Politicians don't seem to have any trouble at all blaming storms, damage and deaths on 'Climate Change'.

thank you so much for pointing out that the financial cost of a hurricane is what you put in a hurricanes path. In the 70's I visited Myrtle Beach and the houses near the ocean were fishing shacks now you have 50 miles of million dollar homes. What insurance company is going to underwrite million dollar homes in these hurricane alleys - the federal government.

What can we do to solve the climate crisis? Allen Savory says that by allowing livestock to graze grass in a controlled manner (planned grazing) CO2 from the air through photosynthesis of the plants will be stored in the soil. A microbiologist Walter Jehne who says that by always having the soil covered with green growth, the evaporation of water will lower the temperature considerably. He claims that about 95% of the temperature is controlled by water evaporation and about 4% is controlled by CO2. So it becomes very important to keep the soil covered with green growths all the time. What we also need to be aware of is the large temperature difference between uncovered bare soil, which receives a strong heating and heat radiation, and soil that is covered with green growth. What we should do is always have the earth covered with green plants and trees so that we can capture the maximum amount of CO2 and at the same time facilitate water evaporation from the plants so that the temperature is lowered. Allan Savory - How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rqCFfJ9uhmxn0X0.html Walter Jehne - Climate Solutions for a Blue Planet ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fIF_bapknmh7jmQ.html The Magic of Soil ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eYd6gH-Qipxm1ac.html

Why do so many "scholars" defer to the IPCC? Their message is highly speculative and does not hold up. Further most of that body are politicians. With unproven speculations the role of leaders on this issue should be to reject.

Excellent from both - thanks.

There's hardly anything worse than looking at a thing like climate and making any climate predictions from a financial perspective! It may be beneficial for e.g. the mentioned insurance business in a secondary circulation of data. Financial ppl do not care whether something is real or apparent, good or bad, but to stay in business and be politically correct. This has been sufficiently expressed at the beginning of this talk. The absolutely BEST example given are hurricanes - there may be an absolute hurricane hell on Earth in one season with minimal losses, except perhaps some shipping, whereas in another season just one "well" aimed hurricane, "properly" ravaging a coastline with horrible fatalities and destruction. In the 1st case ppl will simply shrug it off, except noticing some of their packages delivered to the abyssal plain, whereas in that 2nd case they'll freak out and conclude that the "end is near"! You can't tell any climate basing on financial/social data and speculations! The 30 years is FAR too short period to tell any climate trends! If you just take this period, you'll OBVIOUSLY "prove" correlation between CO2 rise and various climate "harshness" indicators. To attempt at revealing any such regularities, be it temperature, wildfires, heatwaves, hurricanes, etc. and actually at establishing "what's the climate", you need to go back to at least '50s and even better '30s. There's a known FRAUDULENT approach to this "science" by filtering out data before '70s, and (almost surely intentional) ignoring of the '40s-'70s global cooling and previous '20s-40s global warming! The 1990-2020 period is by NO means representative for defining the climate and its trends! There's no consistent and significant correlation between CO2 concentration and temp in deep Earth's history. CO2 is by no means the dominant signal of the temp signal, and one doesn't need climate-specific education to discern it - it's enough to learn e.g. some automatics. There's only a certain mode of the temp signal, which started to be significantly correlated with variations of the other in late Tertiary, but other, longer and shorter modes aren't! This correlation doesn't yet imply any CO2->temp causality, in fact it's the other way around - the global ocean, due to thermal variation of gas solubility, absorbs and releases CO2 (and other gases). If CO2 concentration was the dominant signal, it would totally control the temp. All the global temp predictions based on current simulations, done since 20-30 years overshoot subsequent measurements at least TWICE, then are being periodically resynchronized with these measurements in a peculiar way WITHOUT appropriate recalculation of coefficients, and so producing same biased predictions over and over again! They're used to instigate the fear of a burning Earth and generate Gretas, Extinction Rebellions, and teenager protests! If IPCC is berating a totally "orthodox" (that is anti-CO2, anthropogenic) climate scientist for tiniest anti-orthodox heresies and calling him a "denier", it's just another proof, that it's NOT about science! Instead, it's about establishing the Climate Change as the only-correct religion of the emerging One World State, with rings of priests and acolytes establishing all undeniable truths, dogmas, interpretations, rituals, sins, atonements, saints, relics, and holidays. I hope, that both of you understand, that persisting in your least conflicting financial perspectives will lead you right into these structures - are you really feeling totally OK with it? Additionally - if you're pro absolutely ZERO emissions: no coal, no oil, no gas, no NOTHING, then: - what are you going to travel with? - horses? - how materials, food and goods will be transported? - how anything will be produced? - where will you take all the necessary energy from? - wind and solar? REALLY? BTW: there will NEVER be ZERO emissions! Kerry, Greta, Blood & Gore, Gates, Schwab and other MUST constantly fly their planes to attend conferences and remind ppl sitting at their homes and "eating ze bugs" to still reduce their "carbon footprints". Cows, horses, and other animals produce too much CO2 & CH4 and must be mostly eliminated, but some will still stay. And MOST importantly - 8 billion ppl produce a looot of CO2, so they must be mostly "reduced". You're TOTAL lunatics to make such statements! "Climate is changing" has same scientific value as saying "you're getting older". Climate is just a running mean of weather. At which point in time we've defined, that "climate was", now it's changing, and it's all due to human transgressions?

