trends and is based on the most likely political and economic outcomes, and then a couple of lower lines that are based on imaginary social situations that are not going to happen, one can easily conclude that the lower ones are the ones to hold on to and that everything will be ok.
For example, the IPCC reports use very sophisticated language to express probabilities and likelihoods on the scientific side, but not on the social side. It is “virtually certain” that the global political system will fail to undertake the actions required to achieve a 2 degree increase, but you don’t get that from the reports. Why include the “exceptionally unlikely” social scenarios?
The sugar coating of this reality might be contributing to the lack of enthusiasm for doing what needs to be done.
Discourses of Climate Delay – https://skepticalscience.com/discourses-of-climate-delay.html
They found four main categories:
– Redirect Responsibilities: Someone else should take action first
– Propagate non-transformative solutions: Mitigate without fundamental, disruptive changes – the “not like this” excuse
– Emphasize the downsides of climate policy because it would be politically and socially unjustifiable.
– Surrender: stating that it’s too late and that a change of course is no longer possible.
Or shorter: “Not me, not like this, not now and too late”!
Climategate turns 15 this week. This is more important than politics from your perspective, isn’t it?
“Climategate turns 15 this week.”
Hey Robbo, stop deflecting & projecting, and pay more attention to the mess you created at ENRON, which I recall was over 20 years ago.
While the smarter guys in the room were sentenced to jail, Robert’s role in the Enron crack-up discounts his climate policy credibility just as the collapse of Northern Rock eroded Matt Ridley’s authority on climate economics.
RLB: Climategate turns 15 this week.
BPL: And it’s no more a real conspiracy than it was 15 years ago:
https://bartonlevenson.com/Climategate.html
And Enron turns 24. Congrats to unindicted co-conspirator (allegedly) R. L. Bradley, Jr.
I particularly appreciate the lead being the Keeling curve. Hard data showing what is actually happening in the real world is the right place to start. I was struck by the statement “The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.” I think the basic issue is the wealth and power from fossil fuels that world leaders use to remain in power. The regimes in India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran just to begin the long list, come to mind. Now add the Trump effect. It is no wonder that the Keeling curve proves there has been no real effect from the IPCC or any COP.
The advances in alternate energy production have come alongside increased production and use of fossil fuels.
Rather than expect politicians to take actions that harm their interests, the way to reduce fossil fuels is to increase the pace of invention by creating more large prizes for widening bottlenecks, for example prizes for better battery systems. The only way to rapidly reduce fossil fuels is to make them all, in most places, a bad economic choice.
to D. Condliffe
“I think the basic issue is the wealth and power from fossil fuels that world leaders use to remain in power. The regimes in India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran just to begin the long list, come to mind. ”
Endlessly bemused by the extreme denial that the USA is the worlds biggest Oil producer bar none.
It’s also the worlds biggest consumer of Oil as well. iirc What a joke. But it shows how effective government driven propaganda is today as we rush headlong into Cold War 2.0; possibly nuclear war 1.0, and potentially world war 3.0
That poor old innocent and fragile USA an even bigger Victim than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is.
D: That poor old innocent and fragile USA an even bigger Victim than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is.
BPL: Dharma always defends Russia and China. Let’s see if we can figure out if he’s working for 1) the SVR or GRU, or 2) the 10th Bureau.
The Keeling curve plotted against global population correlates almost almost perfectly…0.9985 Newell & Marcus, 1987 “Carbon Dioxide and People”. It’s obvious…humans need energy and lowering emissions to zero is not helpful to the transportation required to make the transition to renewables and the to the EVs that will replace the vehicles doing it now.
That incredibly high correlation between the Keeling curve and population is bogus, unless you think the population is undergoing a 1% annual cycle, just like CO2. Oh, it’s also rather old. Population is flattening, but CO2 is still rising exponentially. Your argument is rather old, too.
Read the paper John.. “Carbon Dioxide and People”. Yes, it’s old but the high correlation still holds. Plot Mauna Loa CO2 against today’s global population. 8 billion = 420 ppm. CO2 is still rising because people need the energy for transportation. Renewables don’t build themselves and EVs are not involved.
Ignorance is bliss they say for good reason. Cheap fossil fuel energy is what triggered the late Holocene exponential growth in human population to above 8 billion today, heading for 9 billion circa +2040.
Deny that all you wish. The keeling curve is merely another minor anecdotal reflection of that reality.
People should find actual real things to argue about and not shadows on the wall.
PS do track the current heat wave hitting western Sydney and surrounds today and the next week. BOM expected to break all known spring high temp records with heat wave high temps above +12C over current (30yr) climate average daily high temps for November in the region.
Firstly I greatly enjoy reading this websites articles so many thank’s. The comments people post are also often interesting.
You said: “One thing that I didn’t anticipate then was the vast global scale that fake news and conspiracy theories later would attain.”
The internet has clearly turbocharged the spread of missinformation etcetera. I feel missinformation is a very serious problem for society. Its like a return to the thinking of the middle ages / fuedal period where people believed in witches. The internet is here to stay, and in largely uncensored form, so schools need to teach critical thinking skills, and older people should study up issues such as logical fallacies. Of course other things contribute to the spread of missinformation such as the smearing of mainstream experts coming from some politicians and others.
You said: “It strikes me that we still have a bad habit of speaking in a code language with confusing phrases and terminology ”
I’m a non expert, and I find your articles a bit too technical at times. One thing that would help is providing definitions for your technical terms and in the plainest possible language. The ideal would be to get a definition by clicking on a word, as other websites do this, otherwise just put a definition in brackets or as a footnote. Yes people could also google technical terms but this is cumbersome.
You said: “Obviously, the message from climate scientists has not reached those decision-makers who could bend the Keeling curve downwards.”
Clearly, although nobody can claim ignorance about the basics of the science and effects on the planet, after years of IPCC reports and numerous media releases. The message has been eroded by denialism, and it might help if the IPCC itself did more to counter this. They may feel that repeating a lie spreads the lie but the lies have spread regardless and gained a lot of traction!
Another problem is the human mind is hardwired to respond with most urgency to immediate and serious threats like an earthquake, rather than slow moving future orientated threats like the climate issue, even if they are massively serious like climate change. Its psychology 101. It suggests the solutions most likely to gain traction are those with wide benefits, and the least personal pain and inconvenience, like renewable energy generation. And real world trends are consistent with this.
We have leaders reliant on campaign donations from the fossil fuels lobby, which is so frustrating, and leaders probably afraid that tough measures on the climate issue will raise energy costs too much and loose them votes. But The Economist Journal (November 16 – 22) has just done an article on how dramatically the costs of renewables have fallen so the leaders are perhaps being excessively cautious.
Dear Dr. Benestad,
You wonder why all the educative efforts exhibited by you and other climate scientists cannot convince lot of people that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration described by the Keeling curve does represent a threat for them. I think that the reason is simple: These people face lot of other threats in their daily life and perceive them much more relevant for them and their families than the threats that can be linked to global warming.
In this respect, I am afraid that solutions for anthropogenic global warming are hardly separable from solutions for other problems that the people face and perceive as relevant for them.
Furthermore, I think that activists painting anthropogenic global warming as the most relevant or only relevant issue of the contemporary world must necessarily evoke at least certain untrust, if not direct denial, in people who must cope with problems like deterioration of their social status or with even more basic threats, like e.g. a war inflicted to their country.
Finally, I am afraid that the credibility of the released warnings is strongly undermined if they are further spread by activists and/or media interpreting the still quite blurred picture of the anthropogenic global warming as something what is crystal clear and certain. I mentioned herein the official report Avex 4/2020of Czech Academy of Sciences, specifically designed and released to explain the anthropogenic global warming to the public. In a public debate about this report, its authors asserted that latent heat flux from Earth surface cannot play any role in global mean surface temperature regulation, because it would have allegedly broken the first law of thermodynamics. With such an advocacy, climate science does not need enemies.
