Probably 6 years ago Bjorn Lomborg published extensive research on "adaptation" in his book "False Alarm". It was a source of light in the doom and gloom of climate fraud and catastrophism.
Never mentioned it. However, climate records showed that in the 1500's the Rhine River dried up - naturally. Now we find pine forests under the receding glaciers in the Alps - glaciers that have "always been there". Curiously, 25 years ago they found the "Ice Man" at the bottom of a receding Tyrolian glacier. Hmmm. Last year they found forests under receding glaciers in Wyoming (USA). Seems those forests all date back to the Medieval Warming - the period that Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick tried to erase.
All the lies in the world cannot defeat truth, once we allow truth to come out.
mmmK Glacier recession is accelerating, dude. And all you're doing is admitting that your messiah doesn't have a clue how to respond, and neither do you.
The main idea of adapting is to build whatever we need in order to protect ourselves from the most probable negative outcomes of Climate Change. It doesn't replace all efforts to reduce CO2 -- but it does something for lives in the short term and can be (no blanket guarantee) much more cost-effective than trying to change the Earth's climate (especially with huge countries like China just ignoring their CO2). Adapting for water/drought, unlike building no reservoirs in California since 1979 (and one planned to be completed in 2030), would have been a much more aggressive plan for reservoirs or desalinization -- as an example.
I agree that’s what we need to do, but sadly there are still plenty of people who comment on articles
Like this who are still in denial of ACC, much less the causes. The idea that they would be even half-heartedly on board with rational problem solving g is beyond possible. Read ALL the comments, and especially replies to me and see for yourself. It’s disturbing.
Apparently you neglected to comment on why those pine forests from the Medieval Warming (1000 years ago) got underneath those glaciers that were always there. Hence, you are ignoring natural cycles for which you have (obviously) no clue about causality. Perhaps you never considered why the Anasazi people of SW US disappeared 1000 year ago when the Southwest dried up and made their culture impossible. Were they driving SUVs? Please help us here. You obviously have a well-formulated testable hypothesis you are dying to share with us.
You are right about the amount of "stupid" that has found it's way to this site. Based on your questions and comments, I see the problem. Actual science really isn't your thing, eh?
Plus, Michael Mann and Al Gore and Bill Nye should be in prison for defrauding the world of $Trillions spent on worthless Wind/Solar/Bess, as well as prematurely destroyed Nuclear plants.
That climate science has a long way to go before it gets credibility, and many who call themselves climate scientists are activists and frauds. Furthermore, very few people understand scientific method, particularly climate activists.
Most interesting, thought provoking piece on climate change/mitigation policy I’ve read in a long time. Especially eye opening was the lack of a counterfactual sans economic development in a methodological sense. Need to use at least mentally a Diff in Diff approach instead of difference. This is a standard thought in health policy assessment but maybe not here. Great piece
Nice article Matt- especially the concept of time and space regarding mitigation versus adaptation.
Normally the THB comments usually add to the the article in question, but unfortunately much of the thread of comments has been co-opted by what many people would call a blog troll. Sad.
Excellent analysis! Policies for complex adaptive systems are best when chosen on a minimax basis: the net of benefits - harm. Ideally, that’s like the old song “Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.” Of course, it’s never that simple.
Action, at whatever level (individual, community, state, federal), requires resources - financial, human … I find it useful to think in terms of Flora and Flora’s Seven Capitals:
* Physical – will a policy or action improve or harm the built environment; do we have the equipment or other physical assets to act?
* Natural – will a policy or action improve or harm the natural environment?
* Human – do we have the skills in sufficient quantity to carry out the policy; will the policy or action improve or harm the human environment?
* Financial – do we have enough money to carry out the policy; if not, will we be able to pay back any debt we incur?
* Social – Will the policy strengthen or weaken the ties that bind us; will this isolate some?
* Cultural – are we confident enough to see this through, even when reverses occur; do we have unity of purpose?
* Institutional/governance – do we have systems in place to make the necessary decisions, to implement policies, and to monitor progress (and change direction if necessary)?
* Financial – do we have enough money to carry out the policy; if not, will we be able to pay back any debt we incur?
Who will pay?
* Social – Will the policy strengthen or weaken the ties that bind us; will this isolate some?
Deniers are promoting division with false narratives.
* Cultural – are we confident enough to see this through, even when reverses occur; do we have unity of purpose?
