Nature Bats Last

"Drill Baby Drill," like there's no tomorrow.

The latest soon to be scandal in my corner of the world, is Aotearoa NZ's former Climate Change Minister James Shaw, going through the revolving door between Ministerial appointments and corporate slush funds.

Shaw has seamlessly segued from Climate Change Minister to raising $20 million US dollars, for a geoengineering start up that will milk an Emissions Trading Scheme that Shaw setup, Orwell couldn't write this sh*te. I've been building my case below, with luck I'll get to see him in the dock, perhaps I should start a Go Fund Me to buy him a lovely orange jumpsuit.

The reason I mention this is to reassure North American readers who are bearing witness to the corporations "Grinding the Living Planet into dust" that our corporate crooks are just as bad, just as blatant, just as facile, just as crass.

Texas Responds to Federal Demand for Mining Draft script:

As our predicament escalates and accelerates, it becomes ever more obvious, that the violent patriarchy we live in has completely and utterly underestimated climate sensitivity.

Guy and I have been pointing out 'Baseline Temperature dishonesty' together for over a decade.

My tag line on this topic is the only way to keep the numbers down is either don't add them up or move the baseline, thereby fudging the numbers. In the analyses from Guy, they do both.

This week, I found another example, from the serial offender Johan Rockström from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (P*K), Potsdam, Germany.

"Global mean surface temperature rise is currently at 1.2°C above the pre-industrial average, and we are following a pathway that takes us to at least 2.7 by the end of this century."

Clearly this is not an error, he's lying.

Johan Rockström is prepared to compromise his entire life's work to BS about how much warming we've triggered and where were heading.

His projections about 2100 are over 10C out.

In my blog post titled "Full Earth System Sensitivity to CO2 has been Grossly Underestimated" there is an analysis from David Wasdell that concludes that 10C minimum is 'baked in.'

On the 28 of May 2019, I woke up to a notification that the world's leading expert on the cryosphere, Dr Peter Wadhams had commented on the blog:

"The analysis of climate sensitivity by David Wasdell is very important. I have been through it with him several times and am convinced of its validity. I mentioned it in “A Farewell to Ice”. The point is that here is a big difference between the short term sensitivity, which is used to calculate warming over a few years, and the long term sensitivity which represents how much warming the earth is going to be subjected to if you don’t add more CO2 but let the effects of the present levels work their way fully through the climate system. Short term sensitivity is 2-4.5 C, but long term is more like 10C. The crime of IPCC and other modelling outfits is that they are aware of this difference between short and long term, but still use the short term value even when they are doing hand-waving studies of what is going to happen over the next century or two. In fact it’s not just the case that the magic 1.5C or 2C warming is already “baked in” to the global system – in fact the baked in figure is more like 4-5 C. Hence the vital need for carbon drawdown. Best wishes Peter Wadhams"

We need to ask: Why are some formerly credible scientists lying?

I suspect there are a number of reasons. No one wants to admit that they were wrong in their analysis to such an extraordinary degree. Admitting that you have failed so miserably will compromise your ability to raise research grants. Additionally, no government anywhere on the planet wants to face our predicament, especially when it comes to telling the truth to the youth, which is our moral obligation as elders.

I'll drop the links I mentioned below for cross referencing.

Science Snippets: CNN, Scientists Declare First Tipping Point Reached (1 of 2) Draft script: