As a (near) 70 year old, I too enjoyed your thought provoking book. I have children and grandchildren, and their future welfare is at the forefront of my mind in looking to do something about climate change. I also agree that individual actions are just as important as actions taken by governments and corporations. We are all in this together! So I believe nearly everyone can do something - from lightbulbs to insulation to heat pumps and solar panels. Even adjusting settings on a gas boiler can reduce gas consumption, cost nothing and save money!
Many thanks for your well informed and data driven blog.
What might be helpful to remember — for people of all ages — is that climate change isn’t entirely new or unprecedented. It’s another example of a pattern we’ve seen before:
• Science or technology brings progress — but also unintended harm
• Scientists detect the damage
• Powerful interests deny or delay
• Eventually, the truth prevails and society acts
We’ve seen it with lead in gasoline, tobacco, CFCs and the ozone layer, DDT and more. In each case, science helped solve a problem it helped create — despite denial and delay.
One encouraging constant? Younger generations tend to internalize scientific realities more quickly. They’ve often been the first to push for action, and their instincts have usually been right. The real question now is whether we let delay win again, or finally break the pattern.
Way too much - and yet wholly normative - faith in “the younger generations” – it’s always been “we trust the kids to make up for our shortcomings” and, by the way, *did you miss the part about the youth saying* 1) climate change will bring positive results, 2) it’s not their job to make any changes, it’s up to society and its institutions to do it first, and 3) they don’t think anything they do themselves could make a difference?
Plus ça change, plus ça reste le même, chalice. Translation: the more things change, the more it stays the same, F. And by “it” I mean people never learn to take responsibility, they just put a gloss on it.
I do hope you are objective enough to realize that you’re identifying even yourself in this ‘we smart young generation, usually right” camp and realize holy cow this is a set of cognitive bias fails.
I may be the exception, 78 years old, but I'm scared shitless about Climate Change and the effect is will have on my Children and Grandchildren. I am a Biologist/Ecologist by education. a UConn Master Gardener, and have been aware of the effects for over 30 years. I live in a Climate Zone 6, Northern Connecticut, and when I moved here 50 years ago it was Zone 5, and I haven't moved. I have plants supposedly only Hardy to Zone 7 that have been Thriving in my Gardens for a decade. It's as real as it can be.
Sorry, but public perception is a disastrous way to pursue this issue.
And using polls from countries like Britain and Canada with lockstep media that propagandize their populations is probably the worst possible measure.
"The science" and the models on climate change are the real problem. Most fall apart when the statistical assumptions are calibrated.
Which is why they've made 60 years of hysterical and laughably wrong predictions (Manhattan will be under water by 2002, there will be no snow on Kilimanjaro by 2012; all the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic will be gone by 2015).
It makes as much sense as Greta Turdberg to shape policy.
From Aristotle's "to know, and not to do, is not to know", I believe in revealed preference. Watch what people do, not what they say.
People's revealed preferences show comprehensively that they do not believe in climate change. They get on planes for frivolous reasons. They buy fashion clothes. They replace perfectly serviceable appliances, and redecorate their homes out of boredom, consuming carbon-intensive products in the process. They make lots of unnecessary car and train trips. They drive to talks that tell them things they already know, to virtue-signal.
Whatever people say, whatever surveys say, the reality is that almost nobody actually believes in climate change. Their actions prove it.
Yes, these things are common, but it is also just as common that people are making energy and materials conservation choices every day, that they would not if there simply were zero externalities. There is a lot of prodding for people to “do the easy thing, do the expensive thing, do the show-up/show-off thing” because transactions make the world go ‘round, but survivorship bias isn’t showing you how much people are actually resisting these ‘Buy/Do Now’ in favour of Later. So settle down there on your foregone-conclusion argument there. There are a lot of people who are more easily satisfied than the status-anxious tell them to be.
And even if conservation choices were less common, they’d still be less talked about except by spokespeople, because virtue signalling is a lot less popular than status signalling, while conspicuous waste and extreme convenience is a mimetic status signal. To wit, the men who refuse to carry their own shopping bags even when they can predict they’ll go to a store, acquiring a new one every time, the women who “ew” over an item having been used or blemished rather than pristine and brand-new.
I'm in my eighth decade, and I first heard about anthropogenic global warming in 1988, when James Hansen testified to Congress. I was working as a support contractor at Goddard Space Flight Center, and witnessed a large majority of NASA earth scientists quickly forming a consensus that AGW was real and troubling. Having trained in Natural Sciences to the doctoral level before finding an easier way to make a living, I had no difficulty reaching the same conclusions; it's basic physics, after all, recognized by science for more than a century. I was soon dismayed, however, by the denialism actively propagated in the American public sphere, for the private benefit of fossil carbon producers and investors.
Dr. Ritchie has heard this all before, but for hypothetical uncommitted lurkers, my training included some Economics, which led me to view AGW as a "Tragedy of the Commons": a result of the global "free" market's ancient propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with. Since neither producers or consumers historically accounted for the marginal climate-change cost of fossil carbon in the market price, the aggregate cost is now being paid for by involuntary third parties, most heavily by those with the least lifetime emissions. Garrett Hardin, who coined "TotC" in 1968, suggested that only collective intervention ("mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon") could mitigate common-pool resource tragedies like AGW. That's because too few individuals will make private sacrifices for the common good, unless everyone else does also (the "Free Rider" problem)!
