Here's my "p!$$!^& into the wind" letter to my Senators, inspired by your nice encapsulation of the conclusions of the scientific community, which I included in the body of my emails to them. Don't expect any serious answer from either one of them, but it's what the heck?
Here's my "p!$$!^& into the wind" letter to my Senators, inspired by your nice encapsulation of the conclusions of the scientific community, which I included in the body of my emails to them. Don't expect any serious answer from either one of them, but it's what the heck?
Dear Senator __________
Hello,
In coming weeks/months, it is the responsibility of the Senate to query nominees for the Cabinet, and assuming that this occurs again this time around, I would hope that there is an opportunity to ask questions to the nominees from your position as Senator from Kansas. Specifically, I am concerned about the nominees so far having a history of downplaying or outright denying that climate change is an important topic that needs addressing, and any delays in taking those measures to mitigate its impact will only increase its severity and make it more difficult to reduce its impact on Kansans in our lifetime. Specifically, I think it is important to ask if each nominee agrees or at least does not outright deny that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on each of the following points:
That climate change is real;
That climate change is a serious, existential threat;
That climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions;
That greenhouse gas emissions are driven primarily by fossil fuels; and
That solving climate change requires transitioning away from fossil fuels.
For that matter, since these conclusions, backed by virtually all the data and scientific analyses of that data, is of utmost important to the future of Kansas citizens, I sincerely hope that you, too acknowledge these conclusions and will do everything in your power to decarbonize the Kansas economy in a way that is effective in reducing the threats and at the same time do so in a timely way soas to reduce the economic toll that will only increase the longer we wait.
Good luck with that and always worth a try, but its clear that the only one of your 5 points that is valid is the first… All the data when correctly reviewed supports the Climate Realism policies that will be installed in both the USA and Canada ….. once we change our government.
There is still a strong need to ensure we have continued progress on improving our local environment and ensuring we have also adaption strategies where needed… but forget Climate mitigation and associated NetZero goals.
Welcome back, Nigel! You have decided to return to spout your lies again? You know, your sources still are the same tired repetition of positions that are simply not backed by any credible scientific study vetted by the climatological community, and without these, your clear conflict of interest is glaringly obvious. Feel free to say what you want, but without providing a credible model that either disproves the veracity of any of the 4 scientific statements as inaccurate/provides a model that more accurately accounts for the data so meticulously collected on all fronts, your statements just come across as just another oil lobbyist like those who have overwhelmed the latest COP.
Other than drinking the Koolaid of the other fossil fuel lobbyists, I would agree with you that there is still a strong need to ensure that we have continued progress on improving our local environment. We should not limit ourselves to adapting, though. As North Carolina just found out, you cannot adapt to 20 inch plus deluges. Without mitigation and a decarbonization economy that stops fossil fuel emissions, the chemistry of the atmosphere will continue to support extreme weather events with increasing frequency and severity, despite your denial that such connections exist. The best local environmental adaptation is to transform that local energy production/distribution network into renewables, coupled with energy efficiency measures across the economy that will reduce the need for increased demand. Do that locally and multiply it across the planet. If the feds want to get out of paying for increasing costs of climate-related disasters, they need to invest in the rapid deployment of a low carbon economy in our communities, as these increasing costs are way more costly than decarbonizing the way we live.
Its ok ….. you stick to your beliefs and I really don’t care… but you must know that a better review of the science and politics is now moving us toward Climate Realism, and its now clear that it will be the baseline policy that will place CO2 mitigation far below adaption and other environmental improvement initiatives.
It will be up to the climate alarmists to convince us for any need for this policy to change.
The Problem you will have is…
First…. Both long and short range climate history even after the increase in CO2 has not resulted in any statistical extremes in the climate environment for human coping and flourishing, and we will continue to benefit using the power of fossil fuels. This requires you to understand the data and root causes and separate weather and such short-term trends from 30-year climate trends that clearly show no climate emergency. To the contrary, we see advantages of more CO2 and a slightly warmer planet that has happened 5 times in the last 10,000 years..
Second…. Climate change Projection models have been continuously discredited and are running out of risk factors that support the notion that CO2 is the prime driver of global temperature.
Third… The notion that climate realists are in the evil pay of bad actors is getting real old. In fact its clear that the real criminals are the UN and past politics that have subjugated the integrity of Climate science, and this is going to be exposed with the review process I outline in my Substack article.
