It’s clear from the attendance at COP 28, and certainly the latest broad and growing level of scientific dissent that the climate science is far from settled, and the realization by many that even if NetZero were necessary, the policy solutions are highly unworkable.
I see many fossil fuel lobbyists attending COP, and they are no better or worse than the many activists and alarmists that get paid to scare and confuse the general population.
This whole circus is just not productive, and a waste of our intellectual and technical resources and needs to stop… we cannot continue with this deranged farce on a topic that could adversely effect most of the population.
The way forward is to stop listening to anyone other than the top scientists on BOTH sides of the climate change emergency argument, and let’s convene a well-organized scientific review without political subjugation or confinement of the truth.
This review should be facilitated by the best, and included should be experts in the science of risk assessment.
This process must not be anything to do with The UN or the IPCC as they are far too biased to be objective.
The western nations that have the most to get right should host this process.
It should invite all factions of the scientific spectrum.
The outcome should be journalized by the best media entities so that the funding can be communicated without censorship to the general public in their own language.
What’s interesting is that the scientific data is mostly not in dispute, but the interpretation and the weight of the risk management is where the dissent resides.
I would lock out any activists or lobbyists from this review process as they have been most of the problem in distorting facts and have had far too much say already.
Then, at the conclusion of this process a summary report signed by all will be produced that will summarise the findings into a “range” of concurrence and risks.
This will then be presented to national governments that will have to craft what is hoped will be meaningful and manageable policies that balance the environmental versus economic risks on behalf of their populations.
Anything less than this attempt at a future plan is irresponsible, and without such a review process we will continue to follow dissent and ineptitude leading to the destruction of our civilization.