The current definition of "fake news" is "news Trump doesn't want to be broadcast", which, to the extent it has any relationship to accuracy at all, is a positive relationship.
Yes, I saw that
Atlantic article when googling for articles that had criticisms of RCP 8.5, but went with the one that had more explicit criticisms.
This stood out to me, though:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Jackson via the Atlantic
“Even some [of the scenarios] for 3 degrees Celsius assume that at some point in the next 50 years, we will have large-scale industrial activities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” he said. “It’s a very dangerous game, I think. We’re assuming that this thing we can’t do today will somehow be possible and cheaper in the future. I believe in tech, but I don’t believe in magic.”
|
It's all fine and dandy to assume that technology will improve, but to build into the model that a
particular technology will be possible, developed, and funded by future people at a worldwide scale is a pretty big assumption in itself. If that assumption is built into any RCPs <8.5, then I don't see how 8.5 any less realistic than them. Trump is
reducing efficiency standards and deleting the words "climate change" from scientific reports.
And, of course, just as with the "we'll run out of fossil fuels" criticism from the Wikipedia page, it's not a critique that can be used effectively by AGW skeptics. If the claim is that we don't need to do something, you don't use a model where the assumption is that we do it.