Have you ever wondered why the Global Warming Climate Change sky has not fallen in. Climate scientists may have the answer as they ask the media for more accurate reporting of what they say

In Nature research journal, Not where you traditionally find balance climate arguments, the article [nature.com] raises some valid (and some weird) points, but this plea to journalists, and planners to get it right, is a useful tool if you want to understand why the media get it so very wrong.

Now I am on record that I think climate modeling is broken and is wrong, there is a lot of data we are missing, so we need to get the science right. As Richard Feynman said so well, "if the experiment (model) fails, then our best scientific theory is wrong, Back to the drawing board." Solar forcing is one example, and Its gratifying that they are at least including a small part in the next IPCC report . More work required, but its a start. and I am not here to decide on the whole of climate change. and I am not supporting the entire article. BUT !!! But if we are to understand the report, Maybe we can be better reasoned in our discussions. I consider education valuable.

Note: There are 4 models produced from RPC 2.6, which is a small change (we meet targets) , to RPC 8.5 which looks at high risk failure (in short nothing gets better.) dystopian future awaits. This last model is often called Business as Usual. But is it?

To get to RPC 8.5 we would not be business as usual, it is really a let's get weird scenario. to get to this state we need to increase coal use 5 times, make no improvements, Pollute the skies, use more dirty energy, and basically deplet all earths resources in just a decade ... Its not possible, yet alone likely.

The reality is 8.5 will not happen, it cannot. But this is the scenario used by: The media to report, Gretta to Rant, Town planners to build walled cities, and politicians to put the fear of mother nature into you (we seem to need new gods once we destroy the old ones). But its just not real, and this is why we don't see any evidence to match this model. The coasts are not flooded, the polar ice caps have not gone, and we live on.

But what about 2.6? Things get better, but over time, Why? We have cleaner fuels, more efficient cars, better living, more sustainable, because we like the nature, economy balance, and we make a better world. (see the pictures below on what that means. with real achievable, non economy destroying solutions, we can have a good world, and a good economy, and a good standard of living (and I get the odd nature hike in) . I can live with that. and I could be sold the benefits of that, Maybe we should promote this more.

By the way, The attached Picture (from the article) shows the International Energy Agency explanation, and likelihood modeling, it's an example. I am not agreeing with it. But shows how some scientists are using the data.

Knowing the four models may be helpful in understanding the science, But it won't help with the biased media, Political agendas or crazy planners, But maybe, we who are willing to think, May learn how to better discuss this "HOT Topic" (Pun Intended) based on reason, logic and information, and just maybe, Science may be willing to add her voice to the voice of reason. The data is in, the work is being done, the pendulum is swinging back. Its a good time for Science to put pop science aside, and get some real work done, and provide solutions that make all our lives better.

I hope this short mini science lesson helps you all, no matter which side of the debate you find yourself, and more importantly, you understand Science is not dead, maybe a little sick, but not dead. Reason still lives

So how do you think we can improve our world, and not wreck our economy?

What positive steps should we take, while not getting sucked into the pseudo-science debates?

How does truth win over emotion?

I would love your opinions, But would prefer Ideas. Questions are fine too.