By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
If you look carefully it turns out that the apocalyptic Climate Emergency narrative is an empty shell. Just what the looming catastrophe looks like is never explained. As the saying goes, there is no there, there. But there is a good reason for this carefully crafted silence, namely there is no plausible scenario whereby global catastrophe comes from global warming.
As the CLINTEL Manifesto points out, the emergency narrative is based on runaway computer models. As we know from video games, computer modelers can make their models do anything they want them to. The modelers are like fiction writers in this regard. Look at the past 150 years. The global temperature rose about 1 degree C, but the social and economic progress was spectacular. The global poverty was never as low as today. So, what is the problem?
The CLINTEL World Climate Declaration explains it this way: “Climate models systematically exaggerate future global warming (output of IPPC’s Working Group 1) and, based on this exaggeration, IPCC’s Working Group 2 forecasts that natural disasters will increase. However, when we look at reality, the true statistics of natural disasters show a very different picture. There is no evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike, or making them more frequent. On the contrary, in the past 100 years there has been a sharp decrease in climate-related deaths.”
When it comes to damages from this wrongly predicted global warming, the modelers have shown that their entirely speculative models can be pushed to do truly outlandish things. So called “tipping points” are especially prominent here. There is no empirical evidence that these imaginary tipping points actually exist.
The IPCC’s Working Group 1 is the primary source of the misguided climate emergency uprising, which has come on suddenly. Their October 2018 “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees C” (SR15) is consistently cited by those proclaiming an emergency. However, this report is based entirely on computer modeling which we know shows too much warming from fossil fuel emissions.
There are two reasons why SR15 exaggerates global warming. First, the models they use are far too sensitive to the slowly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Second, they use an incredibly unrealistic scenario for future CO2 emissions. As a result SR15 calls for a completely unsustainable reduction in CO2 emissions, which is the essence of the supposed emergency.
SR15 tells us that if we would go above 1.5 degree C global warming, climate-driven disasters will increase. So the message is: stay below this limit! Next we see that the completely unrealistic scenario RP 8.5 is declared as “business as usual’, meaning that if we do nothing we will go far above the safe limit of 1.5 and reach a global warming of about 5 degree C. So their message is: it is one minute to twelve. There is no time to loose for drastic mitigation measures.
The CLINTEL Manifesto puts it succinctly: “Looking at today’s panic, the mitigation target – 50% reduction of CO2 in 2030 – is unrealistic and irresponsible. It involves a hasty rebuilding of the entire energy system with unproven technologies. However, prosperity requires plentiful low-cost, reliable energy. Today’s mitigation policy means abandoning our proven low-cost energy system within a very short period. Poorly performing energy systems will inevitably lead to economic decline and increased poverty: “Back to the past”. Is mitigation not an immoral climate policy? Is climate adaptation not the fundament of development-aid?” The latter is an important message to the World Bank leaders.
Now the climate panic has gotten completely out of hand, going far beyond SR15 with proposals calling for even zero CO2 emissions in just ten years. This sort of drastic action would be unbelievably destructive for mankind if it were actually attempted. Calling for drastic immediate actions that far exceed the IPCC means there is no scientific support. The IPCC is unrealistic but these “action now” proposals like the Green New Deal are truly preposterous. The ‘action now people’ claim that the science is behind them and refer to SR15. The only sense in which the science is behind them is that they have left it far behind, so far it can’t even be seen.
In conclusion, there simply is no climate emergency. As the CLINTEL Manifesto explains, this is purely a computer driven fiction to scare the public. Even worse, they also try to frighten our children and grandchildren with their apocalyptic message. Model makers are running the climate show, which has now become a full scale panic.
The sensible policy is to pursue adaptation to climate change, whatever its form or cause. We cannot hastily restructure the physical foundations of our society from the ground up. But, even more important, why do it if is there no reason to do so.
David Wojick contributes Posts at the CFACT site. He is a journalist and policy analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.
Read more excellent articles at CFACT http://www.cfact.org/
Hifast
Sat 02/15/2020
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
LikeLike
pete olcott
Fri 02/14/2020
There are two key aspects to urgency. (1) Climate feedback that impacts such things as the rate of thawing of the permafrost indicates how much time we have to act before we reach a point of no return. Climatologists probably have a reasonable basis to estimate this.
(2) The long term impacts of differing levels of climate change on society. Climatologists may not have a very good basis estimating this. Increased risk to the food supply seems to be the most significant impact.
LikeLike
cognog2
Fri 02/14/2020
Mark: Is the Manabe & Wetherald 1967 GHGE paper available for download? If what you say is valid then there must be some logical or assumptive flaw in the paper in need of challenge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mark4asp
Fri 02/14/2020
David criticises models well. Climate models don’t work. But there’s another model David forgot to criticise – the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, model. This mini-model is embedded in the big computer climate models. It’s responsible for creating the basic warming which the big model then amplifies to project global catastrophe in model-world. The GHGE conjecture goes back to 1967 when it was first published in its modern form by Manabe and Wetherald. It has never been tested nor validated. GHGE model is just a conjecture or thought experiment. It is unscientific. After I point this out, climate alarmists tell me that “we only have one planet, do you want to burn the planet for your test?”. Most people would end their criticism right there. Yet, we don’t actually need a second planet to test GHGE model. It’s already been tested and failed. For example, GHGE model predicts the wrong lapse rate value, wrong temperature for earth’s surface, wrong upper troposphere heat spot. GHGE failed every test given it. It has been tested and failed. Yet the climate establishment don’t accept these failed tests for their favorite pseudoscience. They say only they are allowed to define a suitable test for their mini-model. Yet they can’t. As such, GHGE has turned into climate model which dare not speak its name. Brushed under the table. They pretend it is “settled science”.
Junking the GHGE would be the same as sacking themselves. If politicians are no longer scared out of their wits what’s the point of climate modelling, and modellers, with their multi-decade long failures? Let them do something useful, rather than subsidising them to frighten pre-teens out of their minds into suicidal hells.
We need to stop supporting the basic greenhouse gas premise, and all other speculative pseudosciences based on untested conjecture. There’s no evidence for carbon dioxide warming the climate. There’s good evidence the greenhouse gas effect conjecture is wrong.
LikeLiked by 4 people
PA Pundits - International
Fri 02/14/2020
Hi mark4asp,
Thank you for visiting and your very educational comment!
I’d like to have this comment made into an article as a guest post here, if it’s okay with you.
Ed
LikeLike
oldbrew
Fri 02/14/2020
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oldbrew
Fri 02/14/2020
The point of climate alarmism is to try and convince us that we’re the problem. But when nothing much happens and their predictions fail, it falls flat – or should do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PA Pundits - International
Fri 02/14/2020
Hello oldbrew,
You are absolutely correct about “when… their predictions fail, it falls flat…” but the Climate Scare Mongers will just change the name of their “boogyman”.
Remember when it was an “Ice Age” when that fell flat it went to “Global Warming”. That failed now the tried to cover both ends by choosing “Climate Change”. Now they’ll just think of something else, and keep using the same computer defective models!
BTW: They’ve admitted, on various occasions, that it’s really all about controlling the economy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PA Pundits - International
Thu 02/13/2020
Very good article, David Wojick.
It’s all about control of the economy and the people.
It’s an old Socialist-Communist trick to cause panic and then offer a solution. The solution doesn’t work but by then they have total control; and we the people are stuck.
LikeLiked by 1 person