See above, add loyalty to right wing extremist politicians
* Institutional/governance – do we have systems in place to make the necessary decisions, to implement policies, and to monitor progress (and change direction if necessary)?
Matt, do you think the recommendations in the paper could be extended to metrics that track the well-being of the non-human world (i.e. species diversity and abundance, ecosystem integrity) given that economic development doesn't necessarily have the same straightforward positive relationship to them?
Great question. Maybe. One of my PhD students (Ashley Dancer) is working on something closely related to this now. I'll write something when her chapters come out.
Good piece, but it's unfortunate to see the Sri Lanka's "experiment" referenced in this context considering how biased media has spun that situation.
Find me the proponent for an synthetic fertilizer replacement strategy that suggests such a strategy be implemented via a surprise overnight ban of all synthetic fertilizer due to a lack of foreign currency. It caught everyone off guard.
That experiment failed because it was partially executed they way it was to hide deeper economic issues. Maybe it would have failed regardless but that's a different matter.
Globally, we’ve spent trillions of dollars on so-called renewable solar and wind and it’s had zero impact on global temperature.
Instead, we have destroyed landscapes, gotten higher energy costs devastating the poor, out sourced emissions to countries with less environmental regulations, and made the grid more fragile and unstable.
The planet is fine. The planet will be fine for a long time. Human flourishing comes first.
Do you want me to share my list of fossil fuel interests who are blocking advancement in greenhouse gas reduction strategies? Has that gotten better or worse now that Trump is slashing anything based on real science?
Excellent thought about the Social Cost of Carbon and its pernicious effects on policy. Just about everything humans do in life is not driven solely by cost. Our actions are balances of costs and benefits. We act when perceived benefits exceed expected costs. That is why we use fossil fuels for light, heat and transportation. To use inflated, exaggerated, speculative Social Cost of Carbon numbers to set policy while ignoring the very real and immediate benefits of these fuels is flawed logic which inevitably will (and indeed did) lead to absurdities.
We know of the benefits, which is why we've overused them in the past two centuries. Now they're starting to cost more and more, and you're making excuses for why we shouldn't stop that.
Dear Mr. Turner, I do not normally engage with rude accusatory post such as yours but I will make an exception in your case, in hopes you will mend the tone of your messages in future. Please note that Roger's substack site is renowned for its civility. Ad hominems sour the atmosphere here so I'm hoping you will avoid them in future. A rational debate on the balance between speculative costs and tangible benefits is, in my opinion, absolutely essential if climate policy is to rise out of the slough of despond into which it has sunk. Facts and history rebut your unsupported opinion that fossil fuels have been overused in the past two centuries. Fossil fuels permit the use of mechanical gadgets instead of human slaves to dig ditches and move burdens. We don't have to cut down old-growth forests for firewood to keep from freezing; we can opt for gas or electricity instead. We lubricate our factory gears with petroleum grease and light our homes with coal-fired electricity so whales are no longer hunted towards extinction for their oil. We travel in autos and airplanes instead of working horses to death pulling wagons. And asserting that fossil fuels are "starting to cost more and more" contradicts history. In 1950 gasoline cost 25 cents per gallon in my neck of the woods. I just filled my car at $2.29 per gallon. $2.29 in 2026 dollars equals 17 cents in 1950 dollars, adjusting for 1300% inflation. So gasoline is now cheaper, in real terms, than it was 75 years ago. More facts and less surly emotion, if you please, sir.
"In 1950 gasoline cost 25 cents per gallon in my neck of the woods"
That's about the same price it is now, maybe a bit less. It also had lead in it, which poisoned millions of people. Environmentalists and health experts convinced governments to ban its use.
You happily ignore costs and speak only of your supposed "benefits". People shovelling bullshit, no matter how "civilized" they think they are, are rude.
Imagine if the billions California has spent on renewables instead had been used to provide the resources to make energy, housing, food and medicine cheaper. Imagine if the trillions that will be spent to slow earth's temperature rise one tenth of a degree had been used to bring prosperity around the world rather than enriching climate hustlers. It's about morality as much as science.
The author still blindly accepts obviously mistaken assumptions about weather event (mis)attribution and the idea that somehow EV's at this stage are in any way useful towards offsetting carbon dioxide emissions (or any necessarily subsidized green energy, for that matter).
