Home Climate Change Hothouse Earth - The Scumbags Are Lying about Climate Change. Again

Hothouse Earth – The Scumbags Are Lying about Climate Change. Again

Author

Comments

The latest terrifying story that if we don’t abolish capitalism then we’re all gonna fry. And it really is incumbent upon the media to call these people out. In fact, the scientific journals need to be stopping people from making these ludicrous claims.

Just for the avoidance of doubt the ludicrous claim isn’t about CO2, or that climate change is happening, or that we’re causing it. Rather, there’s one specific point here that has been entirely and wholly disproven. And therefore people really must stop claiming it.

Look over to the right there and you can see that this terror of Flipper boiling in the fumes of the last ice floe is a result of RCP 8.5. OK, this is a projection of how emissions could turn out. It’s fair to say that if RCP 8.5 happens then Flipper, ice floe etc.

But the error is here:

“Now that we have succeeded in capturing the natural climate variability, we can see that the projected anthropogenic warming will be much greater than that,” study co-author James Zachos, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a statement.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections for 2300 in the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario will potentially bring global temperature to a level the planet has not seen in 50 million years.”

As I say, “if RCP 8.5 then” is fair enough. But RCP 8.5 is not the business as usual forecast. To get to that level of emissions we have to do a number of stupid things. Like, stop using fracked gas an oil and so turn back to coal. Also, and on top, we’ve got to use less solar, less wind, than we do already.

RCP 8.5 is actually what happens if we use energy, and the types of energy, like we did in the 1970s and then it all gets worse too. Which ain’t, in this day and age, anything close to “business as usual”. Actually, RCP 8.5 is proven not to be about to happen.

Again, it would be fair to say “If RCP 8.5 then Hothouse Earth”. But we already know that RCP 8.5 isn’t going to happen. And Hothouse Earth, as their research insists, is dependent upon RCP 8.5 happening. RCP 8.5 cannot possibly happen given current levels of emissions, let alone given current trends in emissions. It’s definitely, absolutely, not the business as usual projection.

So, they’re lying when they say it is. Quite why they’re lying is another matter. Presumably the destruction of industrialised civilisation is more important than the truth, who knows?

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

7 COMMENTS

  1. Largely from a desire to preserve livelihoods and status.
    Having made a career out of climate scares they want that career to continue indefinitely.
    That’s why setting up the IPCC was a mistake. There was never a chance that it wouldn’t find a problem because that would mean abolishing itself, something no organisation has ever done.
    BTW I believe the continuance of the Covid scare is from a similar cause. SAGE is never going to advise the government that it’s advice is no longer needed.

  2. Can’t pretend I have any faith in solar. And I have even less faith in wind. But if we really want to generate, without emissions, all the energy we’ll ever need for our industrial society, nukes can do it without difficulty.

    Of course the very people who shriek in horror about climate are those who are most determined to get rid of the nukes. But the ‘solutions’ recommended for climate change have always been so ridiculous that I’ve never been able to take the initial proposition seriously.

  3. @ Boganboy
    #1 son worries enough about climate change to lobby me to reduce my contribution – but he recommends thorium reactors. The MSM want us to believe that anyone opposed to climate change accepts all their daft ideas. Not true!
    Solar *is* good since it produces electricity with a production rate that is positively correlated with demand and, in so doing, reduces the effect of sunlight on global warming. [Sun rays falling on solar panels are used to generate electricity with some power loss converted into heat, those falling elsewhere convert into heat]
    Wind *can* be used intelligently – as it was centuries ago – but with an inter-day variability ratio of 144:1 it is NOT a reliable source of energy in the UK. [That’s just the variability of inter-day averages, if you factor in the intra-day variability it approaches 1,000 to 1]. All we need is an honest man to run the wind-power.

    • The problem with solar (PV) is that, at temperate latitudes, It struggles* to produce enough useful energy to compensate for the energy ‘spent’ in its manufacture (if you include mining the raw materials etc etc). If we had an economy run only on solar energy, it would eventually grind to a halt because we would lack the energy to manufacture the next solar cell. Economically (not physically!) one can view PV panels as a sort of ‘battery’, that’s charged up with energy during manufacture (since they’re mostly made in China, this energy will probably be quite ‘dirty’) and gradually releases it under the sun’s rays.

      I’m interested in your numbers for wind power variability. Are they based on an individual windmill, or do they look at the UK ‘fleet’, allowing for the fact that it might be windy in Sutherland and calm in Cornwall, or vice versa?

      * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
      the details are (academically) disputed, but it’s clear at least that there’s not a huge excess available with current technologies

      • @ Quentin Vole
        Data from gridwatch.uk based upon the UK “fleet”.
        If it was based on one windmill the variability would 100 to 0 or infinity to 1.
        Just looking at the graphs it *appears* that windpower supply is inversely correlated with grid demand.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

European Union Announces That EU Banks Don’t All Have To Go Bust Because Brexit

This story is being reported entirely the wrong way around. For we're being told that we should all be really grateful to that lovely...

Dear Guardian – Finding Uranium Is The Easy Bit

The Guardian is all of a fluster because some Chinese companies have been looking for uranium in Saudi Arabia. This is obviously the precursor...

Working From Home – A Briefing Note For Journalists

Hard as this will be for many British journalists to cope with - and impossible for American given that they all only studied journalism...

George Monbiot Argues For – Mirabile Dictu – More Markets

This isn't what George Monbiot thinks he is arguing for of course but then the world would be a better place if those in...

Why Modern Feminism Makes Women So Damn Miserable

Because it offers women the same choices men have long had - lots of them. Over at Instapundit we have the observation that modern feminism...

Recent comments