Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.environment > #101782 > unrolled thread

Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

Back to article view | Back to sci.environment

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:29 -0600
    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 22:42 +0000
      Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:14 -0600
        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 10:32 -0600
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:37 +0000
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 10:47 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:55 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:28 -0600
                  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:53 +0000
                    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 14:08 -0600
                      Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 01:05 +0000
                        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Dietrich Von GassenHousen <Dietrich@ZyklonB.org> - 2026-05-24 01:58 +0000
                        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-24 11:13 -0600
                          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 17:51 +0000
                            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-24 13:13 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 11:00 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:14 +0000
                  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:32 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:31 -0600
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 10:41 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:54 +0000
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:27 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#101782 — Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

On 5/22/26 3:23 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10c49a$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:04:24 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10b6c8$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/26 1:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:32 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10b1e4$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 10:29:07 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
>>>>>>> <Cn0QR.262949$gO1.24986@fx14.iad>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2026 1:17 PM, zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I win... he plonked me. Or claimed to. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a hike Snit, you simpering slackwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, not in your KF.
>>>>
>>>> Given I have none true.
>>>>
>>>>> But you were not happy when I discussed facts.
>>>>
>>>> You misspelled "denied facts".
>>>>
>>>> You were given solid source icons on catastrophism to go to in order to
>>>> get your knowledge up, and you refused of course.
>>>>
>>>> As such you're just a pinata full of rocks.
>>>
>>> Notice you have nothing but insults.
>>
>> Like for like, as above, so below - where you reside, enjoy!
> 
> You have insults.
I have facts.

Liberals hate those.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/453353528124367/posts/26619717614394601/

The UN IPCC Climatologist have finally admitted that for the past 20 
years all of the fake climate Doomsday predictions were all based on 
junk science and manipulated data.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/11/post-b8072f32-802a-23ad-476f-7979637890d2
November 18, 2011 -
Contacts:

Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797

Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-2160 


Discredited UN IPCC Receives Little Attention for Latest Global Warming 
Report

"Look for many in the liberal media to use the IPCC report to link 
extreme weather events of today with global warming, as several have 
already done, but a closer look reveals this is not exactly the case. 
As for these attempts by the left, I simply say ‘nice try.'"

Washington, D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the 
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, commented on the 
release today of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change Summary for Policymakers in advance of its report, Special Report 
on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate 
Change Adaptation.

"The discredited United Nations IPCC is back with another global warming 
report, only this time it faces an increasingly skeptical public," 
Senator Inhofe said. "The lack of attention on this latest report is a 
symptom of the crisis of confidence in the IPCC, which is ongoing."

"For years I warned that the IPCC would lose its credibility entirely 
and eventually be ignored if it did not make significant reforms.  In 
2005, I sent a letter to IPCC Chair Dr. Pachauri that contained several 
suggestions on how the IPCC could reform its flawed peer-review process. 
  Yet as Reuters reported, Pachauri refused even to acknowledge my 
concerns: 'In the one-page letter, [Pachauri] denies the IPCC has an 
alarmist bias and says "I have a deep commitment to the integrity and 
objectivity of the IPCC process." Pachauri's main argument is that the 
IPCC comprises both scientists and more than 130 governments who approve 
IPCC reports line by line. That helps ensure fairness, he says.'

"Of course, in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal, when over one 
hundred errors in the IPCC science were revealed, I was proven right, so 
much so that even the mainstream media began to call for reform at the 
IPCC.   Today, the consequences are clear: as the discredited IPCC 
releases its latest report, very few people have even noticed.

"Look for many in the liberal media to use the IPCC report to link 
weather events of today with global warming, as several have already 
done, but a closer look reveals this is not exactly the case.  As for 
these attempts by the left, I simply say 'nice try.'  This effort will 
fail as miserably as all their previous endeavors to promote fear and 
scare the public into action.

"The American people may not care about today's IPCC Summary for 
Policymakers, but they do care that policy decisions are based on sound 
science - and the IPCC has clearly shown that science is secondary, even 
non-essential to their primary goal of pushing a political agenda.   The 
American people also care about the $300 to $400 billion annual pricetag 
of EPA's forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations, which are based on the 
endangerment finding - whose foundation is the flawed IPCC science - and 
the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost from these 
destructive policies."

Crisis of Confidence in the IPCC

August 31, 2010 Financial Times Time for a change in climate research: 
"Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the 
risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase 
transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the 
widest possible range of scientific views."

January 28, 2010 ABC News Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted? 
Confidence Melting Away: Doubters Grow in Climate Change Debate: But 
other climatologists are calling for consequences. They insist that IPCC 
Chairman and Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri is no longer acceptable as 
head of the panel, particularly because of his personal involvement in 
the affair. "Pachauri should resign, so as to avert further damage to 
the IPCC," says German climatologist Hans von Storch. "He used the 
argument of the supposed threat to the Himalayan glacier in his personal 
efforts to raise funds for research." Storch claims that the Indian-born 
scientist did not order the retraction of the erroneous prediction until 
it had generated considerable public pressure.

February 8, 2010 New York Times Article Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. 
Climate Panel: U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege: 
"Just over two years ago, Rajendra K. Pachauri seemed destined for a 
scientist's version of sainthood: A vegetarian economist-engineer who 
leads the United Nations' climate change panel, he accepted the 2007 
Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the panel, sharing the honor with former 
Vice President Al Gore. But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of 
scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from 
climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream 
scientists."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#101789

On May 22, 2026 at 3:29:52 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a10d8e0$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/22/26 3:23 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a10c49a$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> 
>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:04:24 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>> <6a10b6c8$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:32 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>> <6a10b1e4$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 10:29:07 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
>>>>>>>> <Cn0QR.262949$gO1.24986@fx14.iad>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2026 1:17 PM, zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I win... he plonked me. Or claimed to. :)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Take a hike Snit, you simpering slackwit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ah, not in your KF.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Given I have none true.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> But you were not happy when I discussed facts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You misspelled "denied facts".
>>>>> 
>>>>> You were given solid source icons on catastrophism to go to in order to
>>>>> get your knowledge up, and you refused of course.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As such you're just a pinata full of rocks.
>>>> 
>>>> Notice you have nothing but insults.
>>> 
>>> Like for like, as above, so below - where you reside, enjoy!
>> 
>> You have insults.
> I have facts.
> 
> Liberals hate those.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/453353528124367/posts/26619717614394601/
> 
> The UN IPCC Climatologist have finally admitted that for the past 20
> years all of the fake climate Doomsday predictions were all based on
> junk science and manipulated data.

Already noted where the article misrepresents the facts.

Next.



-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101799

On 5/22/26 4:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 3:29:52 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10d8e0$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 3:23 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10c49a$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:04:24 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10b6c8$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:32 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>> <6a10b1e4$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 10:29:07 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <Cn0QR.262949$gO1.24986@fx14.iad>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2026 1:17 PM, zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I win... he plonked me. Or claimed to. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take a hike Snit, you simpering slackwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, not in your KF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given I have none true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you were not happy when I discussed facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You misspelled "denied facts".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You were given solid source icons on catastrophism to go to in order to
>>>>>> get your knowledge up, and you refused of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such you're just a pinata full of rocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice you have nothing but insults.
>>>>
>>>> Like for like, as above, so below - where you reside, enjoy!
>>>
>>> You have insults.
>> I have facts.
>>
>> Liberals hate those.
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/453353528124367/posts/26619717614394601/
>>
>> The UN IPCC Climatologist have finally admitted that for the past 20
>> years all of the fake climate Doomsday predictions were all based on
>> junk science and manipulated data.
> 
> Already noted 

Good, now moar coming:

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead

In a paper released earlier this month, Van Vuuren et al. (VVetal26) 
introduce a new set of seven scenarios. The authors write of the 
obsolete high end emissions scenarios (emphasis added):

“For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: 
on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified 
by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of 
renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”

Read that again — The high end scenarios are Implausible.2

I disagree that the implausibility of the high-end scenarios resulted 
from the falling costs of renewables or the emergence of climate policy, 
but that is a debate for another day.

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for 
developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community 
has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate 
research, assessment, and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC 
assessment process are implausible: They describe impossible futures.

Tens of thousands of research papers have been — and continue to be — 
published using these scenarios, a similar number of media headlines 
have amplified their findings, and governments and international 
organization have built these implausible scenarios into policy and 
regulation.

We now know that all of this is built on a foundation of sand.

What changed
The new CMIP7 ScenarioMIP framework offers seven scenarios spanning a 
range from “VERY LOW” through “HIGH.” The current naming convention 
drops the radiative-forcing target labels of the SSP era — there is no 
“8.5” scenario, and no “7.0” scenario, but as I’ll show below, each 
scenario has a radiative forcing level in 2100.

I ran the available new scenarios (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, and VERY LOW) 
through the FaIR calibrated and constrained ensemble that Sanderson and 
Smith (2025) used to characterize the CMIP7 set (FaIR v. 2.2.0 as 
described in their README file). I then ran each of the five tier-1 SSPs 
through the same emulator with identical parameters to ensure that the 
results are apples-to-apples. The full methodology, data, and code is in 
the appendix to this post.

The headline results follow.

CO₂ emissions: fossil fuels and industry, 2000–2100



The chart above shows fossil-fuel and industry CO₂ emissions for four 
CMIP7 scenarios alongside the five tier-1 SSPs and the two main 
reference scenarios from the 2025 IEA World Energy Outlook.

Note the massive gap between the new HIGH and SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH 
reaches 71 Gt CO₂/yr in 2100 — far below SSP5-8.5 at 128 Gt in 2100. 
Nothing in the CMIP7 set comes close to SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH also sits 
below SSP3-7.0 by about 9% in terms of cumulative emissions to 2100. 
Note also the gap between MEDIUM (solid yellow) and SSP2-4.5 (dashed 
yellow), which I’ll return to below.

Both of the most recent IEA near term scenarios — which run to 2050 — 
fall below MEDIUM and SSP2-4.5.

The table below compares the CMIP7 scenarios to their closest AR6 
analogues, showing that the overall range has constricted. The higher 
scenarios have come down and the lower scenarios have come up — except 
VERY LOW, which moved down.




2100 effective radiative forcing and end-of-century temperature
The table below lists AR6 and CMIP7 scenarios from highest to lowest 
2100 radiative forcing. The middle column shows the average global 
temperature change from an 1850-1900 baseline, under the climate 
emulator used by CMIP7. The right column shows the average temperature 
change for the SSPs as projected by the IPCC AR6.




See Methods appendix for details.
Interestingly, the projected 2080-2100 temperatures of the SSPs 
decreased from their AR6 values based solely on recent updates to the 
FaIR climate emulator.3 These changes resulted primarily from the 
updating of emissions trajectories from 2014 (used in AR6) to 2023 (used 
by CMIP7). The more moderate emissions trajectories resulted in lower 
projected end-of-century temperature increases.

The new CMIP7 HIGH is 0.9°C cooler than SSP5-8.5 in apples-to-apples 
terms (and 1.4°C cooler versus IPCC AR6), and 0.2°C cooler than SSP3-7.0 
(-0.6°C against IPCC AR6).

The implausibility of upper-end legacy scenarios is now official.

CMIP7 avoided repeating the past with SSP3-7.0
Last April I argued here at THB that the climate science community was 
on the brink of repeating the RCP8.5 mistake with SSP3-7.0 — which 
assumed a 2100 global population approaching 13 billion, well above any 
contemporary demographic projection and a five-fold expansion of global 
coal use. Neither assumption survives current understandings of 
demographics or energy systems.

I don’t know if anyone in CMIP or ScenarioMIP reads THB4 — if not they 
should! — but regardless, they wisely chose not to adopt SSP3-7.0 as the 
new HIGH scenario.

The new HIGH scenario sits at 6.7 W/m² in 2100 — below the SSP3 baseline 
7.0 W/m² — with 9 percent less cumulative fossil CO₂ through 2100. As 
I’ll discuss below, this is progress; it is partial but real.

But the new HIGH still sits well above the plausibility range that we 
identified in Pielke, Burgess, and Ritchie (2022). We found that of the 
 >1,000 scenarios in the AR5 database, the plausible subset centered on 
a median of ~3.4 W/m² in 2100, with an upper end near 6 W/m². The new 
HIGH scenario is well above that upper end.

The authors of Van Vuuren et al. partially acknowledge that the new HIGH 
scenario is exploratory — a thought experiment, not a projection:

“Clearly, this scenario is not a “business-as-usual” scenario nor the 
no-policy reference scenario for the other scenarios. The scenario is 
intended to explore the upper end of GHG emissions resulting from deep 
political, technological, and structural deviation from current trends.”

Note that first sentence — It means that any future research that 
compares the HIGH scenario to lower scenarios in order to characterize 
the effects of climate policy will be fundamentally flawed. The HIGH 
scenario is not a projective scenario, but a “what if?” exercise.

Unfortunately, Van Vuuren et al. then engage in some unsupported 
speculation about the plausibility of the HIGH scenario in the real world:

“The are various reasons why such a scenario could emerge. For instance, 
a rollback of climate policies could result from a lack of public 
support for the energy transition. This could be related to, for 
instance, local opposition to building new wind farms or concerns about 
impacts on fossil industries related to jobs and national energy 
security. Also, the rapid cost decrease in renewable energy of the past 
decade could be discontinued, possibly as a result of regional scarcity 
and limited tradability in materials for solar and wind technologies and 
EV batteries . . .”

As discussed below, the new population assumptions of the updated SSP3 
are ridiculous, and by themselves render the HIGH scenario implausible. 
The lack of any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios 
remains a fundamental weakness of the scenario development process.

The new scenarios are SSPs in new clothing
The new CMIP7 framework does not start from a fresh socioeconomic 
foundation. Van Vuuren et al. explain:

“In practice, the IAM [Integrated Assessment Modeling] teams have based 
their current scenarios on various SSPs, as it was generally deemed 
pragmatic as these come with already available, suitably rich 
quantifications and were implemented by the participating modelling 
teams within the given timeline.”

The CMIP7 scenarios rely on the same narrative architecture as the IPCC 
AR6 SSPs. The table below shows how the SSP storylines map onto the new 
scenarios — Confusion is sure to result, as the old SSPs are not the new 
SSPs.




The new HIGH inherits the SSP3 storyline directly — the same SSP3 whose 
enormous 2100 population rendered it implausible when used in the IPCC 
AR6. Remarkably, the IIASA 2024 update to the SSPs did not bring the 
population projections down. Instead, it increased them, as you can see 
in the table below.




The 2024 demographic update (KC et al. 2024, IIASA Working Paper 
WP-24-003, also referred to as WIC2023) revises SSP 2100 populations 
upward: SSP3 jumps from 12.6 to 14.5 billion. SSP4 increases from 9.3 to 
13.3 billion — an eye-popping 43% increase.

The SSP population update assumes that child mortality declines faster 
than WIC2013 anticipated, fertility declines slower in sub-Saharan 
Africa, and Africa’s 2020 base-year population was already 76 million 
higher than WIC2013 had projected. Africa’s 2100 population alone is now 
3.55 billion, up from 2.62 billion in the AR6-era projection — a 35% 
upward revision.

This puts the CMIP7 HIGH scenario in a strange position: The cumulative 
fossil CO₂ from energy and industry in CMIP7 HIGH (4,629 Gt 2020-2100) 
is lower than SSP3-7.0 (5,074 Gt), but it has a 2100 population that is 
15 percent larger. That means that the implied per-capita emissions 
trajectory in the new HIGH has a steeper decline.

How much of the new HIGH scenario’s warming is due to its incredible 
population projection?

I performed a simple sensitivity analysis:

Take HIGH as published: 4,629 Gt cumulative fossil CO₂ over 2020-2100, 
producing about 3.0°C of 2081-2100 warming.

That means per-capita emissions intensity average about 5.2 tonnes of 
CO₂ per person per year using 11-billion as the mean population across 
the century.

Hold that per-capita intensity constant and replace the SSP3 population 
trajectory with the SSP1/SSP5 population trajectory — peaking at 8.5 
billion in 2050, declining to 7.4 billion by 2100, averaging about 8 
billion.

Under these assumptions, under HIGH, cumulative fossil CO₂ falls to 
roughly 3,330 Gt, a 1,300 Gt reduction. The IPCC AR6 central TCRE 
estimate (0.45°C per 1,000 Gt CO₂) gives about 0.6°C less warming. The 
HIGH scenario with SSP1/SSP5 population thus would deliver about 2.4°C 
of 2081-2100 warming — slightly cooler than the new MEDIUM at 2.5°C.

Under this simple method, about 0.6°C of the HIGH scenario’s projected 
warming traces to the population assumption alone. The HIGH scenario may 
be much less about carbon and much more about assumed human fecundity.

This is a sensitivity analysis, not a coherent scenario — combining 
SSP3’s per-capita intensity with the SSP1/SSP5 demographic profile is 
internally inconsistent. But it suggests that the demographic 
contribution to the HIGH scenario’s warming is significant.

The plausibility vacuum remains
The deeper problem with the SSP/RCP architecture, as Justin Ritchie has 
documented at length, is that physical climate modeling became decoupled 
from the underlying IAM socio-economic scenarios.

Under the RCPs, scenario creators identified concentration pathways and 
the underlying socio-economic assumptions were expected to be filled in 
later. Whether the underlying assumptions actually described a coherent 
picture of the world was never systematically assessed.

Ritchie called this a plausibility vacuum — a situation where any 
combination of climate model inputs could be used without any assessment 
of the real-world plausibility of the assumptions.

To be fair, the new CMIP7 framework does address some earlier 
shortfalls. The new design specifies emission-driven runs as the 
default, which allows for carbon-cycle feedbacks. The harmonization of 
emissions to observed 2023 data is an improvement — CMIP6 harmonized to 
2014, and that harmonization had become well out-of-date by the time AR6 
came out.

However, the plausibility vacuum problem remains. Van Vuuren et al. do 
not evaluate scenario plausibility against observed energy trends, 
against IEA projections, or against the body of literature critiquing 
the SSP set.

The 2023 ScenarioMIP workshop report — which kicked off the process of 
developing these new scenarios — recognized the plausibility problem and 
committed to addressing it. Van Vuuren et al. does not deliver on that 
commitment.

ScenarioMIP produces a better scenario set than those of AR6, but the 
improvement comes from incorporating more recent emissions data and 
accepting the undeniable collapse of SSP5-8.5’s credibility — not from 
any methodological reform of how scenario plausibility is assessed.

The MEDIUM scenario is not “current policy”
The walk-back at the high end is the most important change in the new 
framework. The story in the middle is more complicated.

Van Vuuren et al. describe the MEDIUM scenario as one that “shows the 
consequences of the current policy situation (as of 2025) and trends 
continuing over the century.” They specify that MEDIUM includes only 
policies “actually officially being implemented” — no NDC pledges, no 
net-zero announcements, unless backed by explicit policy. The framing 
implies that MEDIUM tracks where the world is actually headed under 
current policies.

That framing is not consistent with other approaches to defining a 
current policy trajectory. The CMIP7 MEDIUM scenario produces 
fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions that rise from about 38 Gt CO₂/yr today to 41 
Gt by 2050 — that part compares well to the scenarios (CPS and STEPS) of 
IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2025, released last November.

However, it is post-2050 where the new MEDIUM scenario diverges from 
other current-policy projections, with its emissions slowly rising 
through the second half of the century.




In contrast, STEPS — the IEA’s standard reference for where current and 
announced policies actually take us — falls below 30 Gt by 2050 and 
produces about 2.5°C of 2100 warming.

The CMIP7 MEDIUM is more accurately characterized as a “policy 
stagnation” scenario rather than a “current policy” scenario. Cumulative 
fossil CO₂ emissions through the end of the century come in 18% higher 
than SSP2-4.5 — the AR6-era middle-of-the-road scenario — even though 
the MEDIUM 2081–2100 mean temperature is slightly cooler (explained below).

The figure below shows what happens once SSP2-4.5 and MEDIUM are 
anchored to the same observed 2020 baseline. The original SSP2-4.5 
(black) sits roughly 0.6°C above CMIP7 MEDIUM (red) at 2020 — not 
because the 21st century plays out differently, but because the SSP 
framework's historical emissions are harmonized to 2014 while CMIP7's 
are harmonized to 2023. That head start propagates through the entire 
21st century trajectory.




Running SSP2-4.5 post-2020 emissions through the CMIP7 FaIR emulator 
with CMIP7’s updated historical baseline (dashed blue), the picture 
inverts: SSP2-4.5 produces a 2081-2100 mean of 2.44°C against CMIP7 
MEDIUM 2.56°C. On an apples-to-apples comparison, the new MEDIUM results 
in about 0.12-0.20°C more warming than SSP2-4.5 — due to its 520 Gt 
larger cumulative CO₂ budget over the century.




This connects to the larger argument in Pielke, Burgess, and Ritchie 
(2022): observed CO₂ emissions from 2005 through 2020 tracked closer to 
the SSP 3.4 W/m² range than to SSP2-4.5. Today, the gap has widened, not 
closed. IEA STEPS now has emissions falling to under 30 Gt by 2050 — a 
trajectory consistent with the SSP 3.4 forcing range. The center of the 
new CMIP7 scenario set sits well above that range.

