The self-abnegating suicide cult knows as “climate change” is facing new evidence that maybe the Mother Gaia spaceship isn’t coming after all:
Climate Change Just Got a Little Less Terrible
A new analysis rules out the worst case scenario. But without radical change, we’re still in plenty of danger.
There are some 20,000 research papers listed on Google Scholar, a search engine for academics, that mention the worst-case scenario for climate change, one where an overpopulated, technology-poor world digs up all the coal it can find. Basically, it’s the most cataclysmic estimate of global warming.
This scenario is important to scientists. It focuses minds on the unthinkable and how to avoid it. According to a provocative new analysis from the University of British Columbia, it’s also wrong.
This is good news…
Do tell! You can practically hear the hosannas from the poor polar bears, trapped upon melting ice floes and praying for deliverance. But you just know they’re not going to give up on their apocalyptic fantasy quite so easily:
… The researchers contend that current goals of reducing coal, oil and gas consumption may be closer than we think, thus allowing us to set the bar even higher in our efforts to reduce pollution. The bad news is that this is good news in the way a destabilizing climate-shift is preferable to planetary extinction: We are still in a lot of trouble. Nevertheless, if the study is verified by other scientists and catches a wave into the realm of policy makers, it could help accelerate initiatives to arrest global warming.
The basic issue has to do with coal. Quite simply, the more we burn, the faster we destroy the atmosphere. The darkest scenario assumes much more coal burning will take place in this century than is likely to happen, according to the study’s authors.
As national and state governments enact or update laws designed to lower emissions, policymakers rely on our evolving understanding of what’s happening to the world. If Ritchie and Dowlatabadi are right, and the very worst probabilities aren’t probable, then policymakers can set tighter goals at the same cost. By assuming that humanity, if left unchecked, would burn a lot more coal in the future, RCP8.5 may have wrongly limited the goals in our efforts to cut back.
In other words, the good news that “climate change” might not be as bad as these lunatics fear is actually bad news because it might be make sane people more sanguine about the future, but it’s actually good news in the end because even if things really aren’t getting that much worse, we can pretend that they are and continue our push to return society to the Stone Age.