Scott Adams has certainly been on a roll this week. In this Periscope, Scott concludes that “climate change models are a hoax” based on an article in Bloomberg. Bloomberg, as he correctly notes, is not a friend to conservatives.
In the article it is revealed that the worst-case climate models assume that the governments of the world go completely and insanely nuts in addressing climate change so that the resulting cooling causes energy produced from coal to go from 28% today to 94% in 2100. WOT?
The worst-case scenario is one of four siblings. Their names, from bad to worst, are RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5. They were introduced in 2011 as a way for researchers running different climate-economic models to do comparable studies regarding how high greenhouse gas concentrations might rise by 2100.
These four storylines range from a 2100 in which aggressive global climate policy leads to low warming, to one in which humanity digs up and burns anything that’ll catch fire.
ERMAGERD!TM. You can’t make this stuff up! As Scott correctly notes, in real business if you went to your boss and said the worst-case was something that any reasonable person would say is lunacy, you’d be immediately fired!
There simply is no justification for creating models like this (unless someone is paying you to do it and you get to laugh your butt off everyday!)
And if they “didn’t even try” (as Scott says) to get the worst-case models even remotely correct, how can we possibly believe anything else?
Some random climate scientist named Bas van Ruijven, a senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, outside Vienna, said “Humans are very hungry for energy. If renewables hit a wall, oil and gas dry up and we punt forever on climate change, we might well be excavating all the coal we can put our hands on.”