The new framework compressed the high end. Good.

The middle did not move far enough. The new MEDIUM might be considered a 
worst-case scenario rather than a current policy scenario. 
Interestingly, that would mean that there is no real current-policy 
scenario in the new CMIP7 scenarios, which would be something like a 
SSP2-3.4 scenario with updated demographics.

Perhaps, if projected demographic changes continue to trend lower, CMIP7 
LOW will come to represent something akin to a current policy trajectory.

Why this matters: these scenarios live in policy
The now-implausible upper-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 
— are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research. They are 
embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest 
economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral 
institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds 
of billions of dollars in bank capital.

The table below provides just a few examples.




National climate impact assessments in the United States, United 
Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the Netherlands all use 
RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 as a reference scenario. The Network for Greening the 
Financial System framework, used by more than 140 central banks, has 
utilized a “Hot House World” scenario calibrated to RCP8.5 physical risk 
into the bank stress tests run by the European Central Bank, the Bank of 
England, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Banque de France, and the 
US Federal Reserve. The World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, 
which provides the climate diagnostics that feed into the Country 
Climate and Development Reports for more than 100 client countries, 
defaults to SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0.

The abandonment of the high-end legacy scenarios by CMIP7 will need to 
propagate through this entire infrastructure. The policy machinery built 
on RCP8.5 and the other implausible scenarios is systemic.

What this means
The new CMIP7 ScenarioMIP framework represents a real course correction, 
but with more work to do. SSP5-8.5 is gone. SSP3-7.0 has a successor 
that is less extreme but arguably remains implausible. The middle of the 
set is more pessimistic than trajectories of current and announced 
policies. The plausibility vacuum at the heart of the architecture has 
yet to be addressed.

All this means that users of climate models and model output based on 
legacy scenarios will now face decisions about if and how they’d like to 
realign with the latest scientific understandings versus continuing to 
rely on outdated research.

Furthermore, there are no doubt many — hundreds if not thousands — of 
studies in the publication pipeline that depend upon the upper end 
scenarios. Editors and reviewers should ensure that they are properly 
characterized as exploratory and are not intended to be interpreted as 
projective.

We’ve known since 2017 that upper end climate scenarios are fatally 
flawed. Nine years later, that understanding has now become officially 
recognized. That is good news.

We can debate whether nine years is short or long for the overturning of 
scientific understandings with massive economic and policy implications. 
But today, that overturning is undeniable.

Science is self-correcting. What matters now is what happens next.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101806

zendejo wrote:
> On 5/22/26 4:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 22, 2026 at 3:29:52 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a10d8e0$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> On 5/22/26 3:23 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>> <6a10c49a$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:04:24 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>> <6a10b6c8$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:32 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>>> <6a10b1e4$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 10:29:07 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> <Cn0QR.262949$gO1.24986@fx14.iad>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2026 1:17 PM, zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I win... he plonked me. Or claimed to. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Take a hike Snit, you simpering slackwit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, not in your KF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given I have none true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you were not happy when I discussed facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You misspelled "denied facts".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You were given solid source icons on catastrophism to go to in 
>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>> get your knowledge up, and you refused of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As such you're just a pinata full of rocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice you have nothing but insults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like for like, as above, so below - where you reside, enjoy!
>>>>
>>>> You have insults.
>>> I have facts.
>>>
>>> Liberals hate those.
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/453353528124367/posts/26619717614394601/
>>>
>>> The UN IPCC Climatologist have finally admitted that for the past 20
>>> years all of the fake climate Doomsday predictions were all based on
>>> junk science and manipulated data.
>>
>> Already noted 
> 
> Good, now moar coming:
> 
> https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/

Instead of addressing the contradictions Brock raised, you chose to 
deflect with another article. This is not constructive. Typical zendejo. 
Can you address what was wrong with your first article? I don't believe 
your second article cleared any of that up.

Also, sci.math requested you not xpost to their group, inconsiderate goof.

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101808

phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> wrote:
> zendejo wrote:
>> On 5/22/26 4:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 3:29:52 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10d8e0$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/22/26 3:23 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10c49a$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:04:24 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>> <6a10b6c8$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:32 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <6a10b1e4$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 10:29:07 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> <Cn0QR.262949$gO1.24986@fx14.iad>:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2026 1:17 PM, zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I win... he plonked me. Or claimed to. :)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Take a hike Snit, you simpering slackwit.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ah, not in your KF.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Given I have none true.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But you were not happy when I discussed facts.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You misspelled "denied facts".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You were given solid source icons on catastrophism to go to in 
>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>> get your knowledge up, and you refused of course.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As such you're just a pinata full of rocks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Notice you have nothing but insults.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Like for like, as above, so below - where you reside, enjoy!
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have insults.
>>>> I have facts.
>>>> 
>>>> Liberals hate those.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/453353528124367/posts/26619717614394601/
>>>> 
>>>> The UN IPCC Climatologist have finally admitted that for the past 20
>>>> years all of the fake climate Doomsday predictions were all based on
>>>> junk science and manipulated data.
>>> 
>>> Already noted 
>> 
>> Good, now moar coming:
>> 
>> https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/
> 
> Instead of addressing the contradictions Brock raised, you chose to 
> deflect with another article. This is not constructive. Typical zendejo. 
> Can you address what was wrong with your first article? I don't believe 
> your second article cleared any of that up.
> 
> Also, sci.math requested you not xpost to their group, inconsiderate goof.
> 

He’s tacitly admitting he does not understand the very points he brings up.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101811

On 5/23/26 10:37 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> He’s tacitly admitting he does not understand the very points he brings up.


Finally, it might seem churlish to pick on a single mainstream media 
RCP8.5 nonsense story, but there is one that is your correspondent’s 
favourite. This article not only reported RCP8.5 fantasies but climbed 
even further heights, going where no other story has gone before. In May 
last year, Mark Poynting of the BBC claimed that “scientists say” 
coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea 
level rise if global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree 
centigrade. This claim was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well 
beyond what even SSP5-8.5 (a newer version of RCP8.5) predicted. Based 
on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high emissions 
projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting 
chanced on a suggestion that the IPCC said it could not rule out 
(admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea 
level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. So Poynting got his several metres 
of inundation story, “even if ambitious targets of limiting global 
warming to 1.5°C is met”.

Purely anecdotal, but the BBC seems to have moderated its wilder climate 
stories of late with the “Climate” topic on its News site relegated to 
the second tier of subjects. This might be considered a bit of a status 
drop for a subject whose authors had past pretentions to provide an 
essential core for all reporting. Now it finds itself rubbing shoulders 
with the picture gallery and the dumbed-down “Newsbeat” offering.


But we must avoid the temptation to intrude on private grief. It is to 
be hoped that this move does not spell the end of the highly imaginative 
claptrap classics that have added to the gaiety of the nation over so 
many years. Regular readers will recall climate change could make beer 
taste worse and the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025 – how we shall 
miss all this copy aimed at the idiot short of a village.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101814

zendejo <zd@no.here> wrote:
> On 5/23/26 10:37 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> He’s tacitly admitting he does not understand the very points he brings up.
> 
> 
> Finally, it might seem churlish to pick on a single mainstream media 
> RCP8.5 nonsense story, but there is one that is your correspondent’s 
> favourite. This article not only reported RCP8.5 fantasies but climbed 
> even further heights, going where no other story has gone before. In May 
> last year, Mark Poynting of the BBC claimed that “scientists say” 
> coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea 
> level rise if global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree 
> centigrade. This claim was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well 
> beyond what even SSP5-8.5 (a newer version of RCP8.5) predicted. Based 
> on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high emissions 
> projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting 
> chanced on a suggestion that the IPCC said it could not rule out 
> (admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea 
> level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. So Poynting got his several metres 
> of inundation story, “even if ambitious targets of limiting global 
> warming to 1.5°C is met”.
> 
> Purely anecdotal, but the BBC seems to have moderated its wilder climate 
> stories of late with the “Climate” topic on its News site relegated to 
> the second tier of subjects. This might be considered a bit of a status 
> drop for a subject whose authors had past pretentions to provide an 
> essential core for all reporting. Now it finds itself rubbing shoulders 
> with the picture gallery and the dumbed-down “Newsbeat” offering.
> 
> 
> But we must avoid the temptation to intrude on private grief. It is to 
> be hoped that this move does not spell the end of the highly imaginative 
> claptrap classics that have added to the gaiety of the nation over so 
> many years. Regular readers will recall climate change could make beer 
> taste worse and the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025 – how we shall 
> miss all this copy aimed at the idiot short of a village.
> 
> 
> 

Your white flag is tattered. 

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101819

On 5/23/26 10:55 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> Your white flag is tattered.



Silence snit, you insolent perma-troll.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/

IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning 
Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk


by Chris Morrison

Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed 
politicians are in shock following an official admission from the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key 
assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”. 
The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions 
which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate 
are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions 
have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have 
been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential 
writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant 
development in climate research in decades”.

Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its 
gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the 
history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.

Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for 
developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community 
has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate 
research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC 
assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101822

On May 23, 2026 at 11:28:38 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a11f1d6$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/23/26 10:55 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> Your white flag is tattered.
> 
> 
> 
> Silence snit, you insolent perma-troll.
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/
> 
> IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning
> Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk
> 
> 
> by Chris Morrison
> 
> Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed
> politicians are in shock following an official admission from the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key
> assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”.
> The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions
> which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate
> are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions
> have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have
> been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential
> writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant
> development in climate research in decades”.
> 
> Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its
> gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the
> history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.
> 
> Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:
> 
> What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for
> developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community
> has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate
> research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC
> assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

Your white flag is noted.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101823

On 5/23/26 12:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 23, 2026 at 11:28:38 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a11f1d6$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/23/26 10:55 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> Your white flag is tattered.
>>
>>
>>
>> Silence snit, you insolent perma-troll.
>>
>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/
>>
>> IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning
>> Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk
>>
>>
>> by Chris Morrison
>>
>> Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed
>> politicians are in shock following an official admission from the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key
>> assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”.
>> The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions
>> which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate
>> are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions
>> have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have
>> been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential
>> writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant
>> development in climate research in decades”.
>>
>> Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its
>> gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the
>> history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.
>>
>> Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:
>>
>> What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for
>> developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community
>> has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate
>> research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC
>> assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.
> 
> Your white flag is noted.


