The Climate Models Used To Regulate Your Life Were Never Plausible
Earlier this week, we editorialized about the Great Green Grift of the climate hustlers who line their own pockets as well as those of their co-conspirators
Today, we dig into the science, which has been repeatedly abused, often abandoned, and artfully prostituted to support the global warming racket.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has long been treated as having the first and last word on global warming.
Google’s artificial intelligence says it’s “widely regarded as the world’s leading authority on climate science, providing essential, peer-reviewed assessments that inform international policy.”
We are all expected to regard its conclusions as ‘settled’ science and surrender to the climate con men and ideologues — to give them all the money and power they demand.
But it’s not infallible. In fact, it seems that the IPCC has been feeding the Big Lie. The group “has just published the next generation of climate scenarios,” says environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr.
The IPCC has now distanced itself from its own previous claims, which were used to goad true believers and leftist activists into political action; to provide a generation of elected officials with a pretext to hike taxes, spending and regulation, thereby wasting as much as $16 trillion; and to create a blueprint for huge, but wholly unneeded new government outlays that have zero effects on global temperatures and unsurprisingly end up in the pockets of the Democratic machine.
“The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades — specifically, RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0,” says Pielke. “This is an absolutely huge development in climate science which will have lasting impacts across research and policy.”
It turns out that the most alarming possibilities put forth by the IPCC — the same ones used by those among us who insist we have only a few years to ‘save the planet’ from global warming and have to turn over our lives to their policymaking whims — simply aren’t plausible.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of this shift, because, says Pielke, “tens of thousands of research papers have been — and continue to be — published using these scenarios,” while “a similar number of media headlines have amplified their findings, and governments and international organizations have built these implausible scenarios into policy and regulation.”
It was all, he adds, “built on a foundation of sand.”
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Carbon Brief
Editor’s note: to be fair to the IPCC, the three scenarios mentioned above were based on uncontrolled burning of coal, and not ‘business as usual’ as many alarmists claim, and even the IPCC themselves publicly said they represented extreme and implausible scenarios. That is why they removed them. It should not be forgotten that computer models are programmed to reach a certain conclusion, so if you programmed one to say when CO2 reaches a certain concentration, bananas will turn blue, that’s exactly what it will say. All climate models are programmed to say increasing CO2 will drive the temperature up, but that doesn’t make it true. As atmospheric physicist Joe Postma has pointed out many times, that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and as most people are aware, every ice core that has been examined, from both Greenland and Antarctica, shows temperature changes first, followed some years later by a change in CO2. Therefore, the entire ‘climate change’ argument is based on a deliberately orchestrated deception.