re: #617 Bagua

There were no exaggerations. Yes yes I know you like to call me not a scientist, so once again, here are all the facts, verifiable scientific facts that were in the post that you ignored.

IPCC was not all bad, it was not all grey literature and it was not faulty in its science. What it was was incomplete.

It did not take methane or non-linear ice melts into account.

That made it lowball.

Everything else it said was basically correct - in the science portion. The executive summary portion was of course the product of politcal wrangling over the language.

I pointed it out with a dozen papers to back me at the time.

Charles posted at least five threads on these points.

Now as to the billions dying, well what is the result of a 1.5 to 2 meter sea level rise (that is what you get when you include the melts and the methane) coupled with a massive reduction in food and fresh water supply?

And on the thread downstairs were the papers about changing food production and loss of crops. America alone is looking at from temperature rise alone, and not taking rainfall loss into account a 60% drop in food production based on mid range projections.

Throw the rainfall loss in as well and it could easily get as high as 90% less food production in this nation by 2100.

What about disease vectors changing as bugs and vermin migrate?

I have posted many papers on that as well.

So what do billions of people world wide, without adequate food, fresh water or shelter, subject to disease migrations add up to?

Billions of deaths.

Those are the facts.