A Climate Reality Awakening …..…
We need to reposition the scientific process to better understand our climate.
There are now a range of scientific positions on the climate ..…
1/ CLIMATE EMERGENCY….. The climate change is mostly caused by human made burning of fossil fuels with negative impact issues apparent now, and this will become an emergency into the future that will require immediate full scale NetZero type mitigation, and probably also focused adaption in the mid term.
This is the accepted institutionalized narrative promoted by the IPCC and is clearly a climate alarmist position and has been the past motivation for most national policies for most of the western nations in the last few decades.
2/ NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY …. There is always climate change and CO2 could be a contributor to temperature change but its not currently impacting human flourishing and won’t be a crisis into the future, and so we only need to follow some focused adaption as prosperity permits.
Many experts and some governments are moving toward this position as we all better understand both the science, the impacts and the inability of the mitigation solutions to work. This is now deemed a climate realist position. It suggests that it will only require some level of localized adaption and that a transition to new energy systems need only be undertaken when such systems offer competitive and viable technologies and are not a detriment to economic prosperity.
3/ NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE …. There is always climate change but no climate crisis with CO2 not being the main driver of temperature and so humans are probably not responsible.
This position is being driven by a subgroup of these climate realists who are articulating scientific arguments that is solidifying this position, and this will drive policies that will only suggest some low level of localized adaption when deemed necessary and with no significant need for energy system transformation.
Summary….
The best way to describe the above status is that we are moving to a state of climate science that is far from settled, and this will require much more open dialogue and the need to break down the frozen narratives of the past if we are to define and agree scientific review processes to close on the science and generate policies that are correct and optimized.
We have a need for significant review and revalidation of climate data to ensure that it has not become manipulated and corrupted by the need to justify these frozen narratives. The notion that the science is settled and that a consensus and frozen narrative exists needs to be eradicated and the existing traditional scientific institutions must allow a broader review of scientific arguments and ensure past censorship of ideas and positions that did not fit the narrative is avoided in the future.
The focus must be on moving out of these narrative silos and act as discussion teams to ask much more open questions to promote listening and understanding of all open arguments rather than trying to get the preferred narrative confirmed and suppressing anything that does not fit the narrative.
We have many disputes about historical data and the misapplication of proxies and how baselines have been badly set to report climate trends. And we have great difficulty in separating the broad variability of weather from climate trends. We also have predictive models that are not fit for purpose toward supporting policy planning.
To some degree the large release of funding into the climate science industry has led to some political subjugation of the science and has adversely effected how reports are generated, and this needs to be re-dressed by national governments that probably need to take back the responsibility for the integrity and reality of the climate science from the over politized UN-IPCC.
It must be realized that policies need to become a better risk balance between the scientific knowledge, the ability to execute solutions and how they will affect prosperity.
We need to reposition the scientific process to better understand our climate.