Any private sacrifice that's more than virtue-signalling, is arguably virtuous. Yet unless we're wholly "off the grid", every good or service Americans buy is produced with some fossil carbon, usually the cheapest energy available because its price doesn't include the marginal climate impact. National policy is required, to drive the otherwise-free market to replace fossil fuels with carbon-neutral energy throughout the US economy. Intervention can be in the form of direct carbon pricing, e.g. a carbon fee/tax; incentives for carbon-neutral energy development, e.g. the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022; or more draconian measures, e.g. emissions caps on businesses. Disclaimer: my preference is for a national carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment tariff (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/price-on-carbon). Without some kind of decarbonization policy, however, the cumulative cost of AGW is open-ended!
Of course, collective intervention inevitably involves politics. Any effective public policy will take profit away from carbon capitalists, who can be expected to invest heavily in thwarting it. I leave it to SBN readers to come to their own conclusions, and vote accordingly.
Contentious subject ? Yes......and ignorance and "feelings" and emotion abound !
FACT : Science , reason , logic and common-sense are seldom employed by "climate scientists" !
There just isn't enough glory or books and money in it otherwise !
Climate is ALWAYS CHANGING , so , depending on how you "frame the questions" you will get exactly the answer you want ! And yes , humans ARE predictable , malleable , able to manipulated and led like sheep !The "Main Stream Media" [ MSM] do it everyday !
"David Bellamy had several qualifications and achievements. He held an honors degree in botany and a PhD in botany from Chelsea College of Science and Technology (now part of King's College London) and Bedford College, respectively. He was also an Honorary Fellow of Royal Holloway, University of London for his contributions to botany and environmental communication. Additionally, he was a well-known broadcaster and conservationist, hosting several TV shows and serving as president of various environmental organizations." He literally started Conservation:
Bellamy was a prominent figure in conservation, serving as president of organizations like The Conservation Foundation and various Wildlife Trusts. He was awarded an OBE.
He spent his 50th birthday in prison in Tasmania after blockading the Franklin River in protest against a proposed dam. "And in 1996 he let rip against wind farms (‘because they don’t work’) "
"Until, we touch on climate change and the vicious backlash he suffered when, in 2004, and in the face of scientific convention and public opinion, he dismissed man-made global warming as ‘poppycock! ...’‘From that moment, I really wasn’t welcome at the BBC. They froze me out, because I don’t believe in global warming. My career dried up. I was thrown out of my own conservation groups and I got spat at in London.""Bellamy also set up endless charities and campaigning groups (he was patron of more than 400 at one time — ‘I helped to start conservation’)
The killer blow came when he was dropped by The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, of which he was president. ‘I worked with the Wildlife Trusts for 52 years. And when they dropped me, they didn’t even tell me...They didn’t have the guts. I read about it in the newspapers. Can you believe it? Now they don’t want to be anywhere near me. But what are they doing? The WWF might have saved a few pandas, but what about the forests? What have Greenpeace done?
VERSUS :
"Sir David Attenborough's primary qualifications stem from his extensive work as a broadcaster, writer, and naturalist, particularly in the field of natural history and educational television programming. He is widely recognized for his popular and influential television series, most notably the "Life" series. While not formally a scientist, his work has significantly contributed to public understanding of science and the natural world" UNTIL LATTERLY when he has become a full-blown
Catastrophic-Climate-Change-Activist !......"falsely presenting videos" that are not factual at all .....lies actually..supporting "global warming" in theory........and he has been awarded a Knighthood !
.
As Ned Kelly is supposed to have uttered just before he was hanged : "SUCH IS LIFE !"
.
Once you sort the wheat from the chaff by ASKING THE QUESTIONS directly and removing the "FRAME" you arrive at a totally different conclusion Hannah.
e.g. "Do you believe in Climate Change ?" Answer : "Yes......because it's always changing !"
e.g. "Do you believe that MANKIND is causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " Perhaps ! "
e.g. "How is MANKIND causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " I don't know , but it's possible that mankind is contributing , but since the changes are so small , it's impossible to be certain "
e.g. " Is Climate-Change responsible for all the Terrible Natural Disasters that we are seeing now ?"
ANSWER: " No , the floods , droughts , fires and tsunamis are all something that happens every so often ! Even though there are far more people now , there are far fewer people killed or injured now than there were in the past because we have better adaption and better warning systems "
e.g. "Catastrophic-Climate-Change will raise sea-levels and flood many coastal areas and cities !"
