This is my comment on an article by Carbon Brief
“Highlights: Day one at the 1.5C conference on climate change in Oxford“
The website related to the conference can be found at “1.5 degrees“
My comment on Carbon Brief:
Thanks to Carbon Brief and Rosamund Pearce for an excellent report.
There are a few points I will make.
 In the embedded video, Professor Corrinne Le Quere says
“[to keep within 1.5°C] it is necessary to be “completely de-carbonising the economy in just a few decades.”
Earlier this year Carbon Brief said
“Analysis: Only five years left before 1.5C carbon budget is blown”.
There is a big difference between “a few decades” and five years.
 Corrine also says “Global emissions have stalled in the past few years”. Apart from the fact that “stalled” is nowhere good enough to keep within 1.5°C , this reduction is not yet seen in the increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Continue reading 1.5 Degrees: Meeting the challenges of the Paris Agreement
Not much to say except…
In simulations of future warming we find that the permafrost carbon feedback increases global mean temperature by 10–40% relative to simulations without this feedback, with the magnitude of the increase dependent on the evolution of anthropogenic carbon emissions.
From Anthony et al. Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. And these feedbacks aren’t in the IPCC climate models. Conformation: A last message from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
I expect it will.
What upset Jeff Selingo (@jselingo) ?
Yesterday morning I made a comment to a posting on LinkedIn. The posting was “What Happens When Millions of Jobs Are Lost Because of Automation?” by Jeff Selingo author of the bestseller, “There Is Life After College”.
My comment referenced my other blog. Yesterday this several more hits than usual. However, the comment has disappeared from LinkedIn in normal viewing mode – although I can find it through this “deeplink“. The deeplink address contains “hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_LIKE_TOP_LEVEL_COMMENT”. The comment had 19 “likes”.
I don’t use LinkedIn very often but I have just learned two things. (1) LinkedIn has a larger reach than I knew and (2) comments can be deleted on slim grounds. (A friend tells me that authors can delete comments they don’t like.) If Jeff Selingo did delete the comment, I would like to know what he didn’t like. I do wonder if there were any comments, other than
I have not see such a moronic conversation since the democratic convention. De-growth… I think there is a cup of Kool-Aid with your name on it and it’s empty.
As we stand at the present, enough market generated jobs can only happen if we have economic growth that will destroy the planet. (“The job apocalypse and climate change”, http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/the-job-apocalypse-and-climate-change/ ) In the short to medium term we need degrowth, lower productivity, nicer jobs, less consumption and a universal basic income.
That doesn’t sound very “megaphone” to me. In fact it’s rather boring for such an important topic.
Nearly a century ago economist Lionel Robbins read Percy Bridgman. Neither understood science.
Bridgman thought anything that could not be directly measured was not scientific.
That would have meant “electron” was unscientific as philosophers of science soon realised.
Operationalism, however, has continued to seduce psychology more than half a century after it was repudiated by philosophers of science, including the very Logical Positivists who had first taken it seriously.
Operationalism still seduces economics. Continue reading Operationalism was stupid. Economists are still operationalists. It follows that …