Your reputation as The Snit troll is confirmed.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/


Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming 
is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A 
letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological 
Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure 
groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific 
theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic 
global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires 
immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter 
represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the 
United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote 
the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 
which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by 
humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What 
happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home 
message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. 
This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National 
Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of 
the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more 
disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that 
led to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most 
members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that 
current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean 
system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming 
but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the 
theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have 
average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 
years?5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101824

On May 23, 2026 at 1:08:51 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a120953$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/23/26 12:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 23, 2026 at 11:28:38 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>> <6a11f1d6$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> 
>>> On 5/23/26 10:55 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> Your white flag is tattered.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Silence snit, you insolent perma-troll.
>>> 
>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/
>>> 
>>> IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning
>>> Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk
>>> 
>>> 
>>> by Chris Morrison
>>> 
>>> Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed
>>> politicians are in shock following an official admission from the
>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key
>>> assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”.
>>> The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions
>>> which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate
>>> are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions
>>> have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have
>>> been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential
>>> writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant
>>> development in climate research in decades”.
>>> 
>>> Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its
>>> gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the
>>> history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.
>>> 
>>> Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:
>>> 
>>> What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for
>>> developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community
>>> has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate
>>> research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC
>>> assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.
>> 
>> Your white flag is noted.
> 
> 
> Your reputation as The Snit troll is confirmed.
> 
> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
> 
> 
> Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming
> is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A
> letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological
> Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure
> groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific
> theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic
> global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires
> immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter
> represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the
> United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote
> the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
> which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by
> humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What
> happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home
> message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists.
> This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National
> Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of
> the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more
> disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that
> led to this IPCC report.”4
> 
> Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most
> members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that
> current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean
> system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming
> but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the
> theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have
> average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50
> years?5

Your white flag is noted. Damn it is tattered!


-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101825

Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6a124ef7$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com: 

> On May 23, 2026 at 1:08:51 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a120953$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/23/26 12:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 23, 2026 at 11:28:38 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a11f1d6$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/23/26 10:55 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> Your white flag is tattered.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Silence snit, you insolent perma-troll.
>>>> 
>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-clima
>>>> te-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-l
>>>> ast-15-years-are-officially-junk/ 
>>>> 
>>>> IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” –
>>>> Meaning Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially
>>>> Junk 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> by Chris Morrison
>>>> 
>>>> Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed
>>>> politicians are in shock following an official admission from the
>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key
>>>> assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are
>>>> “implausible”. The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5
>>>> ‘pathway’ assumptions which fed into computer models trying to
>>>> measure an unmeasurable climate are no more. Since around 2011,
>>>> these ‘business as usual’ assumptions have produced outlandish
>>>> claims of future climate catastrophe which have been lapped up by
>>>> lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential writer Roger
>>>> Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant 
>>>> development in climate research in decades”. 
>>>> 
>>>> Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its
>>>> gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when
>>>> the history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be
>>>> written. 
>>>> 
>>>> Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:
>>>> 
>>>> What matters today is that the group with official responsibility
>>>> for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research
>>>> community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated
>>>> climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles
>>>> of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe
>>>> impossible futures. 
>>> 
>>> Your white flag is noted.
>> 
>> 
>> Your reputation as The Snit troll is confirmed.
>> 
>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
>> 
>> 
>> Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global
>> warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists
>> do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American
>> Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by
>> environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from
>> highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the
>> unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from
>> the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not
>> agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the
>> overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United
>> States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the
>> 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 
>> which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced
>> by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say
>> this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which
>> became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the
>> conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former
>> head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write,
>> “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific
>> community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of
>> the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
>> report.”4 
>> 
>> Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most
>> members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that
>> current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean
>> system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global
>> warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore,
>> since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the
>> poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C
>> over the past 50 years?5
> 
> Your white flag is noted. Damn it is tattered!
> 

Is this your Youtube channel Brock?
https://www.youtube.com/user/PrescottComputerGuy
You sound like a falming faggot.
Are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101826

On 5/23/26 7:05 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 23, 2026 at 1:08:51 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a120953$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/23/26 12:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 23, 2026 at 11:28:38 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a11f1d6$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/23/26 10:55 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> Your white flag is tattered.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Silence snit, you insolent perma-troll.
>>>>
>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible-meaning-most-media-scare-stories-over-last-15-years-are-officially-junk/
>>>>
>>>> IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning
>>>> Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> by Chris Morrison
>>>>
>>>> Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed
>>>> politicians are in shock following an official admission from the
>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key
>>>> assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”.
>>>> The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions
>>>> which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate
>>>> are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions
>>>> have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have
>>>> been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential
>>>> writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant
>>>> development in climate research in decades”.
>>>>
>>>> Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its
>>>> gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the
>>>> history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.
>>>>
>>>> Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:
>>>>
>>>> What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for
>>>> developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community
>>>> has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate
>>>> research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC
>>>> assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.
>>>
>>> Your white flag is noted.
>>
>>
>> Your reputation as The Snit troll is confirmed.
>>
>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
>>
>>
>> Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming
>> is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A
>> letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological
>> Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure
>> groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific
>> theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic
>> global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires
>> immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter
>> represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the
>> United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote
>> the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
>> which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by
>> humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What
>> happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home
>> message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists.
>> This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National
>> Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of
>> the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more
>> disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that
>> led to this IPCC report.”4
>>
>> Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most
>> members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that
>> current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean
>> system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming
>> but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the
>> theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have
>> average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50
>> years?5
> 
> Your white flag
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/a/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/7E90482A76C15A7B2D2473E6EDC911C0.refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf

Alarmist Claim #1: Antarctic Peninsula is shrinking
FACT: 2008 peer-reviewed paper in American Geophysical Union found “a 
doubling in snow accumulation in
the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.”
Alarmist Claim #2: Glaciers are melting throughout the world.
FACT: A UN Report in 2010 reported that “glaciers increasing despite 
climate change… glaciers in many areas of
the world are increasing.”
Alarmist Claim #3: The IPCC stated the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 
2035. .
FACT: The IPCC got that unsubstantiated and false statistic from a World 
Wildlife Federation brochure. In
January 2010, Time magazine article, Himalayan Melting, How a Climate 
Panel Got it Wrong: “Glaciergate” is a
“black eye for the IPCC and the climate-science community as a whole.”
Alarmist Claim #4: Polar Bears are disappearing.
FACT: Director of Wildlife Research with the Arctic Government of 
Nunavut: “Of 13 populations of polar bears
  in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going 
extinct, or even appear to be affected at
  present.”
FACT: In the 50’s and 60’s there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar 
bears. Today there are between 15,000 and
25,000.
Alarmist Claim #5: May 2013, President Obama claimed the climate is 
warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”
FACT: Nature reported “For the period [1998-2012] the observed trend of 
temperatures is … not significantly
different from zero and suggests a temporary hiatus in global warming.”
FACT: The Economist reported “over the past 15 years, air temperatures 
at the Earth’s surface have been flat …”
Alarmist Claim #6: 2014 was the warmest year in modern record by 0.02 
degree.
FACT: Only a “38% chance 2014 was the warmest year on record.” Margin of 
error, which on average is 0.1 degree
Celsius, made “impossible to conclude 2014 was the warmest year” 
according to the Berkeley Earth Surface
Temperature (BEST) project stated,
Alarmist Claim #7: In 2000, Democrats started saying that the science is 
settled.
FACT: I started getting phone calls from scientists disagreeing so I 
made a speech on the floor showing how many
scientists disagreed.
Alarmist Claim #8: Global warming is causing more tornadoes.
FACT: A NOAA scientist rejected global warming link to tornados stating 
“no specific consensus or connection
between global warming and tornadic activity.”
Alarmist Claim #9: Global warming is causing hurricanes to increase in 
intensity and frequency.
FACT: Geophysical Research Letters found “since 2006 tropical cyclone 
energy has decreased dramatically” to the
lowest levels since the 1970s. Global frequency of tropical cyclones has 
reached a historic low.
Alarmist Claim #10: Global warming is leading to an increased number of 
droughts.
FACT: IPCC Fifth Assessment report, previous “conclusions regarding 
global increasing trend in drought since
the 1970s were probably overstated.”
Alarmist Claim #11: Global warming is causing sea levels to rise at a 
rapid pace.
FACT: Journal of Geophysical Research found “there has been no 
statistically significant acceleration in sea level
rise over the past 100 plus years.”
Alarmist Claim #12: 97% of scientists agree global warming is manmade.
FACT: WSJ found the 97% consensus to be predicated on “a handful of 
surveys and abstract-counting exercises
that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101827

On May 24, 2026 at 10:13:17 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a1331ad$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/23/26 7:05 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:

...


These twelve claims have been bouncing around skeptic literature and political
speeches for the better part of two decades, usually delivered with the
confidence of someone who just discovered the one weird trick climate
scientists don't want you to know. They deserve serious engagement anyway —
because burying bad arguments without examining them doesn't make them go
away.
To be fair: a few of these actually land. Some climate advocates have
overstated their case, some headlines did outrun the evidence, and one IPCC
paragraph genuinely cited a WWF brochure like it was peer-reviewed research.

The problem is that the set as a whole mistakes the map for the territory.
Poking holes in a press release, a political speech, or a sloppy headline
isn't the same as poking holes in the physics. The ocean doesn't care how the
IPCC communicates its findings. Glaciers aren't waiting on a methodology
dispute to finish melting.

What follows is a point-by-point breakdown — crediting what deserves credit,
correcting what doesn't, and explaining why "climate scientists sometimes
communicate badly" and "the planet isn't warming" are very different claims.\

And, I predict with 100% certainly, zendejo will show no actual understanding.
Even when someone goes point by point he will just dismiss and stick with
ignorance and conspiracy. zendejo does not care about accuracy or evidence or
science... like most trolls zendejo cares far more about tribalism and
scapegoating.

> https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/a/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/7E90482A76C15A7B2D2473E6EDC911C0.refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf
> 
> Alarmist Claim #1: Antarctic Peninsula is shrinking
> FACT: 2008 peer-reviewed paper in American Geophysical Union found “a
> doubling in snow accumulation in
> the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.”

The 2008 study on snow accumulation is real, but this response conflates two
separate phenomena — and that's worth unpacking.

**Snow accumulation ≠ ice sheet mass balance.** Increased snowfall on the
western Antarctic Peninsula is actually *consistent* with a warming climate,
since warmer air holds more moisture and produces more precipitation. More
snow falling doesn't tell you whether the peninsula is gaining or losing ice
overall.

**What the broader science shows:** The Antarctic Peninsula has been one of
the fastest-warming regions on Earth. The relevant losses come primarily from:
- **Glacier flow and calving** — glaciers accelerating toward the ocean and
breaking off
- **Ice shelf collapse** — Larsen B (2002) and others disintegrating
- **Basal melting** — warm ocean water melting ice from below

These outflow mechanisms can and do outpace increased snowfall accumulation.