ANSWER : "Possibly , but we will build dykes and sea-walls or move to higher ground . Most of the Netherlands is below sea-level now . Perhaps we can adapt like the Dutch people have done"
e.g. "What do you fear most about Climate-Change ?" ANSWER: " Nothing. It is happening very slowly , if at all , and the warming may , or may not , be due to any extra CO2 , and so far it has been entirely beneficial . The extra warmth and the extra CO2 is "greening the planet" .
e.g. "What about the wildlife that can't move or adapt ?" ANSWER: "It will move or adapt or it will die out........like 99.99% of every other life-form that has ever existed on the planet ! "
e.g. "What do you propose to do to stop Catastrophic-Climate-change !" ANSWER : " Well , for starters , STOP using that doom and gloom terminology. So far there has been NO CATASTROPHE
only threats from "ignorant climate activists" many of whom struggle to read and write due to our rotten , indoctrinating-and school-curricula ! They are unable to think critically or logically and are easily persuaded by mob hysteria ! Otherwise , I will get on with my life in a productive and useful way and with as much joy and happiness as I can engender ! I don't think that the planet or the human race is under threat any more than Al Gore's " there was a 75% chance the entire north polar ice cap would likely be gone by 2016".......it is still there intact as ever......melts a bit in Summer and reforms again in Winter.....year after year !....for about the last 20 ,000 years since the recent thawing out from the totally frozen Poles that had been for at least 100,000 years . [ AND THE THAWING WASOBVIOUSLY NOT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY MANKIND WAS IT !!!!]................
We are still in an ICE-AGE , but in a warm-interglacial.......so we should just enjoy it , because when it freezes-over again that will END CIVILISATION as we now know it ! AND IT WILL !
Sorry Hannah ! I didn't address your "generational divide" question did I ?
Yes.......it's there and it exists ......but as I said " Ignorance , feelings and emotion abound ! "
Saint Greta of Thunberg is a case in point ! So immature ! A bit of schooling would have helped perhaps ? A case of 'parental neglect" maybe ? Who knows WHAT CONVICTIONS she holds now ! She seems confused and has become part of the "wealthy" RENT A CROWD.
I hope that a decent school curriculum will correct the current misconceptions on the threats of Climate Change .....and even if it doesn't eventuate.........the climate will do whatever it pleases , always has , always will. Humans are at it's whim and it's will and ANYTHING WE DO TO ALTER THAT will probably backfire like most "well intentioned plans" do ! So , I hope any "global engineering ideas" are not attempted !
It will be interesting to see how public opinion changes as more people lose faith in the elites, experts and corporate media. Personally, I concluded several years ago that the climate change concept had been politicized and exploited by selfish actors for their own enrichment. It's not science any more, it's an ideological movement or even a religion that is being promoted to generate massive transfers of wealth from ordinary people to the rich.
Matt Yglesias: "Reuters did a survey recently that showed 69% of Americans say the United States should take “aggressive” action to combat climate change, but only 34% would be willing to pay $100 more per year in taxes to achieve that goal. A hundred bucks is not a lot of money. People spend that on Halloween decorations. A nice dinner date could cost you more than that.
[W]hat we’ve seen time and again is that there just really isn’t a public appetite for this. Washington State tried the neoliberal idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax and it got crushed in a referendum. So then they tried the left idea of a carbon tax to fund progressive stuff and it
also got crushed."
Cited in "Climate activists are to blame for some of the suffering caused by climate change"
As an older 66 year old, I did enjoy your book and often use your site for research and talks. We are working hard to get to Net 0. At the moment we are over 80% there. We have both passive solar and solar PV to power our home AND vehicles. https://www.amazon.com/Driving-Net-Stories-Carbon-Future/dp/0692143831
Thanks for this discussion. Very thought-provoking. Especially fascinated by the age gap between belief in individual action vs systemic change. Was there are “both” category?
One issue with a lot of the emotions literature is the focus on a handful of western countries, UK and US stand out most of all. We recently published an article that draws on a global dataset in 30 countries to explore emotional responses (worry, fear, anger, sadness, hope) to climate change. Available open access: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.17713
We have also made the full dataset available here, for any wanting to do a more data-driven analysis: https://osf.io/z2hbu/
Interesting data, but might this just be an anglo-sphere thing? I happened to have read similar research on the Dutch population, and there the difference is somewhat larger. For "The government must do (much) more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" the agreement was 54% (for 18-24), 48% (for 25-34), 39% (for 35-49), 39% (for 50-64), and 41% (for 65+). Ipsos has done this poll in various different years, and while the amount can vary (it's going down for all groups) the slope stays similar (e.g. in 2020 it was 60%, 55%, 44%, 46%, and 41%).
You're right, it is an anglo-sphere thing, at least comparatively. That's long been recognized, AFAIK. Speaking as a US citizen, I'm resigned to our economy free-riding on collective emissions reduction efforts by other nations for the next 3-1/2 years. To Europeans and the rest of the world: please don't let our national disgrace deter you from decarbonizing yourselves!
Al Gore (2009): Arctic Ice-Free by 2013-2016 Prediction: During a 2009 speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Al Gore cited researchers, stating there was a “75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years” (by 2013-2016).Outcome: The Arctic still has significant sea ice cover during summer months. While Arctic sea ice has declined, it was not ice-free by 2016, with NASA data showing minimum extents around 4-5 million square kilometers in recent years.**Why It Failed: Gore overstated the timeline and certainty of Dr. Wiesław Maslowski’s research, which was a “ballpark” estimate, not a firm prediction. Maslowski himself clarified he wouldn’t estimate such a precise likelihood.