Greetings
Tomáš
I have followed reports on climate change since the turn of the century. I became aware of climate change before that, through observation and listening to the reports of people who had lived all their lives in the areas I was fortunate to visit during my work-life. I never really expected meaningful actions to originate from our governments or business interests, though it is often difficult to distinguish one from the other. I am little surprised that the COP meetings accomplish little. I no longer pay as much attention to the IPCC reports and announcements as I once did. I believe the IPCC has proven much too open to representatives from the fossil fuel industry. Most of all, I have been disappointed by the inability of climate scientists to explain climate change to the public including myself.
It took me a while to understand the Charney CO2 sensitivity concept. Once I thought I understood it, I was displeased by the way its efforts at simplification complicated rather than clarified my efforts at understanding it. I have some training in systems analysis, both in theory and as practiced in aerospace design. The Charney CO2 sensitivity oversimplified climate change to the point that it obscured too much. Climate models focus on linearity, other than their sometimes references to “tipping points” where some threshold is exceeded. I believe the common perception of climate change views it as a slow linear shift of planting zones to higher latitudes. Many of the “tipping points” are not known and too much of that uncertainty is lost from the climate patter. The Charney CO2 sensitivity ignores the slow effects that arrive at a less sanguine CO2 sensitivity that darkens the expected future for the 22nd Century and beyond. The growing non-linearity of the climate response to CO2 levels and to the myriad other green-house gases leaves IPCC pronouncements wide-open to disparagement as climate worsens faster and more than predicted. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is definitely a prime cause for the climate change … but I believe the efforts at “s simplification” left the explanation of climate change too open to the claim of deniers that CO2 levels resulted from but did not cause climate change in the past. It was unconscionable for climate scientists to leave such detail from their explanations for simplification. I prefer Hansen’s likening the atmospheric CO2 level to the climate’s thermostat setting. True, CO2 levels rose in the past due to other causes, but playing with the thermostat directly, can achieve similar effects. That is not a concept too complex for us poor laymen to grasp — but left to explanation as a response — greatly weakens the climate argument. The notion that us poor laymen cannot grasp non-linearity might have been easily dispelled by referencing a few YouTube videos of nonlinear pendulums and contemplation of the complexities of weather prediction. I believe us laymen are not stupid — just trained in other disciplines, and generally dismissed and distrusted — whatever opinions we might express..
The inability of scientists to understand another problem in with dealing with the public appalls me. No one really wants to understand or believe the implications of climate change or the changes it will bring and brings already. Discrepancies between the realities of climate change and ‘happy-face’ predictions and over-simplified models only serve to undermine the credibility of climate science. Fossil fuel interests and deniers are all too happy to exploit even the smallest gaps between prediction and actuality.
I am pessimistic about the future. Nothing will be done by our ‘elites’ and us ‘plebs’ will be confused, stupefied, and us powerless plebs can do little or nothing [other than on a personal level] to change the progressing climate change. or adapt to its consequences. All the same, I very greatly appreciate the knowledge and understanding this website and others have brought to me in grasping climate science. I accept their pronouncements and I am taking such actions as I can to adapt to what I have learned. I believe Humankind will suffer through the climate change transition. I also believe that Humankind will find a way forward, and I hope that path does not exclude the great learning and Knowledge acquired in these few centuries of the ‘Age of Fossil Fuels’. That learning could be a beacon for the future of Humankind.
Jeremy Grimm fantastic comment. Thanks for sharing all of it.
I thank to all the scientists at realclimate, and best wishes for the coming decdes.
sidd
Well I suppose we should be grateful and thankful that at least you are still trying after 20 years of failures Rasmus. Unfortunately I have been led to read yet another self-serving oped commentary by a climate scientist imagining that the entire universe revolves around them and their own insular and extremely misguided and uninformed point of view.
The things said here especially those that are not true has made me so angry and exasperatingly disappointed that it is taking every ounce of self-control I can muster to not go incendiary. When I calm down I will address the multiple errors, untrue observations and faulty thinking included in this article.
Until then please try to instead think outside the myopic box of climate science pronouncements and consider the bigger picture involved. Example is no where does Rasmus address the implications of Economics or Consumerism or the Financial Systems as being drivers of climate change and global warming.
————————————-
About the issues raised by Operationalizing Climate Science 17 Nov 2024 by Gavin — and now Rasmus.
The work of climate modelling scientists might be seen as esoteric if it focuses on niche technical issues rather than addressing the broader, pressing problems of climate change. The issue as presented suggests to me a narrow or inward-looking focus, isolated from broader concerns. Focused inwardly means it’s relevant only within the specific group or discipline. In other words Myopic, Self-referential and Insular and not of much public interest and which is of little to no usefulness in addressing the true causes of climate change and global warming – nor communicating about same effectively to the public.
While obviously relevant to the work activities of modelling scientists I think this issue is ‘a curiosity’, even though it still points in the general direction of the underlying more important issues in need of urgent attention — ie if anything can ever really be done to address the global warming and other critical ecological problems and sustainability issues humanity faces.
A lack of Operational Data and Science Analysis is in fact not the barrier to effective environmental actions or addressing energy use across the world. It’s Leadership and Governance – or rather a lack of them.
Summary of My General Thoughts
I have often and for a long time now expressed my significant frustration with the perceived lack of overarching authority or governance in the global climate science and policy landscape. My view suggests that the current system is highly fragmented, with critical activities—such as the provision and analysis of climate data—operating without unified leadership or accountability. I argue that:
1. Leaderless Coordination: Organizations like the IPCC and others fail to provide the strong leadership needed to manage these disparate activities effectively. There is no single authority with the legal or societal mandate to ensure cohesive direction.
2. Self-Governance by Scientists: Climate scientists, while experts in their field, often operate independently, making decisions and setting priorities without external oversight, democratic input, or societal checks.
3. Dysfunction in Global Climate Policy: Bodies like the IPCC and UNFCCC are seen as engaging in self-serving or insular processes that do not adequately address the real-world urgency of climate action, leaving global responses fragmented and ineffective.
4. Questioning Existing Frameworks: I question whether institutions like the IPCC, UNFCCC, and the annual COP meetings are still “fit for purpose” in addressing the existential threat posed by climate change.
Expert Commentary and Public Discourse on the Issue
1. Decentralized Climate Governance:
Many experts agree that global climate governance suffers from fragmentation. For instance, researchers in international relations have critiqued the UNFCCC’s inability to enforce binding commitments from its member states, leading to a patchwork of voluntary and inconsistent efforts.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a prominent climate scientist, has noted that while the IPCC provides an invaluable synthesis of science, it lacks mechanisms to compel governments to act on its findings.
2. Criticism of the IPCC and COP Processes:
Scholars like Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and Dr. William Nordhaus have questioned whether the IPCC’s structure—focusing on consensus rather than actionable policy guidance—is suitable for urgent climate crises.
Critics of the annual COP meetings, including activists like Greta Thunberg, have described these gatherings as “performative” or a “talking shop” that results in little substantive progress.
3. Calls for New Models of Leadership:
Some experts advocate for a centralized global climate authority, akin to the World Health Organization, that could coordinate efforts, enforce commitments, and manage funding. For example, the economist Jeffrey Sachs has proposed a UN-led “Climate Agency” with enforcement capabilities.
Others emphasize the need for regional and national integration, suggesting that coalitions of willing nations or blocs could lead by example.
And-
4. Operationalizing Climate Science:
Gavin Schmidt, the NASA scientist behind the Real Climate blog referenced, has argued for greater integration of scientific operations into decision-making processes, but he acknowledges the challenge of aligning data providers, governments, and policymakers under one framework.
More specifically–If the following is not adequately addressed, whatever the Climate Modelling Scientists like Gavin do with their time and resources is irrelevant–moot.
Is the IPCC Still Fit for Purpose?
The IPCC has been vital in summarizing and disseminating climate science, but its limitations include:
– Consensus Focus: The need for unanimous agreement often dilutes urgent or controversial recommendations.
– Lack of Enforceability: The IPCC issues reports but does not have authority to enforce actions based on its findings.
– Lag in Responsiveness: Its long report cycles mean it cannot address rapidly changing climate challenges with agility.
These issues have led some critics to argue that the IPCC is increasingly obsolete in a world that requires faster, more actionable responses.
Are the UNFCCC and COP Meetings Still Fit for Purpose?
Critiques of the UNFCCC and COP processes center on:
– Lack of Binding Mechanisms: The Paris Agreement relies on voluntary national commitments, which are often insufficient and inconsistently implemented.
