Donna Laframboise: "RCP8.5, I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophecy" - "Fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100."
It can’t become reality, they point out, unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do, “an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves.” Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned, they say, it should be clearly labelled as an “unlikely worst case.”
Incredibly, that ‘major scientific report’ (National Climate Assessment) takes RCP8.5 seriously. Calling it a “core scenario,” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination:
"RCP8.5 is generally associated with higher population growth, less technological innovation, and higher carbon intensity of the global energy mix."
This means the report is junk. No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation. But the New York Times didn’t tell readers that.
Morano: "When will GOP officials take a real stand and push back on climate claims and the National Climate Assessment? Since EPA chief Pruitt left, Only Prez Trump himself does so. Every Trump cabinet head ducks the science. So disappointing. Why can't Pence actually turn the tables on CNN and answer and refute the predictable questions. I hate to see Tapper feel like he had 'tough' questions when in reality they were actually drivel."
Hayhoe said she would work in a different industry if money were a primary concern but admitted that she does for-profit “climate-focused consulting” while she is not teaching. She is the Founder and CEO of ATMOS Research & Consulting, whose listed clients include the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Federal Highway Administration.
Hayhoe did not immediately return a Western Wire email seeking comment.
In response, Pielke said, “It wasn’t disclosed… It just creates unnecessary vulnerabilities for the national climate assessment.”
Pielke added that he has “catalogued a whole range of issues—from relying on Tom Steyer-funded research, to elevating the most extreme case, to having a review editor who used to be John Podesta’s chief climate advisor, now to the lead scientist having these undisclosed conflicts of interest. These are all things that should have been avoided.”