If you are interested by climate science, this is the article to read.
1 - There is NO climate emergency.
2 - The consensus is political, absolutely NOT scientific.
3 - The data is unreliable and the models terribly inaccurate.
(Yes temperatures have been rising very, very slowly over the last 150 years BUT:
4 - We started from a very low point in 1880
5 - The rise has been of about 1C but if you look at the raw data you will notice that the temperature goes up by a few tens of a degree over 10~20 years, then stabilize or fall slightly for 10 years and the cycle repeats over the years. 4 times already since 1880. Nobody knows why.
6 - And no model can explain this stop and go. If the rise was truly linked to CO2, you would expect a linear acceleration. This is not what we see. It's clearly far more complex. Well, then how do we know for sure it's CO2? The answer is that we do not.
...and on and on. I could give hundreds of scientific examples, both data and the models. (The article below goes into more details.) But just doing so makes you a heretic in the current environment.
Think about it: A scientific study with data today showing any discrepancy with the consensus will not be published and any mention about it will be cancelled from YouTube / Facebook and other social media platforms (Actually what they do is to shadow-ban you to limit the spread of wrong-think.). 20 years ago, this would have been unthinkable. Now, we are about to spend trillions of dollars and euros to save the planet. It has to be a consensus!
Authored by Scott Sturman and Doug Goodman via The Epoch Times,
Executive Order 14057 justifies the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions as necessary to counteract the existential threat of climate change. The
program’s comprehensive and prohibitively expensive initiative proposes
to transform the operational military by achieving net-zero carbon
emissions by 2045, purportedly on firmly established “science-based”
targets that are validated by computer models and consensus within the
scientific community.
The plan’s ambitious yet unrealistic
goals, which are presented as an alarmist ultimatum, ignore the
foundational principles of physics and battle-proven lessons of military
history.
The
Plan establishes emission objectives by determining “alignment with the
scale of reductions required to limit global warming below 2°C above
pre-industrial temperatures and to pursue efforts to limit warming to
1.5°C.” These emission reduction targets come directly from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Net-Zero Paris
Climate Accord. The IPCC is not a science based
organization that conducts its own research but rather a governmental
policy organization whose members are countries, not scientists, and
whose representatives are bureaucrats who develop and promote
international climate policy. The IPCC sponsors and filters
climate science research generated from outside organizations to support
its primary charter of establishing the man made causes and influences
on climate change.
The narrative that the earth’s climate balances
precariously on the brink of catastrophe and merits the distinction of a
national security priority is constantly presented to the public in
familiar, apocalyptic terms. President Biden warns that global warming is the greatest threat to national security. DOD Secretary Austin alerts
the public of existential climate threats, including an ice-free Arctic
Ocean, although as of January 2023 the Arctic sea ice pack is at its highest since 2003. The DOD and high ranking officials from the navy, army, and air force proclaim that it is incumbent upon the armed services to implement net zero without delay to avert a worldwide catastrophe. Despite the incessant fearmongering, no one appears to pause and consider that the DOD produces only 1 percent of the United State’s CO2 emissions, which in turn is responsible for 13 percent
of the world’s total. Even if the DOD achieves net zero, eliminating
0.13 percent of the world’s CO2 output would not detectably reduce
global temperatures.
The McKinsey Report details the
enormous costs and disruption to society to attain net zero and concedes
there is only an even chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and it is
far from certain whether the world will be able to keep the temperature
increase to that level. The transition will require a fundamental change
to the world’s economy, costing an estimated $6 trillion per year for
the next 30 years. This translates to $11,000 per year for every
American until 2050 for a result that cannot be ensured. Most of
the sacrifice will come from the Third World, where 1/3-1/2 of GDP will
be required to achieve net zero, but at a further cost of killing
millions and plunging more millions into extreme poverty and starvation.
Bjorn Lomborg warns that a zero fossil fuel
solution is expensive, leads to misery and an impoverishment of the
planet, and will fail to mitigate temperature elevation appreciably.