– Overemphasis on Negotiation: Annual COPs often focus on political posturing rather than delivering concrete action plans.
– Exclusion of Key Voices: Indigenous groups, youth activists, and developing nations frequently criticize the process for prioritizing the interests of wealthier, more powerful countries.
– Questions abound about the usefulness and accuracy of today’s Economic norms and systems
Some have proposed alternatives, such as regional climate pacts or sector-specific agreements (e.g., for energy or agriculture), as more pragmatic and effective solutions.
Recommendations for a Better Framework
1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.
2. Move from Consensus to Leadership: Shift away from consensus-driven approaches to allow bold leadership by coalitions of willing nations or regions.
3. Integrate Science and Policy: Operationalize climate science by embedding experts directly within decision-making frameworks at all levels of governance.
4. Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Require transparent reporting, enforce penalties for non-compliance, and involve civil society in monitoring.
This critique aligns with these growing calls for urgent reform, emphasizing that the current frameworks are inadequate for addressing the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.
D: The things said here especially those that are not true has made me so angry and exasperatingly disappointed that it is taking every ounce of self-control I can muster to not go incendiary.
BPL: Post a few more 20-30 paragraph posts. You’ll feel better.
“BPL: Post a few more 20-30 paragraph posts. You’ll feel better.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! :)
Dharma: “1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.”
Not going to happen for the USA. We do not allow external entities to dictate policy within the USA. We fought a war against England so we don’t have to do that. However, what happened to the Paris agreement – why don’t those who signed on to it, do what it says?
Dharma: “…..no where does Rasmus address the implications of Economics or Consumerism or the Financial Systems as being drivers of climate change and global warming.”
The drivers are GHGs, not economics, consumerism or the financial systems. If AGW is real, then it is a physics problem, not a political problem.
Reply to Mr. Know It All
Thank you for your response:
RE: Dharma: “1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.”
Mr. Know It All: Not going to happen for the USA. We do not allow external entities to dictate policy within the USA. We fought a war against England so we don’t have to do that. However, what happened to the Paris agreement – why don’t those who signed on to it, do what it says?
Dharma responds: Regarding the Paris Agreement (not a Treaty) those who signed on to it, are doing what it says. The problem Mr. Know It All is the Paris Agreement does not say much that can impact anything regarding GHG emissions or anything else. It is a “bad” agreement that solves nothing (as per my comments above explained)
And even if it did the Paris Agreement has no enforcement powers to compel nation states to abide by it or take any specific actions to minimise harm to the rest of the world as a whole. Unlike many other UN/International Law or Treaty Agreements such as those related to War and Nuclear Weapons and so on.
Now as to your misinformation and/or lack of true knowledge about US Law Mr. Know It All -Under the U.S. Constitution, international institutions and treaties can influence U.S. law to a degree, but the Constitution maintains sovereignty and ultimate authority. Here are several examples where international treaties or agreements impact U.S. law and policy:
1. Treaty Law and the Supremacy Clause
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that treaties made under the authority of the United States are the “supreme Law of the Land.” This means that treaties can override state laws and, in some cases, influence federal law. Examples include:
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: This treaty requires countries to inform foreign nationals of their right to consular access if detained. The U.S. has been taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for not fully implementing this, as in the Avena Case involving Mexico. Some states resisted compliance, prompting debates about federal versus international obligations.
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): Implemented through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, this treaty prohibits the production and use of chemical weapons. In Bond v. United States (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that treaty enforcement could not unduly expand federal authority into traditionally state-controlled areas.
2. World Trade Organization (WTO)
As a member of the WTO, the U.S. agrees to abide by its trade rules and dispute resolution mechanisms. While the WTO cannot directly enforce its rulings, its decisions can pressure U.S. policymakers to change laws or face retaliatory trade measures. For example:
Steel Tariffs Case (2002): The WTO ruled that U.S. tariffs on steel imports violated international trade rules. This led to the U.S. removing the tariffs to avoid significant trade retaliation.
3. Paris Climate Agreement
Though the Paris Agreement is not a treaty ratified by the Senate, the U.S. joined under executive authority. It influenced domestic policy by encouraging regulations to reduce carbon emissions, such as the Clean Power Plan. Critics argued that it effectively allowed international climate goals to shape U.S. energy policy.
4. United Nations (UN)
UN resolutions are not binding law in the U.S. but can influence policy when the U.S. agrees to their terms, such as:
UN Security Council Resolutions on Sanctions: These resolutions often lead to U.S. domestic laws or executive orders imposing sanctions on nations like Iran or North Korea. For example, the Iran Sanctions Act incorporates aspects of UN resolutions.
5. The Hague and Geneva Conventions
These treaties establish rules of war and human rights that the U.S. has incorporated into its legal framework. Violations can lead to international scrutiny or legal challenges:
Torture Prohibition: The United Nations Convention Against Torture influenced the creation of U.S. laws banning torture. Post-9/11 policies, such as those involving enhanced interrogation, sparked debates about compliance with this treaty.
6. International Criminal Court (ICC)
While the U.S. is not a member of the ICC, the court’s actions can affect U.S. citizens and policymakers when operating abroad. The ICC claims jurisdiction over war crimes, even in non-member states, if the crime occurs in a member state’s territory.
7. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
This domestic law implements a treaty with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia to protect migratory birds. It has led to regulatory measures that limit private land use and industry activities, demonstrating how treaty obligations shape U.S. environmental policy.
8. International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Conditionality
While the IMF and World Bank do not directly impose U.S. law, their lending conditions and global financial policies influence U.S. economic decisions. For example:
U.S. financial contributions and voting power within these institutions shape how they operate, but in return, the U.S. often aligns domestic economic policies with global financial stability norms.
Key Limits and Controversies
While international treaties and agreements influence U.S. law and policy, they must still comply with the Constitution. In Medellín v. Texas (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that international treaties are not self-executing in U.S. law unless Congress enacts implementing legislation.
And of course, history proves that the US is a rogue nation who has the means to ignore any or all of international unilaterally at any time, and to selectively choose what it cares about rejecting anything on a whim to suit itself.
Therefore the entire notion is moot at this point in time, as was everything suggested as potential alternative approaches I presented above, and those by others equally rejected over the decades. And so, here we are. Doing nothing substantial or effective and heading for general collapse and destruction instead.
Lastly – Mr. Know It All : The drivers are GHGs, not economics, consumerism or the financial systems. If AGW is real, then it is a physics problem, not a political problem.
Mr. Know It All,
You’re not wrong to highlight GHGs as the direct drivers of global warming—they are the ‘physics problem’ at the heart of describing the scientific problem at hand. However, the analogy of ‘what drives the car’ might help unpack the relationship between the symptoms (GHGs) and the underlying systems that generate them.
GHGs don’t just appear out of nowhere—they are the byproducts of human activities, which are, in turn, shaped by economic, consumer, and financial systems. These systems determine how much energy we consume, what sources we rely on, and how industries and nations prioritize short-term growth over long-term sustainability. In other words:
– The engine of the problem is economics, driving the scale and type of resource exploitation.
– The gasoline is consumerism, fueling demand for energy-intensive goods and services.
– And the driver? That’s us—guided by financial systems and policies that often incentivize unsustainable practices over renewable alternatives or massive reductions of wasteful unnecessary material consumption and ignoring the destructive outcomes on our collective life support system of Earth’s ecosystems and environmental diversity.
Physics may explain how GHGs cause warming, but economics and consumer behavior explain why they’re emitted in the first place. Addressing AGW without exploring these systemic factors is like trying to fix a car by focusing only on the exhaust fumes, ignoring the driver’s role and the fuel being used.
Mr. Know It All, you appear to be making the very same mistake that many climate scientists, economists, and pro-climate activists make when trying to stop global warming. You’re stuck in the Chicken or Egg Dilemma and cannot see your way out of this circular thinking.
Nice chatting. Let’s do it again soon. :-)
BPL: Post a few more 20-30 paragraph posts. You’ll feel better.
Dharma: OK thanks for the ‘tip’. I will. When I’m ready. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life. No one cares what your opinion is either.
