Climate Change Obfuscators
19 Sep '17 14:571 editI've been calling this group 'skeptics' up until now, but when the basis of their skepticism is just petty "you're wrong" accusations when clearly that is not the case, they are merely "obfuscators" not skeptics
Here's Breitbart today [1]
"Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming. This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted."
The actual conclusion of the article, however, is very different.
"Our analysis suggests that ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C’ is not chasing a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significant strengthening of the Nationally Derived Commitments at the first opportunity in 2020 to hedge against the risks of a higher-than-expected climate response and/or economic, technical or political impediments to sustained reductions at historically unprecedented rates after 2030."
This article does acknowledge that many of the Paris agreement numbers were inaccurate, primarily because the models assume that "carbon mitigation strategies" started in 2010 but political pressures prevented the initial stages of mitigation from occurring. Therefore, more aggressive commitments are necessary in order to to meet the 2030 goals. Still, they are saying that current strategies are feasible to limit warming.
Very different from the crazy article about how wrong silly scientists always are. If skeptics want to be taken seriously, start with the truth, not a smear campaign. Kind of ironic that they yell "you're wrong" at a scientists after wrongfully misinterpreting the findings of the study.
Even though it's wrong, articles like the Breitbart article are red meat for obfuscators who "believe" that our species isn't capable of augmenting the course of climate change. Humans are resourceful, and when we can finally collectively admit that climate change is a problem we can solve, then we can start talking about real solutions.
[1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/19/delingpole-climate-alarmists-finally-admit-we-were-wrong-about-global-warming/
[2] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html#f1
Here's Breitbart today [1]
"Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming. This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted."
The actual conclusion of the article, however, is very different.
"Our analysis suggests that ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C’ is not chasing a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significant strengthening of the Nationally Derived Commitments at the first opportunity in 2020 to hedge against the risks of a higher-than-expected climate response and/or economic, technical or political impediments to sustained reductions at historically unprecedented rates after 2030."
This article does acknowledge that many of the Paris agreement numbers were inaccurate, primarily because the models assume that "carbon mitigation strategies" started in 2010 but political pressures prevented the initial stages of mitigation from occurring. Therefore, more aggressive commitments are necessary in order to to meet the 2030 goals. Still, they are saying that current strategies are feasible to limit warming.
Very different from the crazy article about how wrong silly scientists always are. If skeptics want to be taken seriously, start with the truth, not a smear campaign. Kind of ironic that they yell "you're wrong" at a scientists after wrongfully misinterpreting the findings of the study.
Even though it's wrong, articles like the Breitbart article are red meat for obfuscators who "believe" that our species isn't capable of augmenting the course of climate change. Humans are resourceful, and when we can finally collectively admit that climate change is a problem we can solve, then we can start talking about real solutions.
[1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/19/delingpole-climate-alarmists-finally-admit-we-were-wrong-about-global-warming/
[2] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html#f1