**On the accumulation study itself:** Increased snow accumulation in *one
region* of the peninsula doesn't characterize the peninsula as a whole, and
subsequent research has shown significant net mass loss from the region when
all factors are accounted for.

**The honest takeaway:** The original "shrinking" framing may be imprecise —
Antarctica is complex, with East Antarctica behaving differently from West
Antarctica and the Peninsula. But citing a single precipitation study to
dismiss ice loss concerns misrepresents how glaciologists actually measure ice
mass (using GRACE satellite gravity data, not snowfall records).

The science supports concern about net ice loss in the Peninsula region, even
while acknowledging regional complexity.

> Alarmist Claim #2: Glaciers are melting throughout the world.
> FACT: A UN Report in 2010 reported that “glaciers increasing despite
> climate change… glaciers in many areas of
> the world are increasing.”

This one follows the same pattern as the first — a real data point being used
in a misleading way.

**What the 2010 UN/UNEP report actually said:** It acknowledged that some
glaciers in specific regions (parts of Scandinavia, New Zealand's west coast,
parts of the Karakoram range) were advancing. This is not disputed.

**But here's the problem with the framing:**

Regional exceptions don't overturn the global trend. The World Glacier
Monitoring Service, which tracks thousands of glaciers worldwide, has
documented a clear, accelerating pattern of net global glacier mass loss over
decades. Cherry-picking advancing glaciers while ignoring the overwhelming
majority that are retreating is a classic misrepresentation.

**Why some glaciers advance:** Local topography, precipitation patterns, and
regional climate variability can cause individual glaciers to grow even in a
warming world — just as the Antarctic snow accumulation example above shows.
Scientists are aware of this and account for it.

**The actual global picture:**
- The vast majority of the world's monitored glaciers are losing mass
- Glacier loss is accelerating, not stabilizing
- Major systems (Alps, Andes, Himalayas, Rockies) show dramatic net retreat
- Sea level contribution from glaciers and ice sheets is measurable and
growing

**The honest takeaway:** "Glaciers are melting *throughout* the world" is a
slight overstatement if taken literally — but "glaciers are *increasing* in
many areas" as a counter-narrative is far more misleading, because the net
global mass balance is unambiguously negative and worsening.

Nuance cuts both ways. It doesn't rescue the denial argument here.

> Alarmist Claim #3: The IPCC stated the Himalayan glaciers would melt by
> 2035. .
> FACT: The IPCC got that unsubstantiated and false statistic from a World
> Wildlife Federation brochure. In
> January 2010, Time magazine article, Himalayan Melting, How a Climate
> Panel Got it Wrong: “Glaciergate” is a
> “black eye for the IPCC and the climate-science community as a whole.”

This one is **substantially true** — and intellectual honesty requires saying
so clearly.

**What actually happened:** The IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report did
include a claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. This figure
was traced back to a WWF report, which itself cited a non-peer-reviewed
source. It was a genuine error that should not have passed through IPCC
review. The IPCC formally retracted it in 2010.

**This was a real and legitimate criticism.** The IPCC's own procedures
require reliance on peer-reviewed literature, and this slipped through.
Scientists and the IPCC itself acknowledged the mistake. That's not spin — it
happened.

---

**Where the argument overreaches, however:**

**One error ≠ invalidating the whole.** The IPCC report runs to thousands of
pages drawing on thousands of studies. One sourcing failure in one paragraph,
while serious, doesn't impugn the broader conclusions about glacier loss —
which are well-supported independently.

**The underlying concern remains valid.** Himalayan glaciers *are* losing mass
at alarming rates, documented by satellite data and direct measurement. The
2035 date was wrong; the directional trend is not.

**"Glaciergate" was real but limited.** Investigations following the scandal —
including by independent bodies — found no evidence of systemic fraud or
widespread errors in the IPCC's core findings.

---

**The honest takeaway:** This is a legitimate criticism of IPCC process and a
genuine embarrassment. Acknowledge it fully. It just doesn't do the work the
argument needs it to do — discrediting the broader science on glacier retreat.


> Alarmist Claim #4: Polar Bears are disappearing.
> FACT: Director of Wildlife Research with the Arctic Government of
> Nunavut: “Of 13 populations of polar bears
>   in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going
> extinct, or even appear to be affected at
>   present.”
> FACT: In the 50’s and 60’s there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar
> bears. Today there are between 15,000 and
> 25,000.

This one has a kernel of truth but involves some important context-stripping.

**What's legitimate here:** Population counting for polar bears is genuinely
difficult, and there was real scientific debate around 2007-2010 about the
status of various subpopulations. Some Canadian populations were indeed
assessed as stable or increasing at that time. Overstating imminent extinction
was a fair criticism of some advocacy messaging.

**Where the argument has problems:**

**It's geographically incomplete.** There are 19 recognized global
subpopulations, not just the 13 Canadian ones cited. Selecting only Canada
leaves out populations in Russia, Norway, and Greenland, some of which show
more concerning trends.

**The concern is primarily forward-looking.** The scientific worry about polar
bears isn't mainly "they're dying right now" — it's that sea ice, their
hunting platform for seals, is declining rapidly. A population can appear
stable today while its habitat is being undermined. The IUCN lists them as
*Vulnerable* based on projected habitat loss, not just current counts.

**The data has moved on.** More recent assessments show several
subpopulations, including the Southern Beaufort Sea and Western Hudson Bay
populations, have declined meaningfully. The quote reflects a specific moment
in time.

**The quote itself is from a government wildlife official, not peer-reviewed
literature** — the same standard of sourcing the other arguments criticize
climate science for using.

**The honest takeaway:** "Polar bears are disappearing *right now*" was indeed
sometimes overstated in public messaging. But using stable short-term counts
to dismiss long-term habitat-driven risk misrepresents how conservation
science actually works.
> 
> Alarmist Claim #5: May 2013, President Obama claimed the climate is
> warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”
> FACT: Nature reported “For the period [1998-2012] the observed trend of
> temperatures is … not significantly
> different from zero and suggests a temporary hiatus in global warming.”
> FACT: The Economist reported “over the past 15 years, air temperatures
> at the Earth’s surface have been flat …”

This one requires the most careful handling because the cited sources are real
and the "hiatus" was genuinely debated within climate science — but the
framing still misleads.

**What's true:** Surface air temperature warming did slow between roughly
1998-2012. Nature, The Economist, and climate scientists themselves
acknowledged and studied this. It wasn't fabricated.

**Why the framing is still problematic:**

**1998 is a cherry-picked start date.** It was an exceptionally strong El Niño
year — a statistical outlier and artificially high baseline. Starting a trend
line from a peak makes any subsequent period look flat. Climate scientists
noted this explicitly at the time.

**Surface temperature ≠ planetary heat content.** The oceans absorb
approximately 90% of excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases. Ocean heat
content continued rising uninterrupted throughout the entire "hiatus" period.
The Earth was still accumulating energy — it just wasn't showing up as
dramatically in surface air readings.

**The hiatus ended decisively.** Post-2014, surface temperatures surged. The
2010s became the hottest decade on record. 2016, 2019, 2023, and 2024
successively broke records. The "pause" is now clearly a temporary fluctuation
within a long-term trend, not a refutation of it.

**Short periods are statistically noisy.** Climate scientists use 30-year
baselines for good reason — 15 years contains enough natural variability that
detecting trends is genuinely difficult, even when they exist.

**On Obama's claim:** "Faster than anticipated" was arguably imprecise
political language during the hiatus period — that's a fair point.

**The honest takeaway:** The hiatus was real in surface data, scientifically
interesting, and worth discussing. It has since been fully explained and
superseded by resumed warming. It was never evidence that the underlying trend
reversed.

> Alarmist Claim #6: 2014 was the warmest year in modern record by 0.02
> degree.
> FACT: Only a “38% chance 2014 was the warmest year on record.” Margin of
> error, which on average is 0.1 degree
> Celsius, made “impossible to conclude 2014 was the warmest year”
> according to the Berkeley Earth Surface
> Temperature (BEST) project stated,

This is one of the stronger factual objections in this series — the
statistical criticism is largely valid.

**What's correct here:** NASA and NOAA did announce 2014 as the warmest year
on record, but their own data showed the margin over 2010 was roughly 0.02°C —
within the measurement uncertainty. The BEST project's ~38% probability figure
is a legitimate statistical observation. Presenting it as a definitive record
without acknowledging the uncertainty was imprecise science communication.

This is a fair criticism of how the finding was publicly presented.

---

**Where it still doesn't go where the argument wants it to go:**

**The uncertainty cuts both ways.** A 38% chance of being #1 still means it
was almost certainly among the top 2-3 warmest years ever recorded. The
uncertainty doesn't suggest it was actually a cool year.

**The long-term trend is unaffected by this.** Whether 2014 was #1 or #3 on
the list is essentially irrelevant to whether the planet is warming over
decades — which it demonstrably is, well beyond any margin of error.

**Subsequent years resolved the question anyway.** 2016 surpassed 2014 by a
margin that *was* statistically significant. Then 2023 surpassed 2016. These
records aren't within measurement uncertainty — they're clear.

**The objection targets communication, not the underlying science.** Sloppy
headlines claiming certainty where there was probabilistic uncertainty is a
media and messaging problem, not evidence against warming.

**The honest takeaway:** The "warmest year" framing was statistically
imprecise and deserved this criticism. It doesn't, however, constitute
evidence that warming isn't occurring — just that one data point was
over-communicated.

> Alarmist Claim #7: In 2000, Democrats started saying that the science is
> settled.
> FACT: I started getting phone calls from scientists disagreeing so I
> made a speech on the floor showing how many
> scientists disagreed.

This one is qualitatively different from the previous claims — it's a personal
anecdote, not a cited study or report, and it's worth treating it on those
terms.

**What's being argued:** That scientists privately disagreed with climate
consensus, evidenced by phone calls to a (presumably congressional) office.

**The problems here are significant:**

**It's purely anecdotal.** Every other claim in this series, for better or
worse, cited a paper, a report, or a named source. "Scientists called me" is
not verifiable, not quantifiable, and not scientific evidence of anything.

**Dissent exists in every scientific field.** You could find scientists who
dispute germ theory, evolution, or vaccine efficacy. The existence of
dissenting voices doesn't tell you whether the preponderance of evidence
supports a position. What matters is the weight of evidence and the proportion
of expert agreement.

**The actual consensus figures are robust.** Multiple independent analyses —
Cook et al., Oreskes, Doran & Zimmerman — consistently find 97%+ of actively
publishing climate scientists agree on human-caused warming. This has been
replicated across different methodologies.