Sounds is working for me now. Maybe was trying to watch too soon after the video was processed

Great session, I learned a lot. Insightful discussion and a well prepared Michael ensuring relevant questions. (No issues with picture and sound)

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎵 *Einführung und Sponsoren der Show* - Beginn der Show, Sponsoren werden genannt. 00:17 🎤 *Vorstellung des Gastes Roger Pielke Jr.* - Roger Pielke Jr., Professor für Wissenschaft und Politik, wird als Gast vorgestellt. 00:58 🌍 *Pielke Jr.s Hintergrund und Arbeitsbereiche* - Pielke Jr. spricht über seinen beruflichen Hintergrund und seine Forschungsthemen, darunter Klimapolitik und Naturkatastrophen. 02:07 🏦 *Diskussion über Investitionen und Klimarisiken* - Diskussion über Klimarisiken für Investoren und die Kontroverse um Aussagen von Stuart Kirk von HSBC. 04:01 🌧️ *Einfluss des Klimawandels auf extreme Wetterereignisse* - Erörterung der Rolle des Klimawandels bei extremen Wetterereignissen und dessen Auswirkungen auf Investitionen. 06:06 📈 *Diskussion über Klimaszenarien und Prognosen* - Debatte über die Glaubwürdigkeit und Konsistenz von Klimaszenarien und deren Auswirkungen auf die Wirtschaft. 08:12 💼 *Kreditrisiken und finanzielle Auswirkungen des Klimawandels* - Analyse der Beziehung zwischen Kreditrisiken und den langfristigen Folgen des Klimawandels. 10:01 🌐 *Reaktionen auf kontroverse Klimaaussagen* - Diskussion über die öffentliche und mediale Reaktion auf kontroverse Klimaaussagen und deren Auswirkungen. 12:22 🗣️ *Klimadebatte und Meinungsfreiheit* - Diskussion über Meinungsfreiheit und Zensur in der Klimadebatte. 14:29 🌎 *Pielke Jr.s Position zum Klimawandel* - Pielke Jr. erklärt seine Ansichten zum Klimawandel und zur Klimapolitik. 17:16 📚 *Diskussion über Pielkes Buch "Climate Fix"* - Pielke Jr. spricht über sein Buch "Climate Fix" und seine Perspektiven zur Klimapolitik. 20:15 🌀 *Pielke Jr.s Forschung zu Hurrikanen* - Diskussion über Pielke Jr.s Forschung zu Hurrikanen und deren Auswirkungen. 23:18 🌧️ *Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf andere extreme Wetterereignisse* - Analyse der Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf Dürren, Waldbrände, Überschwemmungen und Hitzewellen. 26:07 💀 *Vergleich von Todesfällen durch Klimaereignisse und COVID-19* - Vergleich der durch Klimaereignisse und COVID-19 verursachten Todesfälle. 28:11 📊 *Klimaereignisse und wirtschaftliche Schäden* - Diskussion über den Zusammenhang zwischen Klimaereignissen und wirtschaftlichen Schäden. 30:12 📈 *Klimawissenschaft und Datenbanken* - Erörterung der Datenquellen und -banken, die in der Klimaforschung verwendet werden. 32:35 🌍 *Klimaänderungen und menschliche Einflüsse* - Analyse der Rolle des Menschen bei Klimaänderungen. 35:28 📈 *Zukünftige Klimaszenarien und ihre Plausibilität* - Diskussion über die Plausibilität verschiedener Klimaszenarien. 37:16 📚 *Pielkes Buch "Climate Fix" und Lösungen für den Klimawandel* - Diskussion über mögliche Lösungen für den Klimawandel, basierend auf Pielkes Buch. 39:20 🚫 *Pielkes Erfahrungen mit Zensur und Kritik* - Pielke Jr. teilt seine Erfahrungen mit Zensur und Kritik in der Klimadebatte. 41:52 🌐 *Klimawandel und politische Debatten* - Diskussion über den Einfluss des Klimawandels auf politische Debatten und Maßnahmen. 44:21 📺 *Mediale Darstellung von Klimawissenschaft und -politik* - Erörterung der Darstellung von Klimawissenschaft und -politik in den Medien. 46:01 🔍 *Analyse von Klimastudien und -daten* - Diskussion über die Analyse und Bewertung von Klimastudien und -daten. 48:21 📉 *Klimawandel und wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen* - Analyse der wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen des Klimawandels. 50:29 🌍 *Globale Klimapolitik und ihre Herausforderungen* - Diskussion über die Herausforderungen der globalen Klimapolitik. 52:35 📚 *Pielkes Forschung und ihre Rezeption* - Pielke Jr. spricht über die Rezeption seiner Forschung und seine Ansichten zur Klimawissenschaft. 54:55 📈 *Klimaszenarien und ihre Bedeutung für die Politik* - Diskussion über die Bedeutung und Nutzung von Klimaszenarien in der Politik. 57:20 🌐 *Klimawissenschaft und politische Entscheidungen* - Erörterung des Einflusses der Klimawissenschaft auf politische Entscheidungen. 59:11