I am happy to discuss sustainability goals we need to follow so we better balance economy, social, and environment for our citizens. We are planning think tanks in Canada to work on this next year once we realign our government.
A better review of the science and politics is moving us toward Climate Realism? That's a very revealing statement, Nigel. What you really mean is that the hard science, i.e. data collection and rigorous analyses are being suppressed by the political elements that are dominated by the fossil fuel interests. Climate Realism is newspeak for Climate Denialism, as is evidenced by the whitewashing report ( https://issuu.com/libertyfrac/docs/bettering_human_lives_2024_web_-_liberty_energy/2?ff ) put out by our new cabinet nominee, who is denying the importance of the changes in the climate caused by fossil fuel emissions and says that we should build out way out of the issue by.....you guessed it....more fossil fuel emissions-fueled economic growth!
This is not science, but a classic example of those in charge wanting to retain their economic and political power despite the clear evidence of the damage that they are causing, which clearly will only get worse. Your BS 3 points are the same denialist points that have been so thoroughly discredited as to not merit a response other than to say that C02 and other greenhouse emissions from fossill fuels have changed the atmospheric chemistry in ways that created impacts (sea, atmospheric warming, increased frequency of droughts, increased flooding, increased strength of hurricanes, increased wildfires frequency/severity, poleward shift of species, increased acidification of the oceans, sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching, etc) that were precisely predicted and no alternative mechanisms have been offered by denialists that account for the physics used by models that place causality for all of these effects squarely at the feet of fossil fuel emissions.
So yes, I am also happy to discuss sustainability goals that share a decarbonized economy as an essential component.
Ha Ha....When are you going to stop listening to lies…Why don’t you come to terms that there is no emergency level issues (30 year averages) with the metrics of increased frequency of droughts, increased flooding, increased strength of hurricanes, increased wildfires due to climate, increased acidification of the oceans, sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching,… these do vary with weather but are all showing no statistical adverse trends due to climate change and this has been fully reported. (Note weather transients is not Climate…)
Why not read Unsettled by Koonin… He is getting good review with our governments.. If you have not read his book or reviewed the links above you should before you debate with me any more as all the data we use is the same data that is in the IPCC scientific section reports.. it’s the policy sections that tell huge lies.
Sustainability goals will not include any mention of CO2.
Anyway…. I am extremely happy that we now have the correct policies going forward. 😊
Sorry for not replying sooner--life intervened. I reviewed you CO2 coalition materials and your Tom Nelson pod and they fall well short of anything the IPCC has provided in their transparent process. The climatological community has provided a multi-year ongoing endeavor that continually evaluates the ongoing data collection, analyses and has developed 6 Syntheses reports, with the latest being AR6, and is working on the 7th. This involves hundreds if not thousands of contributing authors, writers and review editors, guided by a scientific sterring committee. This is not a radical community; in fact the scientific method is geared toward shooting down any and every hypothesis in order to ensure that there is not some alternative explanation/model that provides a better fit to the carefully vetted systematically collected data. The results of this process is inherently conservative, so any conclusions that are provided are couched in level of certainty as science always leaves room for new information and models that are counter to the conclusions provided.
