CNN publishing a piece which presents global warming predictions from statistical computer models as if they are “reality” is no more surprising than when they publish DNC issued talking points and call it news. (It does seem a little odd that someone over there considers global climate predictions appropriate fodder for the Health section. I guess it was a slow news day for essential oils and goat yoga.)
Here’s the lede:
By the end of the century, the global temperature is likely to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
In journalism school “likely” is apparently defined by “some people did some sketchy math and said so.”
One study used statistical analysis to show that there is a 95% chance that Earth will warm more than 2 degrees at century’s end, and a 1% chance that it’s below 1.5 C.
“The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0-4.9 [degrees Celsius] and our median forecast is 3.2 C,” said Adrian Raftery, author of the first study. “Our model is based on data which already show the effect of existing emission mitigation policies. Achieving the goal of less than 1.5 C warming will require carbon intensity to decline much faster than in the recent past.”
Another “study” apparently arrived at similar results using a different methods.
The second study analyzed past emissions of greenhouse gases and the burning of fossil fuels to show that even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about two more degrees by 2100. It also concluded that if emissions continue for 15 more years, which is more likely than a sudden stop, Earth’s global temperature could rise as much as 3 degrees.
“Even if we would stop burning fossil fuels today, then the Earth would continue to warm slowly,” said Thorsten Mauritsen, author of the second study. “It is this committed warming that we estimate.”
Taken together, the similar results present a grim reality.
The results of both studies—if they are accepted as credulously as they are by CNN—suggest that we must take extreme action. This was likely the intent of doing the “studies” (aka making guesses based on subjective computer models). We can’t eliminate carbon emissions fast enough. There’s no time to lose. Even if we act now we may not be able to save ourselves from destruction.
It seems rather convenient that the results line up perfectly with the environmental extremist political agenda. If they didn’t, they would obviously be politically motivated nonsense funded by Big Oil, but since they align perfectly with team Chicken Little’s priorities they are treated as completely objective and the product of a selfless effort by people who are so far above the rest of us that they have no political opinions that could possibly taint the results of their un-falsifiable number crunching.
It can’t be tested in a lab, but the green politicos will tell everyone that these results carry the same weight as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that global warming predictions from studies like these are almost always wrong.
This really does present a grim reality though. A reality where the media and the government treat untestable science treated as infallible and above skepticism.