Climate nightmares: misusing science to create horrific predictions

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Excellent article on how journalists and climate alarmists always pick RCP8.5, the worst case scenario of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report — often as the “business as usual” scenario.

In the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report four scenarios describe future emissions, concentrations, and land-use. They are Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the inputs to climate models that generate the IPCC’s projections. Strong mitigation policies lead to a low forcing level of 2.6 W/m2 by 2100 (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes in RCP4.5 and RCP6.0.

RCP8.5 gets the most attention, with its bold and dark assumptions (details here). It is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. It should spur us to act. Unfortunately, “despite not being explicitly designed as business as usual or mitigation scenarios” RCP8.5 has often been misrepresented as the “business as usual” scenario — becoming the basis for hundreds of predictions about our certain doom from climate change.

The result of this (part of a decade-long campaign) is widespread despair among climate scientists and more broadly, among Leftists. This misuse of RCP8.5 is a triumph of propaganda, but polls show its ineffectiveness (with climate change ranking at or near the bottom of public policy concerns). Yet each month brings more of the same.
.......
This useful scenario was hijacked to serve the apocalyptic visions of activists. Did this happen from scientists’ deliberate misrepresentation (a noble lie?) or carelessness? Who can say? Here are some examples of climate scientists misrepresenting RCP8.5.

Wrong from the beginning: “Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity.” From “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011.

“RCP8.5 assumes a ‘business-as-usual’ approach.” From a guide to AR5 WG1 by Carolyn Symon (PhD, environmental science), by Cambridge U (Sept 2013).

“The scenario with the most warming is the ‘business-as-usual’ RCP8.5, in which global mean temperature could be 4°C or more above pre-industrial times.” By*Matt Collins (Prof, Climate Systems at Exeter U) at Climatica, Dec 2013.

“Under a business as usual trajectory, the IPCC is saying 3.7 to 4.8 degrees by the end of this century“, said by Lesley Hughes (Prof Biology at Marcqarie U, lead author of WG2 in AR4 & AR5), March 2014.

Ottmar Edenhofer (Prof at the Potsdam Inst, Co-Chair of WG3 for AR5) describes RCP8.5 as the “business as usual” scenario at the IPCC AR5 WGIII press conference, 13 April 2014.

“What we see so far is that the only business-as-usual scenario among the RCPs is RCP8.5, a high-end business-as-usual scenario.” Said by John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist, Prof Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M), August 2014.

“for business-as-usual greenhouse gases (RCP8.5 scenario) …” — Said by James Hansen (climate scientists, Columbia Earth institute), July 2015.

“RCP8.5 is a scenario with unmitigated rise in greenhouse gas emissions.” — Said by Stefan Rahmstorf (Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam U) at RealClimate (Aug 2015). That’s true, but misleading by not mentioning the other assumptions.

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/11/05/visions-of-dark-climate-future-90153/
 
Last edited:
I often wonder if these simpletons that bleat consensus all the time know that there isn't a consensus except amongst climate alarmists who are actually a very small group of scientists and activists.



In the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report four scenarios describe future emissions, concentrations, and land-use. They are Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the inputs to climate models that generate the IPCC’s projections. Strong mitigation policies lead to a low forcing level of 2.6 W/m2 by 2100 (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes in RCP4.5 and RCP6.0.

RCP8.5 gets the most attention, with its bold and dark assumptions (details here). It is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. It should spur us to act. Unfortunately, “despite not being explicitly designed as business as usual or mitigation scenarios” RCP8.5 has often been misrepresented as the “business as usual” scenario — becoming the basis for hundreds of predictions about our certain doom from climate change.
 
Last edited:
Excellent article on how journalists and climate alarmists always pick RCP8.5, the worst case scenario of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report — often as the “business as usual” scenario.
Let 'em do it. It's self destructive behavior. Over time the public will get it. Example: Remember the hoopla with Al Gordo's first hollywood feature film? It's already a joke. In 20 yrs. maybe sooner it'll be a cult classic like Reefer Madness.
 
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-icons-at-risk-from-sea-level-rise-pictures-19633

London_4C.jpg
 
Excellent article on how journalists and climate alarmists always pick RCP8.5, the worst case scenario of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report — often as the “business as usual” scenario.



https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/11/05/visions-of-dark-climate-future-90153/

"Fabiusmaximus.com," beautiful

The nice part of conservatives employing one of their whacked out websites is that you can easily find another website to completely negate it,

"Global Warming Denial Liars"

"The Ignorance and Dishonesty of the “Fabius Maximus” Website fabiusmaximus.com"

"Global Warming Deniers claim that Global Warming is a hoax/fraud/scam. They lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong."

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/FabiusMaximusIgnorance.html
 
Unread, but whatever it is, it can't be worse than not being a scientist and second chairing the work of real ones for the consumption of online dumbshits in the heartland to get them to vote for polluter shitbag oil company candidates.
 
Let 'em do it. It's self destructive behavior. Over time the public will get it. Example: Remember the hoopla with Al Gordo's first hollywood feature film? It's already a joke. In 20 yrs. maybe sooner it'll be a cult classic like Reefer Madness.