That said, here is the relevant set of conclusions that they provided in 2023 in their latest Synthesis report:
"B.1.3 Continued emissions will further affect all major climate system components. With every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger. Continued global warming is projected to further intensify the global water cycle, including its variability, global monsoon precipitation, and
very wet and very dry weather and climate events and seasons (high confidence). In scenarios with increasing CO 2 emissions, natural land and ocean carbon sinks are projected to take up a decreasing proportion of these emissions (high confidence). Other projected changes include further reduced extents and/or volumes of almost
all cryospheric elements 34 (high confidence), further global mean sea level rise (virtually certain), and increased ocean acidification (virtually certain) and deoxygenation (high confidence). {3.1.1, 3.3.1, Figure 3.4} (Figure SPM.2)
"B.1.4 With further warming, every region is projected to increasingly experience concurrent and multiple changes in climatic impact-drivers. Compound heatwaves and droughts are projected to become more frequent, including concurrent events across multiple locations (high confidence). Due to relative sea level rise, current 1-in-100 year extreme sea level events are projected to occur at least annually in more than half of all tide gauge locations by 2100 under all considered scenarios (high confidence). Other projected regional changes include intensification of tropical cyclones and/or extratropical storms (medium confidence), and increases in aridity
and fire weather (medium to high confidence) {3.1.1, 3.1.3}
"B.1.5 Natural variability will continue to modulate human-caused climate changes, either attenuating or amplifying projected changes, with little effect on centennial-scale global warming (high confidence). These modulations are important to consider in adaptation planning, especially at the regional scale and in the near
term. If a large explosive volcanic eruption were to occur 35 , it would temporarily and partially mask human-caused climate change by reducing global surface temperature and precipitation for one to three years (medium confidence). {4.3} "
In a nutshell, this is the gold standard of understanding in the scientific climatological community, and your little dances in the CO2 coalition are entertaining to your faithful, but wither away under the rigorous standards of the scientific community. Climate Realism is just Climate Denialism 2.0 and is a political protectionism endeavor that has nothing to do with the science. The writing is on the wall, and we can choose to ignore it for a while longer, but that does not mean we will be able to ignore the consequences that only increase with time.
Look Ken… The games up…stop spinning your wheels… and its ok .. say and believe what you want….but the western pollical leadership are now listening to us climate realists, and moving away from NetZero and certainly are rapidly recommitting from COPS investment.
The reason is that the UN IPCC and the COPS has become a huge joke of late…. and the reason is that it and many of the Quasi fact checking groups that support its findings has become more political than scientific.
The problem is that on a scientific basis they fail to convince as follows…..
See CLINTEL The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC - Clintel
1. They demonstrate a huge gulf between the scientific reports that show no emergency and the policy outlines that talk about Armageddon … and this is what Koonin in Unsettled explains very well.
2. They cannot explain why even though the “CO2 Pollutant” has doubled that the past to present trends on every climate level environmental metric shows no significant adverse trends and some have got less adverse and all CO2 has done is improved the food supply with the aid of fossil fuels. This is supported by IPCCs own data and NOAA and documented by Koonin, Christy, CO2 Coalition and CLINTEL and many other truth-seeking scientists.
3. They fail to dispute the core science of the impact of CO2 on the climate that shows that CO2 is a very small participant in climate change. In the so-called greenhouse effect …. Water vapor is by far the largest contributor to the so called green house effect .. but in the case of CO2 it has a short bandwidth and we are now close to 88% saturation at the current max 415 PPM level such that any possible GHG effect will be almost zero over past levels. There are other facts that dispute that CO2 has any significant causation on temperature as data from ice cores shows it’s always the reverse and Temperature controls CO2. As said further CO2 increases cannot affect temperature, but it will improve plant growth where PPM up to 2000ppm would be optimum…. life on earth has seen 6000ppm and the biosphere flourished. So CO2 IS a GHG but a very poor and small contributor and not a significant temperature driver as it contributes 0.5% of energy forcing of 2 W/M2 versus total of 500 W/M2 .....The impact is 0.1deg C per decade (Nothing to be concerned about)
4. They also like to confuse weather transients with longer term climate… and even these can be explained.. see this from Christys work.
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
5. The IPCC will probably never live down the crime of the hocky stick that discredits M Mann. It did not correctly show that In the last 10,000 years we have seen 5 similar temperature increases and most of them were same rate and higher than today… and in those periods of high temperatures we flourished…. it was the cold parts that made us struggle.
6. They fail to convince on future risk projections….So far …..the science is unable to model the future effectively with most models over predicting most risk parameters. Climate models are not “ fit for purpose” in terms of managing risk policies. And we continue to see over prediction of future risk compared to actual measurements.
The bottom line… NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And a waste of our wealth, and we need to redeploy our policies to only consider focused adaptation to a naturally warming planet.
Here is a nice paper about to be published and being used in Canada for policy planning..
You're pretty funny: you point to the CLINTEL "critique" about "the frozen climate views of the IPCC" and then the CLINTEL web page proceeds to attack the IPCC Synthesis AR5, published in 2014, which was replaced in 2023 with AR6, with AR7 well underway. And then it cherry picks critiques of CMIPS 5, which was long ago replaced with CMIPS 6, with a CMIPS 7 being currently developed.
It's very clear that the CO2 coalition and CLINTEL are the ones frozen in time with their critiques built around an 85 year old retired physicist and others lined up at the fossil fuel food trough who have been thoroughly debunked.
So it's nothing to do with the veracity of the issues of climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions: that is settled science. The fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in misinformation campaigns (Hmmmm....CLINTEL and the CO2 Coaltion funding??? Where are the staff funds, contributions, coming from????) as well as coalitions from funders of the industry to extend the fossil fuel dominance a while longer. You might try reading Emily's excellent journalism that traces that whole effort, as if you aren't already acutely aware of it.
So keep spouting the party line, Nigel, it keeps us up to date on the latest attempts at obfuscation. I had never heard the term Climate Realism before you told us, so thanks for the tip on how to track the discredited Climate Denialism movement!
I don’t care which version of the fabrications I review in IPCC, they are all based on a political initiative to make the science fit the narrative… The hockey stick is a great example…. and that’s why its all being disregarded.
No science in your statements…. just activist religious slag off of others when you cannot support your claims.,
You are done.. unless you have intelligent questions?
Yes, I know you don't care, Nigel. You clearly don't even know what science is, which the rest of your comment clearly demonstrates. The only question I have for you, Nigel, is can you provide comprehensive links to the funding of the CO2 Coalition and Clintel? All I could find regarding their funding is here, which readers might find interesting: https://www.desmog.com/2024/07/24/dutch-and-u-s-climate-deniers-join-forces-as-europe-shifts-to-the-right/
Oh, and can you point me to any grant from any recognized scientific organization who funds research to point me to your "science"? Publications from vetted scientific journals would be nice, too, but I know that both the funders of science and reputable scientific publications are all part of a conspiracy/religion to shove climate change down our throats, right? That's why you, Clintel and the CO2 Coalition no longer have to look at systematic datasets, analyses and publications that provide new I suppose. How liberating that must be!
Here's my "p!$$!^& into the wind" letter to my Senators, inspired by your nice encapsulation of the conclusions of the scientific community, which I included in the body of my emails to them. Don't expect any serious answer from either one of them, but it's what the heck?
Dear Senator __________
Hello,
In coming weeks/months, it is the responsibility of the Senate to query nominees for the Cabinet, and assuming that this occurs again this time around, I would hope that there is an opportunity to ask questions to the nominees from your position as Senator from Kansas. Specifically, I am concerned about the nominees so far having a history of downplaying or outright denying that climate change is an important topic that needs addressing, and any delays in taking those measures to mitigate its impact will only increase its severity and make it more difficult to reduce its impact on Kansans in our lifetime. Specifically, I think it is important to ask if each nominee agrees or at least does not outright deny that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on each of the following points:
That climate change is real;
That climate change is a serious, existential threat;
That climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions;
That greenhouse gas emissions are driven primarily by fossil fuels; and
That solving climate change requires transitioning away from fossil fuels.
For that matter, since these conclusions, backed by virtually all the data and scientific analyses of that data, is of utmost important to the future of Kansas citizens, I sincerely hope that you, too acknowledge these conclusions and will do everything in your power to decarbonize the Kansas economy in a way that is effective in reducing the threats and at the same time do so in a timely way soas to reduce the economic toll that will only increase the longer we wait.
Very cool idea!
Ken
Good luck with that and always worth a try, but its clear that the only one of your 5 points that is valid is the first… All the data when correctly reviewed supports the Climate Realism policies that will be installed in both the USA and Canada ….. once we change our government.
There is still a strong need to ensure we have continued progress on improving our local environment and ensuring we have also adaption strategies where needed… but forget Climate mitigation and associated NetZero goals.
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
Welcome back, Nigel! You have decided to return to spout your lies again? You know, your sources still are the same tired repetition of positions that are simply not backed by any credible scientific study vetted by the climatological community, and without these, your clear conflict of interest is glaringly obvious. Feel free to say what you want, but without providing a credible model that either disproves the veracity of any of the 4 scientific statements as inaccurate/provides a model that more accurately accounts for the data so meticulously collected on all fronts, your statements just come across as just another oil lobbyist like those who have overwhelmed the latest COP.
