Guest mocking by David Middleton
From the No Schist Sherlock files of the American Association for the Advancement of Science of America…
Originally published by E&E News
Top researchers are huddled with government officials in South Korea this week to confront the scientific consensus that maintaining a safe global climate will require immediate and aggressive action…
WTF is a “a safe global climate”? Is that a climate with puppies and a crying room? Who writes nonsense like this?
3rd degree connection
Reporter at E&E News
Washington D.C. Metro Area
Western Washington University
Linkedin also notes that she was a reporter for Platts from 2007-2010. So her energy and science credentials are: 3 years at Platts and having attended the same university where Don Easterbrook (author of my geomorphology textbook) is an emeritus professor.
I wish Linkedin still provided a means of tracking how you are connected to 2nd and 3rd degree connections… Because, somehow, we are 3rd degree connections… weird… or maybe not… There’s that whole Kevin Bacon thing.
Anyway… On to the No Schist Sherlock bits…
The United States, which has declared a retreat from the Paris accord, is represented in South Korea by Trigg Talley, director of the State Department’s Office of Global Change.
In comments obtained by E&E News, the United States and other countries took issue with 66 elements of the draft summary prepared by scientists.
The United States complained that the report focused too much on sustainable development, which is “beyond the mandate given the authors of the report and beyond the mandate of the IPCC itself.” It admonished the authors to play up areas where it said there were “significant uncertainties,” including on core scientific questions of climate sensitivity and the so-called carbon budget, or the amount the world can still emit while staying within a certain range.
The United States also noted that global poverty has lessened in the last few decades as fossil fuel use has “exploded” in the developing world.
“The report and SPM do not present a balanced assessment of the economic, social and development costs associated with the trade-offs of pursuing actions consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 C,” state the comments, which would have been prepared by the State Department with sign-off from the White House National Economic Council.
“Too often,” the comments continue, “authors dismiss tradeoffs as being solvable by using redistributive policies or by pursuing actions that are deemed consistent with sustainable development.”
There you have it. The Trump administration objects to Marxism… And therefore deplorable… No schist Sherlock!
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
How about that uncertainty?
Here are the RSS satellite temperature data and a suite of climate models:
95% of the model runs predicted more warming than the RSS data since 1988… And this is the Mears-ized RSS data, the one in which the measurements were influenced to obtain key information (erase the pause and more closely match the surface data).
Their “small discrepancy” would be abject failure in the oil & gas industry.
The observed warming has been less than that expected in a strong mitigation scenario (RCP4.5).
RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.
The RCP 4.5 is developed by the MiniCAM modeling team at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI). It is a stabilization scenario where total radiative forcing is stabilized before 2100 by employment of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The scenario drivers and technology options are detailed in Clarke et al. (2007). Additional detail on the simulation of land use and terrestrial carbon emissions is given by Wise et al (2009).
The MiniCAM-team responsible for developing the RCP 4.5 are:
Allison Thomson, Katherine Calvin, Steve Smith, Page Kyle, April Volke, Pralit Patel, Sabrina Delgado, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Marshall Wise, Leon Clarke and Jae Edmonds
Regarding “climate sensitivity,” the only question is: How low does it have to get before the IPCC and UNFCC have to close up shop and get real jobs?
Regarding the value of fossil fuels
It’s the biggest No Schist Sherlock in the history of the Vishnu schist.
Not to mention the fact that fossil fuels feed nearly half of the people on Earth…
A retreat from the Paris accord?
“Retreat, hell! We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different direction.”
–Major General Oliver Smith, 1st MARDIV, USMC, Chosin Reservoir, North Korea, December 1950
Setting aside the fact that key aspects of the “science” are extremely uncertain and that the proposed solutions range from the technically un-achievable to the economically nonviable… Thank God we have a President who represents the interests of these somewhat United States over the interests of a handful of un-elected Marxist bureaucrats and Third World tin-horn dictators…
RETREAT HELL!!! MAGA!!!
via Watts Up With That?
October 4, 2018 at 08:37AM