Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The IPCC has quietly dropped the always suspect high-end scare scenario RCP8.5 ("representative concentration pathway 8.5"). Alarmists have always said they did not claim this was likely, but nevertheless worked that scenario into thousands of papers and policy recommendations. The possibility of a temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius or more by the end of the century was the driver behind lots of very bad policy. Avoiding this dire outcome became such a major consideration that it was worked not just into legislation and regulation but also financial institution policy, planning and behavior. Examples:
If you ask any AI about climate sensitivity (warming per doubling of CO2 concentration in ppm), it will tell you that the "consensus" is 3.0 degrees C. That is now the high end rather than the midpoint! (I wonder when Grok and ChatGPT will catch up.) At this rate, the pronouncements of The Consensus (Peace Be Upon It) might soon approach the modest warming predicted by the outcast denialist scum.
It is mildly amusing that the official explanation for the change is not that the methodology and assumptions behind RCP8.5 never made sense, as many critics have pointed out. Perish the thought. It was the roaring success of genius policy choices and alternative energy usage that averted this bad scenario—even as the global increase of CO2 continued to increase at the same rate and alarmists gave us X years to solve the problem. Puh-leeze.
Some super number cruncher should figure out the economic damage from what the fear-mongers' distortion of the global economy has wrought. The corporate and financial world is already disengaging from costly fantasy, but not fast enough. Could there actually be a global economic boom if everybody goes for the red pill on climate change?
Discussion (18)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
RCP8.5 was always bonkers. It was created so that modelers could create doomsday simulations and any ambitious STEM major could get headlines about the possible extinction of jack-o-lopes. It has been the basis of systemic science fraud and communist ambitions for 3 decades.
What does RCP8.5 assume? That western economies will reduce their industrial efficiencies down to Soviet era East Germany factories. That humans will breed like rabbits and the population will hit 16 billion. That people will discard LED lighting and go back to kerosene lamps. The RCP8.5 fraud is part and parcel of the entire Global Warming fraud.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Or would we just succumb to the next brain dead psyop imposed by the usual, very entitled, enemies of civilization. That notwithstanding, it is certainly worth a go.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Really! I'm so tired of hearing the liars obfuscate on this ridiculous premise. Have we come back from the brink yet, and are we in time to save the planet?! Oh mercy, me!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Maybe the emergence of some mutant hybrid of Greenies and Islamicists with a goal of a global economy and technology not to exceed that of the eleventh century.
On the upside, wokeness has been such an annoying, cheerless loser cult that maybe a critical mass of folks will be open to a little more upbeat reality-based progress. i don't have an "I Believe in Science" yard sign because I believe that science can be our friend and should not be twisted into not an excuse to constrain, silence and impoverish.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Short answer...without a doubt.
From a climate believer (I would characterize as a Luke warmer) who was dismissed from UC Boulder for not being emphatic enough about the dangers of climate change:
Roger Pielke Jr.'s "iron law of climate policy" states that when economic growth policies conflict with emissions reduction policies, economic growth will prevail. This principle highlights the challenge of balancing environmental objectives with the demands of economic development.
The adjoining notion regarding the whole green scam of wind and solar from a man who has spent his entire career follow energy issues (and lived the Texas black out a few years ago due to this crap)
Robert Bryce refers to "The Iron Law of Power Density," which states that the lower the power density of an energy source, the higher the resource intensity required to produce energy. This concept highlights the challenges of relying on low power-density sources like wind and solar energy compared to nuclear energy.
I have casually soap boxed elsewhere on Ricochet (cough, The PiT, cough) that the laws of Thermodynamics from the Scottish enlightenment state all energy conversions come with an energy cost, or as I state for the regular folks, There is no, and has never been, a free lunch.
You're seeing five of 18 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.