Like Ive been saying for over a decade......cherry picked data is gay. All the shit we've seen from organizations like the IPCC is highly.......HIGHLY speculative. Accordingly, the models are based on subjectively analyzed data...........
Theres an excellent piece here in The Economist that discusses climate sensitivity:
Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCCs. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the studys range is well below the IPCCs upper estimates of likely sensitivity.
This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.
So we are suppossed to blow up whole economies based upon "estimates" with huge possible disparities.
How fucking bogus...........and whats more fascinating is that people dont see this......or more likely, DONT WANT TO SEE THIS.
The "climate change" stuff has always been about two things: 1) Redistribution of wealth 2) Destruction of all capitalistic societies.
Climate Change Is Now Less Of a Problem. So We Need To Do Less About Climate Change - Forbes
Theres an excellent piece here in The Economist that discusses climate sensitivity:
Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCCs. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the studys range is well below the IPCCs upper estimates of likely sensitivity.
This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.
So we are suppossed to blow up whole economies based upon "estimates" with huge possible disparities.
How fucking bogus...........and whats more fascinating is that people dont see this......or more likely, DONT WANT TO SEE THIS.
The "climate change" stuff has always been about two things: 1) Redistribution of wealth 2) Destruction of all capitalistic societies.
Climate Change Is Now Less Of a Problem. So We Need To Do Less About Climate Change - Forbes
