This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
PeterM
Let’s go through your latest post (1474) regarding the hare-brained Hansen proposal.
First you state
Wrong. I just showed you that over the decade 1970-1979 the percentage of total human CO2 that “stayed” in the atmosphere was 57%. Over the most recent decade 2000-2009 it was 58%. So there has been no change in the %-age, even though the latest decade had total emissions over 70% higher than the earlier one. In other words, the observed percentage “staying” in the atmosphere is not directly related to the observed amount of CO2 emitted by humans. There is much too little known about how long CO2 really stays in the atmosphere and to where the “missing” CO2 is “disappearing”. IPCC makes the assumption that the residence time of CO2 in the system is between 50 and 200 years, although other estimates put this at 5-10 years, instead. My calculation is based on the IPCC assumption of (essentially) unlimited C)2 residence time.
No, Peter. The assumption does NOT mean what you have written. First of all, it is an observation (see above) not an assumption. What it DOES mean is that the reduction resulting from Hansen’s proposal to shut down all coal-fired power plants will have an insignificant impact on our climate, even if it is rolled out from the USA to the entire world. (And it will cost an exorbitant amount of money.)
This is pure conjecture, Peter, and it has been falsified by the observed facts. In the 1920s and 1930s the human CO2 emissions were only around one-tenth of what they are today, yet atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose year after year (according to IPCC). How do you expect atmospheric CO2 concentrations to decrease if we reduce human emissions to a value that is still significantly higher than it was in the 1920s and 1930s?
This is a silly line of argumentation. I do not believe that “CO2 emissions can be halved” over the foreseeable future, nor do I believe that there is any good reason for doing so, since I do not “believe” in Hansen’s “tipping point” doomsday scenario (or “coal death train” postulation). By the time that remaining fossil fuel reserves begin to dwindle seriously (possibly 100-150 years or so from now), there will be other energy solutions, which we have no notion of today.
Hansen’s proposal would cost a lot of money and achieve nothing. This is the obvious reason why he did not include a “cost/impact analysis” in his paper.
It is truly a “hare-brained” scheme, Peter, as the figures show.
Max
PeterM
Your 1476 crossed with my 1475.
You hypothesize:
Peter, the observed facts are the observed facts: these show that the 57% of the human CO2 “stayed” in the atmosphere between 1970-1979 as well as between 2000-2009, despite the fact that the amount emitted in the latter period was 70% higher than in the earlier period.
They also show (if you believe IPCC) that atmospheric CO2 increased over the 1920s and 1930s despite the fact that human CO2 emissions were only a small fraction of what they are today.
So “cutting CO2 emissions to 80% (or even 50%) of today’s values is not going to cause a reduction in atmospheric CO2, but simply a slowdown in its increase.
And cutting them by the very small percentages proposed by Hansen (at exorbitant cost) will result in no perceptible change in our planet’s climate, as demonstrated.
And this is precisely why Hansen was not foolish enough to include in his paper what the impact (or cost) of his hare-brained proposal would be.
Sorry, Peter. Your arguments are falsified by the physical observations.
Human CO2 emissions are but a tiny portion of the entire carbon cycle and we (science) know very little about where the “missing” CO2 is “disappearing” to.
By using IPCC’s scenario “B1” I have used the IPCC assumptions on CO2 residence time (between 50 and 200 years) and a CAGR of atmospheric CO2 of 0.04%, as we have seen since Mauna Loa started as well as over the most recent 5 years, plus as assumed by IPCC for the “base case”. (Had I used another IPCC “scenario” the impact of the Hansen proposal on our climate would have been even less perceptible.)
Then I have simply subtracted the CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, as these are phased out in the USA (according to the Hansen scheme) and this phase-out is then rolled out globally.
No rocket science here.
It’s IPCC’s figures you are arguing against, Peter.
