The Climate Change Stand-off.

Let’s hope the global population finally gets to see the truth!

The Stand-Off

We are now engaged in a huge scientific stand-off between the Climate Alarmists who have had the upper hand with government policies until very recently, and a rapidly growing group of scientists that are calling their cause Climate Realism.

The Alarmists

They are calling CO2 a pollutant and want to stop using Fossil fuels by embracing a huge change in the generation of energy and how we use it by adopting what they call NetZero. It’s clear that NetZero will be a massive hit on prosperity, and it is asking the population to suck it up to “save the planet”.

Some of these alarmists have even morphed into total “doomers” and “degrowthers” due to the over indulgence in religious fervor rather than scientific fact.

The Realists

They don’t dispute that humankind has been a participant in liberating CO2 with the growing use of fossil fuels, but they don’t see the increase in temperature as being all due to CO2 or that the increase in temperature and its impact on the environment is any kind of an emergency.

Governments

Many national governments are in the process of reconsidering the past alignment with NetZero and are considering a reset due to it being very clear that NetZero will mean much less affordable energy costs and will be the prime driver of ongoing deindustrialization, and a huge prosperity hit across current and future generations.

A lot of political inertia does exist that must be overcome to undertake such a reset, as massive amounts of public monies may have to be deemed “wasted” if this reset takes place. But as new governments cycle through the democratic process it will allow the new politicos to move on without any blame for past mistakes. And so, the political outlook is driving toward the Climate Realist’s position.

The Truth?

But what about the scientific truth of the arguments on both sides.

When we dig deeper into the facts provided from both sides of the scientific argument we find that although the alarmists have been very clever at creating an emergency narrative that has been called a scientific consensus, the climate realists have a much stronger case to support their position that recommends that national policies do not go forward with NetZero any time soon.

Unfortunately, the Alarmists refuse to face the Realists in open debate and keep closing down any discussion with the retort that the science is settled. If any open and professional discussion can be undertaken its clear it will have to be facilitated by national governments, as the UN and its IPCC that has played the central role has proved to be heavily polarized toward the climate emergency narrative.

Here is a quick checklist of the case for and against.

The climate alarmists have got …….

A hockey stick that says global temperature increase is unprecedented, but it keeps getting debunked,

Climate models that experts say are not fit for purpose,

Dubious theories about CO2 being the temperature control knob.

Predictions of significant climate impact that that are deemed an emergency but keep getting proved false.

A concept of NetZero that is now deemed unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.

Increasingly false arguments using political subjugation that a scientific consensus on a climate emergency exists, and that the science is settled.

The climate realists have strong evidence that……

Current global temperatures are not unprecedented and have occurred at least 3 times before in the last 10,000 years and were hotter than today.

They maintain that Climate models should be updated to include a main climate change parameter to ensure the simulation of the impact on clouds of the variation of the suns output and intensity, earths position, and its relationship to the universe.

They have calculations to show that CO2 is a small bit player in the climate change and is almost saturated and scientific evidence supports this position.

They have facts to support that for almost all climate impact parameters humans are flourishing due to the power of fossil fuels and the improved benefits of the slight increase in global temperatures and the beneficial increase in CO2.

They list a clear set of reasons why NetZero must be avoided.

The climate is NOT settled.

This growing body of scientists now following the climate reality journey are making it very clear that the science is far from settled. Also, that NetZero is not required. And instead of CO2 mitigation they suggest we just need some focused climate change adaption.

It’s interesting to note that in many cases the climate realists don’t have to dispute the bulk of the detailed scientific data and technical findings, but just have to peel back the skin of political subjugation through risk of funding loss and “career limiting” placed on the scientific community by the enforcement of the climate change emergency narrative.

Conclusion

Let us hope that these new national governments ensure they look deeply at the facts and risk factors on both sides of this growing stand-off to ensure that a far better balance is managed between any climate change risk and human prosperity.

Here is some material from both sides of the argument…………….

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). https://www.facebook.com/UNclimatechange

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy

https://clintel.org/

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=climate+the+movie

Home - CO2 Coalition

https://co2coalition.org/

Take Back Manufacturing – Climate Realism

https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism