Tom Lubnau: When Scientific Model Is Criticized, Keep Model And Change The Name!

In December of last year, this column discussed how climate modeling used by policy makers in Washington, D.C. did not reflect reality. As a result, the environmental policy espoused by the government has little touch with the real world.

The model used by climate activists and bureaucrats for making policy decisions is a model called  RCP8.5  (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).

RCP8.5 assumes the sources and uses of energy, and then based on those assumptions, predicts the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The RCP models of carbon dioxide concentration range from very low (RCP2.6) to very high RCP8.5.  The RCP8.5 model is out of date, and has been for a long time.

According to Dr Roger Pielke, Jr., RCP8.5 assumes that per capita global coal consumption will increase more than six times that the coal consumed in 2020.

Intuitively, that would mean coal companies in Wyoming, by the end of the century, would be producing more than six times the coal they produced in 2020.  Few renewable or carbon mitigation strategies are considered by the model.  

Wyoming employment numbers clearly demonstrate the decline in coal production.

In the May 2024 issue of the Wyoming Insight is available at the State of Wyoming's Economic Analysis website, total employment has surpassed pre-covid levels, but employment in the mining sector has still not fully recovered," said Dylan Bainer. “Compared to February 2020, total employment in April 2024 was up 4,400 jobs, but employment in the mining sector was down 3,400 jobs.”

A model that assumes increased coal usage is clearly not reflective of reality. Criticism of the RCP 8.5 model has become widespread with members of the climate science community who want policy to be based on accurate science.

In a June 2024 article, entitled “Climate Science is About to Make a Huge Mistake, It is déjà vu all over again”, Roger Pielke points out the inaccuracy of the model.  As the graph demonstrates, the model relied upon by the IPCC is not reflective of the true results observed.

Given the RCP 8.5 model not being reflective of reality, what has the reaction been of some climate scientists? Simple, if the model is not reflective of reality – use the same model and change the name of the model to something else.

In a 2024 report, several climate scientists have suggested the “Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)” name be changed to the “Represented Emission Profile (REM).”  And, just as was done with RCP 8.5, the scientists recommend the REM model be divorced from any underlying socioeconomic indicators.

Why would responsible scientists recommend a model divorce from reality?

Pielke argues in his June 2024 article “the interests of the earth system modeling community are in conflict with the needs of policy makers, and the modelers have decided to prioritize their interests over the needs of policy. It’d be nice if these interests were identical, but they are not — and to be fair, no one should expect a group of scientists to decide their priorities any differently.”

Pielke points out the new REM model looks pretty much like the much-criticized RCP 8.5 model. 

The scenario’s proposed by the REM model do not reflect reality. 

Policy makers should rely on science to make good policy.  Scientists should utilize the scientific method to create good science.

In this case, the tail is wagging the dog. Policy makers are setting policy based on fanciful scientific models. And, as a result, millions of dollars are being sent to scientists who create the results the policy makers crave.

Based on questionable science, the average citizen is ceding more and more control to climate policy makers based models which do not reflect of the world as it is. Huge economic shifts and changes who has power over our daily lives are being driven by climate models which do not accurately predict anthropogenic changes. 

Lost in the mix are the hard-working people in the carbon fuels industry who are losing their ability to feed their families.

And what is the response of the politically active climate scientists to the model not being reflective of reality – to perfume the pig by changing the name of the model.

Until our policy is based on actual science, reflective of the world as it is, we will all be victims of bureaucrats with agendas.

Tom Lubnau served in the Wyoming Legislature from 2005 - 2015 and is a former Speaker of the House.

He can be reached at: YourInputAppreciated@gmail.com