Dharmas comments
“Example is no where does Rasmus address the implications of Economics or Consumerism or the Financial Systems as being drivers of climate change and global warming.”
IMO its not a climate scientists job to do that task. They would not have the expertise. Its an issue related to economics and the other social sciences. I seem to recall you suggesting elsewhere climate scientists strick to the science :) Maybe the website could get in a guest author or something.
“– Lack of Enforceability: The IPCC issues reports but does not have authority to enforce actions based on its findings.”
Yes I think people have noticed that thanks. And its incredibly unlikely to change in the next 50 years if ever. Which is why I dont waste time on the issue.
Reply to Nigelj:
“Maybe the website could get in a guest author or something.”
Why? What difference would it make to you or anyone else here? They haven’t done it in 20 years, so why start now? Besides, any genuine voice advocating meaningful climate action would only face the same myopic pushback you and others consistently dish out.
Your typical passive-aggressive doomer stance—‘nothing can be done, so let’s not even mention it’—is a constant refrain here. It effectively stifles constructive discussion and leaves no room for exploring solutions or deeper truths.
That said, the website already has me, Geoff, Don, and occasionally others dropping in to pass on the hard realities—the ones so often denied or minimized here and in similar spaces. For those interested in diving deeper, consider this:
Collapse Chronicle https://collapsechronicle.substack.com/ or any of the countless references I and other like-minded, better-informed rational knowledgeable contributors have shared over time.
You’re more than welcome. :-)
Dharma
“Besides, any genuine voice advocating meaningful climate action would only face the same myopic pushback you and others consistently dish out.”
I disagree. I support the mainstream approach of renewables and electrified transport and moderate reductions of energy use. That is definitely meaningful climate action. You have supported renewables in your recent comments so I dont see how you can disagree.
I oppose huge, rapid programmes of degrowth, energy use reduction, and simplification, because it would almost certainly cause the economy to collapse very badly, and is very unlikely to be adopted. I think that is very valid pushback.
I feel that socialism at scale is not workable based on history and human nature. But if you support socialism fair enough and all power to you.
“Your typical passive-aggressive doomer stance—‘nothing can be done, so let’s not even mention it’—is a constant refrain here. It effectively stifles constructive discussion and leaves no room for exploring solutions or deeper truths.”
I dont know where you get that from about not mentioning things. I have no opposition to DISCUSSING degowth ideas and socialism etcetera. it was me who suggested the website should have a page like forced responses for discussing all possible mitigation solutions. I made one comment about it not being worth my time considering the idea that the IPCC have enforcement powers. This is just one speciific issue and was a bit of cynacism on my part. It should not be taken to mean that I felt other solutions are not worthy of discussion.
“That said, the website already has me, Geoff, Don, and occasionally others dropping in to pass on the hard realities—the ones so often denied or minimized here and in similar spaces.”
I largely agree with Geoff Miels take on the science, warming trends and mitigation, but some of his statements on warming trends sounded wrong to me and other commentators, and I don’t think that should be ignored simply because we are generally on the same page. I think Geoff would understand that. Its a case of avoiding group think. Likewise I get where you are coming from on the issues. Dont take criticism personally.
A Response to Rasmus’s “Twenty Years of Blogging in Hindsight”
Rasmus, while it’s commendable that RealClimate has persisted for 20 years, your retrospective raises more concerns than celebrations. You highlight the failures of climate communication, the rising CO₂ levels, and the proliferation of misinformation, but your analysis seems narrowly confined to the scientific echo chamber and misses crucial systemic issues. Nate Hagens provides a great in-depth resources about those systemic issues – see https://www.thegreatsimplification.com – far better than I could ever articulate.
Let me outline some key points of contention:
1. Misplaced Responsibility
You mention that the message of climate science hasn’t reached key decision-makers like CEOs of fossil fuel companies, OPEC leaders, or politicians.
That is false claim to make. They know exactly what the message of climate science via climate scientists, the IPCC is. They are not stupid nor deaf and blind. They have not been living under a rock. They know exactly what the claims of climate scientists are and the kinds of things you present as supposedly “solutions” or “actions” to fix the problem. Fact is that ‘message’ does not solve anything.
Plus, energy companies are not legally or morally responsible for how fossil fuels are used—humanity as a collective is. Fossil fuels were and remain integral to modern life, powering economies, providing livelihoods, and enabling technological progress. Blaming energy companies alone oversimplifies the problem and perpetuates a dangerous myth: that these entities alone hold the key to solving climate change. They don’t.
Governments, regulatory bodies, and the very structures of global economics and consumerism are the real drivers. Without addressing consumption patterns, economic growth models, and the incentives that perpetuate fossil fuel dependency, no amount of CO₂ data graphs or attribution studies will bend the Keeling curve.
2. Overreliance on Communication Tools
You lament the “bad habit” of speaking in “code language” and suggest AI tools and social media platforms like BlueSky as solutions. This misses the forest for the trees. The failure isn’t in translation; it’s in the inability of climate science to integrate with broader disciplines like economics, sociology, and political science. The failure is climate scientist own choices of deploying bad language, bad rhetoric and bad arguments and presenting ineffective non-solutions that can never work as such.
Social media is not a solution—it’s a distraction. Platforms like BlueSky or Mastodon will not alter the trajectory of global emissions. No more than starting another Climate Science Blog will. Focusing on better communication ignores the more significant issue: systemic change requires political will, enforceable legal frameworks, and economic restructuring. Writing posts on BlueSky and here won’t achieve that.
3. Lack of Interdisciplinary Focus
Your article perpetuates the insular nature of climate science. You talk about “attribution studies” and “the hydrological cycle” but fail to mention fundamental issues like global economic systems, consumerism, and financial incentives driving the relentless exploitation of fossil fuels. Climate scientists alone don’t—and can’t—offer solutions to these problems. They should instead serve as advisors, providing evidence and analysis to legally empowered entities capable of making enforceable changes.
What’s missing is a call for an international body—an enforceable Climate Agency with the legal authority to regulate emissions, oversee compliance, and impose penalties for violations. Without this, the IPCC, NASA, and similar organizations are limited to issuing reports that end up being ignored at COP after COP.
4. The Irony of COP Failures
You correctly observe the “sad irony” that emissions increase after each climate summit. What’s missing is an acknowledgment of why these summits fail: they lack binding legal frameworks, mechanisms for enforcement, and accountability for non-compliance. Until these elements are addressed, no amount of public awareness or “climate literacy” campaigns will move the needle. It’s not a strange coincidence – the failure is as clear as the effect of gravity to us.
5. A Call for Focus and Responsibility
If RealClimate is to continue its work more effectively, it needs a shift in focus. The role of climate scientists is not to “fix” climate change but to provide the data and analysis that decision-makers—governments, courts, and international regulatory bodies—can use to enforce meaningful action.
The idea that better messaging or social media presence will drive change is a fallacy. What we need is:
Binding international agreements with enforcement mechanisms.
Economic restructuring to decouple growth from emissions.
Public policies that incentivize renewable energy adoption and penalize excessive emissions.
Consumer behavior changes driven by systemic reforms, not guilt-inducing campaigns.
An end to the self-defeating notions by radical climate scientists/activists like “Climate Wars” when we are all – all of humanity – in this together!
You cannot just pretend that 50% of the voting public in the United States (for example) do not exist and have not rights and no say in how climate change is addressed.
Final Thoughts
After 20 years, it seems RealClimate’s focus hasn’t evolved beyond basic public awareness and serving a very small narrow group of regulars. While this is a necessary foundation, it’s insufficient on its own. I urge you and your colleagues to think bigger and engage with broader interdisciplinary solutions. Climate change isn’t just a scientific issue—it’s a political, economic, and social one.
Instead of focusing on how to better “talk to” the public, perhaps it’s time to advocate for the creation of legally empowered global climate institutions capable of enforcing the changes we so desperately need.
Instead of focusing on complaints about some quarters like Energy Corporations, elite CEOs, Economists, Social Scientists, and Politicians, and Governments and the Public “not listening to you, or hearing you”, perhaps it’s time to advocate for Climate Scientists, the IPCC and Science institutions to start listening to them and actually hearing what it is they are saying and why they say it?
