The Climate Emergency Quiz…

It’s about time we all had enough knowledge to provide a “score-card” for our perspective on the “Climate Change Emergency".

It’s about time we all had enough knowledge to provide a “score-card” for our perspective on the “Climate Change Emergency".

So …… get ready and respond Yes or No to these statements...

1. CO2 is the main and extreme driver of global temperature increase.

2. Humans by burning fossil fuels cause the main increase in CO2.

3. The current temperature levels are causing stress to humans.

4. The current temperature levels are unprecedented in recent times.

5. The projected temperature increase will be a crisis.

6. Fossil fuels must be eliminated.

7. Renewables (W&S) can replace and support our future energy requirements.

8. Humans must take action to mitigate the above situation.

9. Pollution (besides CO2) needs work for our future sustainability.

10. Nuclear power is to be discouraged due to mainly safety concerns.

A score of Yes scores 1 per statement

A score of No scores 0 per statement

A total score of 10 means you are a pure Climate Alarmist

A total score of 0 means you are a pure Climate Realist.

Some thoughts…

The climate emergency narrative states that Climate change is an existential threat to humankind and that the following 10 statements are correct and should be acted upon.

But. not everybody (including experts) agree 100% with the whole list above…

Some of the disagreements are scientific, some are technical viability and some are economic.

The statement that drives the urgency of all the others is statement #1.

If this statement #1 is completely not true or does not have a significant effect on the climate then most of the policies would fall back to only an adaptive approach to managing any small level of climate change.

Therefore …we must be VERY certain that we have this statement #1 correct and so far we plainly don’t have a real consensus on its level of risk, and we need an open and ongoing dialogue across the spectrum of scientific thinking to make sure we get it right!

Then… even if the #1 statement is correct doubt can exist that the other statements are true, or if they can be undertaken effectively.

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 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”.

The Realists 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 that requires mitigation action..

Governments are in some cases 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 c

osts and will be the prime driver of ongoing deindustrialization, and a huge prosperity hit across current and future generations. There are many citizens that will not want to trade any mitigation effort if it has any impact on prosperity. Some nations have decided to just focus on adaption or are delaying any focus on the question of climate change.

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 will create options to decide the policy direction.

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.

Let us hope that these new national governments ensure they create the right dialogue and 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.

It’s Quiz time…..

Some of you may be concerned about declaring your “score’ in case you are ostracized for not being politically correct!

But….It’s about time we all decided our score….

So…come on…. what’s your score?

………………………………..