Tag Archives: climate policy

Is the ‘climate change’ policy political movement over?

“Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.” click here

Paris agreement is not based on the best available science

Antero Ollila. Challenging the scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2017-0107

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement.

Design/methodology/approach
The analyses are based on the IPCC’s own reports, the observed temperatures versus the IPCC model-calculated temperatures and the warming effects of greenhouse gases based on the critical studies of climate sensitivity (CS).

Findings
The future emission and temperature trends are calculated according to a baseline scenario by the IPCC, which is the worst-case scenario RCP8.5. The selection of RCP8.5 can be criticized because the present CO2 growth rate 2.2 ppmy−1 should be 2.8 times greater, meaning a CO2 increase from 402 to 936 ppm. The emission target scenario of COP21 is 40 GtCO2equivalent, and the results of this study confirm that the temperature increase stays below 2°C by 2100 per the IPCC calculations. The IPCC-calculated temperature for 2016 is 1.27°C, 49 per cent higher than the observed average of 0.85°C in 2000.

Originality/value
Two explanations have been identified for this significant difference in the IPCC’s calculations: The model is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the positive water feedback does not exist. The CS of 0.6°C found in some critical research studies means that the temperature increase would stay below the 2°C target, even though the emissions would follow the baseline scenario. This is highly unlikely because the estimated conventional oil and gas reserves would be exhausted around the 2060s if the present consumption rate continues.

New UN climate treaty is not in the best interest of anyone on the planet

Natural climate changes will not be controlled by government force or laws. This type of treaty is counterproductive.

“The United Nations is to vote later this week for a climate treaty “on steroids” – stronger, more all-encompassing and more legally binding than the ailing Paris accord.” click here

Addressing changes in climate has no parallels with fighting a war

According to University of Austin Research Associate Todd Davidson, preparing for war on climate change means we should disregard scientific uncertainty.” click here

The push for more money to fight climate has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with politics. I’m reminded of a famous saying from Winston Churchill which goes something like this :

“Politics is more dangerous than war. In war you only die once. But in politics you can die many times.”

This is especially true when it comes to climate. The primary reason to not ignore scientific uncertainty is that no scientist alive can show with any level of confidence that the proposed solutions to the wild exaggerated claims being made about climate change impacts will not actually do more harm to the environment and human health than good.

Anyone can make a wild claim. But making a responsible decision requires a higher standard of care.

 

A singular focus on trying to limit “global warming” ignores critical factors essential for community sustainability; Such a narrow focus is simply self-defeating.

“While Transactions is a leading scientific journal, these special issue articles are anything but scientific. There are no experiments or tests, or even carefully constructed real world observations. It is all just speculation and computer modeling. This is what alarmist so-called science looks like. It is all about the UN Paris Agreement, not science.” click here

Climate policies must be based on science-based reality or they will fail

Regardless of politics or religion, climate policies and decisions that are based on beliefs that do not correspond to reality – the way the world really is – will ultimately fail. As knowledge of the underlying science advances climate policies must also advance. Being stuck in a dogmatic “science is settled” attitude is counterproductive.  Yes, scientists have differences of judgement and opinion but this is normal. It’s why meaningful discussion, transparency (including making data available), disclosing underlying assumptions, and mutual respect is so important. Avoidance and activism (e.g. here) only serves to fuel ill-will and hostility rather than constructive dialog.

God gave us methods of science, let’s use them properly to address changes in climate.

The global climate system is always changing and adjusting, always has, always will. Climates change. Climate is a major challenge, has been a major challenge, and will be a major challenge in the future. A UN committee was not necessary to inform everyone of that.

Climate scientists can certainly advocate as they please.  But climate change advocacy such as here is simply misleading and implies that christianity should be against or at odds with the best available climate science. The political effort to get religious organizations on-board to support government funding on global warming or climate change  is not new. When consulting business and/or research money are involved even climate scientists can lose their objectivity.