Schwarzenegger Sues The Terminator

Ahnold had a message for the idiot Leftists that polluted Texas at this year’s SXSW Festival. “He’ll be Bach!” The condign reply to the overrated adulterer on steroids would be “Fock You, Osshole!” You see, Ahnold, like Al Gore, is here to totally save the planet. This Messiah Complex will be pursued whether Earth needs a veritable algae bloom of oligeanious attornies to ride to the rescue or not.

Speaking to Politico during the SXSW festival in Texas, Schwarzenegger said that he will be mounting a lawsuit against oil companies “for knowingly killing people all over the world. This is no different from the smoking issue,” Schwarzenegger said. “The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for people’s lives, that it would kill. If you walk into a room and you know you’re going to kill someone, it’s first degree murder; I think it’s the same thing with the oil companies,” he said.

So Ahnold wants to sue Big Oil based on the Hockey Stick Curve. Not just the Hockey Stick Curve, but instead based on the ridiculous projections from the panic industry that (Mann, et al. 98) successfully spawned. If you are misinformed enough to get your news from Newsweek, here is the tale of overwrought woe you would have been pitched.

consider a 2016 Newsweek headline that announced “Climate change could cause half a million deaths in 2050 due to reduced food availability.” The story described a Lancet study, “Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change,” [1] that made dire forecasts: by 2050 the effects of climate change on agriculture will shrink the amount of food people eat, especially fruits and vegetables, enough to cause 529,000 deaths each year from malnutrition and related diseases. The report added grim specifics to the familiar picture of a world made hot, hungry, and barren by the coming greenhouse apocalypse.

Now some people actually still buy Mann, but they are discerning enough to comprehend that no amount of Febreze, released into the Troposphere in aerosol form; could possibly render Newsweek’s bull faeces intellectually credible. Here’s what a non-denialist, non-catastrophic scenario reads like for Global Warming. First, Global Warming will not Make Amerika a Dust Bowl Again (It wouldn’t even look good on a ballcap, you see.)

The examples of Israel and California show that developed countries will never face serious water shortages in a warming climate. Spreading water security to the rest of the world will thus depend not on decarbonization but on development of a very basic kind: dams, canals and pipelines; sewage treatment and recycling plants; low-flow shower heads and irrigation sprinklers; a backstop of desalination plants. Investments in these technologies and infrastructures, new and old, will resolve problems of drought and aridity that have bedeviled us since civilization began—and eliminate the worst risk of climate change in passing.

And not only that, you’re still going to get your nasty grub on at Taco Hell.

Warming by itself will likely have only modest effects on farm productivity, according to projections from the International Panel on Climate Change. [9] The IPCC assessed changes in the yields of the major grain crops under warming of up to 5 degrees Celsius—a worst-case scenario, far beyond the 2-degree threshold of doom cited by policy-makers—and the results are decidedly un-alarming. In temperate regions climate change would cause yields of corn and wheat to decline by about 10 percent and rice yields by 15 percent. However, all these declines could be reversed by adaptations like earlier planting dates: with adaptation temperate-zone corn and rice yields would not decline at all and wheat yields would rise 9 percent. Tropical areas could see corn yields decline about 15 percent and rice yields 7 percent, but with adaptation tropical rice yields would instead rise 12 percent. Tropical-zone wheat yields would suffer a serious decline of over 30 percent even with adaptation, but farmers don’t grow much wheat in the tropics so the effect on global supply would be small.

And, while I’m impressed with this particular author’s ability to accept really bad news and then suggest a few good corrective practices rather than informing Chicken Licken’ and Turkey Kafurcky that the sky is falling; I’m not sure he’s even all that correct about how long of an apparatus we are about to be fvcked with. Nature has recently remained Warmist in outlook, but has acknowledged that a preponderance of in situ evidence suggests a warm breeze instead of a hot blast due to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

…the ‘likely’ range of ECS as stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has remained at 1.5–4.5 degrees Celsius for more than 25 years1. The possibility of a value of ECS towards the upper end of this range reduces the feasibility of avoiding 2 degrees Celsius of global warming, as required by the Paris Agreement. Here we present a new emergent constraint on ECS that yields a central estimate of 2.8 degrees Celsius with 66 per cent confidence limits (equivalent to the IPCC ‘likely’ range) of 2.2–3.4 degrees Celsius

When we compare the old range of possibilities to the new one, several significant things jump out. Here is what the old Mann, IPCC looks like if you graph the CDF of possible warming by 2050. I’ve assumed alpha = 0.33* and adjusted the standard deviation to put the appropriate risk into the tails in keeping with that assumption.

Here is the new, undoomed version of AGW by 2050.

Notice the overarching lack of doom. I’m defining three levels of burning ¡DOOM! here to mean an increase of temperature greater than or equal to three, four or five degrees. In the Old, Doomed version of AGW, I get a 50% likelihood of at least three degrees of warming. I get a fourteen percent (rounded) chance of AGW equal to four degrees and about 1.5% chance of five degrees or more. In the new, undoomed version of AGW, I get 37% likelihood of three degrees, about 2.5% of four degrees and 1/100th of 1% of five degrees Centigrade of global warming. You need a better pair of Doc Martens if you try that sort of a walkback at home.

In another sense of the issue, they’ve seriously doubled down. In the older version of the CDF, my probability of no warming = 5/100s of 1%. The likelihood of less than or equal to 1 degree of warming = 1.5%. This is significant. Yo Ahnold. This is legally significant. When smoking was proven to enhance the likelihood of mortality due to lung cancer, this was proven at an alpha = 0.01. (Mann, et al. 98) does not provide that level of surety that AGW is even going to happen at a level of severity equal to one degree Centigrade.

The newer distribution suggests an almost absolute certainty that at least one degree Celsius of AGW will occur at a 1% alpha. Cox et al. 2018 says that you will experience at least some noticeable AGW by the year 2050. So Ahnold has a dilemma. He can argue AGW might happen which would be really bad and kill people, or he could argue that it will happen, but that no prepared individual will actually die. Neither of those assumptions squares with what the Blovinator had to say for himself at SXSW. I’d have better luck suing Exxon and the rest for price-fixing and fraud over M. King Hubert’s Peak Oil Hypothesis than Ahnold would in suing the oil industry for AGW Treblinka.

* – This happens in Climate Scientology. Never in legitimate Chemistry, Medicine or Physics.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn