Scientific American "The New Climate Data: So What?"

Mark Fischetti who is a senior editor at Scientific American and covers energy, environment and sustainability issues has written a rather cutting piece. I was surprised by the headline to say the least. As a group the popular “scientific” journals like New Scientist, Nature and Scientific American had been far from scientifically-sceptical. The article starts as would be expected:

After much anticipation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Friday revealed it’s new assessment of climate change.

Then after a lengthy regurgitation of  something the IPCC ate, comes the answer:

(last para) Policy. So will world leaders be more likely to act? …  “It is important to understand what really constitutes a threat,” said Pfeffer, also a lead IPCC author. “A half-meter rise in sea level will be very disruptive, but people may discount it because it’s not the dramatic worst-case scenario. The smaller predictions tend to get ignored.” And that, Pfeffer said, would be a costly mistake.
[THE END] (Source)

An article that asks a question would expect the conclusion to answer it. So I think it is reasonable to take the last few phrases as an answer:

So what?…

… “people may discount it because it’s not the dramatic worst-case scenario. The smaller predictions tend to get ignored.“

Changing the caveated scientific language to that which ordinary people would use I believe he is saying:

So what? … (He thinks) “people will discount the IPCC report because it’s not the dramatic worst-case scenario and it will get ignored.“

There are two things here. First is the tacit admission that journalists were in collusion to print “worst case scenarios” because they didn’t think anything less would be taken this seriously. And secondly he is all but admitting to himself that the IPCC “evidence” will be ignored.
So what? …So what!! ... does he think that is the end of it … the public will just accept that we have wasted £billions of our money on these idiotic carbon and wind policy and that we will now just go away and “ignore” the lack of science backing up all these “worst case scenarios”.
There is a public backlash coming!!!
There are people who have died because they cannot afford to heat their homes. There is an entire generation of green-consumerist school kids who have been taught nonsense propaganda about the climate and the evil of “industry” in the place of actual science and engineering. There are communities in the third world who are dying because research money that could have created early warning systems to warn them of (natural) severe weather has been wasted on selfish ego-centric climate “scientists” selling their “worst case scenario” delusions.
These people have been responsible for numerous deaths, for the destruction of UK industry and for misdirection of climatic research which could have saved millions of people worldwide.
And after all they have done, they are so heartless they ask: “so what?”