My favorite error is on p. 165: "Many of these subsidies are being routed through the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy, the office that, among other duties, approves new US fossil-fuel extraction." ?? How can one write so many pages about this office and not know that DOI does permitting for fossil fuels on federal land, and states approve drilling otherwise? How can you be an activist and not have written a letter that begins "Dear Secretary Haaland,..." This is just basic how-the-government-works stuff.
No one has time to go through this whole manuscript, but if the work was crowdsourced I'm sure there would be so many errors — I wonder especially about the China chapter.
I am still in shock over the idea that someone who claims to be engaged with economics and climate issues, could think that its possible that agricultural productivity has gone down since the 1960s.
If nothing else how could we have possibly more than double the global population over that period, have cereal per hectare go down, and feed everyone? Like did we find Atlantis? Start farming the Yukon?
I like the Breakthrough Institute precisely because it is not extremist. It sees problems but lives in reality. I am so tired of the uber-passionate that villainize all those who are not in their ultra-committed camp, because I find that that sort of personality inevitably leads to dogmatism, intolerance, and authoritarianism. So I appreciate the author's taking time to rebut the loonies of both ends of the spectrum.
when you look closely, they really start to pop out
p. 169: "when renewables are priced accurately in mitigation pathways, the value of CDR drops up to 70 percent, depending on the energy-system sector under consideration [81]." but — the reference (https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00610-2) is about CCS, not CDR
p. 170: "..researchers are designing mitigation scenarios to explore how to decarbonize the global economy without overreliance on carbon dioxide removal. In one recent study, Rogelj finds that simply constraining warming, rather than trying to find the most 'cost-effective' pathway to a temperature target in 2100, enables the model to achieve net zero in 2050 and halt warming at 1.6°C without using unrealistic amounts of CDR to cool down the planet."
... does she understand that they just... set the model to not go past 1.6? without instructions on how to do that besides wave a magic model wand? and looks to me like these scenarios still are using 10Gt of CDR/year. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1541-4/figures/8
Ironically the last paragraph of the "Innovation chapter" says that policymakers "should be developing robust innovation policies that seed and nurture the zero-carbon technologies and processes for concrete, steel, transport, and agriculture..." so the endpoint is actually, we need innovation?
"It's not just 8" - the book has systemic problems
On claim 7: As usual, there is a failure to mention that warmer temperatures means fewer deaths from cold, and cold-related deaths vastly outweigh heat-related deaths.
I greatly appreciate Morrison's careful analysis of Guenther's claims and the explanations of what the selected sources actually indicate. It's quite a sad state of affairs when OUP publishes a "former Renaissance" scholar's forays into areas well beyond her expertise without more expert fact-checking of its own.
Ummm.... re: "former Renaissance scholar"....1. You don't STOP being a scholar of something (and usually DONT LOSE INTEREST in it , either) because of swinging the bulk of your time and intellect and skills to a Global Ecological Crisis. If you take a minimal amount of time to find out about the author and why she focused her energies over the past decade or so, you'd see that your attitude is arrogant BS (As it is also actually a "credentialing" of her in the field of Climate Communications that she has spent that time and written books and articles and founded an organization —"End Climate Silence"— and publishes a Newsletter.) So your arrogant dismissal of her is simply bemusing to me, and offensive as well.
I think anyone can see that your ad hominem attack-response to my post is an overreaction. Ummm .... It patently isn't about Guenther, apart from its statement of her former area of expertise/ career. It expresses gratitude for a climate scientist's correction of misinterpretations and errors in a book published by OUP, and expresses dismay at the Press's (s)lack of rigor. Your Quixotic tilting at windmills doesn't offend me, but I felt obliged to defend my authorial intent.
Aside from your defending an article that IS patently about Dr. Guenther, and then "sliding in" your absurd quip about "former", which I proceeded to identify as the ignorant dismissal (which it "patently" IS ), no, nothing at all about Guenther. LOL.
News flash, also: You don't seem to know what "ad hominem" means, since I called ***your dismissal** of her "arrogant", and that is not making any generalization about you on any other matters or your general disposition.
