« Remember The Oceans! Or Not... | Main | Bullshit Is Everywhere »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sam Taylor


Here's a very recent (within the last week or so) interview with Anderson, in the run up to the Paris talks. I think he quantifies his views on certain issues a little more. Hopefully you or some other readers will find it interesting.


Blue Island Girl

He's also on Radio Ecoshock this week.

and a talk he gave last week:

David Laskaris

I'm currently watching the video. At 29:31 in he has a slide titled "Why aren't scientists/experts whistle blowing these fudges?", and in answer #4 I think he nails down the crux of Flatland:

"We don't care --and anyway flagging up these concerns would likely raise difficult questions about our lifestyles."

Sigh, that there is tactical ignoring at its best.


Wow, the people in that audience looked uncomfortable.

That was pretty awesome, though, a bit like watching Hercules clean the Augean stables. Almost never does so much BS get cleared out so quickly. Thank you. This is what I come to this site for - to see things cleaned out a little bit.


Flatland sums it up, and I think if you are like Kevin Anderson, and still trying to operate in flatland, frustration is just the start.
I also wonder if the trauma caused by trying to reconcile the really obvious differences between the data, and what people want to be true, is going to cause some major mental health issues in the near future. People have so much mental baggage tied up with 2C,and I think some of them just want to die before they have to admit they have failed :/

Mike Roberts

I like Kevin Anderson, even though he thinks that it is just (technically) possible to limit warming to less than 2C. He really tries to be honest about the science but gets stick from other climate scientists, though I've never seen his figures debunked.

One thing that annoys me is that the so-called CO2 (or C) budget seems to be the top end of the estimates given in AR5, but that is never made clear. The ranges of total emissions for various possibilities of avoiding 2C all start at zero, which is perhaps indicative of the uncertainty (particularly as the ranges are for total emissions since 1861-1880). In the end, the budget often quoted seems to be the best possible number for the just a 66% chance of achieving the target. Even then, AR5 seems to use TCR for this number, which, to me, means that even if achieved, we're not even trying to limit warming to 2C, only over a relatively short period.

Is it any wonder we're going to fail in this endeavour?


Nature broken token. ):-



Shows the ppm CO2 at the time of each COP meeting since 1995:
The only chart you need to understand Climate Change and the lack of human response.

Decoupling, renewables, meetings ... but, growth in emissions(+feedbacks?) still increasing.


@ JonS, thank you for that PDF. (30 yrs ago, in college, I had a classmate named Jon S.) That is a great read and it's great to see K.A. up his game in chiding his colleagues, I think he's been a little "meek" over the past decade. I especially liked his closing sentences...

"It is not our job to be politically expedient with our analysis or to curry favour with our funders. Whether our conclusions are liked or not is irrelevant. As we massage the assumptions of our analysis to fit within today’s political and economic hegemony, so we do society a grave disservice - one for which the repercussions will be irreversible."

Alas, I'm sure this is still not strong enough and, even if it were, 1) few, if any, would take heed and 2) the rock is carved and the cake is baked so no harm, no foul... we'll reap what we have sown and it ain't gonna' be pretty.

The comments to this entry are closed.