Max
Alex, I’ve finished reading BEFORE THE DAY BREAKS, that being Velikovsky’s collection of accounts of meetings with Einstein, and their correspondence over about a decade, and I found it to be a wonderful read. Their friendship that evolved between them, (and their wives, and Einstein’s staff etc,) and their awesome scholarship on so many matters was a real eye opener to me. A few of the celestial discussions that impressed me were the baffling problems of:
1) Why is the Sun not oblate? (yet it rotates faster at its equator. This gave Einstein a sleepless night)
2) The behaviour of comet tails cannot be explained by gravitational effects and/or the solar wind alone. (e.g. as comets approach and then depart from the Sun, their tails rotate through 360 degrees, away from the sun, and…. And…. and)
3) The circular orbit of Venus. (And more recently discovered that she has retrograde rotation and synchronicity with Earth by aligning the same face, once per orbit)
4) The orbit of Jupiter synchronises with the ~11-year sunspot cycle. (several different hypotheses exist today, including meteorite impacts from Jupiter’s orbit.)
Maybe V was right in his hypotheses about electromagnetic effects etc?
Shortly before Einstein’s death, astronomers Burke and Franklin accidentally discovered Radio “noises” from Jupiter and their community was incredulous. Einstein had earlier refused to help V to verify his prediction of this. (by requesting tests be done). Upon it being revealed as correct, Einstein was so impressed that paraphrasing; he turned to V and asked: How can I help you now?
Geoff/Alex
Whoops, sorry, my 1478 might have been better addressed to Geoff! (since Geoff,supplied the original info)
Max,
I think this sentence of yours shows where your thinking is flawed:
“cutting CO2 emissions to 80% (or even 50%) of today’s values is not going to cause a reduction in atmospheric CO2, but simply a slowdown in its increase.”
That’s just not true. Surely you can see that CO2 concentrations aren’t destined to rise for ever? And that they will fall if emissions are reduced to some lower value?
You’ve made the claim that CO2 doesn’t stay in the atmosphere longer than 15 years. This figure, if true, would imply that the Earth can soak excess CO2 very quickly if emissions were lowered. Its not that quick, but if emissions are lowered excess CO2 levels will indeed fall.
PeterM
Again, your logic is flawed. Let me show you why.
I have accepted “as is” the IPCC projection of atmospheric CO2 increase until 2100 (“scenario B1”) and simply subtracted from it the amount of CO2 reduction resulting from Hansen’s proposal (shut down all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030). This is easy to calculate, since Hansen has told us how much coal fired power plant capacity there is in the USA and how much CO2 these plants generate.
Then, as a separate case I have calculated the reduction in human CO2 emissions resulting from “rolling out” Hansen’s hare-brained scheme to the rest if the world (with a 20-year time lag), so that all coal-fired plants are shut down globally by 2050. This is also easy to calculate, since we know how much coal-fired power capacity there is world-wide and how much CO2 these plants generate.
From these figures I have calculated the net reduction in atmospheric CO2 to year 2100 based on this reduced rate of human CO2 emissions, as well as the resulting net reduction in greenhouse warming, using the IPCC exaggerated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C.
Hansen’s proposal (USA only) would result in a reduction of atmospheric CO2 level from 560 to 550 ppmv by year 2100, which would result in an imperceptible net reduction of greenhouse warming of 0.09C. Yawn!
If Hansen’s hare-brained scheme were rolled out globally with a 20-year time lag, it would result in a further reduction of atmospheric CO2 level from 550 to 531 ppmv by year 2100 and an additional (still imperceptible) net reduction in greenhouse warming of 0.16C. Yawn, again!
All this at a total cost of over a trillion dollars. Ouch!
Now to your sentence:
You are confused, Peter.
In the 1920s and 1930s the human CO2 emissions were only a small fraction of what they are today, yet atmospheric CO2 levels rose over this period (if you believe IPCC).
Please explain how you expect atmospheric CO2 levels not to rise if human CO2 emissions are lowered to a value that exceeds the 1920s/1930s emission levels, during which period they did rise?