Interesting conversation, thank you both ;-) Typical reaction from the climate alarmists: "Fire him !" But the real question should be, ok maybe he was rude, but: "IS HE WRONG?" I am not a professor and expert, just a fairly well informed citizen with half a brain. But decarbonzing the world will plunge us into poverty, will cost hundreds of millions of lives and wil not change the climate system at all, or so marginally that it will have no impact on the overall outcome. But that is just my opinion, based on information obtained from various sources, Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Dyson Freeman, Kees de Lange, François Gervais and many more...

Great value here, but note that Pielke accepts all the IPCC conclusions from WG1. This includes the assumption that the influence of the sun on our climate is zero. Figure 7.6 in WG1 shows solar forcing is negative (-0,02 W/m2) , with uncertainty of -0,08 to 0,06 W/m2, while total human forcing is 2,76 W/m2 (1,96 - 3,48). This is since 1750. The major problems here are that the evidence consists entirely of models, and that virtually nobody within solar physics or astrophysics will accept these numbers.

RCP8.5 scenario is not rescuable at this stage. Was made to earn citation. Not plausible. SSP3 also suspect

Excellent and informative discussion. I'm in whole hearted agreement with Roger all points except one. He seems to think an improved approach to the current one would be to just set and focus on an emissions target instead of a temperature target. The problem with that is you sever the target from any ongoing cost benefit analysis. As I'm sure both Roger and Michael are aware there is a real danger of creating more harm than good with any emissions reduction schedule let alone one not based on ongoing evaluation of costs vs benefit as those costs and benefits better reveal themselves in the future.

Robustness is central to human adaptation to climate change.

Silliness is global warming

Better healthcare. At 10am I rang my doctor's surgery(at the urging of a family member). The date is 3rd of January. I've got a phone call scheduled for 24th January,but then I do live in that third world country called Great Britain.

❤

We're in the multi-million-year-long Quaternary Ice Age. AGW = The less you know, the hotter your feel.

District Thermal Energy is looking good

The prospects of future liabilities can be seen in various ways: 1: thevimpacts

I am always curious to listen to well informed people but im usually waiting for the first red flag. The less red flags the better. In this case it was the 'C02 level being the main driver of climate change'. I stop listening as it is an unproven and questionable assumption, one that has been criticised by many scientists high up in their field of expertise and increasingly so. When someone states that line there are only a limited set of variables at play. When you put CO2 on top of the list of issues everything follows unless you mitigate it by considering a limited impact which i presume he doesnt. Projections are only as good as underlying assumptions which can be widely off the mark of course. As nobody has a crystal ball it is futile to speculate more than say 10 years in advance..