I guess I always assumed the positive externalities of FFs were being accounted for in SCC and related analyses. It’s quite shocking to learn that may not have been the case.
I used to muse about the rapid attribution folks doing an attribution study on economic growth during the late industrial era. Comparing a net zero year 2000 economy say with what actually has transpired. I don’t think anyone ever ran with it.
Interesting paper. Nice to see some discourse on adaptation. In reality, it’s adaptation to the impacts of weather that is fruitful. Mitigation is typically framed in long term outcomes that may or may not happen, and often in catastrophic predictions with no reality base.
I was glad to see the caution on SCC. I’m skeptical of SCC estimates, and using these to set policy is dangerous.
The article states “Economic development is a climate justice imperative”. “Climate justice” is a political construct that is thrown into the argument to somehow justify the drastic measures governments have taken in the name of climate change. There is no such thing as “climate justice”.
Probably 6 years ago Bjorn Lomborg published extensive research on "adaptation" in his book "False Alarm". It was a source of light in the doom and gloom of climate fraud and catastrophism.
What did he say will happen when there is insufficient glacier melt for tens of millions of people to have fresh water during their dry seasons?
Never mentioned it. However, climate records showed that in the 1500's the Rhine River dried up - naturally. Now we find pine forests under the receding glaciers in the Alps - glaciers that have "always been there". Curiously, 25 years ago they found the "Ice Man" at the bottom of a receding Tyrolian glacier. Hmmm. Last year they found forests under receding glaciers in Wyoming (USA). Seems those forests all date back to the Medieval Warming - the period that Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick tried to erase.
All the lies in the world cannot defeat truth, once we allow truth to come out.
Oh...so it doesn't matter "because Rhine River"?
mmmK Glacier recession is accelerating, dude. And all you're doing is admitting that your messiah doesn't have a clue how to respond, and neither do you.
The main idea of adapting is to build whatever we need in order to protect ourselves from the most probable negative outcomes of Climate Change. It doesn't replace all efforts to reduce CO2 -- but it does something for lives in the short term and can be (no blanket guarantee) much more cost-effective than trying to change the Earth's climate (especially with huge countries like China just ignoring their CO2). Adapting for water/drought, unlike building no reservoirs in California since 1979 (and one planned to be completed in 2030), would have been a much more aggressive plan for reservoirs or desalinization -- as an example.
I agree that’s what we need to do, but sadly there are still plenty of people who comment on articles
Like this who are still in denial of ACC, much less the causes. The idea that they would be even half-heartedly on board with rational problem solving g is beyond possible. Read ALL the comments, and especially replies to me and see for yourself. It’s disturbing.
Apparently you neglected to comment on why those pine forests from the Medieval Warming (1000 years ago) got underneath those glaciers that were always there. Hence, you are ignoring natural cycles for which you have (obviously) no clue about causality. Perhaps you never considered why the Anasazi people of SW US disappeared 1000 year ago when the Southwest dried up and made their culture impossible. Were they driving SUVs? Please help us here. You obviously have a well-formulated testable hypothesis you are dying to share with us.
"Were they driving SUVs? "
What TAF does that have to do with the ACC that's happening right now?
Wow the stupid on this site is strong.
You are right about the amount of "stupid" that has found it's way to this site. Based on your questions and comments, I see the problem. Actual science really isn't your thing, eh?
OK…why did they, and what point do you think you’re proving?
Plus, Michael Mann and Al Gore and Bill Nye should be in prison for defrauding the world of $Trillions spent on worthless Wind/Solar/Bess, as well as prematurely destroyed Nuclear plants.
That climate science has a long way to go before it gets credibility, and many who call themselves climate scientists are activists and frauds. Furthermore, very few people understand scientific method, particularly climate activists.
Most interesting, thought provoking piece on climate change/mitigation policy I’ve read in a long time. Especially eye opening was the lack of a counterfactual sans economic development in a methodological sense. Need to use at least mentally a Diff in Diff approach instead of difference. This is a standard thought in health policy assessment but maybe not here. Great piece
Nice article Matt- especially the concept of time and space regarding mitigation versus adaptation.
Normally the THB comments usually add to the the article in question, but unfortunately much of the thread of comments has been co-opted by what many people would call a blog troll. Sad.
Ya, one in particular. I am very close to blocking them. (And thanks for the kind words!)
A
Excellent analysis! Policies for complex adaptive systems are best when chosen on a minimax basis: the net of benefits - harm. Ideally, that’s like the old song “Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.” Of course, it’s never that simple.