**"The science is settled" is worth nuancing honestly.** Climate scientists
themselves often push back on this framing — not because warming is uncertain,
but because science is never fully "settled." The core attribution of warming
to human activity is extremely well-established; precise regional impacts and
feedback sensitivities involve ongoing research.

**The honest takeaway:** Receiving phone calls from skeptical scientists is
not a measure of scientific consensus. This argument substitutes personal
political experience for systematic evidence — the opposite of what the other
claims at least attempted to provide.

> Alarmist Claim #8: Global warming is causing more tornadoes.
> FACT: A NOAA scientist rejected global warming link to tornados stating
> “no specific consensus or connection
> between global warming and tornadic activity.”

This is the most scientifically accurate objection in the series so far — and
it deserves a straight answer.

**The NOAA quote reflects genuine scientific caution.** Unlike sea level rise,
ocean heat content, or glacier retreat, the tornado-climate connection is an
area where climate scientists themselves have been consistently careful and
measured. This isn't a fringe dissenting view — it's mainstream climate
science.

**What the research actually shows:**

Tornadoes are exceptionally difficult to study in a climate context because
the historical record is unreliable — detection has improved dramatically with
Doppler radar, making it hard to distinguish real trend increases from better
observation. NOAA and the IPCC have both explicitly declined to attribute
tornado frequency trends to climate change.

The atmospheric dynamics are genuinely complicated. Warming may increase some
ingredients for tornado formation (moisture, instability) while potentially
decreasing others (wind shear). The net effect remains uncertain.

**Where some nuance still applies:**

There is ongoing research into whether tornado *seasonality* and *geographic
range* may be shifting. Some studies suggest tornado alley is expanding
eastward. These questions are live in the literature — just not settled.

**On the original "alarmist claim":** If politicians or media figures were
asserting a clear warming-tornado link as established fact, that was indeed an
overstatement not supported by the scientific literature at the time or since.

**The honest takeaway:** This one is essentially correct. The tornado-climate
connection was overstated in public discourse, and the scientific community
itself has been the primary voice of caution here. Credit where it's due.

> Alarmist Claim #9: Global warming is causing hurricanes to increase in
> intensity and frequency.
> FACT: Geophysical Research Letters found “since 2006 tropical cyclone
> energy has decreased dramatically” to the
> lowest levels since the 1970s. Global frequency of tropical cyclones has
> reached a historic low.

This one is similar to the tornado question — partially valid, but the framing
conflates two distinct claims.

**What's legitimate:** The Geophysical Research Letters finding on decreased
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) around 2010-2013 is real. Global tropical
cyclone frequency does show natural variability, and the claim that
*frequency* of hurricanes is clearly increasing due to warming is not strongly
supported by the scientific literature. The IPCC itself has been cautious on
this point.

So the frequency half of the "alarmist claim" is genuinely overstated.

---

**Where the argument breaks down:**

**Intensity and frequency are separate questions.** The scientific consensus
has consistently focused more on *intensity* than *frequency* — specifically
that warming oceans fuel stronger storms. Multiple studies find the proportion
of storms reaching Category 4-5 has increased globally. The IPCC AR6 assessed
this with medium confidence.

**The cited period is a snapshot.** The 2006-2012 low ACE period reflects
natural variability — ENSO cycles, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and
other factors drive decade-scale fluctuations. The 2017 Atlantic season
(Harvey, Irma, Maria) and the record 2020 season followed shortly after.

**Rapid intensification is a growing concern.** Warmer ocean surface
temperatures are linked to storms intensifying faster and more unpredictably —
a documented trend with significant implications regardless of total storm
counts.

**The honest takeaway:** "More frequent hurricanes" was an overstatement — the
science focuses on intensity, not frequency, and the IPCC itself reflects that
nuance. But citing a short-term ACE dip to dismiss the intensity-warming
connection misrepresents where the actual scientific concern lies.

> Alarmist Claim #10: Global warming is leading to an increased number of
> droughts.
> FACT: IPCC Fifth Assessment report, previous “conclusions regarding
> global increasing trend in drought since
> the 1970s were probably overstated.”

Another case, like the tornado claim, that deserves genuine acknowledgment —
with important context.

**What's correct:** The IPCC AR5 quote is real and accurately cited. The Fifth
Assessment Report did walk back the stronger drought claims made in AR4
(2007), specifically noting that the Palmer Drought Severity Index used in
earlier analyses was methodologically problematic. This is a legitimate
instance of science self-correcting — which is how science is supposed to
work, but which does create valid criticism when earlier claims were stated
too confidently.

Credit where due: this is a real revision worth knowing.

---

**The important context:**

**"Global trend overstated" ≠ "no regional drought signal."** The AR5 revision
applied to the *global aggregated trend*, not to regional patterns. The same
report maintained concern about drought intensification in specific regions —
Mediterranean, southern Africa, southwestern North America, parts of South
America.

**The AR6 (2021) strengthened some findings.** Subsequent research using
improved methodologies found with greater confidence that human-caused warming
has contributed to agricultural and ecological drought in several regions. The
science didn't stop at AR5.

**Mechanism remains sound.** Warmer temperatures increase evaporation and
evapotranspiration — drying soils even without reduced precipitation. This
physics hasn't changed.

**"Overstated" is not "wrong direction."** The revision was about magnitude
and confidence levels, not about reversing the sign of the relationship.

**The honest takeaway:** The global drought trend claim was genuinely
overstated and the IPCC corrected it — that's legitimate. But the regional
drought concerns and underlying mechanisms remain scientifically supported,
and AR6 has since reinforced those more carefully than AR4 did.

> Alarmist Claim #11: Global warming is causing sea levels to rise at a
> rapid pace.
> FACT: Journal of Geophysical Research found “there has been no
> statistically significant acceleration in sea level
> rise over the past 100 plus years.”

**Claim #11: Sea Level Rise Acceleration**

**What's partially valid:** Some tide gauge analyses covering long periods
found acceleration difficult to detect statistically — natural variability,
land subsidence, and regional differences complicate the record. The paper
cited likely reflects real methodological challenges in the historical tide
gauge data.

**Where it breaks down:**

Satellite altimetry since 1993 tells a much cleaner story. Current sea level
rise rates of roughly 3.6-4mm/year are approximately double the 20th century
average — and the rate itself is accelerating. The IPCC AR6 assessed this with
high confidence.

Averaging over 100+ years can actually *hide* recent acceleration by diluting
it with slower earlier periods. The statistical test the paper applies is
real; the conclusion it's used to support is not.

Ice sheet contribution — particularly Greenland and West Antarctica — has
grown measurably and is expected to drive future acceleration. The mechanism
is well-understood.

**Honest takeaway:** Long-term tide gauge records are genuinely noisy.
Satellite data showing recent acceleration is not.


> Alarmist Claim #12: 97% of scientists agree global warming is manmade.
> FACT: WSJ found the 97% consensus to be predicated on “a handful of
> surveys and abstract-counting exercises
> that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

**Claim #12: The 97% Consensus**

**What has legitimate basis:** The specific Cook et al. (2013) methodology
drew real scholarly criticism — some scientists disputed how their papers were
categorized, and abstract-counting has known limitations. These are fair
methodological objections.

**Where it overreaches:**

The 97% figure wasn't built on one study — it's been reproduced across
multiple independent methodologies: Oreskes (2004), Doran & Zimmerman (2009),
Cook et al. (2013), Verheggen et al. (2014), Carlton et al. (2015). Differing
methods, similar results.

The WSJ published an *op-ed*, not a peer-reviewed study. Applying the sourcing
standards used elsewhere in this series, that's a significant limitation.

Every major scientific institution on Earth — NASA, NOAA, AMS, NAS, Royal
Society, and equivalents in virtually every country — endorses the consensus
independently of the surveys.

The actual volume of contrarian peer-reviewed literature remains tiny,
regardless of how you count abstracts.

**Honest takeaway:** The 97% figure's specific derivation is legitimately
debatable. The existence of overwhelming expert consensus is not.



-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101828

On 5/24/26 11:51 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> These twelve claims have been bouncing around skeptic literature and political
> speeches

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/a/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/7E90482A76C15A7B2D2473E6EDC911C0.refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf

Alarmist Claim #1: Antarctic Peninsula is shrinking
FACT: 2008 peer-reviewed paper in American Geophysical Union found “a 
doubling in snow accumulation in
the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.”
Alarmist Claim #2: Glaciers are melting throughout the world.
FACT: A UN Report in 2010 reported that “glaciers increasing despite 
climate change… glaciers in many areas of
the world are increasing.”
Alarmist Claim #3: The IPCC stated the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 
2035. .
FACT: The IPCC got that unsubstantiated and false statistic from a World 
Wildlife Federation brochure. In
January 2010, Time magazine article, Himalayan Melting, How a Climate 
Panel Got it Wrong: “Glaciergate” is a
“black eye for the IPCC and the climate-science community as a whole.”
Alarmist Claim #4: Polar Bears are disappearing.
FACT: Director of Wildlife Research with the Arctic Government of 
Nunavut: “Of 13 populations of polar bears
  in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going 
extinct, or even appear to be affected at
  present.”
FACT: In the 50’s and 60’s there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar 
bears. Today there are between 15,000 and
25,000.
Alarmist Claim #5: May 2013, President Obama claimed the climate is 
warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”
FACT: Nature reported “For the period [1998-2012] the observed trend of 
temperatures is … not significantly
different from zero and suggests a temporary hiatus in global warming.”
FACT: The Economist reported “over the past 15 years, air temperatures 
at the Earth’s surface have been flat …”
Alarmist Claim #6: 2014 was the warmest year in modern record by 0.02 
degree.
FACT: Only a “38% chance 2014 was the warmest year on record.” Margin of 
error, which on average is 0.1 degree
Celsius, made “impossible to conclude 2014 was the warmest year” 
according to the Berkeley Earth Surface
Temperature (BEST) project stated,
Alarmist Claim #7: In 2000, Democrats started saying that the science is 
settled.
FACT: I started getting phone calls from scientists disagreeing so I 
made a speech on the floor showing how many
scientists disagreed.
Alarmist Claim #8: Global warming is causing more tornadoes.
FACT: A NOAA scientist rejected global warming link to tornados stating 
“no specific consensus or connection
between global warming and tornadic activity.”
Alarmist Claim #9: Global warming is causing hurricanes to increase in 
intensity and frequency.
FACT: Geophysical Research Letters found “since 2006 tropical cyclone 
energy has decreased dramatically” to the
lowest levels since the 1970s. Global frequency of tropical cyclones has 
reached a historic low.
Alarmist Claim #10: Global warming is leading to an increased number of 
droughts.
FACT: IPCC Fifth Assessment report, previous “conclusions regarding 
global increasing trend in drought since
the 1970s were probably overstated.”
Alarmist Claim #11: Global warming is causing sea levels to rise at a 
rapid pace.
FACT: Journal of Geophysical Research found “there has been no 
statistically significant acceleration in sea level
rise over the past 100 plus years.”
Alarmist Claim #12: 97% of scientists agree global warming is manmade.
FACT: WSJ found the 97% consensus to be predicated on “a handful of 
surveys and abstract-counting exercises
that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101815

