In November the world’s nations will meet in Glasgow for the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26). It is set to become the most important political event of the year and maybe the decade or — who knows, the century — as more than 100 nations attempt to create a globalist agreement to reshape the planet’s economy to meet the dictates of climate change science. Alok Sharma, the British president of COP26, summarized the summit’s objectives: “To keep the temperature of the planet under control — limiting its increase to 1.5 degrees — the science dictates that by the second half of the century, we should be producing less carbon than we take out of the atmosphere. This is what reaching ‘net zero’ means.”
That phrase, “the science dictates,” is instructive. For decades the world has been presented with massive volumes of scientific information, research and studies based on computer models of the planet that are said to show the world heading toward a climate catastrophe. Dramatic actions on a local, national and global scale to curb and ultimately eliminate carbon emissions are essential to prevent the devastation that threatens human existence if nothing is done.
That is what the science dictates. But who’s dictating the science?
It would be comforting to believe with confidence that the science behind the global climate alarm is solid and objective, driven by immutable and indisputable hard evidence and incontrovertible conclusions reached by a community of straight-thinking scientists.
Unfortunately the science foundations for the COP26 summit — and for all the current policy activity surrounding climate change, the environment and the economy — is not just science. The justification for the dire warnings and calls for a remake of the global energy system are dependent on massively complex computer models of the world’s multitudinous economic and environmental systems.
These computer simulations and scenarios, known today as Integrated Assessment Models, are the latest versions of half-a-century of attempts to merge all human activity and natural phenomena into massive unified models that can be used to outline outcomes decades and even a century into the future. Before these scientific modelling efforts are accepted, however, we should understand that behind the science lies more than half a century of politics.
[Read It All]
See Also:
(1) Too often news stories and research focus only on the negative climate change impacts
(3) BBC Censors their Own Climate Change Page
(4) Steyn: Michael E Mann “Sloppy and Unethical”
Watch:
WATCH!
‘ABC forgets’ documentary which ‘absolutely skewers the renewable energy industry’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fQZfFy9cFs