Ugh…did something wrong and sent before finishing 🤬I meant to say that I almost stopped reading when I hit Claim 1 and saw the title of the referenced paper: Ariel Ortiz-Bobea et al. The title states “slowed growth”! I’m amazed that this person actually has a doctorate. Thanks for the post and thanks to Dan for restacking as I almost bought this book!
No one could possibly make this many inadvertent errors. Like so much of the Church of Climate religion, adherents believe in their cause so much that they believe lies are justified to move the public toward their cause.
But one factor they have forgotten: there are absolutely no plans for powering our world without hydrocarbons.
Adherents simply want to talk about “renewables” but will never admit there are no plans to stop using hydrocarbons.
Most people here surely run across AGW calamitists who constantly post about stopping hydrocarbons use.
Please, ask any about the plans they propose or endorse to power our world without thermal generation.
You will soon be blocked or given the “Denier” moniker, as if there is a connection between AGW and our ability to provide all needed power without thermal generation of some type.
And, of course, most seem to be also against zero-carbon nuclear power.
I suppose I cannot blame too many, as powerful people who should be in the know often give the impression that wind and solar can power our world.
But, please: challenge those who advocate for “renewables” to cite the plan they propose or endorse.
Blathering platitudes of “Clean Power” helps no one
Doesn't the figure in claim 4 show over $400 billion in damages rather than the $40 billion he states? Even on the original site for the study it's four-hundred rather than forty, which is a rather large difference and extreme error considering all of 4's critique is based around the number being incorrect in the first place.
Anything endorsed by McKibben and Piltdown Mann is automatically suspect. When a supposedly competent author suggests plants will emit ionizing radiation should be disavowed.
"Anything endorsed by McKibben and Piltdown Mann is automatically suspect."
I'm glad you make it known that you're just here to troll knowledgeable Climate Activists and an actual Climate Scientist, and so broadcast your own eagerness to just accept all the piling on here.
My favorite error is on p. 165: "Many of these subsidies are being routed through the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy, the office that, among other duties, approves new US fossil-fuel extraction." ?? How can one write so many pages about this office and not know that DOI does permitting for fossil fuels on federal land, and states approve drilling otherwise? How can you be an activist and not have written a letter that begins "Dear Secretary Haaland,..." This is just basic how-the-government-works stuff.
No one has time to go through this whole manuscript, but if the work was crowdsourced I'm sure there would be so many errors — I wonder especially about the China chapter.
Thanks for doing that kind of detailed fact checking which we sorely need on most serious issues these days.
I am still in shock over the idea that someone who claims to be engaged with economics and climate issues, could think that its possible that agricultural productivity has gone down since the 1960s.
If nothing else how could we have possibly more than double the global population over that period, have cereal per hectare go down, and feed everyone? Like did we find Atlantis? Start farming the Yukon?
Thanks for the hard work fact-checking this book. I guess the sub-title of the book should be “Green propaganda and how to keep spreading it.”
Isn't the Elephant in the Room that all of these errors got past Oxford University Press?
I like the Breakthrough Institute precisely because it is not extremist. It sees problems but lives in reality. I am so tired of the uber-passionate that villainize all those who are not in their ultra-committed camp, because I find that that sort of personality inevitably leads to dogmatism, intolerance, and authoritarianism. So I appreciate the author's taking time to rebut the loonies of both ends of the spectrum.
when you look closely, they really start to pop out
p. 169: "when renewables are priced accurately in mitigation pathways, the value of CDR drops up to 70 percent, depending on the energy-system sector under consideration [81]." but — the reference (https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00610-2) is about CCS, not CDR
p. 170: "..researchers are designing mitigation scenarios to explore how to decarbonize the global economy without overreliance on carbon dioxide removal. In one recent study, Rogelj finds that simply constraining warming, rather than trying to find the most 'cost-effective' pathway to a temperature target in 2100, enables the model to achieve net zero in 2050 and halt warming at 1.6°C without using unrealistic amounts of CDR to cool down the planet."
... does she understand that they just... set the model to not go past 1.6? without instructions on how to do that besides wave a magic model wand? and looks to me like these scenarios still are using 10Gt of CDR/year. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1541-4/figures/8
Ironically the last paragraph of the "Innovation chapter" says that policymakers "should be developing robust innovation policies that seed and nurture the zero-carbon technologies and processes for concrete, steel, transport, and agriculture..." so the endpoint is actually, we need innovation?
