When it comes to climate change, we have had the “one way, the right way, the climate alarmists’ way.” However, there are contrary points of view. The following two paragraphs would suggest that it is a settled matter. It is not.
A recent paper Kim et al. (2023), hereafter K23, got some media attention, e.g. this article at CNN: “The Arctic may be sea ice-free in summer by the 2030s, a new study warns.”
K23’s key conclusion: “Results indicate that the first sea ice-free September will occur as early as the 2030s–2050s irrespective of emission scenarios.“
Multiple Climate Change Models
Of paramount importance is the fact that there are numerous models. The alarmists have positioned the model most favorable to their cause as the final word. This is deceptive at best. There are alternative models that merit inclusion.
The CMIP6 multi-model ensemble is a unique resource with input from scientists and modeling groups from around the world. [CMIP stands for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, and it is now in its 6th Phase]. But as we’ve discussed before (#NotAllModels) there are some specific issues that require users to be cautious in making predictions. Fortunately, there are useful ‘best practices’ that can help avoid the worst pitfalls.
British Climatologist, Dr. Gavin Schmidt emphasized the importance of reviewing several models. He noted that alarmists embraced the “Three-M” model because it reinforced the existing narrative. This subsequently supported their work, which in many cases was grant induced. Schmidt concluded.
“The default behavior in the community has to move away from considering the raw model ensemble mean as meaningful.” Well, this is not simply Gavin-wisdom, but the IPCC AR6 WG1 did not use the MMM, for the same reasons. This practice has unfortunately not arrived in some parts of the community, not to mention the editorial board of Nature Communications.”
In essence, if the model utilized is contrary to climate alarmists’ conclusion, it is deemed not creditable.
Manipulation Through Scare Tactics
As journalist Lee Smith asserted, “Climate change alarmists tell us that if we don’t trade fossil fuel sources for “‘green’ energy, the world will come to an end. The science, they say is settled-even if they can’t settle on a fixed date for the coming climate apocalypse.”
Georgia Institute of Technology, Emeritus, Dr. Judith Curry, added, “I would hear in the media people talking about, “the ice age is coming,” or “doom and gloom from CO2 emissions. Nobody was paying attention in the mainstream field until the late 1980s.
“There were some very rambunctious people who were talking about this publicly and painting alarming scenarios on both sides.”
The Green New Reality
The Biden Administration’s Green New Deal has received accolades from the corporate media. Dissenters have been looked upon as “out of touch Neanderthals.” Anyone who questions the purpose and the goal is considered a rube.
Downplayed has been the accompanying inflation. Americans are slowly realizing that there is a price to pay. It’s called poverty. They are an average of $9,000 per year poorer than they were in 2020 when Trump left office. Should not this aspect have been part of the discussion?
In an Epoch Times piece last fall, Smith noted, “There’s big money at stake for global elites invested in the climate agenda. And the best way to ensure it reaches their bank accounts is to terrorize the world’s population into believing that unless we agree to the oligarchy’s demands to shrink our means while they expand theirs, Earth will burn into a fiery crisp.”
Much of America is seeing it for what it is: “A con job!” Americans are concluding that the $1.87 per gallon gas price was something tangible. Higher energy prices result in higher food prices. Their money doesn’t go as far. People are struggling like never before!
These well-intended, previously accepted theories are becoming increasingly suspect. Especially when notable climatologists suggest that the very models used to formulate these conclusions are flawed.
Alternative Agenda Revealed
The long-term goal of climate change catastrophism is to “curtail economic growth,” philosopher and energy expert Alex Epstein contended in his book, Fossil Future. According to Epstein, the idea is to “hamstring humanity to eliminate the human impact on the environment altogether.”
For families struggling to pay their electric bills, put gasoline in their cars, and food on their tables, there is a growing fury aimed at globalist elites who would intentionally hamstring mankind. It comes with a desire to punish those who would pad their wallets at their countrymen’s expense. Merely voting them out of the office or saying no to their products is not sufficient.
Even pro-green organizations, such as “Sunrise 350 Colorado” have been intentionally and mercilessly manipulated. Their good intentions have made them prime targets for organizations seeking to enrich themselves. The goal: to lower the humanities’ standard of living.
In short, a proven method of better-controlling people is to make them poor. The Soviet Union proved this in a decisive fashion.
