Junk Science Week: IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ‘no’
Even if you pile crazy assumption upon crazy assumption, you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage
The debate over climate change is horribly polarized. From the way it is conducted, you would think that only two positions are possible: that the whole thing is a hoax or that catastrophe is inevitable. In fact there is room for lots of intermediate positions, including the view I hold, which is that man-made climate change is real but not likely to do much harm, let alone prove to be the greatest crisis facing humankind this century
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Perfect Correlation
- Gw on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Disillusioned on Elon’s Hockey Stick
- conrad ziefle on “Earlier Than Usual”
- spren on “Climate dread is everywhere”
- spren on “Earlier Than Usual”
- czechlist on “Earlier Than Usual”
- conrad ziefle on Perfect Correlation
- conrad ziefle on “Earlier Than Usual”
- conrad ziefle on “Earlier Than Usual”
Of course global warming alarmists are exaggerating. But do you know any of the finer detail behind this? I’m interested to know what the crazy assumptions are.
They assume CO2 sensitivity and feedback much higher than observed
The article also points out that IPCC cost estimates of future climate are 2% of global GDP while taking action would require 4% of global GDP. The evidence provided by the IPCC itself and accepted as the economic consensus, except for economic consensus deniers like Paul Krugman, is for NO ACTION.
My model, which I did in two days using Excel, is working quite well.
Of course I included the empirical effects of the Sun and oceans, which the wise IPCC scientists haven’t discovered yet.
If anyone wishes to buy me a supercomputer, Steve has my email address.
What!?? You included the sun? No one includes the sun in their models unless they want their funding cut! Get with the program!
/sarc (if I need it)
Someone needs to educate the US politicians who seem unaware of the IPCC economic consensus that taking action to fight climate change would violate economic reason and that those who demand immediate action are deniers of the IPCC economic consensus.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that by UN mandate. Therefore for them there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”. This is regardless of anything that happens in reality; reality is not within their remit only ‘AGW/climate change’ is.
The models and the scare stories are the tools by which the IPCC attempts to legitimize this alarmist CAGW call. Thankfully for them they have ensured that the true workings and methods of the computer models remain hidden.
The emails from the ‘climategate’ scandal highlighted some of their devious methods. Since the email leaks have shown that the surface temperature data that IPCC relies on is based on distorted raw data and algorithms that they will not share with the science community. Also apparent was that scientists implicated in Climategate have misused peer review and pressured journal editors to prevent publication of research that questions the basics of CAGW. They have taken control of the IPCC process and they have smeared opponents personally, rather than critiquing the research.
In the not–too–distant future when all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool — as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. Why did we impoverish these future generations but they will have movies like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and documentaries like ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ to remind them what mass hysteria can do.
It’s “polarized” only because alarmists would have everyone believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with them, totally opposes them.