Much of the alarmist climate science literature promoting the collectivist Net Zero political project, along with many doomsday scenarios highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are corrupted with implausible data that almost nobody believes. This astonishing conclusion can reasonably be drawn from recent extensive research from the Clintel Foundation. This work identified the widespread use of data predicting unrealistic temperature rises of 4-5°C in less than 80 years.
Clintel found that the IPCC makes extensive use of two pathways (scenarios of projected socioeconomic global changes up to the year 2100) that are “completely out of touch with reality” and that the UN-funded body then sprays the results all over its reports. The pathways called SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 make improbable claims of massive temperature rises that even the IPCC says are of “low likelihood”. As we noted last Saturday, this caveat is buried deep in the recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), and is not even mentioned in the widely-distributed Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). In addition, Clintel notes that “week after week” new publications appear using these extreme scenarios to create screaming headlines.
Bloomberg recently looked at how frequently each scenario appears in publications discoverable on Google Scholar. As shown in the graph above, the most extreme pathway is the most popular in the literature. In this sense, says Clintel, one might have concluded that the IPCC is simply doing its job and assessing and reporting the literature. It can also be suggested that the IPCC picks its lead authors and ignores science that runs contrary to the ‘correct’ political narrative. That is, it marks its own homework.
One result is that much of the climate panic that appears in mainstream media is tainted by the inappropriate use of these pathways. For example, last March the BBC ran a story claiming that Antarctic Ocean currents were heading for collapse. To drive home the scare, there was even a reference to the 2004 climate disaster film The Day After Tomorrow. The article was based on the work of scientists who claimed rapidly melting ice was causing a dramatic slowdown in deep ocean currents. In reality, the overall Antarctica ice sheet has seen little change for at least 70 years. Unsurprisingly, the scientists’ claims were based on computer models fed with RCP8.5 data – a fact missing from the BBC’s ridiculous story.
This captures how the system perpetuates itself. “If prominent leaders keep using this scenario and funding agencies keep funding research based on it, the use of this exaggerated scenario will continue for many years to come,” says the Clintel report.
How was it possible for such an extreme scenario to become so dominant in the literature and the IPCC reports? Professors Justin Ritchie and Roger Pielke Jr. provide some insights in their piece in Issues in Science and Technology titled ‘How the Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality‘. They argue that a “failure of self-correction in science has compromised climate science’s ability to provide plausible views of our collective future”.
Their damning conclusion: “The continuing misuse of scenarios in climate research has become pervasive and consequential – so much so that we view it as one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the 21st Century thus far. We need a course correction.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Roger Pielke Jr has often referred to the implausibility of RCP8.5, a scenario in which there is a huge expansion of coal use, replacing other energy sources. It’s certainly not a business as usual scenario although it has often been presented as such. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report
You don’t say?
(Brilliant name and the perfect answer to this ,already well known scenario)
Even if there is more coal use, as there is in China, there is no evidence that it would have a significant effect on climate.
The IPCC and related fora are political projects. Richard Tol a Dutch ‘scientist’ who participated in many of them, said there were more politicians in their meetings than people who knew something. Making a sausage and all that. Every year their rhetoric becomes more unhinged. I remember Lester Brown (Club of Rome etc) in 1988 saying that by the year 2000 it was all over (warming, plant food). King Warming III made the same prediction in July 2009 that by July 2017 it was finished. Funny how the fake news did not follow up on that prediction with his eco-majesty. 6 years later and everything is the same as it always was.
And we just spent 6 miserable months in very cold and below average temps. But this will be the hottest winter evah and this cold dreary May, the hottest May evah etc. I am not looking forward to the first 25 C hot day in June or July, when the idiots will come crawling out of their caves drooling that this was proof of warmtarding.
”Every year their rhetoric becomes more unhinged.’ Yes indeed, it now makes more sense to me to view net-zero, IPCC etc, as an apocalyptic, religious death cult, like the Branch Davidian sect and they are duly intent on forcing us all into our Waco moment!
Mind you, that is just the western world, China and the Asian world smile calmly and carry on ready to pick up the pieces.
It’s strange how many people twig some of the media scams, and yet happily swallow other examples following exactly the same playbook. How many people, for example, see through the trans agenda, and COVID, and yet worry themselves sick about the climate? Or else they see through all three of these deceptions, and happily assume they are being told the truth about geopolitics by the media and the same corrupt politicians.