"It's not just 8" - the book has systemic problems
On claim 7: As usual, there is a failure to mention that warmer temperatures means fewer deaths from cold, and cold-related deaths vastly outweigh heat-related deaths.
I greatly appreciate Morrison's careful analysis of Guenther's claims and the explanations of what the selected sources actually indicate. It's quite a sad state of affairs when OUP publishes a "former Renaissance" scholar's forays into areas well beyond her expertise without more expert fact-checking of its own.
Ummm.... re: "former Renaissance scholar"....1. You don't STOP being a scholar of something (and usually DONT LOSE INTEREST in it , either) because of swinging the bulk of your time and intellect and skills to a Global Ecological Crisis. If you take a minimal amount of time to find out about the author and why she focused her energies over the past decade or so, you'd see that your attitude is arrogant BS (As it is also actually a "credentialing" of her in the field of Climate Communications that she has spent that time and written books and articles and founded an organization —"End Climate Silence"— and publishes a Newsletter.) So your arrogant dismissal of her is simply bemusing to me, and offensive as well.
I think anyone can see that your ad hominem attack-response to my post is an overreaction. Ummm .... It patently isn't about Guenther, apart from its statement of her former area of expertise/ career. It expresses gratitude for a climate scientist's correction of misinterpretations and errors in a book published by OUP, and expresses dismay at the Press's (s)lack of rigor. Your Quixotic tilting at windmills doesn't offend me, but I felt obliged to defend my authorial intent.
Aside from your defending an article that IS patently about Dr. Guenther, and then "sliding in" your absurd quip about "former", which I proceeded to identify as the ignorant dismissal (which it "patently" IS ), no, nothing at all about Guenther. LOL.
News flash, also: You don't seem to know what "ad hominem" means, since I called ***your dismissal** of her "arrogant", and that is not making any generalization about you on any other matters or your general disposition.
Ugh…did something wrong and sent before finishing 🤬I meant to say that I almost stopped reading when I hit Claim 1 and saw the title of the referenced paper: Ariel Ortiz-Bobea et al. The title states “slowed growth”! I’m amazed that this person actually has a doctorate. Thanks for the post and thanks to Dan for restacking as I almost bought this book!
I almost stopped reading this when I
I guess you stopped writing when you… 😆
No facts could survive her coordinated onslaught of "motivated reasoning and confirmation bias."
No one could possibly make this many inadvertent errors. Like so much of the Church of Climate religion, adherents believe in their cause so much that they believe lies are justified to move the public toward their cause.
But one factor they have forgotten: there are absolutely no plans for powering our world without hydrocarbons.
Adherents simply want to talk about “renewables” but will never admit there are no plans to stop using hydrocarbons.
Most people here surely run across AGW calamitists who constantly post about stopping hydrocarbons use.
Please, ask any about the plans they propose or endorse to power our world without thermal generation.
You will soon be blocked or given the “Denier” moniker, as if there is a connection between AGW and our ability to provide all needed power without thermal generation of some type.
And, of course, most seem to be also against zero-carbon nuclear power.
I suppose I cannot blame too many, as powerful people who should be in the know often give the impression that wind and solar can power our world.
But, please: challenge those who advocate for “renewables” to cite the plan they propose or endorse.
Blathering platitudes of “Clean Power” helps no one
Doesn't the figure in claim 4 show over $400 billion in damages rather than the $40 billion he states? Even on the original site for the study it's four-hundred rather than forty, which is a rather large difference and extreme error considering all of 4's critique is based around the number being incorrect in the first place.
it's $400 billion over a decade, so an average of $40 billion per year, as I correctly noted in the factcheck
Thanks for this.
Short summary- this book is pablum with lots of intelligent looking but unrelated footnotes.
Anything endorsed by McKibben and Piltdown Mann is automatically suspect. When a supposedly competent author suggests plants will emit ionizing radiation should be disavowed.
"Anything endorsed by McKibben and Piltdown Mann is automatically suspect."
I'm glad you make it known that you're just here to troll knowledgeable Climate Activists and an actual Climate Scientist, and so broadcast your own eagerness to just accept all the piling on here.