NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY

It’s now very clear that we don’t have a climate emergency on this planet.

It’s now very clear that we don’t have a climate emergency on this planet.

The probability that our use of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change or that it poses any near-term risk to humankind is low.

We still have many who continue to maintain or believe we have a “climate emergency” even when data shows climate change will have a very small impact on human well-being and flourishing, with any impacts being better managed with focused adaption and prosperity.

The History.

The UN-IPCC has been the prime source of climate science and policy direction, but recently due to over dramatizing the science, has lost its credibility, and so have a huge portion of the scientific institutions that allowed the scientific peer review process to become politically subjugated such that it appears to many to have lost the ability to tell the truth.

This had created a climate emergency narrative that was supported with much glee by a sensation seeking media.

This forced a false climate emergency consensus within the scientific environment that morphed into a climate emergency industrial complex more interested in accessing funding from gullible over liberalized governments than telling the truth.

This allowed the orchestration of highly expensive and destructive NetZero mitigation strategies moving us away from much needed global prosperity by negating the use of the most available, affordable, reliable, and abundant energy systems.

In the past these climate alarmists at all levels in western society did all they could to shut down and censor any reviews of the climate situation to get to the truth in what is still a highly unsettled science.

This censoring effort was led by the self-serving power grabbing propaganda of the UN and associated politically subjugated scientific community using constraints offered by the scientific peer review process to keep the gravy train of the climate emergency narrative alive and keep the funding flowing.

Fortunately, reality is now kicking in with many western governments now listening to independent scientific study groups, with most of these governments decommitting from the climate emergency goals and planning to dis-continue NetZero activities going forward.

The US DoE formed such a study group and their climate report published as a working draft in August 2025 provides solid data to support a much more realistic position on climate risk and provides substantive and organized pushback to the extreme edicts of the UN-IPCC and associated peer review narrative and provides a solid and more sceptical baseline for future review and more realistic policy setting.

The DoE report has been criticized for not adhering to a more formal peer review process by the supporters of the climate emergency consensus who undertook petty legal action to silence their position rather than engage in professional review. However, this will not stop the ongoing review process and final policy development by the DoE report team.

The summary of the DoE report is as follows….

So far, the impact of changes in our climate over the last 300 years have seen global average temperatures increase by 1.5 C and this has been benign with extreme weather events in the U.S. showing no long-term trends.

This slight global warming will continue as we emerge from the extended cold period of the last 300 years, and this will slowly increase sea levels at about 1 foot per century well within our adaptive capability with the power of fossil fuels.

Weather metrics although highly variable as always, show no adverse trends, with any predicted changes due to climate change being well within adaptive capability.

Carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 25% in the last 100 years and does act as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence

The increase in CO2 has mostly benefited our planetary environment and further doubling of CO2 is estimated to only contribute to temp increase of 0.35 C per century.

These elevated concentrations of CO2 coupled with the adoption of fossil fuel fertilizers has increased our crop-based food supply by up to 300%.

More CO2 will eventually make oceans less alkaline (lower the pH) that may be detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise.

The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, but these models and past experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed,

Aggressive CO2 mitigation policies could prove far more detrimental than focused adaption that will require harnessing the power of available, affordable, reliable, and abundant energy systems.

So, although we must always continue to work on the human impact on nature and our climate, we have no significant climate impacts on human flourishing and prosperity into the near future but we must learn over time to adapt to a warming planet.

Humans have been adapting since we came down from the trees and this will be no different... but it must be driven by economics and demand not useless virtue signaling.

The impact of CO2

Let’s look at the impact of CO2 on our climate.

Based on the physics of the radiation laws…… If from our current emissions, we double CO2 from 420 to 840 it will increase the temp by 0.7 C. And plenty of studies done on this.

That’s an increase in CO2 by 840-420= 420 ppm.

And at our current rate of CO2 liberation at 2ppm per year it should take 210 years to double.

So, our contribution due to fossil fuels to the temperature increase should be about 0.35 C per century.

0.2 C per decade is our current warming rate… that’s 2 deg per century

So, something else other than CO2 is driving the extra 1.65 C?

So human emissions are only 17% of the issue…… and some experts say its as low as 10%

Even the 0.2 C per decade (2C / century) is in dispute as being measured too high due to UHIE and data manipulation.

