The greatest imaginary menace in the history of mankind just got a whole heap more imaginary and menacing.

According to New Scientist:

The phrase “worse than we thought” is a cliché when it comes to climate change. There are lots of studies suggesting we’re in for more warming and worse consequences than thought, and few saying it won’t be as bad. But guess what: it’s worse than we thought.

A study of the future global economy has concluded that the standard worst-case scenario used by climate scientists is actually not the worst case.

Just in case any of you were worried about this, don’t be. As we learn further down this is based on a yet another study by parti-pris alarmists ramping up the climate change scare narrative using dodgy computer modeled projections of what might happen if all their parameters are correct (which they aren’t).

It says:

Results from this study suggest a greater than 35% probability that emissions concentrations will exceed those assumed in the most severe of the available climate change scenarios (RCP 8.5), illustrating particular importance for understanding extreme outcomes.

To which the only intelligent response is: so what?

Even if future industrial CO2 production does exceed even the upper limits in the alarmists’ computer projections, that’s by no means necessarily a disastrous scenario. In fact it’s probably a good one because emissions are closely linked with economic growth – and economic growth makes us happy and richer and gives us the stuff that we want. Also, by the by, it makes the planet more green – so what’s not to like?

Perhaps this desperate attempt at scaremongering would have more credibility if the alarmists’ computer modeled projections had any connection with observed reality. But they don’t – as one or two of the informed commenters at Watts Up With That? have noticed.

Note: what it’s saying is that the “worst case” EMISSIONS may be greater than predicted. Nothing about the climate change that might then ensue. That’s why they call it a climate change “scenario”, not “climate change” per se. Since for a while now emissions have been barrelling along and nothing’s happened significantly global-warming wise (but the planet is happily greening), I imagine they’re reluctant draw attention to that. Very cunning.

and

Of course real-world measurements show that temperature rise is barely on track for the RCP 2.6 scenario; the fantasy where all the governments of the world cooperatively apply punitive restrictions on CO2 emissions and revert their economies and standard of living to the early 19th century. And sea level rise is below the RCP 2.6 projection, despite none of the governments achieving their CO2 emissions targets and some, like the U.S., ignoring them altogether. In other words, with virtually nothing being done, global warming and its effects are much, MUCH less than the doomsayers had hoped for.

But why let facts get in the way of a good apocalyptic fable?

When amateurs on a blog know more about science than the guys on multi-million dollar grants at U.S. academic institutions informing global energy and environment policy, you know that the time has come to drain the swamp…