Al Gore (2006): No Snow on Kilimanjaro by 2016 Prediction: In An Inconvenient Truth (2006), Gore claimed, “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” suggesting the iconic mountain’s snow cover would vanish by 2016 due to global warming.Outcome: Kilimanjaro still has snow cover. As of 2022, the mountain receives significant snowfall, with reports of 93 inches annually at mid-altitudes.**Why It Failed: Gore’s claim oversimplified the complex factors affecting Kilimanjaro’s ice, which is influenced more by sublimation in dry, cold air than by warming. Ice loss predates recent warming trends, and seasonal snow persists.
Al Gore (2006): Point of No Return by 2016 Prediction: In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore warned that unless drastic measures were taken, the planet would reach an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016.Outcome: No such catastrophic tipping point occurred by 2016. Global temperatures have risen gradually, but ecosystems and societies continue to adapt, and no singular irreversible collapse has been documented.**Why It Failed: The concept of a “point of no return” was vague and not tied to specific, measurable thresholds in climate science. Models suggest tipping points are possible but not imminent by 2016.
Prince Charles (2009): 96 Months to Save the Planet Prediction: In July 2009, then-Prince Charles stated the planet had 96 months (by 2017) to avoid “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”Outcome: No global ecosystem collapse occurred by 2017. While challenges like biodiversity loss persist, the planet remains functional, and no catastrophic collapse matching the prediction materialized.**Why It Failed: The timeline was arbitrary and not grounded in specific scientific models. Ecosystem changes are gradual, and resilience in natural systems was underestimated.
James Hansen (2008): Last Chance to Avoid Catastrophe Prediction: In June 2008, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that humanity was at its “last chance” to avoid catastrophic climate impacts, implying imminent disaster if greenhouse gas emissions weren’t curbed immediately.Outcome: No catastrophic climate disaster occurred in the immediate years following 2008. Global emissions continued to rise, yet impacts like sea level rise and temperature increases have been incremental, not apocalyptic.**Why It Failed: Hansen’s urgency was rhetorical, aimed at policy action, but lacked a specific timeline or measurable catastrophe. Climate impacts are long-term, not immediate.
Ted Turner (2008): Cannibalism and Crop Failure by 2038-2048 Prediction: In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner claimed that without climate action, by 2038-2048, global temperatures would rise 8 degrees, crops would fail, and “most people will have died, and the rest of us will be cannibals.”Outcome: This prediction is beyond its timeline, but current trends make it implausible. Global temperatures have risen about 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, far from 8°C, and crop yields have increased globally.**Why It Failed: Turner’s claim was hyperbolic, not based on credible climate models, which project 1.5-4.5°C warming by 2100 under various scenarios, not 8°C in 30-40 years.
David Viner (2000): Snow Becomes Rare in Britain Prediction: In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, stated that within a few years, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event,” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Outcome: Snow remains common in Britain. Winters in the 2010s and 2020s saw significant snow events, such as the “Beast from the East” in 2018, and children still experience snow.**Why It Failed: Regional climate models underestimated natural variability and the persistence of cold weather patterns in the UK, despite warming trends.
Hussein Shihab (1988): Maldives Underwater by 2018 Prediction: In 1988, Hussein Shihab, Maldives’ environmental affairs director, warned that the Maldives would be completely underwater within 30 years (by 2018) due to sea level rise.Outcome: The Maldives remain above water. Sea levels have risen about 3 mm/year, but coral atoll growth and adaptation measures have kept islands habitable.**Why It Failed: The prediction ignored natural coral growth and human adaptation (e.g., land reclamation). Sea level rise is gradual, not catastrophic by 2018.
UN (1989): Nations Wiped Out by 2000 Prediction: In 1989, a UN official warned that entire nations could be “wiped off the face of the Earth” by 2000 due to global warming-induced sea level rise if action wasn’t taken.Outcome: No nations were wiped out by 2000. Sea level rise has been measurable but slow, with no countries lost to flooding.**Why It Failed: The timeline was unrealistic. Sea level rise occurs over centuries, not a decade, and adaptation measures have mitigated impacts.
Bob Woodruff/ABC News (2008): New York City Underwater by 2015 Prediction: In a 2008 ABC News special, Bob Woodruff warned that New York City could be underwater by 2015 due to climate-driven sea level rise, alongside other apocalyptic scenarios.Outcome: New York City remains above water. Sea levels have risen slightly, but nowhere near the extent implied, and infrastructure has not been overwhelmed.**Why It Failed: The prediction was sensationalized, not aligned with IPCC projections, which estimate 0.3-1 meter of sea level rise by 2100, not catastrophic flooding by 2015.
As a (near) 70 year old, I too enjoyed your thought provoking book. I have children and grandchildren, and their future welfare is at the forefront of my mind in looking to do something about climate change. I also agree that individual actions are just as important as actions taken by governments and corporations. We are all in this together! So I believe nearly everyone can do something - from lightbulbs to insulation to heat pumps and solar panels. Even adjusting settings on a gas boiler can reduce gas consumption, cost nothing and save money!
Many thanks for your well informed and data driven blog.
