Discussion thread: New IPCC AR6 report

Ok, went to read the Technical Summary (TS). Your cannot make this up. The first SIX pages are a list of all the TS edits TO BE MADE —-
“Changes to the underlying scientific-technical assessment TO INSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE APPROVED SPM.”

So much for IPCC ‘science’. Approve a Summary fo Policymakers, then change the underlying scientific-technical assessment to be consistent with the approved policy summary. What a joke. Archived for future reference.

What was the contribution of the Clean Air Acts in the US & Europe back in the 70’s /80’s to climate change? How did the perturbation of growing coal usage in China/Imdia vs the decrease in Europe and the US , contribute to warming. SO2 is a cooling gas. If SO2 is reduced then surely there is warming. How much? Travelling from the Shires into London the temperature rises by several degrees….thats UHI. How much warming has been due to UHI. The temperature gradient between the equator and the Arctic has decreased, has that caused more dangerous storms or fewer?

Since 1988,
there have been 32 prior IPCC warnings
of a coming climate disaster.

Once every year.
I don’t listen.
Because the weather here in Michigan
was still too cold.
After 32 consecutive annual warnings
of global warming doom.

So far 2021 has been our coldest year since the 1970s.

We’ve lived in the same home since 1987,
and four miles south for seven years before that.
It’s easier to notice climate change
if you live in the same place
for a long period of time

We love global warming here in Michigan.
The small amount of warming since the 1970s
was appreciated … and then it disappeared
so far this year.

Who stole it?
The Russians?
Aliens?
I demand an investigation !
We want our global warming back.

It’s worse than we thought . I’ve only read the introduction and they have gone into more unsubstantiated hysterical alarm than we could possibly have imagined . It is “virtually Certain” that this is and even bigger pile of dross than even Michael Mann, Attenbugger and the Oreskes babe could have conceived together. Read and weep for the planet at the mercy of these idiots

Efforts to model the climate predictively have not been a resounding success to date. However another thing that can be mathematically modelled with much more accuracy is the precise nature of the climate alarmist narrative, and even the detailed contents of IPCC reports. These can be predicted even more reliably than elections in the former Soviet Union.

Curiously, the climate and earth system plays no role in this modelling of alarmism. Instead, the main criterion needed to model the catastrophist narrative is political expediency and success in grabbing socioeconomic power. This scenario is inevitable from the community dynamic of a social ape.

So how is climate alarmism modelled? We can first model what the alarmist narrative would NOT consist of. Take these examples for instance.

Scenario 1: climate change is caused by humans. It is mild in nature, and modestly beneficial, boosting plant growth and harvests and extending habitable regions closer to the poles.

Such scenarios will be stillborn, stamped out violently at inception. Because there is no socioeconomic benefit to “congratulate” human society on its trajectory of development. Such narrative would be marginal and irrelevant.

Scenario 2: From an optimistic scenario, ignored by everyone, we can move to a deeply pessimistic one that would equally be ignored by everyone. This is the scenario that human effects on the climate and biosphere are disastrous and have already passed the point of no return. Catastrophe is already locked in and all there is to do is “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”. Note that a Norwegian scientist recently published such a paper, greeted by a torrential cyclone of outraged jowl-flapping. This deluge swept away the study so utterly that it has vanished from the web and I can’t find it. Passed into oblivion. Cancelled. Clearly a story of tragedy and inevitable doom is forcibly rejected by power brokers. An alarmist narrative needs to contain at least some (albeit manufactured) ray of hope.

Note that scientific considerations of climate itself are totally absent from the factors determining the nature of the alarmist narrative. Let’s move on to some less extreme candidate narratives.

Scenario 3. Humans have definitely changed climate and environment. There are harmful and damaging aspects of this influence. But the overall effect is ambiguous with some beneficial elements. And overall it’s marginal whether the anthropogenic climate effects are a significant concern. Climate political action should be focussed on local specific harmful threats, disparate and isolated in far-flung places.

This scenario can transiently exist but is unstable. It is quickly and inexorably pulled toward a narrative of pervasive and universal harm from human climate effects. Any suggestion of positive human effects on the earth system are quickly snuffed out as a risk and liability to the path to alarmist power. In the actual history of climate politics this transitional stage has already come and gone.

Scenario 4. Humans have pretty much trashed the planet. There is a slender chance to partly mitigate the oncoming catastrophe, but popular mitigation policies are ineffective and misguided. Doom is more or less locked in and humanity itself needs a major haircut to save the planet. Note this is the position of Michael Moore in his film “Planet of the Humans”. It provokes a mixed response but ultimately is rejected and marginalised by the power brokers.

So if all these scenarios are wide of the mark, what is the ideal part of the alarmist phase space that makes it an effective path to power. What is the “sweet spot” of climate damnation and salvation? It’s scenario 5.

Scenario 5. Mea Culpa! Lash self with chain like a good pilgrim. We bad humans have done grievous harm to our Mother Earth. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of Gaia. But … here’s the clever balancing act. Yes there is serious harm locked in – but at the same time there is hope of salvation and remedy. However “narrow is the path that leads to life”: the remediation of climate and environment require profound economic and political changes and big sacrifices in lifestyle.

This is the sweet spot, the attractor to which environmental alarmist will be inevitably sucked into as over the event horizon of a greeny-black hole. Hope must be there – but attaining it must be super hard. It must require complete upheaval of countries, societies, economies and lifestyle. Even our diet must change. Looks familiar? Welcome to 2021.

So – it turns out that the direction of climate alarmism and the detailed contents of the next IPCC report (can’t remember the number already) can be predictively modelled, with accuracy and robustness. And without any reference to any scientific issue relating to climate itself. Whatsoever.