Other than drinking the Koolaid of the other fossil fuel lobbyists, I would agree with you that there is still a strong need to ensure that we have continued progress on improving our local environment. We should not limit ourselves to adapting, though. As North Carolina just found out, you cannot adapt to 20 inch plus deluges. Without mitigation and a decarbonization economy that stops fossil fuel emissions, the chemistry of the atmosphere will continue to support extreme weather events with increasing frequency and severity, despite your denial that such connections exist. The best local environmental adaptation is to transform that local energy production/distribution network into renewables, coupled with energy efficiency measures across the economy that will reduce the need for increased demand. Do that locally and multiply it across the planet. If the feds want to get out of paying for increasing costs of climate-related disasters, they need to invest in the rapid deployment of a low carbon economy in our communities, as these increasing costs are way more costly than decarbonizing the way we live.
Ken
Its ok ….. you stick to your beliefs and I really don’t care… but you must know that a better review of the science and politics is now moving us toward Climate Realism, and its now clear that it will be the baseline policy that will place CO2 mitigation far below adaption and other environmental improvement initiatives.
It will be up to the climate alarmists to convince us for any need for this policy to change.
The Problem you will have is…
First…. Both long and short range climate history even after the increase in CO2 has not resulted in any statistical extremes in the climate environment for human coping and flourishing, and we will continue to benefit using the power of fossil fuels. This requires you to understand the data and root causes and separate weather and such short-term trends from 30-year climate trends that clearly show no climate emergency. To the contrary, we see advantages of more CO2 and a slightly warmer planet that has happened 5 times in the last 10,000 years..
Second…. Climate change Projection models have been continuously discredited and are running out of risk factors that support the notion that CO2 is the prime driver of global temperature.
Third… The notion that climate realists are in the evil pay of bad actors is getting real old. In fact its clear that the real criminals are the UN and past politics that have subjugated the integrity of Climate science, and this is going to be exposed with the review process I outline in my Substack article.
I am happy to discuss sustainability goals we need to follow so we better balance economy, social, and environment for our citizens. We are planning think tanks in Canada to work on this next year once we realign our government.
Stay well.
A better review of the science and politics is moving us toward Climate Realism? That's a very revealing statement, Nigel. What you really mean is that the hard science, i.e. data collection and rigorous analyses are being suppressed by the political elements that are dominated by the fossil fuel interests. Climate Realism is newspeak for Climate Denialism, as is evidenced by the whitewashing report ( https://issuu.com/libertyfrac/docs/bettering_human_lives_2024_web_-_liberty_energy/2?ff ) put out by our new cabinet nominee, who is denying the importance of the changes in the climate caused by fossil fuel emissions and says that we should build out way out of the issue by.....you guessed it....more fossil fuel emissions-fueled economic growth!
This is not science, but a classic example of those in charge wanting to retain their economic and political power despite the clear evidence of the damage that they are causing, which clearly will only get worse. Your BS 3 points are the same denialist points that have been so thoroughly discredited as to not merit a response other than to say that C02 and other greenhouse emissions from fossill fuels have changed the atmospheric chemistry in ways that created impacts (sea, atmospheric warming, increased frequency of droughts, increased flooding, increased strength of hurricanes, increased wildfires frequency/severity, poleward shift of species, increased acidification of the oceans, sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching, etc) that were precisely predicted and no alternative mechanisms have been offered by denialists that account for the physics used by models that place causality for all of these effects squarely at the feet of fossil fuel emissions.
So yes, I am also happy to discuss sustainability goals that share a decarbonized economy as an essential component.
Ha Ha....When are you going to stop listening to lies…Why don’t you come to terms that there is no emergency level issues (30 year averages) with the metrics of increased frequency of droughts, increased flooding, increased strength of hurricanes, increased wildfires due to climate, increased acidification of the oceans, sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching,… these do vary with weather but are all showing no statistical adverse trends due to climate change and this has been fully reported. (Note weather transients is not Climate…)
Lets go with Hurricanes…
Hurricane numbers are increasing - CO2 Coalition
https://co2coalition.org/quiz/hurricane-numbers-are-increasing/
More data from reliable sources
Climate Quiz - CO2 Coalition
https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/
And
Wallace Manheimer: “Science Societies’ Climate Statements: Some Concerns” | Tom Nelson Pod #243
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraXQCWQZhs&t=2s
Why not read Unsettled by Koonin… He is getting good review with our governments.. If you have not read his book or reviewed the links above you should before you debate with me any more as all the data we use is the same data that is in the IPCC scientific section reports.. it’s the policy sections that tell huge lies.