What might be helpful to remember — for people of all ages — is that climate change isn’t entirely new or unprecedented. It’s another example of a pattern we’ve seen before:
• Science or technology brings progress — but also unintended harm
• Scientists detect the damage
• Powerful interests deny or delay
• Eventually, the truth prevails and society acts
We’ve seen it with lead in gasoline, tobacco, CFCs and the ozone layer, DDT and more. In each case, science helped solve a problem it helped create — despite denial and delay.
One encouraging constant? Younger generations tend to internalize scientific realities more quickly. They’ve often been the first to push for action, and their instincts have usually been right. The real question now is whether we let delay win again, or finally break the pattern.
Thank you so much for the reminder! Sometimes is hard to remember those things we did well as a society.
Way too much - and yet wholly normative - faith in “the younger generations” – it’s always been “we trust the kids to make up for our shortcomings” and, by the way, *did you miss the part about the youth saying* 1) climate change will bring positive results, 2) it’s not their job to make any changes, it’s up to society and its institutions to do it first, and 3) they don’t think anything they do themselves could make a difference?
Plus ça change, plus ça reste le même, chalice. Translation: the more things change, the more it stays the same, F. And by “it” I mean people never learn to take responsibility, they just put a gloss on it.
I do hope you are objective enough to realize that you’re identifying even yourself in this ‘we smart young generation, usually right” camp and realize holy cow this is a set of cognitive bias fails.
I may be the exception, 78 years old, but I'm scared shitless about Climate Change and the effect is will have on my Children and Grandchildren. I am a Biologist/Ecologist by education. a UConn Master Gardener, and have been aware of the effects for over 30 years. I live in a Climate Zone 6, Northern Connecticut, and when I moved here 50 years ago it was Zone 5, and I haven't moved. I have plants supposedly only Hardy to Zone 7 that have been Thriving in my Gardens for a decade. It's as real as it can be.
It just shows how the population has been brainwashed on this subject.
When you find yourself in the vast, vast minority… a bit of epistemic humility is called for
Sorry, but public perception is a disastrous way to pursue this issue.
And using polls from countries like Britain and Canada with lockstep media that propagandize their populations is probably the worst possible measure.
"The science" and the models on climate change are the real problem. Most fall apart when the statistical assumptions are calibrated.
Which is why they've made 60 years of hysterical and laughably wrong predictions (Manhattan will be under water by 2002, there will be no snow on Kilimanjaro by 2012; all the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic will be gone by 2015).
It makes as much sense as Greta Turdberg to shape policy.
Hall Shame : RE: It makes as much sense as Greta Turdberg to shape policy.
I must say I enjoyed your "Turd" of phrase for that nasty nattering Nordic Nit-Wit !
Regards , Trevor.
From Aristotle's "to know, and not to do, is not to know", I believe in revealed preference. Watch what people do, not what they say.
People's revealed preferences show comprehensively that they do not believe in climate change. They get on planes for frivolous reasons. They buy fashion clothes. They replace perfectly serviceable appliances, and redecorate their homes out of boredom, consuming carbon-intensive products in the process. They make lots of unnecessary car and train trips. They drive to talks that tell them things they already know, to virtue-signal.
Whatever people say, whatever surveys say, the reality is that almost nobody actually believes in climate change. Their actions prove it.
Yes, these things are common, but it is also just as common that people are making energy and materials conservation choices every day, that they would not if there simply were zero externalities. There is a lot of prodding for people to “do the easy thing, do the expensive thing, do the show-up/show-off thing” because transactions make the world go ‘round, but survivorship bias isn’t showing you how much people are actually resisting these ‘Buy/Do Now’ in favour of Later. So settle down there on your foregone-conclusion argument there. There are a lot of people who are more easily satisfied than the status-anxious tell them to be.
And even if conservation choices were less common, they’d still be less talked about except by spokespeople, because virtue signalling is a lot less popular than status signalling, while conspicuous waste and extreme convenience is a mimetic status signal. To wit, the men who refuse to carry their own shopping bags even when they can predict they’ll go to a store, acquiring a new one every time, the women who “ew” over an item having been used or blemished rather than pristine and brand-new.
I'm in my eighth decade, and I first heard about anthropogenic global warming in 1988, when James Hansen testified to Congress. I was working as a support contractor at Goddard Space Flight Center, and witnessed a large majority of NASA earth scientists quickly forming a consensus that AGW was real and troubling. Having trained in Natural Sciences to the doctoral level before finding an easier way to make a living, I had no difficulty reaching the same conclusions; it's basic physics, after all, recognized by science for more than a century. I was soon dismayed, however, by the denialism actively propagated in the American public sphere, for the private benefit of fossil carbon producers and investors.
Dr. Ritchie has heard this all before, but for hypothetical uncommitted lurkers, my training included some Economics, which led me to view AGW as a "Tragedy of the Commons": a result of the global "free" market's ancient propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with. Since neither producers or consumers historically accounted for the marginal climate-change cost of fossil carbon in the market price, the aggregate cost is now being paid for by involuntary third parties, most heavily by those with the least lifetime emissions. Garrett Hardin, who coined "TotC" in 1968, suggested that only collective intervention ("mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon") could mitigate common-pool resource tragedies like AGW. That's because too few individuals will make private sacrifices for the common good, unless everyone else does also (the "Free Rider" problem)!
