The church of climate change isn’t going to be happy with this one.
According to the Daily Caller News Foundation, noted climate scientist Judith Curry thinks that the climate change alarmists releasing doom and gloom predictions of climate catastrophes should take about 20 percent off of their hysterics:
“Projections of extreme, alarming impacts are very weakly justified to borderline impossible,” Curry told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Curry’s latest research, put together for clients of her consulting company near the end of November, looks in detail at projections of sea level rise. Curry’s ultimate conclusion: “Some of the worst-case scenarios strain credulity.”
“With regards to 21st century climate projections, we are dealing with deep uncertainty, and we should not be basing our policies based on the assumption that the climate will actually evolve as per predicted,” Curry told TheDCNF.
“Climate variability and change is a lot more complex than ‘CO2 as control knob’,” Curry said. “No one wants to hear this, or actually spend time understanding things,” Curry said.
This isn’t the first time a scientist has spoken out about alarmists putting false science and inaccurate predictions out for public consumption to panic over. This includes physicist William Happer who had to correct Bill Nye live on CNN about his ocean heating models, which Nye didn’t take well, demanding networks like CNN stop putting people like Happer — an actual scientist — on to give their opinions.
We can now add Curry to that list of those who called the latest alarmism “unlikely to impossible” according to the DCNF:
Alarming sea level rise predictions are based on “a cascade of extremely unlikely-to-impossible events using overly simplistic models of poorly understood processes,” Curry wrote in her report.
Current sea level rise is well-within natural variability of the past few thousand years, according to Curry. Curry said coastal communities should base their future flood plans on likely scenarios, such as one to two feet, rather than high-end scenarios.
“There is not yet any convincing evidence of a human fingerprint on global sea level rise, because of the large changes driven by natural variability,” Curry wrote. “An increase in the rate of global sea level rise since 1995 is being caused by ice loss from Greenland.”
These alarmist climate models should be called out for what they really are: Agenda-driven models.
That humans have an impact on the environment is more or less accepted by the general populace. The problem comes in trying to figure out how much we affect it and if that effect is at all dire. Getting down to the truth is difficult as the water is muddied with more activism than science.