Sustainability goals will not include any mention of CO2.
Anyway…. I am extremely happy that we now have the correct policies going forward. 😊
https://clintel.org/
Sorry for not replying sooner--life intervened. I reviewed you CO2 coalition materials and your Tom Nelson pod and they fall well short of anything the IPCC has provided in their transparent process. The climatological community has provided a multi-year ongoing endeavor that continually evaluates the ongoing data collection, analyses and has developed 6 Syntheses reports, with the latest being AR6, and is working on the 7th. This involves hundreds if not thousands of contributing authors, writers and review editors, guided by a scientific sterring committee. This is not a radical community; in fact the scientific method is geared toward shooting down any and every hypothesis in order to ensure that there is not some alternative explanation/model that provides a better fit to the carefully vetted systematically collected data. The results of this process is inherently conservative, so any conclusions that are provided are couched in level of certainty as science always leaves room for new information and models that are counter to the conclusions provided.
That said, here is the relevant set of conclusions that they provided in 2023 in their latest Synthesis report:
"B.1.3 Continued emissions will further affect all major climate system components. With every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger. Continued global warming is projected to further intensify the global water cycle, including its variability, global monsoon precipitation, and
very wet and very dry weather and climate events and seasons (high confidence). In scenarios with increasing CO 2 emissions, natural land and ocean carbon sinks are projected to take up a decreasing proportion of these emissions (high confidence). Other projected changes include further reduced extents and/or volumes of almost
all cryospheric elements 34 (high confidence), further global mean sea level rise (virtually certain), and increased ocean acidification (virtually certain) and deoxygenation (high confidence). {3.1.1, 3.3.1, Figure 3.4} (Figure SPM.2)
"B.1.4 With further warming, every region is projected to increasingly experience concurrent and multiple changes in climatic impact-drivers. Compound heatwaves and droughts are projected to become more frequent, including concurrent events across multiple locations (high confidence). Due to relative sea level rise, current 1-in-100 year extreme sea level events are projected to occur at least annually in more than half of all tide gauge locations by 2100 under all considered scenarios (high confidence). Other projected regional changes include intensification of tropical cyclones and/or extratropical storms (medium confidence), and increases in aridity
and fire weather (medium to high confidence) {3.1.1, 3.1.3}
"B.1.5 Natural variability will continue to modulate human-caused climate changes, either attenuating or amplifying projected changes, with little effect on centennial-scale global warming (high confidence). These modulations are important to consider in adaptation planning, especially at the regional scale and in the near
term. If a large explosive volcanic eruption were to occur 35 , it would temporarily and partially mask human-caused climate change by reducing global surface temperature and precipitation for one to three years (medium confidence). {4.3} "
In a nutshell, this is the gold standard of understanding in the scientific climatological community, and your little dances in the CO2 coalition are entertaining to your faithful, but wither away under the rigorous standards of the scientific community. Climate Realism is just Climate Denialism 2.0 and is a political protectionism endeavor that has nothing to do with the science. The writing is on the wall, and we can choose to ignore it for a while longer, but that does not mean we will be able to ignore the consequences that only increase with time.
Look Ken… The games up…stop spinning your wheels… and its ok .. say and believe what you want….but the western pollical leadership are now listening to us climate realists, and moving away from NetZero and certainly are rapidly recommitting from COPS investment.
The reason is that the UN IPCC and the COPS has become a huge joke of late…. and the reason is that it and many of the Quasi fact checking groups that support its findings has become more political than scientific.
The problem is that on a scientific basis they fail to convince as follows…..
See CLINTEL The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC - Clintel
1. They demonstrate a huge gulf between the scientific reports that show no emergency and the policy outlines that talk about Armageddon … and this is what Koonin in Unsettled explains very well.
2. They cannot explain why even though the “CO2 Pollutant” has doubled that the past to present trends on every climate level environmental metric shows no significant adverse trends and some have got less adverse and all CO2 has done is improved the food supply with the aid of fossil fuels. This is supported by IPCCs own data and NOAA and documented by Koonin, Christy, CO2 Coalition and CLINTEL and many other truth-seeking scientists.