But this has nothing to do with Hansen’s silly proposal, and you are waffling around again, as usual Peter. No one claims that “CO2 concentrations are destined to rise for ever”, but simply that Hansen’s proposal as presented will not result in any perceptible reduction in greenhouse warming by year 2100. (And that it will nevertheless be very expensive.)
You have been unable to find an error in this claim or the calculation supporting it.
Show me your calculation of the impact of Hansen’s proposal, Peter, if you can, and forget the irrelevant side tracks.
Max
Max,
You’ve still not understood. Yes, it is true that “in the 1920s and 1930s the human CO2 emissions were only a small fraction of what they are today, yet atmospheric CO2 levels rose over this period”.
That’s because CO2 concentrations were much lower at about 310ppmv or 30 ppmv above the pre-industrial level of 280ppmv. The biosphere is always trying to pull us back to that level. The greater the difference the harder it tries. Just like a spring tries to pull back to its natural length. However if you pull a spring to hard it may fail! It has been stretched past what might be called its tipping point.
You are using contradictory arguments on the opposite ends of the scale. Before you were saying that its Ok to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we like because the Earth is so good at removing it, and it only stays there for a short time. Now, you are saying there is no point reducing emissions, because, even if we do, CO2 levels won’t fall anyway.
You aren’t making any sense. But, then you’re a climate change denier! So why should we expect any different?
Bob, re your #1478 and #1479, no worries as I’ve found this very interesting as well. It looks like I’ve been underestimating Velikovsky as a thinker – it’s good to have a change of perspective.
BobFJ #1478, Alex
Veikovsky’s vision of an electromagnetic universe lives on at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm
Once you’ve got your head round the idea of space being a rarified plasma which conducts electric currents, it all makes sense. They’ve even made successful predictions about the recent crashlanding of a probe into a comet.. Badastronomy gives them the same kind of slagging we get from the warmists.
PeterM
You must truly be joking with your “spring analogy” (1482). Sure, the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere is related to its atmospheric concentration, so that (ignoring the fact that it is marginally warmer today than in the 1930s and ocean absorption should decrease slightly with warmer temperature, which could be partly offset by slightly increased absorption by the biosphere at the marginally higher temperature) at 390 ppmv (today’s concentration) the system should theoretically absorb roughly 25% more than it did in the 1930s, when the atmospheric concentration was 310 ppmv.
But this is peanuts, Peter. And, more importantly, it is totally beside the point, in any case.
The real key here is that we are trying to estimate the climate impact of Hansen’s scheme (shut down all coal-fired power plants in USA by 2030, replacing them with non-fossil fuel plants)
We know how much CO2 emission this scheme will reduce (using Hansen’s figures).
We know what IPCC tells us the atmospheric CO2 will be in 2100 (without this scheme), following “Scenario B1” (the only realistic “scenario” of the bunch). This equates to a compounded annual growth rate of 0.4% per year. [BTW, Hansen’s scheme has even less impact on climate using the other higher CAGR “scenarios”, since we are eliminating a smaller percentage of a larger total number.]
IPCC tells us that this is based on the IPCC assumption of a CO2 residence time in the system of 50 to 200 years (even though we know that this is likely an exaggeration, possibly of an order-of-magnitude).
We also know what IPCC assumes the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity to be, with all model derived positive feedbacks (although we know that this is probably exaggerated by a factor of 2 to 3).
So, using IPCC’s own estimates for atmospheric CO2 and climate impact by 2100 and subtracting Hansen’s estimate for reduced CO2 emissions by eliminating the coal-fired power plants, we can easily calculate the impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature of Hansen’s proposal.
We see that it is imperceptible (CO2 reduced by 10 ppmv; temperature reduced by 0.09C).
Even if we were to assume that all of the CO2 emitted after 2010 “stays” in the atmosphere (rather than only around 50%, as has been the case since Mauna Loa measurements started), we still arrive at an imperceptible change resulting from Hansen’s proposal (CO2 reduced by 20 ppmv; temperature reduced by 0.18C).
