More Scientific Inaccuracies (and deceptions)

There’s been a “rebuttal” of sorts to the recent “Uninhabited Earth” article published by the New York Magazine.

Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on “The Uninhabitable Earth” gets wrong

I read through this collection of comments and the stunning denial of reality was atypical – of the general public, but scientists? Seriously? Clearly, they’re responding exactly like the general public does, reactionary, cherry-picking and denying their own previously published comments. What does this mean? Hard to say, I’d like to see where these reviewers get (all) their paychecks from. Especially now that the Trump Administration has basically ordered that the topic of climate change to be taboo.

I read the Uninhabited Earth article, thoroughly – and found it under-reporting the expected severity of climate change (according to my own rather extensive research on this topic). The impacts upon civilization will be significantly WORSE then reported according to all of the data and evidence I have accumulated. I’m not being paid by anyone to write and research this, and never have.

What I find interesting is how there is an obvious effort to downplay the expected effects from global warming – and what it really means to civilization and the future of our species. There does seem to be a real agenda at work here – please see this article, which is also chock-full of astounding inaccuracies, assumptions, hopium and techno-wizardy ‘fixes’ (that don’t exist) from real scientists: Why global emissions must peak by 2020

These science authors are wrong – on EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. Easily proven. Readers MUST understand that some of their claims are simply made up bullshit.

This was a truly terrible article. Inaccurate, presumptive and fanciful thinking (I’m being generous here).

a) The alleged ‘landmark’ Paris Agreement has accomplished almost nothing in the real world.
b) Current temperature increases have already exceeded 1.4°C.
c) Global emissions ‘peaking’ by 2020 is based on pure imagination (zero facts). No country on Earth is going to do this.
d) Lag time temperature increases are uncounted and ignored.
e) Critical tipping points have obviously already occurred.
f) Fusion is imaginary salvation and does not address the energy consumption of civilization (perpetuates consumption).
g) Warming ‘below 2°C’ is factually not stoppable by any means.
h) There is no carbon budget left – as accelerated warming factually demonstrates.
i) It is not possible to meet the Paris temperature goals – and never was.
j) Alternative energy creates carbon emissions too – perpetuating civilization’s consumption, growth, resource use. Alternative energy creation remains heavily reliant upon fossil fuels and always will.
k) If this is the best ‘science’ can envision, we’re in severe trouble. This article is grossly inaccurate and misleading. Intentional? Ignorance? Naivety? Or?

I fail to see the point to this article at all. It’s simply wrong – on every single point. Because it was written by scientist, this is truly alarming.

Now, returning to the other article, “The Uninhabitable Earth” and the so-called “rebuttal by science”, it is very interesting to see – once again, that the scientists are making the SAME MISTAKES they’ve always made. That is, they are claiming that the “science does not support this” with the evidence currently accepted. That is the key here – and something that must be well understood.

The current accepted science has CONSISTENTLY and SERIOUSLY under-estimated the effects being measured by a warming planet. It takes YEARS for papers to be written, peer reviewed and published (a good reason why the IPCC is woefully obsolete in ALL of its publication). And yet, their non-peer reviewed “commentary” is now supposed to be taken as “better” evidence and more accurate claims. This is utterly ridiculous, but it does reveal some very serious problems within the scientific community.

Climate and earth science is having to constantly update their reviews and revisions of published estimates – as their record clearly shows. Warming is always “worse then expected” and “happening faster then estimated”. This is exactly the problem Mann and others have had since forever. So when they say that the “science does not support this”, what they are really saying is WE do not support this because we have consistently failed to grasp the severity and speed of global warming (but listen to us now…). Frankly, no. These unsubstantiated comments are actually not supported and they do not agree with the known acceleration and actual measurements.

I think it is very important to make a copy of this “rebuttal by science” – because we’re going to shove their words right back at them as the world warms up faster and worse then they “expected”.

They don’t have a CLUE about how this is going to affect civilization. I have not found a single scientist that understands this. Not one, and I have looked for intelligent life on this topic for years. They seem to think that all the food comes from supermarkets and that technology will be the panacea “just in time” in every situation. Their failure to grasp the scale and scope of this issues is truly astounding, and it was one of the reasons I began to design a project towards human survival.

The Uninhabited Earth article is not “high-end” estimate in reality – it’s middle-of-the-road estimate, but is being misinterpreted as “worse-case scenario”, but this is claim is also inaccurate. No, it’s worse then this as some of the science already shows.

I find some climate scientists to be seriously under-informed on the state of the Earth and the current measurements, their significance and speed. They still do not grasp the true effects and meaning of what these temperature rises will mean to humanity, civilization and all life on Earth (which is why you’ll still often read of the bogus “2°C limit” in a great many publications). I have (finally) come to realize that they are woefully under-educated on the topic of saving civilization. They have no idea. They are the wrong experts to be asking these questions.

I have posted suggestions on how to solve the climate crisis deadlock. Some of the biggest failures now are coming right from the climate science community. They do not believe their own results – and certainly do not act or behave like they believe the results.

For this reason, they are failing the world badly at a very critical time – and so are we, by failing to move on to the real experts (not me). So expecting the ‘scientists to review the claims in the article’ and expect honest answers is failing to realize that they are going to do what every group does – act / respond in self-preservation fashion. Don’t let the horrifying truth leak out. They have failed us – by failing to warn the world sufficiently that we are now in severe peril.