Great discussion, lots to take in. From a layman who is not reading the RCP scenarios I think the main media discussion comes out of CoP summaries and it’s report that 2.2 degrees is plausible with the NDCs is the one that hit the headlines. What I am concerned about is not the figure but how it will effect the worlds ecosystems and what we will end up with once this warming period ends.

Did Mann return the favour and defend Roger when he was most in need of support?

Roger says he’s unchanged in his proud, consistent views on climate change - and yet over the decades, DECADES of spending hundreds of billions of dollars, has not produced anything to nail what the IPCC has been charged with doing, ie, sussing out the issue. Instead of resolving anything, we have equivocal findings. Such that the investment strategist at FT - the program opener - can gleefully tweak everyone over the paradox that Pielke does not himself resolve, but acknowledges is manifest. How long has this unresolved paradox been around? This obvious question, and the failed quest to answer it, goes utterly neglected by our host. Big FAIL, men. On both parts of the conversation.

Earth's greenhouse effect is the model of a system always in saturation. A system in saturation can not have any more effect with the addition of more of its active elements. All the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth’s surface is entirely absorbed by greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface to add 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature. After 20 meters from the surface there is no more radiant greenhouse energy. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. molecules bumping into each other. This is high school taught science. The United Nation's IPCC science report makes it clear it is not discussing active greenhouse gas behavior when in the back of a 200 page report it declares it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20 THOUSAND meters altitude and only at that one altitude! This is a legal back stop to protect the instigators from prosecution of criminal fraud. It can be argued a reasonably high school educated person would know better than to accept the report as being relevant to global warming caused by greenhouse gases because by only sampling greenhouse gases at 20,000 meters altitude the report has made it transparent it is not discussing active greenhouse gas behavior or earth's greenhouse effect. Such legal back stops are common when misrepresenting products through vague wordings. Such items as a beverage labeled "All Natural Fruit Drink Flavor" might be discovered when reading the ingredients to have a statement "contains no actual fruit juice". Noncondensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide can have a share in the greenhouse effect, but they can not change the overall greenhouse effect because it is always in saturation due to the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor 99-1/2% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. After global warming was rising at 2/10°C per decade in the 1970s and 1980s it suddenly paused in 1991 when global warming was reported at 1.1°C and has not gone any higher than that reported temperature as of 2022 when global warming was reported at 1.1°C. Global warming has been stalled at about 1°C for thirty years prior to 2022.

I do not consider myself satisfied about the last argument and metaphor. Although I agree that probably “kicking a ship” isn’t the best long-term strategy the ship he’s talking about is absolutely more than just a normal ship actually. In fact it’s a burning aircraft carrier that is constantly correcting its course to avoid to come home too soon!

Deck of cards = atmosphere. S,H and D are N2, not a GHG. C down to the 3 are O2. not a GHG. The C deuce is half Ar, not a GHG, The last half of the C deuce is 95% HUMIDITY (H2O) and it is the main GHG. The tiny, 5% corner of the C deuce is CO2, the "human" GHG. BUT, 95% of that is NATURAL! The tiny sliver that remains is ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 and what can be taxed... and it controls the climate???? WAKE-UP!

But aren't we around the 8.5 scenario in some sort of prevention paradox? So it's prevented by action. But taking it off the table would potentially let people think we can roll back. I am happy with correctly framing stuff...but it's a bit like removing condoms because they worked so well in the past. Another more physical question. Couldn't tipping points accelerate a 4.5 emissions world into a 8.5 forcings world over time even with net zero human emissions by then?