Uh, you've said this. Maybe over time the public will get your act too?
 
"Fabiusmaximus.com," beautiful

The nice part of conservatives employing one of their whacked out websites is that you can easily find another website to completely negate it,

"Global Warming Denial Liars"

"The Ignorance and Dishonesty of the “Fabius Maximus” Website fabiusmaximus.com"

"Global Warming Deniers claim that Global Warming is a hoax/fraud/scam. They lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong."

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/FabiusMaximusIgnorance.html
Durango Bill, now there's somebody with real credibility!! Is that it Legion?
 
Uh, you've said this. Maybe over time the public will get your act too?
So you admit catastrophic apocalyptic climate alarmism is an act. Finally.
If you can think of another alarmist movie as stupid to compare to Al Fatso's, I'm all ears.
 
Last edited:
Excellent article on how journalists and climate alarmists always pick RCP8.5, the worst case scenario of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report — often as the “business as usual” scenario.

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/11/05/visions-of-dark-climate-future-90153/


The funny thing about their choice of RPC8.5 is that they do that because it appears that the CO2 increase is best fit for RCP8.5... while the problem is that the CLIMATE is tracking better with the zero-emission-increase model. This is a clear indicator that the forcing value for CO2 assumed in the IPCC model is too high.

But then the forcing value of CO2 has always been a fudge factor anyway. When you have X known contributors and try and derive the X+1 contributor the X+1 will always amount to nothing more than the actual value of X+1 plus any other unconsidered X+n contributors plus uncertainty. That is where CO2 is.
 
"Fabiusmaximus.com," beautiful

The nice part of conservatives employing one of their whacked out websites is that you can easily find another website to completely negate it,

"Global Warming Denial Liars"

"The Ignorance and Dishonesty of the “Fabius Maximus” Website fabiusmaximus.com"

"Global Warming Deniers claim that Global Warming is a hoax/fraud/scam. They lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong."

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/FabiusMaximusIgnorance.html

If criticism is not part of peer reviewed scholarship itself, or another peer reviewed paper endnote citation to it, it's just commentary, not science. Milago is a layman trying to critique mere commentary on climate science.
First he needs to get the fucking right degree, then get a job in a University in the field, then write a fucking grant, then get it funded, then do the research, then publish the findings to peer review.
Then I'll consider believing a single damn word he writes regarding global warming. Until then, it's total garbage.

The tactic du jour appears to be to tar climate scientists with a Gore bias brush. Illogical and stupid, like them. Thankfully we are all more intelligent than they are. So as usual they are preaching to the choir of idiots.
 
So you admit catastrophic apocalyptic climate alarmism is an act. Finally.
If you can think of another alarmist movie as stupid to compare to Al Fatso's, I'm all ears.

Well, loaded description, but....no, I admit it is exactly what it is, a possible outcome on a statistical curve that, depending on the particular work, taken as a whole, may be overemphasizing the possibility or not.
But no matter what, Gore's movie about climate science is not climate science. Does that really need saying? How do I know what was left on the editing floor? I haven't even seen the movie, or the first one.
You've given Gore more money than me. Bahahahaha
 
The funny thing about their choice of RPC8.5 is that they do that because it appears that the CO2 increase is best fit for RCP8.5... while the problem is that the CLIMATE is tracking better with the zero-emission-increase model. This is a clear indicator that the forcing value for CO2 assumed in the IPCC model is too high.

But then the forcing value of CO2 has always been a fudge factor anyway. When you have X known contributors and try and derive the X+1 contributor the X+1 will always amount to nothing more than the actual value of X+1 plus any other unconsidered X+n contributors plus uncertainty. That is where CO2 is.

Yes I would agree the value for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) has been steadily going down and is now 3.7W/m2 equivalent to a temperature rise of around 1C.

Of course this is nowhere near scary enough for alarmists which is why they​ never consider anything other than the worst case 'business as usual' RCP 8.5 scenario.

*IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4. * This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change. *These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by *most skeptics. *Well, perhaps they should be disputed.

https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/
 
Last edited:
Guess the point went right over your head, shocking, is "Durango Bill" any less credible than "Fabiusmaximus.com?"

The article refers to the various scenarios taken from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, specifically RCP 8.5, are you saying that those are not credible? It certainly sounds like it to me, which then shows you to be a complete moron.
 
Last edited:
If criticism is not part of peer reviewed scholarship itself, or another peer reviewed paper endnote citation to it, it's just commentary, not science. Milago is a layman trying to critique mere commentary on climate science.
First he needs to get the fucking right degree, then get a job in a University in the field, then write a fucking grant, then get it funded, then do the research, then publish the findings to peer review.
Then I'll consider believing a single damn word he writes regarding global warming. Until then, it's total garbage.

The tactic du jour appears to be to tar climate scientists with a Gore bias brush. Illogical and stupid, like them. Thankfully we are all more intelligent than they are. So as usual they are preaching to the choir of idiots.

Definitely back on the Kunt List, it never has anything of import to say and is just a pompous fucking windbag.
 
Back
Top