BTW - according to wiki the RCP scenarios came into being in 2014. which is after 2013. So that graph was merely hindcasting.

"The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) began to use these four pathways for climate modeling and research in 2014"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2026 at 2:39pm:



The science as predicted, postulated, forecast by RCP8.5 has definitely been debunked. It was obvious from 2013 that it wasn't plausible, before they even started using it.

Why won't you tell us where you get your ideas from?
And of course comparing to the assumptions of the past, show they were out of whack too. Why did it take 13 years to remove it?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2026 at 3:48pm:



Ah, that must be why the majority of "climate scientists" did their predictions, postulation, on RCP8.5.

You still haven't told us where you got theory from. Scared of being lampooned?

So it was science what got them to RCP8.5 and the supposed consequences, based on two to three times coal use by mid century.

lee wrote on May 28^th, 2026 at 4:51pm:


No they didn't. The majority of them abandoned RCP 8.5. The majority of them took the mid range prediction to be the mid range prediction.

The liberal party merely told whatever morons would believe them that the majority of scientists mistook the worst case scenerio for anything but the worst case scenario. And the morons did not even realise that RCP 8.5 was an assumption emissions levels.

This is why so few people vote liberal. They don't like being lied to. Well, most people don't, at least.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2026 at 7:00pm:


That must be why according to AI that there have been over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers in the last 10 years.

And you still haven't told us where you get your beliefs.

Quote:


The Teal party should call themselves rich white Karens.

They do as Simon says

Medieval apocalypticism held out the promise of a Beautiful Ending: the millennium, the reign of the saints, the New Jerusalem. Marxism preserved that structure: the dictatorship of the proletariat would culminate in eternal abundance.

But in climate catastrophism, the utopian horizon has withered away. And because the positive vision is so threadbare, while the visions of devastation are so overwhelming, the movement’s emotional grammar is saturated with rage: rage at those who refuse to submit, rage at those who continue to doubt, rage at those who stand in the way.

Little wonder climate activists deride democracy. Instead of medieval apocalypticism’s Beautiful Ending, climate catastrophism offers only Dutiful Compliance – the insistence, echoing Marxism, that humanity can be saved solely through obedience to science’s supposedly inexorable laws, as interpreted by its infallible prophets. The science is in; the messy trade-offs that are democracy’s way of managing complex and contentious issues are out – with raising them akin to apostasy.

These are, in other words, true fanatics, willing, in Voltaire’s words, “to inundate the world with blood for the sake of unintelligible sophisms”. That the Greens can be climate extremists one day and admirers of Hamas’s death cult the next is therefore hardly surprising.

Therein, 20 years later, lies the tragedy. Science hasn’t killed apocalypticism or curbed its dangers; it has merely dressed the apocalyptic delusions in new robes. And the civilisation that believed it had escaped the “ravings of Oracles and Seers” has ended by canonising them anew – with Al Gore as their most enriched and exalted evangelist.
ibid.

Quote:


They say that the red of the Liberals mixed with the Green of the greens to form teal.

Problem is and likely more accurate politically is that the fact is mixing red with green makes a rather ugly muted brown.

Great start for a political party that believe people are stupid and will believe anything and have concreted that into their brand.