Natural variability is shunned as an idea because the human component drivers have to be emphasized to attempt to have the deindustrialization of only Western democratic nation-states. No one seems to be going after increasing CO-2 from China, India, and emerging countries in Africa. The stated goal of deindustrialization is to achieve net zero, but nefarious people driving everything behind the scenes have unstated goals that involve their ancient enemies from centuries BCE. Violence in society is on the upswing. Law-abiding people everywhere are being left to fend for themselves and forbidden by law to take any defensive actions against criminals by being disarmed of their guns and being charged with offenses should they try to defend their lives from the attackers. A UKposts creator was banned for having publicized the awful truth that naive foolish were being used as a cudgel against innocent other citizens who were minding their own business... See 'Don't Make the Black Kids Angry': The Hoax of black victimization and Those who enable it. Colin Flaherty (author) See Sir Roger Scruton on Moral Relativism uploaded by commonsensesociety UKposts 2013 Scruton explains that the soft bigotry of low expectations grants to those high on the victimhood hierarchy the ability to commit unspeakable heinous crimes if those crimes target people having pale pigmentation epidermis who could possibly have any ethnicity in common with those originating from the European continent. If the reverse were ever to happen, serious prison time would have the perpetrator force-converted to Islam at the hands of Jihadies already convicted of high body count terrorism charges. A very NOT smart person in California recently came up with some ridiculous reparations scheme in favor of one particular race. They wanted to have each African American person in the state to be compensated by the government for an amount of 200+ million dollars. This person's math skills were few and none because when the actual math is done this compensation amount far exceeds the GDP of the entire planet for an appreciable portion of a decade or so because it is a colossal sum of money. This anti-racism very NOT smart person in California was taught of his nonsense notions by students of the Frankfurt School ISR. See Goy Guide to World History 4 Frankfurt School, ISR E. Michael Jones Kevin MacDonald UKposts See Michael Hoskinson UKposts Origins of political correctness the Frankfurt School Since that time Marxism has morphed a few times to attempt revolutions and uprisings against supposedly privileged people based on their immutable demographic intersectionality traits such as race, sex, and sexual orientation. This is known as wokeness which promotes the victimhood hierarchy. A branch of these vanguards of Neo-Marxism have enshrined these policies into an economic strategy involving ESG scores, central bank digital currency, property theft of the oppressors by bank account seizures on the most flimsy accusations of baseless name-calling attacks as per Justin Trudeau, and the freedom trucker convoy in Canada of Winter 2021-2022. A sure sign that you are over the target is when they begin calling you a white supremacist Nazi bigot without any just cause. Discrimination laws have been enacted in many places that have it that the racial group that in the 1960s represented the majority population could not be victims of racially or religiously motivated attacks. See Pakistani child sexual exploitation scandal grooming gangs problem growing Rotherham England decades It is a form of Jeffery Epstein sex slavery that is encouraged so that its perpetrators can victimize the politically correct target group--the former majority population of the given Western democratic nation. Some people have strongly disliked others who are not in their small group of formerly religious, now-turned Neo-Marxism devotees. Read carefully: Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5, Zionism versus Bolshevism. A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People. By the Right Honorable Winston S. Churchill. This article is a false dichotomy because Jewish people are a wide-ranging political group, except for their banking dynasty leadership families who dominate the finance of governments due to having shaped world history for many centuries. How could this have happened? Collusion with their schemes by those wanting to profiteer during times of trouble and upset that are being made to happen on purpose. See "the imperial french cause" "in defense of napoleon bonaparte" Fascifist See darkness descends bolshevik revolution UKposts See Between Heaven And Hell The True Story Of Whites in South Africa A video by Sinead McCarthy UKposts Unfortunately, I was not a student of world history and geopolitics until recently. I am an inorganic chemistry, math, physics, engineering, and computer science guy who was late to the party in piecing together the big puzzle.

I suggest loking into the facts, and the science.. Nothn 2 fear chidren.

Around the time he was talking about attribution and giving the example about stacking a deck of cards - if you have 30x as many aces then why aren't you pulling a bunch of aces - was it not just a bunch of cherry-picked examples? E.g. maybe it's true that hurricanes haven't been increasing I don't know much about that, but in regards to other penomena there has been a flood of plausible-sounding reports of unprecedented flooding, heatwaves and global temperatures. Is Professor Pielke'a view that that is all a load of rubbish or does he think that attribution seems to be promising and perhaps performing well for some important phenomena? If the latter, why was the vast majority of the discussion so strongly leaning towards downplaying short- and medium-term impacts? Unless I'm missing something, it comes across as playing exactly the same game that he criticises others of playing, and argues against at the end of the discussion.

