What Excellent News – All Climate Change Science Is Now Wrong

Of course, there are those who have been saying that all climate change science has always been wrong but my statement is rather different, that even within the terms of the debate at the IPCC etc all climate change science is now wrong. For the predictions of looming disaster depend upon one specific fact, one that is incorrect. No, not that CO2 doesn’t warm, or that climate has always varied and all that. Instead, there’s an assumption made about how the future is going to be. That assumption being wrong. Thus all that is derived from that assumption being wrong is also wrong.

Thus this is good news for sensible people, a disaster for those who would force us all into something like the Green New Deal – either variant.

The number of coal-fired power plants being developed around the world has collapsed in the last three years, according to a report. The number of plants on which construction has begun each year has fallen by 84% since 2015, and 39% in 2018 alone, while the number of completed plants has dropped by more than half since 2015. The report, from the NGO-backed Global Energy Monitor, says the falling costs of renewable energy are pricing coal out of the electricity market, more than 100 financial institutions have blacklisted coal producers, and political action to cut carbon emissions is growing. “It’s only a matter of time before coal is a thing of the past worldwide,” said one of the report’s authors, Neha Mathew-Shah, of the Sierra Club.

Coal is the most CO2 intensive of energy production methods, it diminishing in usage is a good thing for ameliorating climate change therefore. Excellent news.

However, it gets better than this. All those predictions of looming disaster depend upon what we think the future is going to be like. We have to make assumptions about how many people there will be, how rich they’ll be and what technologies they’ll use to be that rich. And all of the bloodcurdling predictions depend upon something called RCP 8.5. No, it’s boring to know what that is.

But RCP 8.5 depends upon the following assumption:

The scenario’s storyline describes a heterogeneous world with continuously increasing
global population, resulting in a global population of 12 billion by 2100. Per capita income
growth is slow and both internationally as well as regionally there is only little convergence
between high and low income countries. Global GDP reaches around 250 trillion US2005$
in 2100. The slow economic development also implies little progress in terms of efficiency.
Combined with the high population growth, this leads to high energy demands. Still,
international trade in energy and technology is limited and overall rates of technological
progress is modest. The inherent emphasis on greater self-sufficiency of individual
countries and regions assumed in the scenario implies a reliance on domestically available
resources. Resource availability is not necessarily a constraint but easily accessible
conventional oil and gas become relatively scarce in comparison to more difficult to harvest
unconventional fuels like tar sands or oil shale. Given the overall slow rate of technological
improvements in low-carbon technologies, the future energy system moves toward coal intensive technology choices with high GHG emissions.

In fact, we not just use more coal than we do today – more people who are richer etc – we use more coal as a proportion of our energy production than we ever have done as a species. And yet we’re being told that even as the world gets richer coal as an energy production method is dying out. That is, we’re not in an RCP 8.5 world. Thus all predictions based upon it are wrong.

And yes, I’m afraid that all of those predictions insisting we’ll be basting Flipper in the melting waters of the last polar ice floe by 2050 are indeed based upon using RCP 8.5 as our prediction. It just ain’t gonna happen. All current – all current political that is – climate science is now wrong. Felled by just that one inconvenient fact, we’re using less, not more, coal.

And given that this is all about the received and settled science we’re going to see substantial revisions to all those predictions, aren’t we? An agreement that it’s not all imminent and disastrous, that we don’t have to destroy global capitalism and all that. We are, aren’t we?

Oh, do note that other point made there. This worst outcome, this boiling Flipper, it depends upon our slowing economic growth from where it is now. Through not having globalisation. Which is a bit of a problem for those who think we’ll beat climate change through overturning globalised capitalism really.

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Matt RyanDegsyLeo SavanttDavidsbQ46 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Davidsb
Guest
Davidsb

Even Prince Charles, who I usually place somewhere on the barking end of the spectrum, believes the world’s population will top out at sub-9bn in or around 2050 – and some of the UN’s many population growth forecasts are in agreement with him….

But there’s no government funding available to research and report on that, is there?

;¬)

Leo Savantt
Guest
Leo Savantt

According to Dr. Patrick Moore, one of Green Peace’s founders, CO2 levels are too low, so reduced use of coal is not nessecarily benign.

Q46
Guest
Q46

‘Of course, there are those who have been saying that all climate change science has always been wrong…’ Climate change science is not wrong, it is poorly understood through lack of knowledge and experience and because climate is a dynamic system of multiple interacting variables, not all known or understood, whose outcomes cannot be predicted. What has been wrong is the claim that it is fully understood… ‘the science is settled’… and the high level of certainty claimed for the conclusions drawn, and the insistance that climate conditions up to 200 years out can be predicted accurately. What is also… Read more »

Matt Ryan
Guest
Matt Ryan

The “science is settled” is just another way of no-platforming opposing voices. Spot a pattern?

Degsy
Guest
Degsy

The bandwagon is rolling, I don’t think it will stop any time soon. There are too many snouts in the trough.