The
hasty evolution to net zero comes at a prohibitive price, and its
adherents concoct doomsday scenarios that demand and ennoble mass
sacrifice. Depicting a world in complete environmental collapse
due to the effects of fossil fuels promotes a theme intended to instill
panic. The DOD embellishes adverse weather-related and environmental
events but fails to place them in context or provide contrary
interpretations. The extent and history of glacial retreat, sea level
rise, desertification, forest fires, heat waves, death due to heat as
opposed to cold, hurricanes, and tornados are exaggerated and depicted
in emotional terms to legitimize drastic action. These contentions have been examined extensively, using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s (NOAA) and the IPCC’s own data, and refute the hypothesis that there is a climate crisis based on these criteria.
The number and intensity of severe climate events have diminished, and
for those that occur, poor countries lack the resources to deal with
natural disasters, while wealthier societies are able to better mitigate structural damage and human injury.
Computer modeling, a useful tool for conceptualization, forms the heart of climate science. The
technique, however, is unable to prove hypotheses and has been wildly
inaccurate since its inception. Climate science is a complex subject of
interacting variables acting over time cycles that differ by order of
magnitudes from the depths of the oceans to the upper stratosphere that
are in turn affected by orbital mechanics and solar perturbations. The authenticity of ground-based temperature readings, the raison d’ĂȘtre of
climate activists, raises alarm about the IPCC’s most fundamental
assessments, since the underestimation of the heat island effect may distort the temperature anomaly data by up to 40 percent.
The
major problem with computer models is the resolution and averaging
required to make the models computable. The atmosphere is divided into
volumes with horizontal grid lengths of tens of kilometers within which
parameters like temperature, pressure, and density are averaged to
represent the entire volume. Atmospheric processes like cloud physics
and turbulence occur at scales well below the resolution of these cells,
which compels modelers to estimate the values and effects of these
processes. These guesses invariably favor global warming and the
deleterious effects of CO2.
Since data collection points
rarely align with the grid points required by the numerical models,
discrepancies of hundred of kilometers exist, which modelers homogenize
to allow the data to fit the grid. This leads to false
adjustments and manipulations of the real data. Computational models are
inherently unstable and diverge from physical reality. At distances
below the grid scale, perturbations multiply and a butterfly effect
ensues. Modelers are forced constantly to realign or reset the
initial conditions, which mask the deviations and give the illusion that
the models accurately predict observed conditions.
DOD officials defend net-zero defense prioritization by claiming that scientific consensus and sham peer reviewed studies validate this contention.
Peer review has degenerated into a process that favors a regression to
the mean, and has become a form of consensus. The original 97 percent
consensus claim from Cook in 2013 that humans are the major cause of
global warming that will result in catastrophic climate events has been
widely discredited. Investigators point out that the number is
closer to 1.6 percent, but the original, inaccurate claim of
near-universal consensus, advanced by Barack Obama and John Kerry,
remains a favored technique of politicians to inject ideology into
science.
John Clauser won the Nobel Prize in physics for
his work with particle entanglement and serves as an example that the
most distinguished and competent scientists are not immune from rebuke
for challenging the climate change narrative. Dr. Clauser stated publicly that there is no climate emergency and the dangerous corruption of science threatens the world economy and welfare of billions of people. Mainstream media outlets allied to climate science activism predictably marginalized the distinguished physicist with ad hominem attacks and inferred that only bona fide climate scientists like Dr. Michael Mann, the originator of the widely debunked hockey stick shaped temperature acceleration profile, are qualified to speak on the subject.
The
DOD plan to reduce greenhouse emissions makes no mention of the
stabilizing benefits of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations in terms
of food production or the weak correlation between temperature and CO2 levels over the last 570 millions years. There
has been a 20 percent increase in the world’s biomass over the past 40
years, and CO2 is responsible for 70 percent of this benefit. Some of
the world’s most unstable regions have achieved an element of food
security, as exuberant plant life has reversed desertification and conferred a degree of economic stability—a benefit for developing more accurate military contingencies.
A
nation’s military priorities must optimize its access to natural
resources, develop war plans that allow for flexibility and maximum
projection of power, and to conclude that one’s enemies will not be
concerned with carbon footprints when it comes to surviving and winning a
major military conflict. No commander purposely informs potential
enemies that the armed forces will be restricted for decades to
specific, unproven technologies and untested operational strategies that
are established solely to comply with climate change dogma. Future and
present adversaries are under no such constraints and will devote
resources predicated on the best opportunity for success. Virtue
signaling climate scientists and their dutiful DOD disciples, whose
premises are based on computer modeling, enact policies that weaken the
military and serve as classic examples of those who hijack science to
advance political agendas.