http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/op-ed-epa-to-make-climate-change-scenarios-nicer/article/551712

Op-Ed: EPA to make climate change scenarios ‘nicer’

Posted Jun 10, 2019 by Paul Wallis
Andrew Wheeler, the head of the EPA, is worrying about climate change getting bad press. The National Climate Assessment, endorsed by Congress and 12 Federal agencies, is apparently part of the problem.
File photo: EPA s Andrew Wheeler is a former coal lobbyist.
File photo: EPA's Andrew Wheeler is a former coal lobbyist.
EPA
Mr. Wheeler is proposing to “re-examine comprehensive modeling that best reflects the actual state of climate science.” IPCC model Representative Concentration Pathway(RCP) 8.5 is a primary issue. This scenario indicates a lack of curbs on fossil fuel emissions, high population growth, and low-income growth. It seems that’s a bit too negative for Mr Wheeler’s tastes. The problem with RCP 8.5 is that it also leads to a game over the scenario of temperature rises of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius. That’s not exactly sparkling news, either.
So the idea is to take a totally different tack, re-evaluate the scenarios, and come up with something “realistic”. It’s a noble thought. Imagine a world based on realistic assessments of ongoing catastrophes, like the kind that are already costing billions of dollars in lost crops, flood damage, etc. How inspiring it would be.
…Particularly inspiring, in fact, for those not attached in any sense to this world. Imagine skipping daintily among fun stats, tripping lightly over disaster recovery issues, and staying entirely focused on a version of climate change which equates to a press release by a PR agency.
Hard to imagine a more factual approach, isn’t it? Who needs decades of damage and ongoing environmental crashes as points of reference? Particularly when you can tidy it all up with something which says things aren’t as bad as all that.
As a matter of fact, (that unfashionable thing) RCP 8.5 is so far right on the money as the working model, not just the worst case scenario. Nothing of note is being done about emissions. They should have been phased out 20 years ago, but of course that would have involved some sort of mental activity, so that was never going to happen.
Suggested criteria for “realistic” climate evaluation
Since that naughty climate is being so uncooperative:
1. Let’s see a report from anywhere on the ground that says local climate is normal, anywhere.
2. Let’s have a weather study from anywhere in the world over the last 5 years which doesn’t show major fluctuations.
3. How about something that says the Arctic Circle isn’t about 10C above normal and that the Arctic isn’t turning in to a completely different place?
4. Some nice reassuring data from places like Australia, where one of the worst droughts in history is obliterating agricultural businesses.
5. The good news from Brazil, which has now cleared forest to expose vast areas of some of the least productive soils in the world.
6. A good reason to believe that the big heat waves of the last 5 years didn’t happen and India isn’t getting cooked right now.
7. New, exciting data that says putting 16 billion tons of carbon particulates and CO2 in to the atmosphere is good for anyone’s health and isn’t way above safe levels.
8. How about a nice series of reports that all the new invasive insects, plants, animals, etc. don’t exist?
9. Better still – A report that says the oceans are full of fish, not toxic bottom feeders full of contaminants and plastics.
10. The possible impending crash of global civilization in the next 30 years or so can be made a fun thing. You could have a theme park or something.
It’s a huge, exciting palette to work with, isn’t it? I can see a lot of steely-eyed, craggy jawed grovelling heroes hiding in their cubicles and producing tonnages of wonderful crap for the bots to disseminate. Why not have psychological pollution to go with the other kind, anyway?
…Or just stupid?
The EPA is hardly the only agency now treading the primrose path of species-suicidal euphemisms. Around the world, tireless elite morons are producing anti-information which says nothing of any use at all about any of the issues. No real-world situations are addressed in any sense.
The overriding theme of this drivel is that there isn’t a problem, and if there is one, it’s nothing to do with whoever’s producing the useless garbage, anyway. Things are fine in the goldfish bowl, and that’s that.
The fact that never-ending reports from around the world say the exact opposite about the entire world environment is hardly worth mentioning. Why introduce any actual information into the equation, anyway?
This is much the same approach to reality as the Bourbons before the French Revolution, and the Romanovs just before the Russian revolution. Everything’s fine, nothing to worry about was the one and only message.
People just don’t understand how tough it is to be rich, highly privileged and totally ignorant on all subjects, particularly life and death matters. Imagine having to be a total ignoramus on the most obvious subjects, every day of your life. It ain’t easy.
That strategy worked, brilliantly for those people. They refused to do a damn thing about their various disasters and were soon exterminated. Problem solved, for everyone. Climate change denial is effectively the same thing as “Let them eat cake!” The overall result with climate is likely to be much the same, and just as unnecessarily hideous in its outcomes.
The degree of stupidity required to take this position, however, is worthy of note. Historically, failure to deal with problems leads to regime change. The regime, which is supposed to be comprised of highly educated people, therefore does the exact opposite of what it needs to do to survive, at the expense of the entire human species, in this case. How stupid? That stupid.
Or to put it another way – Stick that up your surveillance society pipe and see what comes out.