terrible sound

NUCLEAR

Anyone ever think of asking these climate alarmists exactly what % of CO2 do they want in the atmosphere? They are always saying there is too much CO2 and it must be reduced to stop the world from overheating, but they never say by how much. Do they prefer an ice age? The world has a CO2 level of about 400 ppm today, has been as high as 1700ppm before, and plant life will die if the level goes below 150ppm. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise but there is evidence that high temperatures cause CO2 to rise hundreds to thousands of years after the high temperatures have passed. The burning of fossil fuels may cause rises in CO2 levels but this helps feed plant life and would be good for crops etc. Humans prosper when weather is warmer. The Chinese, Africans and Indians are not going to give up burning fossil fuels such as coal and wood. Western societies once burned those fuels until gas, electricity and nuclear means were invented or discovered. Are we foolish enough to think these other countries are going to give up their chance at being as prosperous and comfortable because we say so? I don't think so.

global energy use does not need to increase. extreme energy efficiency is the solution. we wast 1/2 the energy we produce- so we can start there. but this will take a tas on all types of pollution AND a stiff wealth tax- and these funds will be used to develope and distribute the cleaner/more efficient energy solutions- specially to the poor.

What's Pielke's grasp of fluid dynamics like? Has he looked at Milankovich cycles and the fact we're following a pattern that's been played out over and over for more than 500,000 years. Every 100-125,000 years, the temperature shoots up, peaks, and then plummets. The last one (the Eemian) was around 120,000 years ago, the one before (La Bouchet) about 100,000 years previous, Perfleet more or less the same before that and the same for the Hoxnian (from NOAA Vostok core samples). Nothing to do with CO2, nothing to do with us, it's simply what happens. GHGs are 1% of atmosphere and CO2 is 0.04% of that of which over 96% is natural (animals and plants breathing, etc). Humans are responsible for less than 4% (over 50% of that from countries that didn't sign the Paris Accords and have no intention of quitting, like China). If the planet was that sensitive to less that 4% of 0.04% of 1%, when Krakatoa blew we'd have all died. A lot did because it got very cold due to particulates in the air that blocked sunlight and ruined harvests (not CO2, other stuff), but the planet is still here. When humans first turned up on the planet, CO2 was at 1,000 ppm (the level we pump into greenhouses to encourage growth because that's the level plants prefer. We're in a bit of a dearth of CO2 right now). When our fossil fuels were being laid down it was around 7,000 ppm. We're still here. Meanwhile, if you put data we KNOW into the climate models and ask them to extrapolate the temperature today, the planet's practically on fire. The models are useless, they don't properly accommodate for water vapour (by far the most potent GHG), the scale's too big, they don't take into account extra-terrestrial events (Milankovich cycles again) and they don't even know salt water freezes if it gets cold enough (they had to fudge that). The stuff coming out in the summaries for policy-makers are almost universally apocolyptic over a gas that has been MUCH higher in the past, makes plants grow more and with greater resistance to drought, and still you guys push this agenda first put out by the Club of Rome in 1972 because they were afraid we would run out of oil and they needed to find a way to force a reduction in use. Meanwhile, China's Belt and Road initiative is giving to African countries the reliable energy they need when we've refused them out of a patronising colonialist attitude. People are dying over this lie, or handing control of their countries to a malignant power, but you guys just don't care, do you?

From my study of liars, seems he's one of them.

The question is not difficult to ans. Although about 2 billion have been added to the middle class in the last 30 yrs due primarily to China's development; poverty, food, potable water and energy insecurity are now on the rise. So it will be in the next few decades. 1.5C is a pipe😅 dream and if nothing substantial continues to be done on climate change 2 C is a moderately high probability by 2040. This would be catastrophic for our grain belts as summer avg growth temps would easily be 3-4 C higher. By this time coral reefs would be close to termination and our fisheries largely depleted. The Ogalalla Aquifer will probably be bone dry. Farming in Nebraska and Kansas will be history much like cattle ranching already is in the high plains. Much of the southern part of the Amazon will become a grassland. But it will be worse than this- 100s of millions will be on the move. The chaos generated by this diaspora will destroy much of civil society. A very rocky road ahead. If you retire in 20 yrs and move to Phoenix, how many old farts will die during a week of extreme heat after the grid fails one summer? 1000, 10,000?? SHIT IS GOING TO HIT THE FAN BECAUSE CURRENT EEI is now about 1.6 W/m^2. Hell and high water folks.

Models. GIGO