And instead stop providing false unachievable impractical theoretical non-solutions like Net Zero and 1.5C and CDR and BECCS and SRM programs. Stop arguing against Nuclear energy options! Stop criticising and belittling the public on social media who are genuinely concerned about collapse scenarios , limits to growth, the greater threats like nuclear war and major ecological destruction. And stop criticising and belittling those in our communities who have already lost faith and trust in Governments, political parties, the media and scientific institutions. Their scepticism, cynicism and rejection is justifiable and reasonable!
Or simply get out the way of solutions being found?
While scientific advancements and policy shifts are vital, real change begins with acknowledging the paradox of pursuing development at the planet’s expense and addressing the systemic barriers to adopting clean, efficient technologies. This is as much about aligning priorities and making informed choices as it is about technological innovation or scientific expertise.
One does not need to be a climate scientist to understand what needs to be done to address the causes of climate change and global warming. The solutions are often rooted in common sense and basic principles of sustainability: reducing dependency on fossil fuels, transitioning to cleaner energy sources, protecting natural ecosystems, and curbing wasteful consumption.
But before any of those can be acted on we need good leadership and governance based upon shared values, rising above blame and fault finding, real honesty and ethical principles.
Life on Earth relies on delicate interconnections, from insects to microbes. If these were wiped out, life on the planet would soon collapse. Ironically, if humans disappeared, the planet would thrive. This is the perspective we need: climate change threatens our existence, not the Earth’s.
It’s our collective responsibility to act. This is not some definable human error only a few have perpetrated against the whole of humanity. This crisis is of all our own making. And the crisis we talk about isn’t the planet’s—it’s a crisis for human survival.
This is what I have learned from 30 years being engaged in these issues.
Dharma, not saying you are wrong, but I have a certain reaction to one of the action plans you listed as follows:
“Binding international agreements with enforcement mechanisms.”
This is desirable, however we ended up with the Paris Accords a voluntary system because nobody would agree on binding agreements. So whats your plan to change this?
“Economic restructuring to decouple growth from emissions.”
What does this mean? Whats your plan? If you are meaning adopting zero economic growth, or degrowth, how would you convince people to embrace zero economic growth or degrowth (negative growth) when people know it could mean they loose their job and house? Im not saying endless economic growth is desirable or it can go on forever, (it obviously cant) but the ship we are all sailing on has a certain intertia and is hard to stop, because if it stops it gets unstable. And changing ships mid stream is a task that is very difficult at best.
“Public policies that incentivize renewable energy adoption and penalize excessive emissions.”
Agreed but we already have those: Subsidies, cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes depending on the country or region. They are not strong enough for reasons I explained elsewhere. We should of course do all we can to convince our leaders to strengthen them, as well as make what changes we can in our personal lives to reduce carbon footprints. We clearly need both government action and personal action, because either alone are insufficient.
“Consumer behavior changes driven by systemic reforms, not guilt-inducing campaigns.”
Guilt is not helpful, but define systemic reforms in detail. What does it mean and what is the plan?
“An end to the self-defeating notions by radical climate scientists/activists like “Climate Wars” when we are all – all of humanity – in this together!”
There are climate wars going on just as there are culture wars going on. We cant ignore that reality or sugar coat it. While as a general rule I prefer to treat people like climate denialists in a polite and civil way sometimes they need to be called out for talking like idiots. Just occasionally of course or the word loses its power.
Reply to Nigelj applies to both comments:
In a recent article, The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth, some of the world’s leading climate scientists lay it out.
“We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis . . . For half a century, global warming has been correctly predicted even before it was observed—and not only by independent academic scientists but also by fossil fuel companies.
“Despite these warnings, we are still moving in the wrong direction; fossil fuel emissions have increased to an all-time high, the 3 hottest days ever occurred in July of 2024, and current policies have us on track for approximately 2.7 degrees Celsius peak warming by 2100.
“Tragically, we are failing to avoid serious impacts, and we can now only hope to limit the extent of the damage. We are witnessing the grim reality of the forecasts as climate impacts escalate, bringing forth scenes of unprecedented disasters around the world and human and nonhuman suffering. We find ourselves amid an abrupt climate upheaval, a dire situation never before encountered in the annals of human existence. We have now brought the planet into climatic conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives within our genus . . . “
The scientists spell out the gory details, illustrating our global wrong way direction.
“Fossil fuel consumption rose by 1.5% in 2023 relative to 2022, mostly because of substantial increases in coal consumption (1.6%) and oil consumption (2.5%).”
“Global tree cover loss rose from 22.8 megahectares (Mha) per year in 2022 to 28.3 Mha per year in 2023, reaching its third-highest level; this was at least partly because of wildfires, which caused tree cover loss to reach a record high of 11.9 Mha.”
“Annual energy-related emissions increased 2.1% in 2023, and are now above 40 gigatons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent for the first time . . . the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are at record highs. . . Carbon dioxide levels were recently observed to be surging . . . Furthermore, the growth rate of methane emissions has been accelerating, which is very troubling . . . Nitrous oxide is also at a record high; annual anthropogenic emissions of this potent long-lived greenhouse gas have increased by roughly 40% from 1980 to 2020.”
“Surface temperature is at a record high, and 2024 is expected to be one of the hottest years ever recorded. Each 0.1°C of global warming places an extra 100 million people (or more) into unprecedented hot average temperatures.”
To the credit of this group, led by William Ripple of Oregon State University, they place the situation in the overall context of ecological overshoot.
“Global heating, although it is catastrophic, is merely one aspect of a profound polycrisis that includes environmental degradation, rising economic inequality, and biodiversity loss. Climate change is a glaring symptom of a deeper systemic issue: ecological overshoot, where human consumption outpaces the Earth’s ability to regenerate. Overshoot is an inherently unstable state that cannot persist indefinitely. As pressures increase and the risk of Earth’s climate system switching to a catastrophic state rises. more and more scientists have begun to research the possibility of societal collapse.”
“In a world with finite resources, unlimited growth is a perilous illusion. We need bold, transformative change: drastically reducing overconsumption and waste, especially by the affluent, stabilizing and gradually reducing the human population through empowering education and rights for girls and women, reforming food production systems to support more plant-based eating, and adopting an ecological and post-growth economics framework that ensures social justice.”
Will the world listen?
The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth
William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Jillian W Gregg, Johan Rockström, Michael E Mann, Naomi Oreskes, Timothy M Lenton, Stefan Rahmstorf, Thomas M Newsome, Chi Xu …
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae087/7808595
Make your own choices Nigelj for you will be held accountable for them, as will everyone else.
I am not going to hold your hand like you are a child. Work it out for yourself what it all means
Dharma, your response fails addresses the points I made, it doesnt even attempt to answer any of my questions, or clarify any of the terms you used. So it was a deflection and a complete waste of time and space.
and Stefan Rahmstorf
While Gavin Schmidt says: “You shouldn’t ask scientists how to galvanize the world because clearly we don’t have a fucking clue.”
Nigelj, ley me say it like the dude in the movie No Country for Old Men said to the gas station attendant: “Call it!”
Thank you all for running the blog. A source of useful information, perspectives from the people actually moving the climate science forward, and invaluable help in making sense of recent literature and data for people like me.
Initial feedback —
Thanks for the reminder. I also started my blog >20 years ago, and passed by the anniversary w/o a 2nd thought. So I just wrote a complementary hindsight blog post => https://geoenergymath.com/2024/11/24/20yrs-of-blogging-in-hindsight.
Definitely a mirror universe we inhabit, which is why I keep reading and engaged.
@rasmus;
…such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), and we can now use chatGPT to respond to emails from climate deniers which was science fiction in 2004. AI is also currently revolutionising weather forecasting
while using exorbitant amounts of energy to run it, such great “revolution” when its responsible for restarting coal-plants to fulfil the energy-demand it needs. and please, can we at least stop calling it “ai”, because its not “Artificial Intelligence”. at best its SAI (Simulated Artificial Intelligence).
Your sentence: “It strikes me that we still have a bad habit of speaking in a code language with confusing phrases and terminology that is only familiar for those already familiar with climate science and who already are persuaded” strikes at the core of our problem.
