lee wrote on May 26
th, 2026 at 4:28pm:
You may also not be aware that the IPCC has recently dropped RCP
8.8 and SSP8.5 from its list of scenarios, so that means they are dead, debunked, not a part of the climate anymore.
lee wrote on May 26
th, 2026 at 4:51pm:
freediver wrote on May 26
th, 2026 at 4:32pm:
The earth was cooling very slowly prior to AGW. This had been going on for about 6500 years. Depending on the averaging you use, the earth started warming again due to AGW some time between 1850 and 1920, with most of the warming since about 1980. Without fossil fuel burning, the earth would most likely still be cooling, so all of the warming (and then some) is attributable to human effects.
Nope. That is the theory. So to you there is no natural variation in climate?
lee wrote on May 26
th, 2026 at 4:51pm:
freediver wrote on May 26
th, 2026 at 4:32pm:
These are scenarios for how much we emit. It looks like we are never going to emit that much.
Therefore, the prognostications were bogus, and have been called bogus for many years. Based mostly on the availability of coal which was supposed to keep on increasing up to 2100.
freediver wrote on May 27
th, 2026 at 3:45pm:
Quote:No. I wanted you to prove, or try, to prove your point.
The point was bleeding obvious, but went way over your head: contrary to your liberal party spin doctoring, actual climate change has been pretty much in line with the mid range IPCC predictions. You can confirm this yourself: simply leave the Liberal party website or whatever moronic echo chamber you are getting your posts from, read the first IPCC predictions yourself, then compare them with the last 40 years of climate data.
How exactly did you think you would encourage me to prove my point by asking me why I believe the opposite of what I posted?
freediver wrote on May 28
th, 2026 at 6:56am:
Quote:Nope. They were not.
from Nick Stokes - climate alarmist -
Did you look at your own evidence Lee? It shows emissions already well below RCP 8.5, with an almost flat trend. There is a reason why RCP8.5 has been pretty much universally abandoned by anyone with an ounce of common sense. And it has nothing to do with "debunking" climate science, as you and all the other liberal party clingons like to claim.
freediver wrote on May 28
th, 2026 at 3:48pm:
Quote:The science as predicted, postulated, forecast by RCP8.5 has definitely been debunked.
It is the same science Lee. Contrary to liberal party propaganda, climate science is not about predicting human activity. It is about predicting the consequences. The same science used to predict the consequences of RCP8.5 level GHG emissions is used to predict the consequence of all the other rates of GHG emissions.
Do you think this idiotic propaganda might cease once the liberal party is dead and buried?
freediver wrote on May 28
th, 2026 at 7:00pm:
lee wrote on May 28
th, 2026 at 4:51pm:
Ah, that must be why the majority of "climate scientists" did their predictions, postulation, on RCP8.5.
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.
lee wrote on May 29
th, 2026 at 1:05pm:
freediver wrote on May 28
th, 2026 at 8:50pm:
Are you trying to say something Lee?
I am merely pointing out you are wrong and trying to get you to tell us where you got this wrong information.
What am I wrong about Lee? You can confirm everything I said, and clearly demonstrate that you were confused about RCP 8.5 somehow debunking the science, in about 20 seconds on google.
Did you make up the claim that the abandonment of RCP 8.5 has debunked the science, or copy and paste it from somewhere?
Forum
Pages: 1
RCP 8.5 (Read 160 times)