Any private sacrifice that's more than virtue-signalling, is arguably virtuous. Yet unless we're wholly "off the grid", every good or service Americans buy is produced with some fossil carbon, usually the cheapest energy available because its price doesn't include the marginal climate impact. National policy is required, to drive the otherwise-free market to replace fossil fuels with carbon-neutral energy throughout the US economy. Intervention can be in the form of direct carbon pricing, e.g. a carbon fee/tax; incentives for carbon-neutral energy development, e.g. the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022; or more draconian measures, e.g. emissions caps on businesses. Disclaimer: my preference is for a national carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment tariff (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/price-on-carbon). Without some kind of decarbonization policy, however, the cumulative cost of AGW is open-ended!
Of course, collective intervention inevitably involves politics. Any effective public policy will take profit away from carbon capitalists, who can be expected to invest heavily in thwarting it. I leave it to SBN readers to come to their own conclusions, and vote accordingly.
Contentious subject ? Yes......and ignorance and "feelings" and emotion abound !
FACT : Science , reason , logic and common-sense are seldom employed by "climate scientists" !
There just isn't enough glory or books and money in it otherwise !
Climate is ALWAYS CHANGING , so , depending on how you "frame the questions" you will get exactly the answer you want ! And yes , humans ARE predictable , malleable , able to manipulated and led like sheep !The "Main Stream Media" [ MSM] do it everyday !
"David Bellamy had several qualifications and achievements. He held an honors degree in botany and a PhD in botany from Chelsea College of Science and Technology (now part of King's College London) and Bedford College, respectively. He was also an Honorary Fellow of Royal Holloway, University of London for his contributions to botany and environmental communication. Additionally, he was a well-known broadcaster and conservationist, hosting several TV shows and serving as president of various environmental organizations." He literally started Conservation:
Bellamy was a prominent figure in conservation, serving as president of organizations like The Conservation Foundation and various Wildlife Trusts. He was awarded an OBE.
He spent his 50th birthday in prison in Tasmania after blockading the Franklin River in protest against a proposed dam. "And in 1996 he let rip against wind farms (‘because they don’t work’) "
"Until, we touch on climate change and the vicious backlash he suffered when, in 2004, and in the face of scientific convention and public opinion, he dismissed man-made global warming as ‘poppycock! ...’‘From that moment, I really wasn’t welcome at the BBC. They froze me out, because I don’t believe in global warming. My career dried up. I was thrown out of my own conservation groups and I got spat at in London.""Bellamy also set up endless charities and campaigning groups (he was patron of more than 400 at one time — ‘I helped to start conservation’)
The killer blow came when he was dropped by The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, of which he was president. ‘I worked with the Wildlife Trusts for 52 years. And when they dropped me, they didn’t even tell me...They didn’t have the guts. I read about it in the newspapers. Can you believe it? Now they don’t want to be anywhere near me. But what are they doing? The WWF might have saved a few pandas, but what about the forests? What have Greenpeace done?
VERSUS :
"Sir David Attenborough's primary qualifications stem from his extensive work as a broadcaster, writer, and naturalist, particularly in the field of natural history and educational television programming. He is widely recognized for his popular and influential television series, most notably the "Life" series. While not formally a scientist, his work has significantly contributed to public understanding of science and the natural world" UNTIL LATTERLY when he has become a full-blown
Catastrophic-Climate-Change-Activist !......"falsely presenting videos" that are not factual at all .....lies actually..supporting "global warming" in theory........and he has been awarded a Knighthood !
.
As Ned Kelly is supposed to have uttered just before he was hanged : "SUCH IS LIFE !"
.
Once you sort the wheat from the chaff by ASKING THE QUESTIONS directly and removing the "FRAME" you arrive at a totally different conclusion Hannah.
e.g. "Do you believe in Climate Change ?" Answer : "Yes......because it's always changing !"
e.g. "Do you believe that MANKIND is causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " Perhaps ! "
e.g. "How is MANKIND causing Climate Change ?" Answer : " I don't know , but it's possible that mankind is contributing , but since the changes are so small , it's impossible to be certain "
e.g. " Is Climate-Change responsible for all the Terrible Natural Disasters that we are seeing now ?"
ANSWER: " No , the floods , droughts , fires and tsunamis are all something that happens every so often ! Even though there are far more people now , there are far fewer people killed or injured now than there were in the past because we have better adaption and better warning systems "
e.g. "Catastrophic-Climate-Change will raise sea-levels and flood many coastal areas and cities !"