Reading through IPCC materials — even the summaries for policy makers — is often like wading through a treacle of jargon and probabilities. Why is this the case? I have non-exclusive hypotheses: 1) Writing by committee seldom ends well; 2) In an effort to leach their reports of all emotional content, the IPCC end sup writing materials that utterly fail to acknowledge that someone has to read this stuff; 3) A failure to rigorously reframe reports so that they are written in plain language (much the same could be said for a lot of climate graphics as well); and 4) the IPCC’s well-known bias to more conservative projections.
Speaking to #3, government bureaucracies around the world have committed to “Plain Language” communications — that is, language that is as jargon-free as possible and which communicates complex materials with the average reader in mind. However, it’s been my experience (as a regular user of Government of Canada materials) that the writers and editors of these communications haven’t received the memo. The language is as opaque and convoluted as ever.
Perhaps it’s time that all IPCC committee members and writers received mandatory training in plain language communications
ANY discipline or trade has its unique language (jargon if you will ) because it deals with complex details /important distinctions that the layman does not understand. Look at a medical textbook or a soldier’s field manual. Scientists are adverse to making definite statements if the evidence suggests only 90 percent probability that the statement is true. Ask NASA about this year’s hurricane prediction.
to Don Williams and Andrew Park and everyone else:
COMPARE WHAT FOLLOWS WITH THIS SOURCE TEXT HERE –
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis
Summary for Policymakers
Section C. Climate Information for Risk Assessment and Regional Adaptation https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
Understanding Climate Risks and Regional Changes
The climate is changing because of human activities, natural processes, and random variations in weather patterns. Scientists study these changes to predict what might happen in the future and to help communities prepare for risks like floods, droughts, and extreme weather. They use data from weather observations, computer models, and other tools to provide detailed information about global, regional, and local climates.
What Happens as the Planet Warms?
As global temperatures rise, every region will experience more extreme weather events. These changes will be more intense at 2°C warming compared to 1.5°C, and even worse at higher temperatures. Here’s a breakdown of what to expect:
Hotter Days, Less Ice:
All regions will get hotter, and cold-related events (like freezing temperatures or heavy snow) will happen less often.
Ice, including permafrost, glaciers, and Arctic sea ice, will shrink even more as temperatures climb.
Extreme heat, which affects farming and human health, will become more common.
More Rain and Flooding:
Heavy rainfall and flooding are expected to become more frequent in many parts of Africa, Asia, North America, and Europe, especially as we move from 1.5°C to 2°C warming.
However, some areas will also see more droughts that could harm crops and ecosystems.
Droughts and Dry Spells:
Droughts will become worse in certain areas, especially in Africa, South America, Europe, and Australia.
Some regions will experience more dry periods or shifts in average rainfall patterns.
Stronger Storms:
At higher temperatures, tropical cyclones and other powerful storms are likely to become stronger and more damaging in some regions.
River flooding and fire risks will also increase in many places.
Rising Seas:
Sea levels are expected to keep rising almost everywhere, causing more frequent coastal flooding and erosion.
What used to be rare, like a major coastal flood happening once every 100 years, could happen yearly by 2100.
Cities Face Unique Risks:
Urban areas tend to trap heat, making heatwaves worse. More buildings and pavement also lead to heavier rainfall and flooding.
Coastal cities are at even higher risk due to a combination of rising seas, storm surges, and extreme rain.
Compound Events:
Heatwaves and droughts will happen together more often, creating even bigger challenges for agriculture and water supplies.
Extreme weather in multiple parts of the world at the same time will become more common, which could disrupt food production and global trade.
What Does This Mean?
The more the planet warms, the bigger the risks we face. These changes are not just numbers—they affect our daily lives, economies, and safety. Communities will need to adapt to these challenges, and reducing global warming can help limit the worst impacts.
[ END NOTE: It isn’t rocket science! ]
a clarification – Understanding Climate Risks and Regional Changes
(the Edited Section was C.2)
1) Thanks very much for the blog and the information.
2) Something I would be interested in is information that is actionable or useful. What bad weather events are parts of the USA likely to experience in the coming decades and when. What are the likely consequences –e.g, on house values. What areas of the USA (or Canada? or elswhere?) are likely to be more safe. What events and or material needs are likely to spur war or Volkerwanderungs among nations. What investments are likely to rise or fall. What materials would a family find useful –e.g, maize varieties with greater genetic diversity/better adapted to variable weather for home gardens. What actions by our politicians /elites are helping or hurting mitigation/adaptation.
3) Models are not evidence. What physical evidence is there that shows climate change is beginning to happen. What anomalies are there –e.g Jeff Bezos building a $270 million mansion on Indian Island in Miami– 5? feet above sea level.
4) What actions are billionaires with inside knowledge taking to survive climate change.– e.g, Pierre Omidyar’s land purchases.
3) Make realclimate real.
DW: Models are not evidence. What physical evidence is there that shows climate change is beginning to happen.
BPL: Thermometer readings dating back to 1850, ocean buoy temperatures, borehole temperatures, balloon radiosonde temperatures, satellite temperature estimates, tree lines moving toward the poles and up mountains, melting glaciers and sea ice, the eggs of fish, insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds hatching earlier, plants flowering earlier, sea level rising… and many others. I can’t remember them all offhand, but a Google search would probably help.
Don Williams, many of the answers are in the the latest IPCC reports. They are available for free online. Refer:
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
Your huge list of questions sounds a bit like “sea lioning”. Not a good look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
1) My questions were not sealioning –they were sincere. I think the average US voter does not care about the turgid IPCC reports and certainly are not interested in wading through them. It would be more useful to point to actual things they can see I noted in a comment a few days ago the shrinkage of Arctic ice –although that requires someone to assume our intel guys weren’t lying about 1960 photos in order to suck up to VP Al Gore during a period of massive budget cuts. However, there is also the shrinkage of glaciers Why not have a FAQ here listing other physical signs that ordinary people can see and that do require a blind faith in academic integrity.
2) Similarly, you need to show US voters that the dangers they themselves will face are increasing –and we have always had hurricanes, floods and droughts. The people also look for actions –not mere words — as a sign of sincerity. Our elites have access to inside knowledge by virtue of their wealth and campaign donations If their actions show a lack of concern for climate change that gets noticed. As do actions to raid the US Treasury Conversely, actions to evade climate change dangers shows real concern. Elon Musk says we should buy his electric cars. But why did he move to Texas instead of Minnesota?
Thank you, Rasmus, Gavin, Stefan, Mike and Eric, and David Archer, Ray Bradley, et al. historical contributors along wih occasional guest authors, for providing a dependable platform for comprehensive non-experts like me to educate ourselves. While I first heard of AGW in 1988 while employed in tech support for the Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics at Goddard Space Flight Center, much of my current understanding is by following original posts on RC, and the ensuing comments. That includes both scientific literacy and metaliteracy, i.e. distinguishing good science from not-so-good. I’m still a non-expert of course, never having tried to publish in the same journals or attend the same conferences y’all do. I’ll never have anything authentically new to contribute, but my ingrained need to get my head around the problem, as much as any concern for the consequences of AGW, has kept me coming back here.
My other motivation for coming here through the years is participating in the comment threads, with their numerous well-informed, thoughtful and articulate contributors in support of the expert consensus. I’m driven by personality to counter, with sometimes savage glee, the zombie false or misleading denialist memes that repeatedly return here from the dead, seeking brains. I appreciate the contributions of Ray Ladbury, Susan Anderson, nigelj et al., even zebra, and I can hardly forget Russell Seitz either; apologies to other climate realists I didn’t name. One doesn’t need to be a peer-reviewed expert to defend climate science against motivated denialists, but it helps to be armed with consensus knowledge (i.e. justified belief) that’s accessible to everyone. Scientific peers all know what any of them does, and they don’t let their peers get away with fooling themselves! Conversely, failure to recognize genuine expertise is a manifestation of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Lately, more revenants are nihilistic doomers, rather than outright deniers. Certain ‘nyms are driven by simple binary (“it’s too late”), rather than scalar and time-dependent (“it will keep getting worse until anthropogenic greenhouse emissions cease”) apprehensions. I have some sympathy for them, especially after 11/5/2024, but their iterative, impervious insistence has made the comment threads less interesting. One occasionally needs a break from ceaseless whack-a-troll. anyway. OTOH, I can still read the OPs for new knowledge, and by scrolling patiently I still occasionally find comments worth responding to. Again, my profound thanks to the dedicated blog authors! May you blog 20 years more.
