Article:
## Does this mean that climate scientists have been exaggerating the threat?
Yes, in fact it does. That’s what it means. Lame apologias consititute denialism
Article:
This is more about scientific assumptions added to a communications cawck-up. See footnote
Well, excuze… MEEEEE! But the science was settled. And 97% of all scientists (even non-climate scientists) said so.
Article:
Very few scientists realised that RCP8.5 was originally a 90th percentile outcome, not a most likely or business-as-usual outcome. They assumed too much, when they should perhaps have checked, say the authors of the review.
If they didn’t know what they were talking about or even knew what they thought they knew how could they call it settled? You’d think scientists of all people would be curious enough to know just what it is they’re being so sure of. Peer reviewed. Felonious balognias!
Research the 1960-early 1980’s All the climate talk was about the coming ice age. (And , no. It wasn’t any fringe thought. It was mainstream and pervasive.) How mankind’s actions were injecting so much particulates into the atmosphere it was blocking sunlight and dropping temps. And they had graphs and charts showing it. Now, it’s mankind’s actions are causing warming, and of course, the end is near and we’re all evil for 500 years of Human Progress. This “analysis” is right up there with the Noah’s Ark story in the Bible without the God part. I’ll bet they don’t even see it.
Footnote: The English use of the word in the article is a no-no in it’s common American English application and TMF wouldn’t let it through