Mainstream Science Specifically…Denies… Climate Catastrophe

Far, far away from the serious scientists who are trying to understand our climate, there is a clique of Klimate Katastrophists who are trying to make us believe that human-caused climate change will bring about disaster.

Since about 1988 they have variously said that human caused climate change would cause a runaway climate, where positive feedbacks dominate our complex climate system and spiral us into a Deathworld of ever higher temperatures.

They have said that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets would succumb to warming and disappear.

They have said that the permafrost in northern latitudes would warm up enough to release gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, warming us further.

Similarly, they have said that methane clathrates under the ocean would release their gas into the atmosphere, also contributing to warming.

They have claimed that both tropical and boreal forests were subject to extinction due to warming temperatures and changing patterns of precipitation.

The Katastrophists have claimed that the Arctic would be ice free in the summers, although their first predictions of such an event have already proven mistaken. Didn’t matter. They just changed the dates on the event and continued to trumpet the catastrophe.

They have said that droughts would be longer, hotter and more intense. Indeed they have said this has already happened.

And they have said that the monsoon cycle would change dramatically, disrupting Asian agriculture and the lives of millions.

While the Katastrophists were busy gnashing their teeth and wailing, real, actual scientists were actually studying these phenomena.

The findings of their studies are published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Here they are:

IPCC unlikelihood

Human contributions to climate change are real. They quite possibly will pose a problem for our children and their children–a real and serious, but not overwhelming problem.

Those who shout catastrophe from the rooftops are denying science.

10 responses to “Mainstream Science Specifically…Denies… Climate Catastrophe

  1. But Tom, have you not seen the IPCC’s AR5 WGI: The movie?!

    https://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/ar5-the-movie-tick-tick-boom-boom-doom-doom/

    It’s scary, scary stuff, I tell ya! … And surely this trumps your chart above;-)

  2. Tom,
    For sometime I have observed that the climate obsessed form the community that is denying science. This essay is a great review of just how bad the climate obsessed have become.
    You are confirming my anthropomorphic hypothesis by the way.

  3. Tom,

    “Those who shout catastrophe from the rooftops are denying science.”
    But according to IPCC, they are not. A number of items on the table you reproduce would plausibly be catastrophes. The fact that we don’t know that something will happen does mean that we know that it won’t happen.

    Personally, I think people would be better off worrying about real threats. But “denying science” is overstating the case and contributes to the destruction of what little rational debate remains.

    Note: anyone considering a criticism of this comment might be well served by *carefully* reading the entries in the last column of the IPCC table.

    • I think it would be fine if they shouted something like “it’s exceptionally unlikely that the Greenland ice sheet will suffer near complete disintegration”.

      Meanwhile I’ll shout ‘it’s likely that overpopulation in Africa will lead to civil wars, starvation, and epidemics”.

      Or how about “it’s likely that huge crowds gathering around markets due to food scarcity are serving as a breeding ground for disease, which coupled with haphazard antibiotic supply will cause the emergence of antibiotic resistant bugs, as seems to be happening in Venezuela”.

      Yesterday, an acquaintance died in a clinic in Caracas, she was suffering with tuberculosis she probably caught standing in lines for hours trying to buy food. The clinic didn’t have the antibiotics to handle the TB strain. At this time flights from Caracas have been cut back. But there are non stops to Miami, Madrid, and Panama City. Di you REALLY think I should worry more about Greenland losing ice?

      • Fernando,

        I agree with you on everything except your implication that I am defending climate catastrophists. I only said that not all the catastrophes can be ruled out by science.

        Maybe I am being pedantic, but I have had it with overstated rhetoric.

      • Fernando,
        Sorry about the death of your friend.
        From my perspective and that of my many Venezuelan family and friends, your friend died from the corruption of the so-called Bolivaran Republic.
        Perhaps in another more appropriate thread we can look at your concerns regarding population.

    • Mike M,
      Looking carefully at the table I seem to over look your source of concern.
      What are you seeing specifically?

      • Hunter,

        Look at the highlighted bits. A few say “highly unlikely” or something similar. In those cases it would be fair to treat disdainfully those who trumpet those hypothetical disasters (like the Greenland icecap melting) while invoking the consensus. But most say “low confidence” or something similar. In other words, they don’t know one way or the other. So to raise the possibility of such occurrences is in no way inconsistent with the consensus, even though it may show an appalling lack of perspective.

        I apologize for being coy in my original comment. I guess I allowed my annoyance to control what I wrote.

      • Mike M.
        What I notice is no significant negative outcomes from the so-called climate crisis is highly likely or confidently predicted. None.
        It is all anthropomorphic, not anthropogenic.

      • Hunter,

        An alarmist would say that with respect to the catastrophic consequences it is not enough to say that we don’t know that they will happen, we have to be able to say that we know they won’t happen. There is some justification for that, but I find it blinkered since they focus on only one possible source of surprise events.

        Working group 2 seems to think there are a lot of less dramatic negative consequences which they think are likely. I’m doubtful of most of them since they seem to be based on the most questionable aspects of the models.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s