The same exercise can be “rolled out” globally (I did it, assuming a 20-year lag behind the USA). It shows a similar imperceptible change in climate at at exorbitant cost.
The rest of your argumentation is totally beside the point
Just analyze what you just wrote above. What in the world does it have to do with estimating the impact of Hansen’s proposal? Answer: Nothing at all. It’s just a bunch of empty words.
All of your rationalization and sidetracking cannot change the fact that Hansen’s plan will have no perceptible impact on our planet’s climate (at an exorbitant cost), and is therefore a “hare-brained scheme”.
(And that was my point, which you have been unable to refute.)
Max
Max,
No, it isn’t beside the point. There is no point producing nice graphs if your understanding and underlying assumptions are all wrong.
Your argument isn’t so much with Hansen as with the IPCC. Nothing new there! They have called for cuts of 20% by 2020 and even deeper cuts of up 80% of today’s emissions by the middle of this century:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-6.html
Now it may be possible that these may be met without phasing out coal fired power stations as James Hansen has called for – internationally. Not just in the USA.
However, I’d say this would depend on the development of CCS, but which looks ever more like an alibi to enable the construction of new coal stations rather than a serious practically, at present.
But I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. How are the IPCCs figures going to be met if conventional coal fired power stations are left to operate as they are? Please explain!
PeterM
Your latest (1486)shows again that you have totally missed the point. It has to do with Hansen’s proposal (to shut down all US coal-fired power plants by 2030), plus (a) its potential impact on our climate and (b) its cost to implement.
We see that (a) is a reduction of global temperature by 2100 of 0.09C and that (b) is $370 billion, ergo Hansen’s proposal costs a lot and achieves nothing. The cost per degree warming (maybe) averted is around $4 trillion.
It is no better if it is “rolled out” globally, as I have also shown.
Max
PS Global human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were around 30 GtCO2/year in 2010. If we add in the CO2 from cement production plus land clearing /deforestation, we come to 37 GtCO2/year. Hansen’s scheme (USA) would reduce CO2 by 2 Gt/year by 2030, and if “rolled out” globally 20-years later by 6.7 Gt/yr by 2050. Peanuts (expensive ones, at that).
PeterM
Now that we have laid Hansen’s “hare-brained” proposal to rest, let’s move on to the subject, which you wanted to discuss, namely IPCC suggestions for reducing global CO2 emissions.
The link you posted is a bit out-of-date: “Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-6.html
As you know, the nations of the world did not embrace these suggestions at Copenhagen last December, so IPCC should probably best “go back to the drawing board” on these “scenarios” to find something that nations can agree upon.
But let’s just look at the table in your link. You will see that various “scenarios” are listed, which would reduce the emissions of individual nations by 20% to 80% by year 2050.
IPCC does not give us an estimate of how much the total CO2 reduction would be from these suggested “scenarios”, so let’s see if we can quantify this roughly.
The two largest emitters today both had “scenarios”: China (as #1) would reduce by 5-45% by 2050 (let’s say an average of 25%) and the USA (#2) by 44% by 2050. Japan has “scenarios” ranging from 21% to 80% (let’s say an average of 50%). Smaller emitters (mostly EU nations plus Australia have “scenarios” with targets ranging from 45% to 80% by 2050 (let’s say an average of 62% for the EU + Australia).
So let’s add this all up and see where it brings us.
Let’s assume that the rest of the world (ROW) agrees to stop its economic growth and freeze CO2 emissions at the 2010 levels (a rather doubtful assumption).