One thing is certain. Eight billion people need to be fed. And the only transportation that is viable now is done using fossil fuels. This will take place regardless of what the climate does. Or the Keeling curve will slowly bend down. Ayn Rand was supposed to have said: “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
“The only transport that is viable now is done using fossil fuels”
This is a blatant lie. Some people do shopping in electric cars. Some food is transported in electric trucks using hydrogen fuel cell technology. This has the potential to grow. Ayn rands philosophy is useless.
Obviously I wasn’t referring to what a few EVs can do, but to what CVs do to install renewables, solar and wind farm projects, as well as deliver food and all of the materials needed.. You took my words out of context.
KT: Ayn Rand was supposed to have said: “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
BPL: Although she did plenty of that herself.
Rasmus wrote: “The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.”
With all due respect, that statement indicates a total disconnect from reality.
The fossil fuel executives and the leaders of the fascist petrostates ALREADY “understand” the message. The fossil fuel corporations have “understood” the message for SEVENTY YEARS, since their own scientists told them exactly what global warming would do.
And their response was to launch a 70-year-long campaign of deceit and denial.
They don’t deny the reality of global warming and delay and obstruct action to reduce emissions because they don’t “understand”. On the contrary they deny global warming because they DO understand — they understand that to have any hope of averting catastrophe, the fossil fuel industry must END.
SA: Rasmus wrote: “The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.”
With all due respect, that statement indicates a total disconnect from reality.
We can be confident RC’s authors are all aware not only of the global realpolitik predicated on the sale of fossil carbon for all the traffic will bear while socializing climate change out of the price, but also the long campaign of public disinformation and political manipulation in the US, funded by the Koch brothers and their carbon-capitalist allies. Mike Mann even wrote a book about being a target of a “Serengeti strategy”, whereby he was singled out for legal and media attack, as a proxy for the scientific consensus. It’s not that the blog’s authors are disconnected from reality, it’s that they’re here as professional scientists, who must not appear to be politically motivated!
Of course, with understanding of the physical causes and mechanism of anthropogenic climate change now established, the problem of capping the cost in money and tragedy is in the realms of economics and politics, which are outside the declared scope of this blog. OTOH, they’re not ruled out of the comments a priori. Others have alluded to cultural causation on this thread already. We must all take seriously the remark by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, author of “Dark Money”, regarding a more recent book about the Kochs:
If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.
So this principled, award-winning investigative journalist says, backed up by the famed New Yorker fact checking. Multiple other credible media sources corroborate her claim. It’s virtually impossible to know exactly how much influence concentrated carbon capital has had on US government policy in the 21st century, yet we know it underlies America’s failure to act collectively to decarbonize our economy. It took 34 years to enact the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, and its subsidies for renewable power generation and consumer adoption may not survive Republican control of all three branches of government.
What Is to Be Done? As an American, I’m not ready to sacrifice the rule of law to achieve a carbon-neutral national economy a few years sooner than we would otherwise. Meanwhile our newly elected leaders appear to have fewer such compunctions about protecting fossil fuel profits. I will generally defend popular sovereignty on RC, but otherwise I plan to hunker in my bunker for the next four years, knowing the US will at least ride free on the emissions reductions of other nations.
I have been visiting this site off and on since it began. At first the prospect of a website run by some of the world’s top climate scientists was exciting. But the promise has given way to disappointment.
Over that period, the posts from the scientists who host this site have been few and far between. The best have been very technical, and appear written for a scientific audience, addressing the inner workings of climate science. Relatively few have been “explainers” suitable for the general public. Too many have been redundant arguments with tired old deniers who regurgitate 30-year old nonsense and receive 30-year-old debunkings in response.
Notably missing is any sustained effort to report, analyze or discuss any of the “climate news” that finds its way into the mass media, including not only extreme weather and climate phenomena but new studies in both observational and modeling realms of climate science. I have found the British news site The Guardian, for example, to be a FAR better source of news on current climate science and real-world climate change impacts than RealClimate.
Meanwhile, by volume, most of the actual content on the site is found in these apparently unmoderated “Unforced Variation” threads, which are constantly dominated by boorish blowhards like Dharma, most of whose comments are completely off-topic for the site, and tiresome repetitive “debates” with deniers.
At this point, I’m not sure why this site even exists. If the hosts want to continue it, it needs to be seriously revitalized. I would respectfully suggest that the hosts consider hiring — or recruiting a qualified volunteer — webmaster to run the site, update the interface, and make a commitment to regularly contribute content that stays on top of current developments. And PLEASE moderate the discussion threads. Let Dharma and his ilk rant and rave on Facebook or X.
Spot on!
However, contributors who feel as you do should be willing to participate in actual scientific discussions. That means being willing to take the chance (and the time, and thought) to promote your viewpoint with people who might turn out to be more correct than you are. That’s how science works.
And it’s the only way to actually educate “the public”.
Wow…what a rant. As far as anyone knows you are not even a scientist. And are not required to read, participate or respond in this discussion. It’s amusing that your rants were approved by the moderator(s) who disappoint you as being unqualified.
Well, if by “approved” you mean “passively permitted”, you may not have been around long enough to see some of the truly swivel-eyed lunacy, not to mention the merely obnoxious self-aggrandizement, the moderators (mainly Gavin, AFAICT) have allowed. You’re a comparatively minor irritant, so far. The blog’s authors all have better things to do than police the comments, for better or worse. Ain’t freeze peach grand?
“As far as anyone knows you are not even a scientist”
This is an obvious ad hominem: “(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.”
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html
This website is open to anyones comments. It is not advertised as a scientists only website.
Well said, Nigel. Mr. Trowe, you and I all appear to define “scientists” as “members of a peer community of rigorously trained, mutually disciplined investigators who review each other’s work for publication.” By and large, they are professionals with advanced academic degrees, who are paid to produce new verifiable knowledge. Competition, and often predisposition, make them more-or-less aggressively skeptical of each other, and they’re all at pains to know what any of them knows, to avoid competitive disadvantage. Professional peers are crucial to the accumulation of reliable scientific knowledge, because they provide trustworthy intersubjective verification of each others’ claims. As we know, that’s made it possible for science to progress over centuries.
OTOH, we’re here discussing this because RC is de facto open to anyone’s comments; and the universe of claimed knowledge, expert or otherwise, is de facto open to anyone with an Internet connection. Commenters who demonstrate command of the subject typically aren’t asked for their credentials. Enough other commenters have sufficient competence in climate-related science to recognize their (informal) peers, and ignore whomever else they choose: “peer review”, without a C.V. requirement. If we don’t have the formal credentials to back our arguments up, we defer to the collective, published expertise of the blog authors and their professional peers. Other visitors are less self-aware, and provide enough diversity of inexpert opinion to defend against complaints the blog is an echo chamber. And let’s admit it, they can be fun to engage: I, for one, am always entertained by Ray Ladbury’s fluent scorn directed at clueless deniers. Historically, moderation has mainly been triggered by actual hate speech, that’s actively harmful to the blog’s public outreach purpose. Even KIA has stayed on this side of the line, IMO, though your mileage may vary. I might wish he’d STFU voluntarily, and I usually scroll right past his comments, but FWIW I’m opposed to banning even him altogether.
Above all, everyone: please keep in mind that nobody has to respond to anything anyone else says, even if they’re challenged directly. This isn’t real life: they don’t even know where you live! So many annoying ejaculations here are impolite at best, not deserving a response, and often intended to elicit yet another futile rebuttal in a contest of stamina. Once you’ve had a little fun, just move on to someone else’s more substantive comments, and leave your antagonist to wonder if you even read their most recent provocation! Meanwhile, strive to post only comments you’ve already adequately supported, rather than iteratively defending them against obdurate denial.
A daily climate news compilation https://collapsechronicle.substack.com/
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Or think properly, whereas exceptions prove the rule.
[…] that statement indicates a total disconnect from reality….. Agreed.