Action, at whatever level (individual, community, state, federal), requires resources - financial, human … I find it useful to think in terms of Flora and Flora’s Seven Capitals:
* Physical – will a policy or action improve or harm the built environment; do we have the equipment or other physical assets to act?
* Natural – will a policy or action improve or harm the natural environment?
* Human – do we have the skills in sufficient quantity to carry out the policy; will the policy or action improve or harm the human environment?
* Financial – do we have enough money to carry out the policy; if not, will we be able to pay back any debt we incur?
* Social – Will the policy strengthen or weaken the ties that bind us; will this isolate some?
* Cultural – are we confident enough to see this through, even when reverses occur; do we have unity of purpose?
* Institutional/governance – do we have systems in place to make the necessary decisions, to implement policies, and to monitor progress (and change direction if necessary)?
* Financial – do we have enough money to carry out the policy; if not, will we be able to pay back any debt we incur?
Who will pay?
* Social – Will the policy strengthen or weaken the ties that bind us; will this isolate some?
Deniers are promoting division with false narratives.
* Cultural – are we confident enough to see this through, even when reverses occur; do we have unity of purpose?
See above, add loyalty to right wing extremist politicians
* Institutional/governance – do we have systems in place to make the necessary decisions, to implement policies, and to monitor progress (and change direction if necessary)?
Being destroyed as we speak.
Matt, do you think the recommendations in the paper could be extended to metrics that track the well-being of the non-human world (i.e. species diversity and abundance, ecosystem integrity) given that economic development doesn't necessarily have the same straightforward positive relationship to them?
Great question. Maybe. One of my PhD students (Ashley Dancer) is working on something closely related to this now. I'll write something when her chapters come out.
Good piece, but it's unfortunate to see the Sri Lanka's "experiment" referenced in this context considering how biased media has spun that situation.
Find me the proponent for an synthetic fertilizer replacement strategy that suggests such a strategy be implemented via a surprise overnight ban of all synthetic fertilizer due to a lack of foreign currency. It caught everyone off guard.
That experiment failed because it was partially executed they way it was to hide deeper economic issues. Maybe it would have failed regardless but that's a different matter.
Fair point.
Humans don’t like wildfires, so we do fire mitigation.
Humans don’t like droughts, so we build irrigation.
Humans don’t like flooding, so we build sea walls.
The radical environmentalists want to stop all that development. They have no problem sacrificing humans to satisfy the goddess Mother Nature.
Greenhouse gas reductions is a fools errand.
Globally, we’ve spent trillions of dollars on so-called renewable solar and wind and it’s had zero impact on global temperature.
Instead, we have destroyed landscapes, gotten higher energy costs devastating the poor, out sourced emissions to countries with less environmental regulations, and made the grid more fragile and unstable.
The planet is fine. The planet will be fine for a long time. Human flourishing comes first.
Fossil fuel companies make the profits, tax payers foot the bill.
"The radical environmentalists want to stop all that development. "
Huh? Who? Where? When?
It's "radical fossil fuel consumers" who want to keep making it worse.
Coastal Conservation League and Sierra Club sued against seawalls in South Carolina and elsewhere.
Conservation Congress sued the U.S. Forest Service 24 times to block fuel load thinning and prescribed burns in California.
Center for Biological Diversity have challenged groundwater designations and water contracts tied to irrigation.
The list goes on.
Did any of them win?
Do you want me to share my list of fossil fuel interests who are blocking advancement in greenhouse gas reduction strategies? Has that gotten better or worse now that Trump is slashing anything based on real science?
"Center for Biological Diversity have challenged groundwater designations and water contracts tied to irrigation."
What does that mean?
Excellent thought about the Social Cost of Carbon and its pernicious effects on policy. Just about everything humans do in life is not driven solely by cost. Our actions are balances of costs and benefits. We act when perceived benefits exceed expected costs. That is why we use fossil fuels for light, heat and transportation. To use inflated, exaggerated, speculative Social Cost of Carbon numbers to set policy while ignoring the very real and immediate benefits of these fuels is flawed logic which inevitably will (and indeed did) lead to absurdities.
The SCC has its uses conceptually but I agree that it is fraught as a policy tool.
By the time you found out there is not enough fresh water from receded glaciers it will be too expensive to fix. The time to act is now.