3. They fail to dispute the core science of the impact of CO2 on the climate that shows that CO2 is a very small participant in climate change. In the so-called greenhouse effect …. Water vapor is by far the largest contributor to the so called green house effect .. but in the case of CO2 it has a short bandwidth and we are now close to 88% saturation at the current max 415 PPM level such that any possible GHG effect will be almost zero over past levels. There are other facts that dispute that CO2 has any significant causation on temperature as data from ice cores shows it’s always the reverse and Temperature controls CO2. As said further CO2 increases cannot affect temperature, but it will improve plant growth where PPM up to 2000ppm would be optimum…. life on earth has seen 6000ppm and the biosphere flourished. So CO2 IS a GHG but a very poor and small contributor and not a significant temperature driver as it contributes 0.5% of energy forcing of 2 W/M2 versus total of 500 W/M2 .....The impact is 0.1deg C per decade (Nothing to be concerned about)
4. They also like to confuse weather transients with longer term climate… and even these can be explained.. see this from Christys work.
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYVyU_q9Uo&t=403s
5. The IPCC will probably never live down the crime of the hocky stick that discredits M Mann. It did not correctly show that In the last 10,000 years we have seen 5 similar temperature increases and most of them were same rate and higher than today… and in those periods of high temperatures we flourished…. it was the cold parts that made us struggle.
6. They fail to convince on future risk projections….So far …..the science is unable to model the future effectively with most models over predicting most risk parameters. Climate models are not “ fit for purpose” in terms of managing risk policies. And we continue to see over prediction of future risk compared to actual measurements.
The bottom line… NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And a waste of our wealth, and we need to redeploy our policies to only consider focused adaptation to a naturally warming planet.
Here is a nice paper about to be published and being used in Canada for policy planning..
x1ZiI4slK2Uu9a6M2vLlsq6qTFhnCi-metaV2h5IE5vIHRvIE5ldFplcm8ucGRm-.pdf
…………………………………………
You're pretty funny: you point to the CLINTEL "critique" about "the frozen climate views of the IPCC" and then the CLINTEL web page proceeds to attack the IPCC Synthesis AR5, published in 2014, which was replaced in 2023 with AR6, with AR7 well underway. And then it cherry picks critiques of CMIPS 5, which was long ago replaced with CMIPS 6, with a CMIPS 7 being currently developed.
It's very clear that the CO2 coalition and CLINTEL are the ones frozen in time with their critiques built around an 85 year old retired physicist and others lined up at the fossil fuel food trough who have been thoroughly debunked.
So it's nothing to do with the veracity of the issues of climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions: that is settled science. The fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in misinformation campaigns (Hmmmm....CLINTEL and the CO2 Coaltion funding??? Where are the staff funds, contributions, coming from????) as well as coalitions from funders of the industry to extend the fossil fuel dominance a while longer. You might try reading Emily's excellent journalism that traces that whole effort, as if you aren't already acutely aware of it.
So keep spouting the party line, Nigel, it keeps us up to date on the latest attempts at obfuscation. I had never heard the term Climate Realism before you told us, so thanks for the tip on how to track the discredited Climate Denialism movement!
Ok Ken ..
I don’t care which version of the fabrications I review in IPCC, they are all based on a political initiative to make the science fit the narrative… The hockey stick is a great example…. and that’s why its all being disregarded.
No science in your statements…. just activist religious slag off of others when you cannot support your claims.,
You are done.. unless you have intelligent questions?
Yes, I know you don't care, Nigel. You clearly don't even know what science is, which the rest of your comment clearly demonstrates. The only question I have for you, Nigel, is can you provide comprehensive links to the funding of the CO2 Coalition and Clintel? All I could find regarding their funding is here, which readers might find interesting: https://www.desmog.com/2024/07/24/dutch-and-u-s-climate-deniers-join-forces-as-europe-shifts-to-the-right/
Oh, and can you point me to any grant from any recognized scientific organization who funds research to point me to your "science"? Publications from vetted scientific journals would be nice, too, but I know that both the funders of science and reputable scientific publications are all part of a conspiracy/religion to shove climate change down our throats, right? That's why you, Clintel and the CO2 Coalition no longer have to look at systematic datasets, analyses and publications that provide new I suppose. How liberating that must be!