The greatest imaginary menace in the history of mankind just got a whole heap more imaginary and menacing.
According to New Scientist:
The phrase “worse than we thought” is a cliché when it comes to climate change. There are lots of studies suggesting we’re in for more warming and worse consequences than thought, and few saying it won’t be as bad. But guess what: it’s worse than we thought.
A study of the future global economy has concluded that the standard worst-case scenario used by climate scientists is actually not the worst case.
Just in case any of you were worried about this, don’t be. As we learn further down this is based on a yet another study by parti-pris alarmists ramping up the climate change scare narrative using dodgy computer-modeled projections of what might happen if all their parameters are correct (which they aren’t).
It says:
Results from this study suggest a greater than 35% probability that emissions concentrations will exceed those assumed in the most severe of the available climate change scenarios (RCP 8.5), illustrating particular importance for understanding extreme outcomes.
To which the only intelligent response is: so what?
Even if future industrial CO2 production does exceed even the upper limits in the alarmists’ computer projections, that’s by no means necessarily a disastrous scenario.
In fact, it’s probably a good one because emissions are closely linked with economic growth – and economic growth makes us happy and richer and gives us the stuff that we want. Also, by the by, it makes the planet more green – so what’s not to like?
Perhaps this desperate attempt at scaremongering would have more credibility if the alarmists’ computer-modeled projections had any connection with observed reality. But they don’t – as one or two of the informed commenters at Watts Up With That? have noticed.
Note: what it’s saying is that the “worst case” EMISSIONS may be greater than predicted. Nothing about the climate change that might then ensue. That’s why they call it a climate change “scenario”, not “climate change” per se.
Since for a while now, emissions have been barrelling along and nothing’s happened significantly global-warming wise (but the planet is happily greening), I imagine they’re reluctant to draw attention to that. Very cunning.
and
Of course, real-world measurements show that temperature rise is barely on track for the RCP 2.6 scenario; the fantasy where all the governments of the world cooperatively apply punitive restrictions on CO2 emissions and revert their economies and standard of living to the early 19th century.
And sea level rise is below the RCP 2.6 projection, despite none of the governments achieving their CO2 emissions targets and some, like the U.S., ignoring them altogether.
In other words, with virtually nothing being done, global warming and its effects are much, MUCH less than the doomsayers had hoped for.
But why let facts get in the way of a good apocalyptic fable?
When amateurs on a blog know more about science than the guys on multi-million dollar grants at U.S. academic institutions informing global energy and environment policy, you know that the time has come to drain the swamp…
Read more at Breitbart
It only worst then before because this fake scientist is’nt getting enough pay in their paychecks and Trump not Clinton is in the Whitehouse
Future historians will poke and prod the entrails of this “Climate Change” turkey.
What conclusions will they draw from it?
Someone should keep reminding these folks that two things are true.
1) CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is a beneficial gas in the earth’s life cycle. (the more we have the greener it gets and the more oxygen us released for us and the animal kingdom to survive.)
2) There isn’t a shred of evidence that CO2 causes global warming.
In addition they should be told the truth that the UN has demonized CO2 as a means to redistribute the world’s wealth and to destroy capitalism. The whole thing is a fraud, and true believers in this fraud have been propagandized and brainwashed. Proponents of the global warming fraud are either believers of untrue propaganda
or knowing participants in defrauding others.
It’s even worse than what New Scientist reports. As a climate scientist myself, I can report that Global Warming of Doom (GWOD) and Climate Change of Doom (CCOD) are not the only climate threats that we face. Results from my own consensus climate models prove that even if the climate stabilizes, Climate Stability of Doom (CSOD) caused by the CO2 from fossil fuels will result in widespread weather disasters and other environmental catastrophes within 50-100 years unless we act now. The only way to prevent CSOD is to send me lots of money, and to transfer ownership and control of all fossil fuels to me. Anyone who disputes my claims is a climate denier.
The alarmists keep claiming the only reason someone would oppose their agenda is they are receiving money from the fossil fuel industry. I’m still waiting for my check.
One thing constant about the climate change movement is there is always someone making a new sounding gloom and doom prediction. The motivation is of course trying to get the political action that they want. They would be better off if they took a look at what the data is showing them, rather than what they wished for.
From the article, “emissions are closely linked with economic growth – and economic growth makes us happy and richer and gives us the stuff that we want.” That is the exact problem for many of the activists. They consider our life style to be decadent. Making energy scarce and expensive is one way to make sure we are not rich and do not have what we want.
“It’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you have”.
So slacking off is a virtue. Living in your parent’s basement until you put them in a home is a plan.
I noticed what you did, D L. It’s the opposite of human nature. Getting ahead is too much like work, so buck the system.
Paint your face and wave placards. Pretend you’re a revolutionary.
Climate has never stopped changing and sadly for some apparently
humans are not going to stop it or customize it like it’s some recipe .
Don’t see a bunch of eco -anarchist’s running up the volcano in Hawaii trying to put a cork in it .
I read that BP was and probibly still is a donator to The Nature Conservancy and Ford has donated to the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club and Greenpeace still uses Fossil fuel for their ships Arctic Sunrise and Rainbow Warrior II as well as their little zodiacs its small wonder one of its origional founders Patrick Moore quit
Now I know why my local newsagent has started putting New Scientist in the comics section.
Truly feel sorry for the kids having to be subjected to PC /liberal brain wash from the time they enter the school system .
If you didn’t have to why would you send a kid through this gender bender smurf camp . No more “Boy ” Scouts . How long before Scout is deemed a racist name ?
The boys are checking out from what I’m hearing .