“To think I believed you when you said you were a good con-man…”
The Met Office CET says that we are running at 1.2C ABOVE average (1961-1990), How can this be the case – it has been miserable?
For May
Nice and sunny today but effing cold.
Well, it’s completely arbitrary to choose that particular stretch of 30 years to calibrate an average anyway – why not 1970-2010, or 1980-2020?
The answer is most likely is that you can only make it appear that we’re running above average if you take those years as an average for comparison! Any other period and we’d be running below it.
The 1970s was a cold decade so average temperatures stats that compare to that decade (or are included in the range) will appear to be warmer.
Going forward from the 1970s everything is warmer compared to that decade.
But little mentioned is that going back in time from the 1970s is warmer too.
The met office changes data to meet its predictions and biased information, it broadcasts and should now have lost its credibility in the same way as the BBC has.
Net Zero based on fake assumptions
************************************
Stand in the Park
Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
****
Third Thursday Freedom Drinks
Thursday 18th May 7pm
Belgian Arms
Holyport St,
(off A330 Ascot Rd)
Holyport, Maidenhead SL6 2JR
Yes, the IPCC is a political body and it’s conclusions are all political. But the other day on “Daily Sceptic” we saw an article in which the IPCC were admitting their worst case scenario’s were very unlikely to occur. Yet the energy policies of western governments have been entirely based on the pronouncements coming from this bunch of Eco Socialists. The whole thing is based on fear of scarcity and fear of the risk of climate extremes. There is no evidence for any of those things, but repeating them loudly and often is the tactic used, and it works for a large proportion of the population and some we see even block roads and glue themselves to things clamouring for their own impoverishment. It is well known that fear paralyses rational thought. There always has to be an enemy and a victim when trying to scare people. But real world observations of what the climate is actually doing won’t scare anyone at all so fanciful and speculative climate models full of all manner of assumptions are wheeled out instead, and then those get referred to as “science”. ———Computer models full of assumptions are NOT science anymore than a pocket calculator is mathematics.—- Almost everything we are being told about climate change is either a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency or a blatant lie, but the appearance of respectability and authority of the worlds “top scientists” (really just modellers) and their well attended conferences appearing on all the main TV News Channels making evidence free pronouncements at podiums makes it all appear like the worst case scenario’s from models is really what is happening as regards the climate. —-Nope . Real world data indicates otherwise.
If TPTB were truly serious about climate change and CO2, they would force developers to ensure that all new buildings had solar panels, triple glazing, EV charging points, highly effective insulation etc as mandatory and they would also scrap CAZs, ULEZs payments and just not allow vehicles into city centres period. This is how one would respond to a ‘climate emergency’. The fact that developers do not do this and that you can drive into a CAZ/ULEZ 7 days a weeks with a rusty old diesel after paying a fee shows just how unserious they are and that this is really about money and control as it has always been.
To sum up the illogical reasoning of a net zero zealot:
The earth is warming: Therefore we need to cut fossil fuel usage.
We cut our use of fossil fuels and achieved net zero, but the world is still warming: Therefore we must do more and achieve ABSOLUTE zero emissions.
OR:
We cut our fossil fuels to net zero and the earth is cooling: Therefore, we accomplished our goal, and we can duly take credit for it!
Poor old sun, never gets the recognition it deserves.
Why don’t people just Fuxxin’ look up?
All you need to know about “Climate Science”…
Models v real world data. No wonder they rely ONLY on models. Real world data as a basis for scientific work is, my dear, just so so passé…
I value the work Chris does in an attempt to get people to “get real” over climate change, and how he provides the evidence that makes many of the stupid climate claims look ridiculous. The problem is when these crazy claims are made by organisations like the BBC and there is evidence that they are crazy, such as in this article, perhaps they would be more effective if they were sent to the BBC to demand a public response. I suppose this is more work for someone, but I think it would add impact to the work Chris does and more people would be aware of the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFLPWWCAHfQ
If you think the climate is a scam, then this EU sponsered conference sees another one!
It very long but you will get the gist very quicly. All referenced tp proper papers from actual Science.
“The liars are claiming that everyone else is giving out misinformation, basically turning the truth on its head. While propaganda takes many forms, mainstream corporate media play a crucial role. Apparently, the good news is that people are starting to catch on and trust in corporate media has dropped to an all-time low.”
Great interview. https://www.bitchute.com/video/FfPFPROaHNGO/
There’s a climate change industry and many people are getting rich and powerful from it.
They make sure that only reports that strengthen their industry get funded and publicized.
It’s about their job retention.