Latest haul of RCP8.5 headlines
Catnip for the climate beat and utterly irresponsible
Catnip for the climate beat and utterly irresponsible
The same group did the same analysis with the same conclusions based on RCP8.5 in 2015
Rinse, repeat
The exploitation of shoddy, inattentive peer-review processes by climate advocacy groups is extremely well done
Props to their cleverness
But that really shouldn’t happen
Rinse, repeat
The exploitation of shoddy, inattentive peer-review processes by climate advocacy groups is extremely well done
Props to their cleverness
But that really shouldn’t happen
Some text peer reviewers can use when reviewing RCP8.5 (& similar) studies:
“RCP8.5 may have appropriate uses as an extreme, exploratory, implausible scenario, but it is absolutely and undeniably inappropriate to use to generate plausible or likely projections of the future.”
“RCP8.5 may have appropriate uses as an extreme, exploratory, implausible scenario, but it is absolutely and undeniably inappropriate to use to generate plausible or likely projections of the future.”
Who in the world thinks that that in 100-500 years the world will look exactly the same except for RCP8.5 sea level rise?
Are we really that gullible?
Are we really that gullible?
It's not just RCP8.5 (which is bad enough)
How in the world does this statement get thru peer review?
Consider Manhattan over ~500 yrs
Who thinks it'll be mostly the same in 2521 except for sea level rise?
How in the world does this statement get thru peer review?
Consider Manhattan over ~500 yrs
Who thinks it'll be mostly the same in 2521 except for sea level rise?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