Fossil fuel companies reap the profits, the rest of us bear the costs.
Who paid for those hundreds of thousands of evacuees Canada had the past three wildfire seasons?
We know of the benefits, which is why we've overused them in the past two centuries. Now they're starting to cost more and more, and you're making excuses for why we shouldn't stop that.
Dear Mr. Turner, I do not normally engage with rude accusatory post such as yours but I will make an exception in your case, in hopes you will mend the tone of your messages in future. Please note that Roger's substack site is renowned for its civility. Ad hominems sour the atmosphere here so I'm hoping you will avoid them in future. A rational debate on the balance between speculative costs and tangible benefits is, in my opinion, absolutely essential if climate policy is to rise out of the slough of despond into which it has sunk. Facts and history rebut your unsupported opinion that fossil fuels have been overused in the past two centuries. Fossil fuels permit the use of mechanical gadgets instead of human slaves to dig ditches and move burdens. We don't have to cut down old-growth forests for firewood to keep from freezing; we can opt for gas or electricity instead. We lubricate our factory gears with petroleum grease and light our homes with coal-fired electricity so whales are no longer hunted towards extinction for their oil. We travel in autos and airplanes instead of working horses to death pulling wagons. And asserting that fossil fuels are "starting to cost more and more" contradicts history. In 1950 gasoline cost 25 cents per gallon in my neck of the woods. I just filled my car at $2.29 per gallon. $2.29 in 2026 dollars equals 17 cents in 1950 dollars, adjusting for 1300% inflation. So gasoline is now cheaper, in real terms, than it was 75 years ago. More facts and less surly emotion, if you please, sir.
"In 1950 gasoline cost 25 cents per gallon in my neck of the woods"
That's about the same price it is now, maybe a bit less. It also had lead in it, which poisoned millions of people. Environmentalists and health experts convinced governments to ban its use.
"We lubricate our factory gears with petroleum grease "
I don't burn machine oil. I wasn't aware it's a fossil fuel.
So you care about whales, huh? How about other marine animals, whose habitats are being destroyed by ACC? Or don't they count?
You happily ignore costs and speak only of your supposed "benefits". People shovelling bullshit, no matter how "civilized" they think they are, are rude.
Your poorly legible reply proves it.
I can see you have neither the brains nor the manners to discourse with me. Do not expect further replies.
Whether or not you respond to me is irrelevant.
I’m perfectly fine calling you on your bullshit and never hearing from you again.
I see you aren't able to respond to anything I said, so you tell on yourself by pretending I'm the one without the brains.
And you're very rude.
Imagine if the billions California has spent on renewables instead had been used to provide the resources to make energy, housing, food and medicine cheaper. Imagine if the trillions that will be spent to slow earth's temperature rise one tenth of a degree had been used to bring prosperity around the world rather than enriching climate hustlers. It's about morality as much as science.
Imagine of fossil fuel companies actually paid for the billions in damage they're causing.
The author still blindly accepts obviously mistaken assumptions about weather event (mis)attribution and the idea that somehow EV's at this stage are in any way useful towards offsetting carbon dioxide emissions (or any necessarily subsidized green energy, for that matter).
I suggest we ignore anything posted by David Turner, his comments are basically irrational and irrelevant. Probably a bot.
Hard to find good posts to agree or disagree with in here as a result!
Well well said, Roger.
So is political maturity…
https://cribb.substack.com/p/are-politicians-dumber-than-algae
I guess I always assumed the positive externalities of FFs were being accounted for in SCC and related analyses. It’s quite shocking to learn that may not have been the case.
I used to muse about the rapid attribution folks doing an attribution study on economic growth during the late industrial era. Comparing a net zero year 2000 economy say with what actually has transpired. I don’t think anyone ever ran with it.
Interesting paper. Nice to see some discourse on adaptation. In reality, it’s adaptation to the impacts of weather that is fruitful. Mitigation is typically framed in long term outcomes that may or may not happen, and often in catastrophic predictions with no reality base.
I was glad to see the caution on SCC. I’m skeptical of SCC estimates, and using these to set policy is dangerous.
The article states “Economic development is a climate justice imperative”. “Climate justice” is a political construct that is thrown into the argument to somehow justify the drastic measures governments have taken in the name of climate change. There is no such thing as “climate justice”.
Denial veiled by fake civility is still denial, and is disingenuous.