https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set-to-reach-a-new-high-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-

https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set-to-reach-a-new-high-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set... Global coal use is set to rise by 1.2% in 2022, surpassing 8 billion tonnes in a single year for the first time and eclipsing the previous record set in 2013, according to Coal 2022, the IEA’s latest annual market report on the sector. Based on current market trends, the report forecasts that coal consumption will then remain flat at that level through 2025 as declines in mature markets are offset by continued robust demand in emerging Asian economies That was 2022, a year in which Europe had to increase coal usage for the first time in a long time due to exploding natural gas pipelines and Germany shutting down nuclear power. Even in that extreme and unprecedented situation, the world managed only a 1.2% increase in coal usage. In other years coal usage fell or was flat. A 500% increase is a fantasy and everyone who looks at it for even a split second knows it. The complaint isn't the name of the worst case scenario. That's just an example. This scenario is routinely used as the basis for "climate crisis" claims, so it's not merely a naming issue either. The complaint is about the overall duplicity and manipulative nature of what this field produces. >> An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it. https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/slide1.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04... But bear in mind that even this sort of graph can be misleading, because it assumes the relation between temperature and the effect on the climate is understood. It actually isn't. BTW, you say "it's actually not really relevant to what I asked" but you originally said "we're on track for the more pessimistic paths" and it was meant to show that although this claim is often made, it's not really right. The more pessimistic path is implausible and has been for a long time.