Fordi IPCC har ændret grundlinien for de scenarier, de mener, der kan udspille sig. De har simpelthen fjernet de scenarier, som viser, at der intet eller relativ lidt sker med klimaet.
IPCC’s fremskrivningesscenarier baseres nu på de mest ekstreme udkommer af deres i forvejen voldsomt fejlbehæftede modeller.
From the IPCC’s fourth to fifth assessment report our collective future, as envisioned by the IPCC, changed dramatically. The world was no longer heading for a wide range of possible futures, conditioned on enormous uncertainties, but instead was heading with some certainty toward a future characterized by an extreme level of carbon dioxide emissions. Quantitatively, futures with less than 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2100 simply disappeared from the IPCC reference scenarios and the focus was placed on a “business as usual” scenario of more than 80 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2100.
The apocalypse had been scheduled.
The decision by the IPCC to center its fifth assessment report on its most extreme scenario has been incredibly consequential. Thousands of academic studies of the future impacts of climate change followed the lead of the IPCC, and have emphasized the most extreme scenario as “business as usual” which is often interpreted and promoted as where the world is heading. For instance, so far in 2019 two new academic studies have been published every day that present this most extreme scenario as “business as usual” and predict extreme future impacts. Journalists promote these sensationalist findings, which are amplified by activists and politicians and as a consequence climate change becomes viewed as being more and more apocalyptic.
Hvorfor gør de det på den måde?
Man kan jo få den tanke, at det gælder om at få raget så mange bevillinger, profit, politisk magt og irreversible ændringer til sig som muligt, inden det går op får befolkningerne, hvor stort de er blevet svindlet.
Det kan da vel ikke passe, at disse “forskere” er drevet af noget så vulgært som penge til egne konti?
Nej da, penge betyder intet i “forsker”verden.
Men, nu er imidlertid ikke tale om forskere men fuskere og så giver det hele pludselig mening 😉
I øvrigt er al forskning drevet af penge. Universiteterne ansætter de forskere der kan skrabe flest penge sammen til deres Uni. Problemet er alle de venstresnoede politikere der tildeler pengene, gør det til de projekter der “står deres hjerte nærmest”. Så hvis det er klima, som det jo er, så er det den vej pengene går.
Så forskerne er nødt til at rette deres forskning ind efter politikernes holdninger, og det giver bagslag i form af klimatosser.
Da jeg nåede til følgende citat fra Roger Pielke (Univ. of Colorado) stod jeg af. Vi skal ikke anstrenge os for at reducere atmosfærens carbondioxid indhold, tværtimod:
“Human-caused climate change is of course real and a significant concern. I have argued for decades about the importance of policies to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and the need to better adapt to climate variability and change.