2010 human CO2 emissions, GtCO2/a (incl. cement production + deforestation):
7.0 China
6.2 USA
4.5 EU
1.4 Japan
1.3 India
0.4 Australia
16.3 rest of world (ROW)
37.0 World total
2050 Reduction
25% = 1.7 GtCO2/a (China)
44% = 2.7 GtCO2/a (USA)
62% = 2.8 GtCO2/a (EU)
50% = 0.7 GtCO2/a (Japan)
20% = 0.3 GtCO2/a (India)
62% = 0.3 GtCO2/a (Australia)
0% = 0 GtCO2/a (ROW)
23% = 8.5 GtCO2/a (Total world)
We then have worldwide anthropogenic CO2 leveling off at around 37 Gt/a and then gradually reducing to 28.5 Gt/a by 2050 and remaining there until 2100 (with no further growth).
On this basis we have a calculated net “reduction” in cumulated CO2 emissions from today to 2100 of 520Gt, resulting from all these “scenarios”.
The atmosphere has a mass of 5,140,000 Gt
So the “scenarios” will result in an atmospheric CO2 reduction by 2100 (if we assume 100% of the emitted CO2 “stays” in the atmosphere) of:
520 * 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 101 ppm(mass) = 67 ppmv
This is an optimistic assumption of the net reduction, since 100% of the emitted CO2 does not “stay” in the atmosphere (historically it has been between 50 and 60%).
Without all these “scenarios”, IPCC predicts (Scenario “B1”) that the atmospheric CO2 level by 2100 will be 560 ppmv; so with them it will be 560 – 67 = 493 ppmv.
Using the IPCC 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.2C and the logarithmic relation, this CO2 reduction will decrease the amount of warming expected by 2100 by around 0.6C.
Sounds like “Much Ado about Nothing” to me.
What do you think?
I’d also like to see the “price tag” for all these “scenarios”; if IPCC uses the old government ruse of telling us they are “cost neutral” (because the costs will be “covered” by added revenues from direct or indirect carbon taxes), they are hiding the fact that some poor sucker has to pay these taxes.
Based on the Hansen proposal each degree of warming averted by 2100 would require an investment of $4 trillion, so these “scenarios” could likely involve around $2.4 trillion (for a reduction of 0.6C). Ouch! More “hare-brained schemes”?
No wonder Bjørn Lomborg has concluded that AGW mitigation measures are a “poor investment” compared to addressing other real problems out there.
Max
PS If you have better numbers, please bring them (or “forever hold your peace”, as they say).
Max,
Just a repetition of the words “hare and brained” doesn’t necessarily make them accurate.
I did ask you if you thought it was possible for sort of cuts in CO2 emissions called for by the IPCC , who incidentally have no direct connection to Kyoto or Copenhagen, without implementation of the type of measures called for by Jim Hansen.
Yes or No?
Max,
You say the cost per degree of warming is $4 trillion.
That’s $12 trillion for 3 degrees.
World GDP per year is $61 trillion annually. Even if the world ecomomy doesn’t grow between now and the end of the century the cumulative world GDP will be $61 *90 = $5490 trillion
So, according to your figures, not mine, the cost of averting 3 degrees of warming will be 0.2% of world GDP between now and the end of the century.
Why are you making so much fuss?
I suspect there is something wrong there and that its going to be more like 2% of world GDP. But, even so, it sounds like a good deal to me.
The Green Swindle aired tonight here in the US at 9:00 PM viewed by 7 million Americans.
A very good synopsis of the green fraud and subsequent scandals………see if you can pick it up on line over there…..
The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange
http://21stcenturywire.com/2010/08/27/the-great-collapse-of-the-chicago-climate-exchange/
Geoff Reur 1484, & Alex (1483),
Your “electromagnetic site” seems a bit sensationalist to me, but at a quick sniff it is very interesting, and I need to study it more.
I’m contemplating buying the book “The Electric Sky”, particularly because it is written by an electrical engineer whom is probably a real-world coalface scientist as distinct from an imprinted academic of the church.
Synopsis of the book:
Professor of engineering Donald Scott systematically unravels the myths of the “Big Bang” cosmology, and he does so without resorting to black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, magnetic “reconnection”, or any other fictions needed to prop up a failed theory.