I’m not sure why this site even exists…… Me neither.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827379
Dear Sir,
It is not true that the moderation on this website does not exist. A certain scrutiny takes place, only I have no clue yet what is the criterion for not publishing a post.
I tried twice to support Piotr’s very clear explanation that an appeasement towards Putin’s Russia may have analogous outcomes as had the appeasement towards Hitler’s Germany. None of these two posts has been published.
If this third post passes the moderation, I would like to ask you for your advice with respect to RC rules that the two previous posts might have violated:
—
23 Nov 2024 at 9:07 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-827262
Dear moderators,
on 19 Nov 2024 at 7:45 PM, I submitted the following post:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-827097
In Re to Piotr, 17 Nov 2024 at 8:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-827003
Dear Piotr,
Thank you very much for your summary. Perhaps we should remind other readers that after destroying Poland in collaboration with Hitler’s Germany in autumn 1939, the Soviet Union made further conquests. They attacked Finland, then occupied and annexed Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova.
I fully agree that if we will not help Ukraine defeating Russian troops and liberating its territory, Russia will try to conquer more.
Best regards
Tomáš
May I ask why it has not passed your scrutiny?
I am aware that it was not directly related to a climate science topics, however, I think that especially in view of the circumstance how strong is Russia’s voice on this website, see e.g.
Dharma, 11 Nov 2024 at 10:53 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-826782 ,
my amateur attempt to at least slightly counter their skillful propaganda with a reminder of further historical facts might be perhaps tolerated.
Best regards
Tomáš
—
The only explanation that came to my mind was that the moderators perhaps evaluated both posts as abusive towards Dharma and/or Russia.
Greetings
Tomáš
This is a blog on climate science and not about politics or history
But Rasmus, the discussions… even the ones on posts like yours on actual science topics .. are constantly hijacked and spammed, as Secular Animist describes.
And I haven’t figured out yet why that isn’t dealt with. It is obvious that people who produce long, off-topic, incoherent comments, ten-in-a-row, have some kind of “issue” in the mental realm.
Is this about political correctness? Do you think you are doing them a service by allowing this kind of disruptive behavior? I’ve put myself out to support the presence of students with difficulties in a standard educational environment, but ultimately, one has to recognize certain limits are necessary.
Perhaps, if participating had not become so tedious, constantly having to search for comments buried in the noise, people with some expertise would be more willing to contribute on the actual science. And that might relate very well to the recent topics of pluralism and operational-ism.
In Re to Rasmus, 25 NOV 2024 AT 11:11 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827436
Dear Dr. Benestad,
Thank you very much for your kind feedback. I apologize for spoiling your website with my comment. I did so because I think that leaving Dharma’s posts citing Vladimir Putin without a remark that it is a war criminal might raise questions if you provide your website as a platform for spreading Russian war propaganda.
I am afraid that Dharma is a more sophisticated, upgraded version of Ned Kelly, who for a long time disguised him/her/itself as a person desperate due to climate change extreme scenarios presented by James Hansen, and finally switched to actively spreading Russian narratives about Ukraine as a perpetrator and puppet of the USA.
For this reason, I would like to repeat my plea if you, moderators of this website, could consider containing posts delivered by such entities in a separate space clearly assigned as “unmoderated”. It will enable readers who still want to interact with these entities to do so, and, in parallel, it could avoid potential harm for your reputation.
It appears that your website is considered as a suitable target in the hybrid world war against freedom and democracy. Please be aware of this possibility.
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomas Kaliz, regarding this websites moderation. I seem to recall reading this websites moderation policy but I cant find it now under the menu items. It had some basic moderation rules: no personal abuse, no off topic and no spamming that most websites have. The UV thread asks people to be nice to each other and to stay on topic.
I think all those rules are fine. They do not censor peoples opinions or information. I would just say sometimes politics is very relevant to the climate issue, but the discussion about Putin didnt have a lot of relevance and was way off topic. That said I agree that Putin is sounding like a Hitler figure and may have ambitions well beyond Ukraine.
The issue with this website is its enforcement of moderation is certainly very light handed and it doesnt therefore surprise me that some people ignore the rules.As a result we still see personal abuse, and wildly off topic comments (KIA ranting about transgender issues why was that published FFS?)
I would just suggest the following:
Firstly be quite tough on personal abuse. There is no need for it.
And secondly if a comment is made that is way off topic like the politics of Putins war this should be not published, or it could be edited or a warning issued. Otherwise will lead to more related comments which is exactly what has happened.
Personally I think a “bit of off topic” can be very interesting but some things are fairly obviously straying too far.
And thirdly if someone swamps the website with vast numbers of long posts each day, and of dubious quality, that is taking over the room and is just a pain in the proverbial.
Fourthly while repetition is a bit tedious, its also hard to avoid because you might be explaining something to someone new on the website.
I respect that moderation is a bit tricky, because free speech is important, , and I dont envy the moderators jobs, but that doesnt mean we should tolerate insults, name calling and comments hugely off topic and spamming.
This is ‘nuts’ non-thinking above. Russia is not the defunct USSR. Stalin came from Georgia, Khrushchev came from Ukraine. There is no ‘Russia voice’ on this forum. That is fantasyland level imaginary and distorted thinking in my opinion.
rasmus says
25 Nov 2024 at 11:11 AM
“This is a blog on climate science and not about politics or history”
That often usually depends purely on who is doing the talking rasmus. The ingroup or the outgroup.
While Climate Science and all it’s outputs and climate scientist’s commentary is in and of itself a political act. Deny it all you wish but denial never changes the reality of what is.
SA: At this point, I’m not sure why this site even exists.
BPL: You’re right. It’s a terrible web site. If I were you, I’d leave and never come back, just to show ’em.
Happy 20th! Here’s to the next 20!
“Blogs ended up in the shade…”
Well, one way to brighten things up and celebrate, if only temporarily, would be to give Dharma the boot. The only thing interesting about his interminable posts is seeing what name he invents when he reappears pretending to be someone else.
I am considering asking Gavin if I can change my current Nym to Hadge Ravers next month.
Rasmus’ graph ought to start fourteen years before the Charney Report, because there’s more to Charles Keeling than the eponymous Curve.
Keeling entered the climate policy arena over a hundred parts per million of CO2 ago, a decade before Wally Broecker coined the phrase “Global Warming” , by coauthoring the 1965 White House report on AGW chaired by Roger Revelle .
It is today acknowledged with reluctance by some as it reflects a Democratic climate policy consensus no longer in vogue.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/04/and-godfather-of-solar-radiation.html
Congratulations on reaching 20 years of impactful climate blogging! Your dedication to countering misinformation and fostering global awareness is truly inspiring. Here’s to many more years of pushing for real change!
Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Exxon/Mobil ran a multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign that manufactured doubt regarding the link between global warming and the burning of fossil fuels. However, by 2009 the company found that a strategy of simple denialism was no longer viable. Exxon/Mobil was forced to publicly accept the validity of the science and announced public support for a carbon tax. In practice their strategy shifted to a policy of delay and distract. Nevertheless, I believe that one must conclude that the work of climate scientists to disseminate the relevant science to the public has been very successful.
It should be pointed out that providing information to the general lay public is not something scientists are trained to do. Scientists are trained to communicate results to colleagues. Providing information to the public is the job for those with the experience to do so. Particularly educators, journalists and popularizers like Bill Nye or Niels Degrasse Tyson.
The success or failures of processes such as the IPCC hinges on governmental policies and actions which are beyond the control of scientists. The fact that these processes even exist is itself significant. Otherwise climate change would arouse no more involvement than, say, species extinction.
Jonathan…After reading your first paragraph I wondered what you expected the oil industry to do. Delay the production of the transportation fuels needed to finish the transition away from fossil fuels…. Delay the installation of the alternative energies we need to move forward without them. The fact is we need those fuels to get anything done.
In the old days of Usenet newsgroups, newsreader client software commonly had a feature that allowed you to BLOCK particular trolls who were particularly obnoxious. These days, web-based social media platforms like Facebook have a similar feature.
When I look at the comment threads on RealClimate where typically 90 percent of the posts are from belligerent megalomaniacs like “Dharma” and consist mostly of name-calling and insults towards other commenters, I really wish that RealClimate had a “block” feature.