First, a science fiction preview of DOOM courtesy of the RCP8.5 model:
Some sensibility from the WSJ:
Climate Media vs. Climate Science
The good news is that scientists themselves have started to correct the record.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Joe Biden has put a presidential imprimatur on climate change being an existential threat, and he doesn’t mean in the Jean-Paul Sartre sense of man’s search for meaning in an uncomforting universe.
He means the end of humanity, a claim nowhere found in climate science.
This is odd because the real news today is elsewhere. Its movement may be ocean-liner-like, the news may be five years old before the New York Times notices it, but the climate community has been backing away from a worst-case scenario peddled to the public for years as “business as usual.”
A drumroll moment was Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peter’s 2020 article in the journal Nature partly headlined: “Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome.”
This followed the 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi asking why climate scenarios posit implausible increases in coal burning a century from now. And I could go on. Roger Pielke Jr. and colleagues show how the RCP 8.5 scenario was born to give modelers a high-emissions scenario to play with, and how it came to be embraced despite being at odds with every real-world indicator concerning the expected course of future emissions.
Full article here (paywalled) https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-media-vs-climate-science-11618355224
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr had this to say on Twitter:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The disparity in the solutions tells us how uncertain that the climate science is…..but we are told “the science is settled and debate is over” What they should say is “the politics has been determined and the solutions are known”
The reality is that the Climate Accord will have almost ZERO affect on the climate and weather ……………it’s entirely a political tool to get to the objective.
The simulations of the atmosphere going out 100 years with apocalyptic end points are pure politics and zero authentic science…..disguised as science and accepted by mainstream scientists with a huge political and scientific bias which prevents them from using the scientific method……..no matter how smart they are!
Seriously, as an objective atmospheric scientist for 39 years, studying climate change closely for 3 decades, I don’t know whether to laugh or feel depressed that my field of expertise was hijacked for a political agenda and is selling this garbage to people. Actually, the emotions include embarrassment and at the same time, utter amazement that they bamboozled the entire world and have actually won. The governments and many people actually believe all this stuff. Even alot of smart people.
We should note, that the junk science is being used to sell us on the idea that in order to save the planet, we must follow everything in the Climate Accord.
The call is not for nations to cut emissions on their own but they must sign up with the Climate Accord and abide by the politics written in there…………rich countries send money to poor countries, CO2 from rich countries is killing the planet, CO2 from poor countries…….is not killing the planet. What the heck, that’s not science, that looks just like global socialism!
Keep in mind that I’ve been a practicing environmentalist for most of my life and all for helping the poor much more than we do. But can we please stop stealing people’s intelligence on climate science and environmentalism to get them on board with a political scheme. I might actually support it then because it would be authentic/honest.