Sounds like a man of my own heart!
Brutus, reur 1491;
The “Green Swindle”….. I’m interested…. any more clues as to how to find it?
BobFJ I agree the Electric Universe site, with titles like “thunderbolts of the gods” sounds very von Daniken. The central idea is simple. Space is not a vacuum but a weak plasma (that’s uncontroversial). Plasma conducts current; the magnetic effects visible in space imply the existence of electric current, but conventional physics denies the possibility of charge separation in space.
Velikovsky was ridiculed for his image of past catastrophes being linked with planetary collisions, which defy Newtonian physics. He posited the existence of planetary magnetospheres which shielded the planets from outright collisions, and when he was proved right, the attacks on him by Sagan and the scientific establishment redoubled.
Juergens suggested that electric currents flowing through space coud be powering the stars. Since electric forces are infinitely more powerful than gravity, this simplifies cosmology, doing away with all the weirdness which has invaded it in the past 60 years, from hydrogen bombs in the sun to black holes and dark matter.
For a recent scientific puzzle which has physicists grasping at ad hoc straws, but which could have a simple explanation in the electric universe model, see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/27/follow-up-on-the-solar-neutrinos-radioactive-decay-story/
PeterM
Thanks for giving me a very easy question to answer (1490):
First of all, the “spending” is supposed to happen NOW (not between now and the end of the century), with the largest impact between now and 2050. World GDP is around $60 trillion today, so $12 trillion (to “avert 3 degrees C warming” is 20% of one years’ global GDP. Lots of money, Peter.
But the real answer is simply because there will be no “3 degrees warming (from human CO2) between now and the end of the century” if we do absolutely nothing except continue “business as usual”.
Even IPCC, with its exaggerated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, tells us that if we continue to have a CAGR of atmospheric CO2 of 0.4%/year (as we have in the past, with “business as usual”) we will only have 1.6 degrees C warming between today and year 2100 (euquls 1.8C between 1980-1999 average and 2090-2099 average).
Since the 2xCO2 CS of 3.2 is exaggerated by at least a factor of 2:1, this means no more than 0.8C warming between now and year 2100, all things being equal.
But as the last decade has shown, “all things are not equal”, and we are most likely headed for a slight cooling phase due to several “natural forcing factors” before it starts warming again, putting us back on the 0.6C per century long-term trend.
As I said before, it’s all “MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING”.
Max
PS Let’s spend our money on worthwhile projects and problems, as Lomborg has advised.
PPS If you want to spend 20% of your annual income to “save the world” from this virtual computer-generated hobgoblin, please do so. Just don’t ask me to contribute. OK?
Max,
I still don’t think you’ve answered my yes/no question in my 1489. I take that to mean you can’t find any major disagreement with the position of mainstream science and James Hansen.
Yes, we know you disagree with both, but you should realise that by calling James Hansen hare-brained you’re also calling the IPCC, and therefore mainstream science, hare-brained too.
The recommendation of the IPCC is for deep cuts of up to 80% in CO2 and other GHG emissions by the middle of this century. They don’t like to actually spell out that this means shutting down all coal fired power stations -its difficult for them to do that politically. But, unless some real progress starts to be made soon on CCS, that’s the reality of what they are saying.
Bob,
Alot of information to cover in just one hour.
I think this is the whole thing. Sort of “basic” information for this crowd……..geared toward the layman. However, interesting information regarding Mann, Briffa, CRU and the IPCC.
The Green Swindle
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4323259/the-green-swindle/?playlist_id=86858
Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass
Brute,
It is probably slightly off topic but the comment of your Marxist ally that AGW is due to some deficiency of the 1st world “middle-class” is not untypical. They seem to hate the “middle-class” more than the ruling class, and the term is often used as a form of derision against those they perceive to be “class enemies”. Which is quite odd especially as they, like Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh , usually come from the middle classes themselves anyway.