Climate Change World Summit

The entire world faces “a moment of peril” but also “a moment of opportunity,” Biden declared, speaking from a TV-style chrome-blue set for the virtual summit of 40 world leaders. Participants appeared one after the other onscreen for what appeared to be a mix of live and recorded addresses. “The signs are unmistakable,” Biden said. “The science is undeniable. The cost of inaction keeps mounting.” Biden’s new U.S. commitment, timed to the summit, would cut America’s fossil fuel emissions as much as 52% by 2030. It comes after four years of international withdrawal from the issue under President Donald Trump, who mocked the science of climate change and pulled the U.S. out of the landmark 2015 Paris climate accord.

Everyone agrees that the climate changes; this can be confirmed just by looking out the window. What is under discussion is whether these changes will produce sooner rather than later a catastrophic event that might destroy our civilization if this change is a result of our way of life and if there is some action that could be taken to stop or slow down this event.

Before researching this subject, if you are not an expert, there is an important fact that we have to take into account. For some, the idea of our self-destruction is not debatable. Led by special economic and political interests a following has formed resembling more of a cult, than a needed continued investigation of a crucial problem. As a matter of fact, any objection to the idea that man is responsible for the upcoming disaster is met by derision, insults, and disbelief. Prominent scientists have been banned from journals, meetings, and their work deleted from the bibliography.

The “scientific” climate predictions are based on computer models that combine real data with assumptions. So far, these projections have failed to materialize as shown by Al Gore’s conclusions over 15 years ago.

What I gathered by reading about the proponents of this idea, and the ones that have doubts is that the question is not settled. Does climate change to the extent that a catastrophe might happen? The answer is yes, as it has happened before and when human influence did not exist.

Theoretically, it is a phenomenon that happens every few millenniums. Do humans with the use of fossil fuels and the increase of atmospheric CO2 are the responsible cause? Without going into the scientific details, the answer that we can surmise is, maybe.

So where does the frequently named opinion of “science is settled” come from? First, science being settled is an oxymoron. Science by definition is always looking forward to and investigating the unknown. The basis of this assertion comes from only one study by Cook Et. Al. in 2013 that studied close to 12 thousand paper abstracts and came to the conclusion that 97% established the responsibility of mankind for the planet’s warming and future calamity. Duplication of this conclusion has not been possible, and detractors of the findings are frequently banned from publicizing their results. A recent study from a reputable British Science Society (2015) concluded:

Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

National Review, a conservative and prestigious magazine, made a summary of their findings a year ago as follows:

Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

Another “science” data used to justify man-made warming are the studies of Michael Mann that “conclusively proved” the present warming as never seen in our history going back millenniums. His studies produced a computer-generated graph called the “hockey stick”, that denied the assumption of a middle-age era greater warming.

Upset about the “doubters” of his claim, who failed to duplicate his findings, indeed showing a stronger warming trend in the middle ages, Dr. Mann sued his detractors for libel. His suit was not only dismissed but he was mandated to pay for the falsely accused attorneys. The reason? Dr. Mann refused to produce the data used responsible for the graph, maybe to avoid the idea of garbage in, garbage out?

So much for undisputed science!

The last and probably most important question is do actions proposed will be able to reverse or delay the assumed change? The answer is, very unlikely. Even if all nations cooperate and the Paris agreement is strengthened the only certainty would be the enormous financial costs and resulting in drastic changes in our way of life plus certain suffering especially in underdeveloped countries. The United States represents 4.27% of the world’s population. Even if we double that number to 10%, because of our economy, it is hard to understand how our turning into a third world country will save the planet. The New York Times, obviously an advocate wrote:

The Paris Agreement, reached in December among 195 countries, was never imagined as the silver bullet for global warming. Rather, the goal of the agreement was to stave off the most devastating effects of climate change by limiting the increase in global temperatures to two degrees Celsius, and to just 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible. But even that may prove problematic. If every country fully accomplishes its initial pledges, the increase would be closer to 2.7 degrees, according Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, which is based in Paris. (In the next several years, countries are supposed to set additional goals for deeper reductions.)

The real “inconvenient truth” that elude the entire world leaders that tried to outperform the others by trying to be the most outrageous and ignorant, is that the US by its private capitalistic system has reduced the carbon emissions and CO2 to where they were in 1985. This “good news” fact eluded all of the media and the chosen public that questioned them!

This is the truth, passion, and politics aside. Sensible reforms in order to slow down the inevitable change and continued scientific research to ascertain how much, if any, influence mankind is contributing should be the rational goal.