ANSWER : "Possibly , but we will build dykes and sea-walls or move to higher ground . Most of the Netherlands is below sea-level now . Perhaps we can adapt like the Dutch people have done"
e.g. "What do you fear most about Climate-Change ?" ANSWER: " Nothing. It is happening very slowly , if at all , and the warming may , or may not , be due to any extra CO2 , and so far it has been entirely beneficial . The extra warmth and the extra CO2 is "greening the planet" .
e.g. "What about the wildlife that can't move or adapt ?" ANSWER: "It will move or adapt or it will die out........like 99.99% of every other life-form that has ever existed on the planet ! "
e.g. "What do you propose to do to stop Catastrophic-Climate-change !" ANSWER : " Well , for starters , STOP using that doom and gloom terminology. So far there has been NO CATASTROPHE
only threats from "ignorant climate activists" many of whom struggle to read and write due to our rotten , indoctrinating-and school-curricula ! They are unable to think critically or logically and are easily persuaded by mob hysteria ! Otherwise , I will get on with my life in a productive and useful way and with as much joy and happiness as I can engender ! I don't think that the planet or the human race is under threat any more than Al Gore's " there was a 75% chance the entire north polar ice cap would likely be gone by 2016".......it is still there intact as ever......melts a bit in Summer and reforms again in Winter.....year after year !....for about the last 20 ,000 years since the recent thawing out from the totally frozen Poles that had been for at least 100,000 years . [ AND THE THAWING WASOBVIOUSLY NOT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY MANKIND WAS IT !!!!]................
We are still in an ICE-AGE , but in a warm-interglacial.......so we should just enjoy it , because when it freezes-over again that will END CIVILISATION as we now know it ! AND IT WILL !
So , cheer up ! Things can only get worse !"
.
Regards , Trevor.
Sorry Hannah ! I didn't address your "generational divide" question did I ?
Yes.......it's there and it exists ......but as I said " Ignorance , feelings and emotion abound ! "
Saint Greta of Thunberg is a case in point ! So immature ! A bit of schooling would have helped perhaps ? A case of 'parental neglect" maybe ? Who knows WHAT CONVICTIONS she holds now ! She seems confused and has become part of the "wealthy" RENT A CROWD.
I hope that a decent school curriculum will correct the current misconceptions on the threats of Climate Change .....and even if it doesn't eventuate.........the climate will do whatever it pleases , always has , always will. Humans are at it's whim and it's will and ANYTHING WE DO TO ALTER THAT will probably backfire like most "well intentioned plans" do ! So , I hope any "global engineering ideas" are not attempted !
Regards , Trevor.
Trevor, Trevor. Indoor voice, please.
I speak a bit LOUDER so that people like you who claim to be Maladapted can actually HEAR what I am attempting to communicate.
Apologies if it offends your sensibilities Maladapted !
Utter bs and if you don’t know it, you should.
Sorry about your STUTTER bbbbbblak , but all I can say is , show me the FACTS that prove me wrong before you 'offer your opinion' !
It will be interesting to see how public opinion changes as more people lose faith in the elites, experts and corporate media. Personally, I concluded several years ago that the climate change concept had been politicized and exploited by selfish actors for their own enrichment. It's not science any more, it's an ideological movement or even a religion that is being promoted to generate massive transfers of wealth from ordinary people to the rich.
Matt Yglesias: "Reuters did a survey recently that showed 69% of Americans say the United States should take “aggressive” action to combat climate change, but only 34% would be willing to pay $100 more per year in taxes to achieve that goal. A hundred bucks is not a lot of money. People spend that on Halloween decorations. A nice dinner date could cost you more than that.
[W]hat we’ve seen time and again is that there just really isn’t a public appetite for this. Washington State tried the neoliberal idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax and it got crushed in a referendum. So then they tried the left idea of a carbon tax to fund progressive stuff and it
also got crushed."
Cited in "Climate activists are to blame for some of the suffering caused by climate change"
chapter p. 440 here https://www.onestepforanimals.org/uploads/2/7/9/9/27990461/losingmyreligions.pdf
If these numbers were votes it would be a majority government with global warming as the top priority.
As an older 66 year old, I did enjoy your book and often use your site for research and talks. We are working hard to get to Net 0. At the moment we are over 80% there. We have both passive solar and solar PV to power our home AND vehicles. https://www.amazon.com/Driving-Net-Stories-Carbon-Future/dp/0692143831
Thanks for this discussion. Very thought-provoking. Especially fascinated by the age gap between belief in individual action vs systemic change. Was there are “both” category?
Cheers for the interesting read (as always).
One issue with a lot of the emotions literature is the focus on a handful of western countries, UK and US stand out most of all. We recently published an article that draws on a global dataset in 30 countries to explore emotional responses (worry, fear, anger, sadness, hope) to climate change. Available open access: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.17713
We have also made the full dataset available here, for any wanting to do a more data-driven analysis: https://osf.io/z2hbu/
Interesting data, but might this just be an anglo-sphere thing? I happened to have read similar research on the Dutch population, and there the difference is somewhat larger. For "The government must do (much) more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" the agreement was 54% (for 18-24), 48% (for 25-34), 39% (for 35-49), 39% (for 50-64), and 41% (for 65+). Ipsos has done this poll in various different years, and while the amount can vary (it's going down for all groups) the slope stays similar (e.g. in 2020 it was 60%, 55%, 44%, 46%, and 41%).
You're right, it is an anglo-sphere thing, at least comparatively. That's long been recognized, AFAIK. Speaking as a US citizen, I'm resigned to our economy free-riding on collective emissions reduction efforts by other nations for the next 3-1/2 years. To Europeans and the rest of the world: please don't let our national disgrace deter you from decarbonizing yourselves!
Can you blame folks for being skeptical?
Al Gore (2009): Arctic Ice-Free by 2013-2016 Prediction: During a 2009 speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Al Gore cited researchers, stating there was a “75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years” (by 2013-2016).Outcome: The Arctic still has significant sea ice cover during summer months. While Arctic sea ice has declined, it was not ice-free by 2016, with NASA data showing minimum extents around 4-5 million square kilometers in recent years.**Why It Failed: Gore overstated the timeline and certainty of Dr. Wiesław Maslowski’s research, which was a “ballpark” estimate, not a firm prediction. Maslowski himself clarified he wouldn’t estimate such a precise likelihood.
Al Gore (2006): No Snow on Kilimanjaro by 2016 Prediction: In An Inconvenient Truth (2006), Gore claimed, “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” suggesting the iconic mountain’s snow cover would vanish by 2016 due to global warming.Outcome: Kilimanjaro still has snow cover. As of 2022, the mountain receives significant snowfall, with reports of 93 inches annually at mid-altitudes.**Why It Failed: Gore’s claim oversimplified the complex factors affecting Kilimanjaro’s ice, which is influenced more by sublimation in dry, cold air than by warming. Ice loss predates recent warming trends, and seasonal snow persists.
Al Gore (2006): Point of No Return by 2016 Prediction: In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore warned that unless drastic measures were taken, the planet would reach an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016.Outcome: No such catastrophic tipping point occurred by 2016. Global temperatures have risen gradually, but ecosystems and societies continue to adapt, and no singular irreversible collapse has been documented.**Why It Failed: The concept of a “point of no return” was vague and not tied to specific, measurable thresholds in climate science. Models suggest tipping points are possible but not imminent by 2016.
Prince Charles (2009): 96 Months to Save the Planet Prediction: In July 2009, then-Prince Charles stated the planet had 96 months (by 2017) to avoid “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”Outcome: No global ecosystem collapse occurred by 2017. While challenges like biodiversity loss persist, the planet remains functional, and no catastrophic collapse matching the prediction materialized.**Why It Failed: The timeline was arbitrary and not grounded in specific scientific models. Ecosystem changes are gradual, and resilience in natural systems was underestimated.
James Hansen (2008): Last Chance to Avoid Catastrophe Prediction: In June 2008, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that humanity was at its “last chance” to avoid catastrophic climate impacts, implying imminent disaster if greenhouse gas emissions weren’t curbed immediately.Outcome: No catastrophic climate disaster occurred in the immediate years following 2008. Global emissions continued to rise, yet impacts like sea level rise and temperature increases have been incremental, not apocalyptic.**Why It Failed: Hansen’s urgency was rhetorical, aimed at policy action, but lacked a specific timeline or measurable catastrophe. Climate impacts are long-term, not immediate.
Ted Turner (2008): Cannibalism and Crop Failure by 2038-2048 Prediction: In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner claimed that without climate action, by 2038-2048, global temperatures would rise 8 degrees, crops would fail, and “most people will have died, and the rest of us will be cannibals.”Outcome: This prediction is beyond its timeline, but current trends make it implausible. Global temperatures have risen about 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, far from 8°C, and crop yields have increased globally.**Why It Failed: Turner’s claim was hyperbolic, not based on credible climate models, which project 1.5-4.5°C warming by 2100 under various scenarios, not 8°C in 30-40 years.
David Viner (2000): Snow Becomes Rare in Britain Prediction: In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, stated that within a few years, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event,” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Outcome: Snow remains common in Britain. Winters in the 2010s and 2020s saw significant snow events, such as the “Beast from the East” in 2018, and children still experience snow.**Why It Failed: Regional climate models underestimated natural variability and the persistence of cold weather patterns in the UK, despite warming trends.
Hussein Shihab (1988): Maldives Underwater by 2018 Prediction: In 1988, Hussein Shihab, Maldives’ environmental affairs director, warned that the Maldives would be completely underwater within 30 years (by 2018) due to sea level rise.Outcome: The Maldives remain above water. Sea levels have risen about 3 mm/year, but coral atoll growth and adaptation measures have kept islands habitable.**Why It Failed: The prediction ignored natural coral growth and human adaptation (e.g., land reclamation). Sea level rise is gradual, not catastrophic by 2018.
UN (1989): Nations Wiped Out by 2000 Prediction: In 1989, a UN official warned that entire nations could be “wiped off the face of the Earth” by 2000 due to global warming-induced sea level rise if action wasn’t taken.Outcome: No nations were wiped out by 2000. Sea level rise has been measurable but slow, with no countries lost to flooding.**Why It Failed: The timeline was unrealistic. Sea level rise occurs over centuries, not a decade, and adaptation measures have mitigated impacts.
Bob Woodruff/ABC News (2008): New York City Underwater by 2015 Prediction: In a 2008 ABC News special, Bob Woodruff warned that New York City could be underwater by 2015 due to climate-driven sea level rise, alongside other apocalyptic scenarios.Outcome: New York City remains above water. Sea levels have risen slightly, but nowhere near the extent implied, and infrastructure has not been overwhelmed.**Why It Failed: The prediction was sensationalized, not aligned with IPCC projections, which estimate 0.3-1 meter of sea level rise by 2100, not catastrophic flooding by 2015.