Climate Change – “The Science”

February 25, 2024 rjdavison

OPPS-29 – Climate Change – The Science Download PDF

OPPS-29 There are three main components to “the science” used by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist community to push their simplistic, unscientific narrative (effectively All CO₂, All the time!). All three of those components (listed below) fail miserably when it comes to supporting the CAGW alarmist platform. One of the support pillars does not exist, one has been blown up from the inside and the third has been battered and broken by the empirical data. CO₂ is a minor player at best despite the alarmists’ insistence to the contrary (CSS-53 – CO₂’s Moneyball Moment).

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

Humanity (primarily through CO₂ emissions) is responsible for virtually all the Global Warming (synonymous with ‘Climate Change/Emergency/Latest Scary Descriptor’ and CO₂) since the pre-industrial era. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the empirical CO₂/Temperature data showing CO₂ drives the ‘climate’ does not exist!
Computer models provide all the fodder for the numerous catastrophic climate projections (temperature/sea level rise, drought/flooding, extreme cold/heat, more and more severe natural disasters (hurricanes, fires, etc.), racism, inflation, etc., etc.) that will destroy the planet and lead to our near future extinction. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the programmers have self-declared that the models run way too hot and the higher end emission scenarios used (deemed to be business-as-usual) are implausible at best!
Every extreme weather event from around the world is put forward by politicians and their media/academic minions as evidence of ‘Climate Change’ (in its entirety or through the latest propaganda tool (attribution studies)). Unfortunately for the alarmists, extreme weather events globally have been statistically flat or declining as CO₂ concentrations have been rising!

This One Page Political Summary (OPPS) could just have easily been included in the non-political category. The statements made here are backed up by empirical data (and expanded upon) by the links included in this post. CO₂ is not the primary climate driver, the computer models cannot history match the Modern Temperature Record effectively (let alone the last few millennia or the future) and our global climate has been improving not deteriorating over the last few centuries. Isolated localities may have experienced some tragic extreme weather events, but the global trends are not rising (they are in most cases declining) with atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. For example, Canada’s 2023 forest fires (18.5 MH burnt) were a post 1980 record (but were an anomaly, not part of a trend). Those levels while tragic were significantly less than the 112 MH that were burnt in Australia in 1974. The alarmist community routinely looks at events in isolation, ignores the many, more dominant natural forcings, or cherry picks the trends and time periods that support the narrative.

“The Science” they follow is designed to and is leading us down a path to totalitarianism whether you realize it or not. There is no reasonable scientific or economic rationale for following this path. Back in December 2019, I put out a post (OPPS-4 – Climate Change – 3 Pillars) that used a similar but broader analogy based on the Scientific, Economic and Political support used to justify the CAGW alarmist narrative. Structurally little has changed since that post, but the taxpayer’s expected costs ($1 trillion/year at the time) have risen substantially to the $10 trillion/year range.

The increasingly obvious and unnecessary hit to our pocketbooks is waking up the average citizen. Along with the very real energy, food, supply chain, inflation, etc. crises playing out already (and set to intensify), the people and even some of the corporate and political establishment are starting to express some doubts. This is no cause to celebrate, but JP Morgan Chase ($3.1 trillion) and State Street ($4.2 trillion)) have both quit the Climate Action 100+ group (CA100+). BlackRock (representing an additional $6.6 trillion) also took a major step back (leaving just its international arm as a group member). A fourth mega investment firm (Vanguard) has never been a member of CA100+ and recently pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative (another Marxist tool). Small steps in the right direction but there are still question marks associated with their motives.

Someday we will move back towards proper scientific and economic analysis and away from ideology. How long that takes, is in the voter’s hands (Europe: this summer, the US: this fall and Canada: next year (hopefully sooner)). For our children’s and grandchildren’s future, the sooner, the better. Here are some additional articles/papers/posts that provide further context to this discussion.