This is something we Skeptics have known since the very beginning.
IPCC isn't a neutral entity. It was created to sell the public that AGW is real. AGW theory says humans are 100% responsible for all warming since... some ever-changing date, usually 1850. Sometimes 1880, 1900 or 1950 or 1980 even.
But their reports are generally proper analysis of other scientific reports which may or may not be credible.
The trick is: the in-depth analysis is scientific, they use accurate terms like "unlikely" or "highly unlikely" which have specific % chances attached to them. "Lowest confidence" iirc is the last step before "no way Jose" and represents around 2%.
BUT when the "summary" of the report is given? The Overview? It makes it sound like these low chances are MUCH higher because non-scientific language is used on purpose to obfuscate their findings. So a 7% chance ("low confidence" iirc) suddenly becomes "could happen" or "is predicted to happen" which sounds like a high % chance. Maybe even over 50%... to the idiot Alarmists, "journalists" and Leftists who refuse to hear anything but their own dogma.
IPCC has wildly implausible doomsday scenarios, but no wildly optimistic ones. That's how you know it's political.
Where's the scenario where we develop fusion and have -4 C by 2100?
Or even the one where we get 1/4 price nontoxic sodium batteries and it's cheaper to power every home with solar than just maintaining an electric grid? Roofing materials that reradiate heat at wavelengths not reflected back? Sonic solid-state heat pumps?
It's just crazy to think technology won't radically change the outcomes, but they don't mention technology at all except in delivering current tech to poor countries.
They're effectively professional Malthusian economists. "Everyone will run out of food, and starve to death in a generation at most. Total doom of the species. Why live, just to suffer? What do you mean, minor technological improvements disprove our entire thesis?! Stop making minor incremental improvements to processes and infrastructure, you're making me look a fool!"
IPCC has always been a crock. They use phony accounting formulas to estimate carbon emissions rather than actual carbon emissions... accounting formulas that every regulatory body has held are criminal fraud because of how phony they are.
On top of that, the IPCC refuses to set a target CO2 PPM. They claim it would be improper because they say themselves that they're not a scientific body, merely an intergovernmental panel. It's a pure crock of shit. They were always a scam.
This is something we Skeptics have known since the very beginning.
IPCC isn't a neutral entity. It was created to sell the public that AGW is real. AGW theory says humans are 100% responsible for all warming since... some ever-changing date, usually 1850. Sometimes 1880, 1900 or 1950 or 1980 even.
But their reports are generally proper analysis of other scientific reports which may or may not be credible.
The trick is: the in-depth analysis is scientific, they use accurate terms like "unlikely" or "highly unlikely" which have specific % chances attached to them. "Lowest confidence" iirc is the last step before "no way Jose" and represents around 2%.
BUT when the "summary" of the report is given? The Overview? It makes it sound like these low chances are MUCH higher because non-scientific language is used on purpose to obfuscate their findings. So a 7% chance ("low confidence" iirc) suddenly becomes "could happen" or "is predicted to happen" which sounds like a high % chance. Maybe even over 50%... to the idiot Alarmists, "journalists" and Leftists who refuse to hear anything but their own dogma.
IPCC has wildly implausible doomsday scenarios, but no wildly optimistic ones. That's how you know it's political.
Where's the scenario where we develop fusion and have -4 C by 2100?
Or even the one where we get 1/4 price nontoxic sodium batteries and it's cheaper to power every home with solar than just maintaining an electric grid? Roofing materials that reradiate heat at wavelengths not reflected back? Sonic solid-state heat pumps?
It's just crazy to think technology won't radically change the outcomes, but they don't mention technology at all except in delivering current tech to poor countries.
They're effectively professional Malthusian economists. "Everyone will run out of food, and starve to death in a generation at most. Total doom of the species. Why live, just to suffer? What do you mean, minor technological improvements disprove our entire thesis?! Stop making minor incremental improvements to processes and infrastructure, you're making me look a fool!"
IPCC has always been a crock. They use phony accounting formulas to estimate carbon emissions rather than actual carbon emissions... accounting formulas that every regulatory body has held are criminal fraud because of how phony they are.
On top of that, the IPCC refuses to set a target CO2 PPM. They claim it would be improper because they say themselves that they're not a scientific body, merely an intergovernmental panel. It's a pure crock of shit. They were always a scam.