zendejo wrote:
> On 5/23/26 10:37 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> He’s tacitly admitting he does not understand the very points he 
>> brings up.
> 
> 
> Finally, it might seem churlish to pick on a single mainstream media 
> RCP8.5 nonsense story, but there is one that is your correspondent’s 
> favourite. This article not only reported RCP8.5 fantasies but climbed 
> even further heights, going where no other story has gone before. In May 
> last year, Mark Poynting of the BBC claimed that “scientists say” 
> coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea 
> level rise if global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree 
> centigrade. This claim was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well 
> beyond what even SSP5-8.5 (a newer version of RCP8.5) predicted. Based 
> on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high emissions 
> projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting 
> chanced on a suggestion that the IPCC said it could not rule out 
> (admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea 
> level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. So Poynting got his several metres 
> of inundation story, “even if ambitious targets of limiting global 
> warming to 1.5°C is met”.
> 
> Purely anecdotal, but the BBC seems to have moderated its wilder climate 
> stories of late with the “Climate” topic on its News site relegated to 
> the second tier of subjects. This might be considered a bit of a status 
> drop for a subject whose authors had past pretentions to provide an 
> essential core for all reporting. Now it finds itself rubbing shoulders 
> with the picture gallery and the dumbed-down “Newsbeat” offering.
> 
> 
> But we must avoid the temptation to intrude on private grief. It is to 
> be hoped that this move does not spell the end of the highly imaginative 
> claptrap classics that have added to the gaiety of the nation over so 
> many years. Regular readers will recall climate change could make beer 
> taste worse and the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025 – how we shall 
> miss all this copy aimed at the idiot short of a village.
> 
> 
In all other things, submitting that the worst scenario is not 
plausible, one might seek the actual worst case scenario instead of 
throwing the baby out with the bathwater and living a life of ease, 
whistling under a tree and forgetting about the whole deal. Had you 
considered this? If this RCP8.5 is not plausible, what is? Perhaps a 
milder case of terribleness? That we might have 20 years to save 
ourselves instead of 15? What do you hope to gain by harping about the 
irrationality of RCP8.5 while climate change remains a true concern?

It seems rather than arguing about climate change and what might be 
discerned from facts, you would rather leap upon an admission that it's 
not as bad as we had thought and trumpet it to the skies saying the 
whole thing is a sham. The only reason to do this would be if it were 
arrived at RCP8.5 with the intention to deceive, yet you have shown none 
of this. Climate change is a difficult science and perhaps we fail at it 
from time to time, but what do you actually contribute to the 
conversation or question regarding it besides second grade putdowns and 
an unwillingness to come to the table with an intent to be earnest?

BTW thanks a whole lot for reporting me to the FBI. They've slowed down 
my machine considerably and I may have to throw it out.

Is it too much to ask for grownups to communicate with and not second 
grade tattle tales?

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101816

On May 23, 2026 at 10:00:31 AM MST, "phoenix" wrote
<n7e4piFm1moU1@mid.individual.net>:

> zendejo wrote:
>> On 5/23/26 10:37 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> He’s tacitly admitting he does not understand the very points he
>>> brings up.
>> 
>> 
>> Finally, it might seem churlish to pick on a single mainstream media
>> RCP8.5 nonsense story, but there is one that is your correspondent’s
>> favourite. This article not only reported RCP8.5 fantasies but climbed
>> even further heights, going where no other story has gone before. In May
>> last year, Mark Poynting of the BBC claimed that “scientists say”
>> coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea
>> level rise if global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree
>> centigrade. This claim was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well
>> beyond what even SSP5-8.5 (a newer version of RCP8.5) predicted. Based
>> on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high emissions
>> projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting
>> chanced on a suggestion that the IPCC said it could not rule out
>> (admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea
>> level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. So Poynting got his several metres
>> of inundation story, “even if ambitious targets of limiting global
>> warming to 1.5°C is met”.
>> 
>> Purely anecdotal, but the BBC seems to have moderated its wilder climate
>> stories of late with the “Climate” topic on its News site relegated to
>> the second tier of subjects. This might be considered a bit of a status
>> drop for a subject whose authors had past pretentions to provide an
>> essential core for all reporting. Now it finds itself rubbing shoulders
>> with the picture gallery and the dumbed-down “Newsbeat” offering.
>> 
>> 
>> But we must avoid the temptation to intrude on private grief. It is to
>> be hoped that this move does not spell the end of the highly imaginative
>> claptrap classics that have added to the gaiety of the nation over so
>> many years. Regular readers will recall climate change could make beer
>> taste worse and the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025 – how we shall
>> miss all this copy aimed at the idiot short of a village.
>> 
>> 
> In all other things, submitting that the worst scenario is not
> plausible, one might seek the actual worst case scenario instead of
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater and living a life of ease,
> whistling under a tree and forgetting about the whole deal. Had you
> considered this? If this RCP8.5 is not plausible, what is? Perhaps a
> milder case of terribleness? That we might have 20 years to save
> ourselves instead of 15? What do you hope to gain by harping about the
> irrationality of RCP8.5 while climate change remains a true concern?
> 
> It seems rather than arguing about climate change and what might be
> discerned from facts, you would rather leap upon an admission that it's
> not as bad as we had thought and trumpet it to the skies saying the
> whole thing is a sham. The only reason to do this would be if it were
> arrived at RCP8.5 with the intention to deceive, yet you have shown none
> of this. Climate change is a difficult science and perhaps we fail at it
> from time to time, but what do you actually contribute to the
> conversation or question regarding it besides second grade putdowns and
> an unwillingness to come to the table with an intent to be earnest?
> 
> BTW thanks a whole lot for reporting me to the FBI. They've slowed down
> my machine considerably and I may have to throw it out.
> 
> Is it too much to ask for grownups to communicate with and not second
> grade tattle tales?

Well worded. But keep in mind the corporations that benefit -- short term --
from not dealing with the well understood harm have told him to ignore
science. So he does. Add to that, the conspiracy theorists get to feel special
-- they are "in the know" with their ignorance. Psychologically it helps them
not feel so out of control.

It really is a shame.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101821

On 5/23/26 12:14 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> It really is a shame.
No, cRudey.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead

The international committee responsible for the official scenarios that 
feed into climate modeling that are the basis for most projective 
climate research and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate 
scenarios.

Big news: The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios 
that have dominated climate research over much of the past several 
decades — specifically, RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0. This is an 
absolutely huge development in climate science which will have lasting 
impacts across research and policy.

The future is not what it used to be.

Today’s post commends the researchers who have brought climate scenarios 
more in line with current understandings, but also raises some 
significant continuing issues with the scenarios.

Let’s get started . . .

The new scenarios come from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 
(CMIP) — a project of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), 
co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, the International 
Science Council, and UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

Under CMIP, now in its seventh iteration, sits another little-known 
committee with responsibility for developing the scenarios necessary for 
earth system models to project future climate.1 That committee — called 
ScenarioMIP — just published the new scenario framework that will 
underpin the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) and much of the 
research that it will draw upon.

In a paper released earlier this month, Van Vuuren et al. (VVetal26) 
introduce a new set of seven scenarios. The authors write of the 
obsolete high end emissions scenarios (emphasis added):

“For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: 
on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified 
by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of 
renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”

Read that again — The high end scenarios are Implausible.2

I disagree that the implausibility of the high-end scenarios resulted 
from the falling costs of renewables or the emergence of climate policy, 
but that is a debate for another day.

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for 
developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community 
has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate 
research, assessment, and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC 
assessment process are implausible: They describe impossible futures.

Tens of thousands of research papers have been — and continue to be — 
published using these scenarios, a similar number of media headlines 
have amplified their findings, and governments and international 
organization have built these implausible scenarios into policy and 
regulation.

We now know that all of this is built on a foundation of sand.

What changed
The new CMIP7 ScenarioMIP framework offers seven scenarios spanning a 
range from “VERY LOW” through “HIGH.” The current naming convention 
drops the radiative-forcing target labels of the SSP era — there is no 
“8.5” scenario, and no “7.0” scenario, but as I’ll show below, each 
scenario has a radiative forcing level in 2100.

I ran the available new scenarios (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, and VERY LOW) 
through the FaIR calibrated and constrained ensemble that Sanderson and 
Smith (2025) used to characterize the CMIP7 set (FaIR v. 2.2.0 as 
described in their README file). I then ran each of the five tier-1 SSPs 
through the same emulator with identical parameters to ensure that the 
results are apples-to-apples. The full methodology, data, and code is in 
the appendix to this post.

The headline results follow.

CO₂ emissions: fossil fuels and industry, 2000–2100



The chart above shows fossil-fuel and industry CO₂ emissions for four 
CMIP7 scenarios alongside the five tier-1 SSPs and the two main 
reference scenarios from the 2025 IEA World Energy Outlook.

Note the massive gap between the new HIGH and SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH 
reaches 71 Gt CO₂/yr in 2100 — far below SSP5-8.5 at 128 Gt in 2100. 
Nothing in the CMIP7 set comes close to SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH also sits 
below SSP3-7.0 by about 9% in terms of cumulative emissions to 2100. 
Note also the gap between MEDIUM (solid yellow) and SSP2-4.5 (dashed 
yellow), which I’ll return to below.

Both of the most recent IEA near term scenarios — which run to 2050 — 
fall below MEDIUM and SSP2-4.5.

The table below compares the CMIP7 scenarios to their closest AR6 
analogues, showing that the overall range has constricted. The higher 
scenarios have come down and the lower scenarios have come up — except 
VERY LOW, which moved down.




2100 effective radiative forcing and end-of-century temperature
The table below lists AR6 and CMIP7 scenarios from highest to lowest 
2100 radiative forcing. The middle column shows the average global 
temperature change from an 1850-1900 baseline, under the climate 
emulator used by CMIP7. The right column shows the average temperature 
change for the SSPs as projected by the IPCC AR6.




See Methods appendix for details.
Interestingly, the projected 2080-2100 temperatures of the SSPs 
decreased from their AR6 values based solely on recent updates to the 
FaIR climate emulator.3 These changes resulted primarily from the 
updating of emissions trajectories from 2014 (used in AR6) to 2023 (used 
by CMIP7). The more moderate emissions trajectories resulted in lower 
projected end-of-century temperature increases.