Even if the 2 deg per century is true and valid that’s still less than the experience of the last 10,000 years as we saw such average extremes in the 3 warm periods.…..

So, it’s far from a crisis or an emergency and may be more beneficial than dangerous as a slightly warmer planet with more CO2 will improve the growing cycles which the Agricultural facts support.

So based on the theory and calculations that most of the climate change is not due to human activity then the need for wasteful CO2 mitigation must be avoided and the future policies should be a focus on prosperity and adaption to support human flourishing using the power of fossil fuels.

This thinking is more in line with the positions expressed in the DoE report and the work done by CLINTEL and the CO2 Coalition and the many associated scientific groups that do not share the IPCC human induced climate emergency narrative.

So, what may be the non-human related drivers contributing to the extra 1.65 C ?

Its no use asking the IPCC they are only mandated to politically link the increase to CO2 and humans and all of the scientific work is subjugated to that goal.

Some suggestions for the short-range contributing drivers other than CO2 are…..

The Sun/Gamma Rays/Clouds creates a much larger impact on climate than CO2.

A considerable amount of science theory and measurement correlations point to the fact that clouds have a significant effect on the climate, and far more than CO2, and further causation arguments point to not only solar output but also the effect Cosmic rays have in conjunction with the sun to control the formation of clouds. This implies that the main driver of global temperature is not CO2, but clouds via the natural variation of sun and gamma rays.

The GHG Radiative forcing MODEL is wrong, and a thermodynamics MODEL is correct.

Many scientific papers point to the argument that the GHG effect centered around CO2 may not be a significant climate change mechanism, and that mostly CO2 increase is driven by temperature and NOT CO2 driving temperature.

Also, recent theories and measurements point toward natural atmospheric based thermodynamics in concert with the sun having a far greater impact on climate change than the warming effect of CO2 increase.

The Outlook?

Although the climate science now points away from a climate emergency, it’s also clear that irrespective of what the science says NetZero type policies are not going to be acceptable to the majority of western citizens when it conflicts with prosperity.

It will mean the climate pledges of the past made by liberal minded governments will be withdrawn or not renewed once the nations democratic machine catches up with majority voter sentiments.

So, many national governments are reconsidering their climate policy positions, and the recent COPs meetings reflected this situation, and achieved nothing, other than clearly demonstrating ongoing de-commitment for the dangerous NetZero journey.

As recommended by the DoE report all our national governments will most probably follow far more realistic and rigorous ongoing reviews and much more open scientific discussion before they set future policies to ensure they are based on firm facts.

The DoE with be updating their climate report drafted back in August 2025 and the next release will be timed to go head-on with anything the IPCC tries to push with its next released reports.

The position from the DoE is going to be well supported by other Climate realist groups such as the CLINTEL Group, the CO2 Coalition and other think tanks such as Heartland etc.

These climate Realist Groups are growing and expanding their reach and have a significant amount of detailed research papers that mostly don’t refute the details in the scientific sections of the IPCC, but do not support the twisting of the facts in the IPCC policy sections.

The good news is that the real facts are now being exposed by the efforts of these climate realist organizations and so there will be far less interest in protecting a climate narrative and supporting cooked up climate emergency predictions and wishful thinking solutions that were enabled by the past dangerous climate emergency group think.

So far China and India continue to play the long game and will not engage in any mitigation effort as they continue to strengthen their economies with significant building of both nuclear and coal-based power plants.

The USA under the new president has already fully switched away from the NetZero plans of the previous administration. Many western nations have listened to Trumps truth telling talk at the UN about the risks to prosperity from NetZero, and it is anticipated that both the UK and Germany and many other EU members will follow the USA direction and will cancel the foolish NetZero policies once they sort out their politics.

Here are a few papers that summarize the position…

New Climate Report from the US DOE - by Nigel Southway

Happer and Lindzen PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM

http://www.nigelsouthway.org/storage/01K0CGYVZN3P4FZ79E502FB683.pdf

#56 William van Wijngaarden: Is Global Warming Hot Air?

Climate Faithful Admit Need for Fossil Fuels

Climate Faithful Admit Need for Fossil Fuels

Climate ‘Armageddon narrative’ starting to unravel | Newsmaker

Further reading at CLINTEL and CO2 Coalition sites

Clintel Climate Intelligence and the Response to Climate Change

https://clintel.org/

Home - CO2 Coalition

https://co2coalition.org/