For years we were hectored that holding the world to the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5°C of warming from “pre-industrial times”, a term alarmists use to mean “75 years after the industrial revolution” started not “before there was industry”, was critically crucial in its vital importance. But alas their rhetoric was unpersuasive, their plans were unsound or both, and they admit 1.5 is “out of reach“. So now we’re told that while it was essential it didn’t really matter whereas 2.0°C is like this time for sure man unless it’s not.

In fact Climate Cosmos early this year endarkened us on “Top 10 Impacts of a 1.5°C vs. 2°C Global Temperature Rise” and apparently “From ecosystems to economies, the stakes couldn’t be higher” so 1.5°C never really mattered. They were just trying to panic us into doing whatever they told us to.

The Climate Cosmos piece, after some preliminary cliché-clearing, and with an AI narrator that can’t say “degrees” which is kind of embarrassing in this context, tells us that 1.5 is like “the Earth running a mild fever” which “doesn’t sound impactful at first” but can be a worrisome warning sign. Then it says “Holding the line at 1.5 degreeses [sic] is crucial, yet if temperatures rise to 2 degrees, the impacts multiply.” Which calls into question whether they know what “crucial” means (or “multiply”).

Then they say “this 0.5 degresee [sic] difference in temperature rise, is not just a number, it’s a tipping point for our planet”. Zzzzz. One in which sea levels rise “significantly higher” blah blah blah, and tourism declines in some places which “impacts livelihoods on a global scale”. When we were told that 1.5°C brings “less predictable weather” and 2°C makes “extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and torrential rains to become commonplace” we switched it off, not least because they’ve been telling us they already had and we’re not even at 1.5°C.

It didn’t work. Canada’s state broadcaster, the CBC, brought us a friendly patronizing presenter to answer the question “If we’ve missed the 1.5-degree climate target, what’s next?” in just three minutes and eleven seconds. And she brought us, of all people, James Hansen declaring 1.5 “deader than a doornail.” And the piece shrilled:

“Earth has crossed the critical 1.5 C warming threshold, according to two major global studies. But scientists say there is still hope for keeping warming below the next target of 2 C.”

Why bother, if 1.5 was “critical”, whatever you think that word even means? Ah, because with that all-but-unnoticeable additional 0.5 degrees, “If we hit 2°C, that means millions more people and ecosystems are impacted compared to 1.5.”

Millions more ecosystems? Really? And “impacted”? Say it ain’t so. Or say what it means. Especially as there are now some eight billion people in the world, so millions isn’t even one percent. And as it was, we are told, some 0.5 degrees warmer by the First World War than the Crimean War. What massive ecological impacts took place? Or did nobody at the time even notice?

It gets worse:

“We start to see shifts in specific climate happen almost instantly with dramatic ripple effects.”

And by worse we mean this sentence would be a good example for linguists to use to show that something can be grammatically sound and use only known words and yet have no possible meaning let alone any actual one. Remember, climate is generally defined as the typical conditions that persist in some place for 30 years. It literally cannot shift instantly. And what does “dramatic ripple effects” mean?

Now it’s all very well to show burned-out cars in Los Angeles, so they do. But it’s not so great to say that the difference between disaster A and disaster B is the disastrousness of both. As in:

“The global impacts of adapting to passing that 1.5 will already be devastating, but that extra 0.5? It’s the difference between managing and not managing the catastrophic on our food, weather and health.”

Strange. That dire assessment is almost identical to what you earlier told us would be the difference between keeping under 1.5°C and exceeding it. Plus the essence of adaptation is avoiding devastation. But why quibble with word salad? Including “1.6 is now the new 1.5.” (Yes. She really said it. We’d tell her not to quit her day job but unfortunately it apparently is her day job.)