The new CMIP7 HIGH is 0.9°C cooler than SSP5-8.5 in apples-to-apples 
terms (and 1.4°C cooler versus IPCC AR6), and 0.2°C cooler than SSP3-7.0 
(-0.6°C against IPCC AR6).

The implausibility of upper-end legacy scenarios is now official.

CMIP7 avoided repeating the past with SSP3-7.0
Last April I argued here at THB that the climate science community was 
on the brink of repeating the RCP8.5 mistake with SSP3-7.0 — which 
assumed a 2100 global population approaching 13 billion, well above any 
contemporary demographic projection and a five-fold expansion of global 
coal use. Neither assumption survives current understandings of 
demographics or energy systems.

I don’t know if anyone in CMIP or ScenarioMIP reads THB4 — if not they 
should! — but regardless, they wisely chose not to adopt SSP3-7.0 as the 
new HIGH scenario.

The new HIGH scenario sits at 6.7 W/m² in 2100 — below the SSP3 baseline 
7.0 W/m² — with 9 percent less cumulative fossil CO₂ through 2100. As 
I’ll discuss below, this is progress; it is partial but real.

But the new HIGH still sits well above the plausibility range that we 
identified in Pielke, Burgess, and Ritchie (2022). We found that of the 
 >1,000 scenarios in the AR5 database, the plausible subset centered on 
a median of ~3.4 W/m² in 2100, with an upper end near 6 W/m². The new 
HIGH scenario is well above that upper end.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101820

On 5/23/26 11:00 AM, phoenix wrote:
> zendejo wrote:
>> On 5/23/26 10:37 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> He’s tacitly admitting he does not understand the very points he 
>>> brings up.
>>
>>
>> Finally, it might seem churlish to pick on a single mainstream media 
>> RCP8.5 nonsense story, but there is one that is your correspondent’s 
>> favourite. This article not only reported RCP8.5 fantasies but climbed 
>> even further heights, going where no other story has gone before. In 
>> May last year, Mark Poynting of the BBC claimed that “scientists say” 
>> coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of 
>> sea level rise if global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree 
>> centigrade. This claim was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well 
>> beyond what even SSP5-8.5 (a newer version of RCP8.5) predicted. Based 
>> on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high emissions 
>> projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting 
>> chanced on a suggestion that the IPCC said it could not rule out 
>> (admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a 
>> sea level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. So Poynting got his several 
>> metres of inundation story, “even if ambitious targets of limiting 
>> global warming to 1.5°C is met”.
>>
>> Purely anecdotal, but the BBC seems to have moderated its wilder 
>> climate stories of late with the “Climate” topic on its News site 
>> relegated to the second tier of subjects. This might be considered a 
>> bit of a status drop for a subject whose authors had past pretentions 
>> to provide an essential core for all reporting. Now it finds itself 
>> rubbing shoulders with the picture gallery and the dumbed-down 
>> “Newsbeat” offering.
>>
>>
>> But we must avoid the temptation to intrude on private grief. It is to 
>> be hoped that this move does not spell the end of the highly 
>> imaginative claptrap classics that have added to the gaiety of the 
>> nation over so many years. Regular readers will recall climate change 
>> could make beer taste worse and the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025 
>> – how we shall miss all this copy aimed at the idiot short of a village.
>>
>>
> In all other things, 
No, cRudey.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead

The international committee responsible for the official scenarios that 
feed into climate modeling that are the basis for most projective 
climate research and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate 
scenarios.

Big news: The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios 
that have dominated climate research over much of the past several 
decades — specifically, RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0. This is an 
absolutely huge development in climate science which will have lasting 
impacts across research and policy.

The future is not what it used to be.

Today’s post commends the researchers who have brought climate scenarios 
more in line with current understandings, but also raises some 
significant continuing issues with the scenarios.

Let’s get started . . .

The new scenarios come from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 
(CMIP) — a project of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), 
co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, the International 
Science Council, and UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

Under CMIP, now in its seventh iteration, sits another little-known 
committee with responsibility for developing the scenarios necessary for 
earth system models to project future climate.1 That committee — called 
ScenarioMIP — just published the new scenario framework that will 
underpin the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) and much of the 
research that it will draw upon.

In a paper released earlier this month, Van Vuuren et al. (VVetal26) 
introduce a new set of seven scenarios. The authors write of the 
obsolete high end emissions scenarios (emphasis added):

“For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: 
on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified 
by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of 
renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”

Read that again — The high end scenarios are Implausible.2

I disagree that the implausibility of the high-end scenarios resulted 
from the falling costs of renewables or the emergence of climate policy, 
but that is a debate for another day.

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for 
developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community 
has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate 
research, assessment, and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC 
assessment process are implausible: They describe impossible futures.

Tens of thousands of research papers have been — and continue to be — 
published using these scenarios, a similar number of media headlines 
have amplified their findings, and governments and international 
organization have built these implausible scenarios into policy and 
regulation.

We now know that all of this is built on a foundation of sand.

What changed
The new CMIP7 ScenarioMIP framework offers seven scenarios spanning a 
range from “VERY LOW” through “HIGH.” The current naming convention 
drops the radiative-forcing target labels of the SSP era — there is no 
“8.5” scenario, and no “7.0” scenario, but as I’ll show below, each 
scenario has a radiative forcing level in 2100.

I ran the available new scenarios (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, and VERY LOW) 
through the FaIR calibrated and constrained ensemble that Sanderson and 
Smith (2025) used to characterize the CMIP7 set (FaIR v. 2.2.0 as 
described in their README file). I then ran each of the five tier-1 SSPs 
through the same emulator with identical parameters to ensure that the 
results are apples-to-apples. The full methodology, data, and code is in 
the appendix to this post.

The headline results follow.

CO₂ emissions: fossil fuels and industry, 2000–2100



The chart above shows fossil-fuel and industry CO₂ emissions for four 
CMIP7 scenarios alongside the five tier-1 SSPs and the two main 
reference scenarios from the 2025 IEA World Energy Outlook.

Note the massive gap between the new HIGH and SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH 
reaches 71 Gt CO₂/yr in 2100 — far below SSP5-8.5 at 128 Gt in 2100. 
Nothing in the CMIP7 set comes close to SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH also sits 
below SSP3-7.0 by about 9% in terms of cumulative emissions to 2100. 
Note also the gap between MEDIUM (solid yellow) and SSP2-4.5 (dashed 
yellow), which I’ll return to below.

Both of the most recent IEA near term scenarios — which run to 2050 — 
fall below MEDIUM and SSP2-4.5.

The table below compares the CMIP7 scenarios to their closest AR6 
analogues, showing that the overall range has constricted. The higher 
scenarios have come down and the lower scenarios have come up — except 
VERY LOW, which moved down.




2100 effective radiative forcing and end-of-century temperature
The table below lists AR6 and CMIP7 scenarios from highest to lowest 
2100 radiative forcing. The middle column shows the average global 
temperature change from an 1850-1900 baseline, under the climate 
emulator used by CMIP7. The right column shows the average temperature 
change for the SSPs as projected by the IPCC AR6.




See Methods appendix for details.
Interestingly, the projected 2080-2100 temperatures of the SSPs 
decreased from their AR6 values based solely on recent updates to the 
FaIR climate emulator.3 These changes resulted primarily from the 
updating of emissions trajectories from 2014 (used in AR6) to 2023 (used 
by CMIP7). The more moderate emissions trajectories resulted in lower 
projected end-of-century temperature increases.

The new CMIP7 HIGH is 0.9°C cooler than SSP5-8.5 in apples-to-apples 
terms (and 1.4°C cooler versus IPCC AR6), and 0.2°C cooler than SSP3-7.0 
(-0.6°C against IPCC AR6).

The implausibility of upper-end legacy scenarios is now official.

CMIP7 avoided repeating the past with SSP3-7.0
Last April I argued here at THB that the climate science community was 
on the brink of repeating the RCP8.5 mistake with SSP3-7.0 — which 
assumed a 2100 global population approaching 13 billion, well above any 
contemporary demographic projection and a five-fold expansion of global 
coal use. Neither assumption survives current understandings of 
demographics or energy systems.

I don’t know if anyone in CMIP or ScenarioMIP reads THB4 — if not they 
should! — but regardless, they wisely chose not to adopt SSP3-7.0 as the 
new HIGH scenario.

The new HIGH scenario sits at 6.7 W/m² in 2100 — below the SSP3 baseline 
7.0 W/m² — with 9 percent less cumulative fossil CO₂ through 2100. As 
I’ll discuss below, this is progress; it is partial but real.

But the new HIGH still sits well above the plausibility range that we 
identified in Pielke, Burgess, and Ritchie (2022). We found that of the 
 >1,000 scenarios in the AR5 database, the plausible subset centered on 
a median of ~3.4 W/m² in 2100, with an upper end near 6 W/m². The new 
HIGH scenario is well above that upper end.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101809

On 5/23/26 10:32 AM, phoenix wrote:
> zendejo wrote:
>> On 5/22/26 4:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 3:29:52 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10d8e0$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/26 3:23 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10c49a$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:04:24 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>> <6a10b6c8$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:32 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <6a10b1e4$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 10:29:07 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> <Cn0QR.262949$gO1.24986@fx14.iad>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2026 1:17 PM, zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I win... he plonked me. Or claimed to. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Take a hike Snit, you simpering slackwit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, not in your KF.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given I have none true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you were not happy when I discussed facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You misspelled "denied facts".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You were given solid source icons on catastrophism to go to in 
>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>> get your knowledge up, and you refused of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As such you're just a pinata full of rocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notice you have nothing but insults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like for like, as above, so below - where you reside, enjoy!
>>>>>
>>>>> You have insults.
>>>> I have facts.
>>>>
>>>> Liberals hate those.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/453353528124367/ 
>>>> posts/26619717614394601/
>>>>
>>>> The UN IPCC Climatologist have finally admitted that for the past 20
>>>> years all of the fake climate Doomsday predictions were all based on
>>>> junk science and manipulated data.
>>>
>>> Already noted 
>>
>> Good, now moar coming:
>>
>> https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/
> 
> Instead of addressing the contradictions Brock raised, you chose to 
> deflect with another article. This is not constructive. Typical zendejo. 

This article is the in depth source analysis sand science for the prior 
article, citing the work of and written by the lead scientist.

Your pallid little criticisms are without merit or worth, cRudey.


> Can you address what was wrong with your first article?

Not a blessed thing, and thanks for asking.

> I don't believe 
> your second article cleared any of that up.

Your problems with belief are your own to tend to.

> Also, sci.math requested you not xpost to their group, inconsiderate goof.
You can address that with the poster who put them on the groups list, 
which was not me.

Ta.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.environment

csiph-web