Earlier this year President Trump delighted his fans and outraged his opponents by pulling the USA and all its money out of the United Nations Intergoernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Globalists were quick to complain that without American money the climate scaremongering project would be bankrupt.
Trump signed a presidential memorandum in January that pulled the United States from the climate pact and 65 other international organizations and treaties that “no longer serve American interests.” About half of those are United Nations organizations.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, “As this list begins to demonstrate, what started as a pragmatic framework of international organizations for peace and cooperation has morphed into a sprawling architecture of global governance, often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests,” .
The US withdrawal from on climate cooperation comes as the United States’ main rival on the world stage, China, has come to dominate the clean energy technologies of the future. At the same time, many of the United States’ most powerful allies, including Australia, Britain and the European Union, are also advancing their ambitions to reduce emissions of planet-heating greenhouse gases and ramp up renewable energies.
Climate and emissions outline SSP5-8.5 assumes a rise of around 5°C by the end of the century. That was always somewhat detached from reality and has long been dealt a death blow, given that global warming ran out of steam about 25 years ago.
A recent New York Post (NYP) article, titled “Billions have been wasted on UN’s climate change lies,” describes how vast amounts of Dollars, Pounds, Euros and other major currencies have been spent worldwide attempting to slow or stop the world from experiencing the extreme climate change as forecast by the flawed, but widely used RCP 8.5 computer model projections. The NYP is absolutely correct. The future climate conditions described by the RCP 8.5 high-end emissions scenario, and subsequently cited in hundreds of climate science research papers warning of likely disastrous outcomes, were never going to happen, and all the investment into climate policy has been a total waste.
RCP 8.5 has officially been retired from consideration by official climate researchers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Opinion writer Jonathan Lesser writes that the IPCC “is responsible for the “climate catastrophe” pseudo science and “the world is burning" predictions that environmentalists, academics and many politicians have promoted to force high-cost, coercive energy policies on the developed nations, which “relied on academics whose careers depended on using RCP 8.5 and several other worst-case scenarios to predict everything from the demise of French wines and the end of pasta to aliens destroying the earth. (No, really.)”
Over the past decade, Wattsupwiththat, The Heartland Institute and Climate Realism have published dozens of articles refuting studies slavishly promoted by various media outlets that relied heavily on computer-modeled emissions scenarios like RCP 8.5 and SSP5-8.5. The stories referenced by Lesser here are familiar; the supposed destruction of French wine (or overproduction!), pasta, and aliens of a different kind, all have been covered and much more.
RCP 8.5 was used to say Gila monsters would be decimated by climate change, that climate change would spread lethal fungal outbreaks around the world, that climate change would cause a dramatic uptick in deaths from sedentary lifestyles, and The Daily Mail went so far as to create AI generated apocalyptic images of the world’s future all based on RCP 8.5 projections.
Scientists have been moving away from promoting RCP 8.5 as the business-as-usual scenario for a while now. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change abandoned it years ago, yet it has still been regularly used as a realistic high end emissions scenario in hundreds of papers published by prestigious journals like Nature. It never was realistic. It was always implausible and likely impossible, even assuming a rapid, large, and sustained increase in coal consumption – a scenario that would require five times more coal than we actually have reserves of.
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr. explains in a Substack post, “A scenario requiring five times proven coal reserves is not plausible by any standard,” and that the scenario also required an increase in the use of coal-to-liquids instead of petroleum and that other technologies would stagnate. None of this was realistic, even at the time the scenario was first created.
Unfortunately many people too busy with work and family life to investigate issues are of the opinion that what comes from the IPCC is “Science”. Those people take the view that if all scientists are saying something (i.e. The science is settled,) then it must be true so who are they to question these knowledable academics. So they mostly just accept it all.
In fact the opposite is true, we all have a right and a duty to question authority, and the very use of the phrase, "The science is settled," by climate scientists shows they are motivated more by politics than pure scientific inquiry.
What these people promote isn’t science at all. It is “Official Narrative”. It is computer modelling full of assumptions that don’t match what is actually happening in the real world, and our governments, by attaching a 'science' label to this propaganda are using false authority of “science” to spread irrational fears about the climate, in order to coerce public support for authoritarian, globalist policy like NET ZERO and punitive taxation of fuel consumption.
Those policies are harmful to our prosperity and well being. They always talk of the risks of using fossil fuels without ever mentioning the risks of NOT using them. Life expectancy has doubled because of those fuels, and there are over a billion people who don’t have them sitting burning dung for heating and cooking dying young from preventable diseases and of back breaking labour.
Wake up people. Globalist Eco Socialism is NOT science. You are being played for fools.
FROM THE ARCHIVE:
