We promised in the introduction, this book will have conclusions that are unlike any of the ones made before. Before, we show major conclusions under each of the chapters, it is important to recall the state of the art of climate change research. It will help the readership to understand the hopelessness of the current thrust both from the 97% left and 3% right. Table 11.1 shows major conclusions, compiled from Parry et al. (2007) and other IPCC publications. Comments are added in order to familiarize the readership with the conclusions of this book. The conclusions of Table 11 have been supported by the 97% consensus group through numerous research projects and voluminous annals of publications.
Table 11.1 Major conclusions from the ‘97% consensus’ camp.
Major conclusions of IPCC | Comment |
89% of 29,000 environment data series support global warming | Most data are terrestrial, concentrated on Europe and North America. |
Global warming led to greatest reduction in ice extent that occurred in the Arctic, but some of the most obvious has been in tropical mountain environments such as on Mt Kilimanjaro. | Conclusion invalid unless global warming is the first premise. |
The oceans have become increasingly acidic with an average pH reduction of 0.1. | Has no scientific validity whatsoever |
The most vulnerable systems and sectors are:
|
|
The most vulnerable regions are:
|
|
There are very likely to be impacts due to altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, climate and sea-level events | This is not a scientific conclusion, it is a speculation that would fit the premise every major natural event emerges from manmade activities |
Some large-scale climate events have the potential to cause very large impacts, especially after the 21st century | Absolutely useless and jejune statement of the obvious |
The overall effect of climate change will be negative | This is not a conclusion, it is merely setting the false paradigm for a climate change agenda |
Adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from the warming which is already unavoidable, due to past emissions | This is preparing the public to spend on Adaptation projects and has no scientific backing |
Even if emissions were stabilized now, global temperatures would increase on average by a further 0.6 °C by 2100. Furthermore, some current targets to reduce emissions assume a global average temperature increase of about 1.5 °C above present (i.e., 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures). | This is retrofitting DICE results that are decades old, long before the Climate data were collected. |
Some adaptation is occurring now, but on a limited basis, and more is needed to reduce vulnerability to climate change | Totally unscientific and illogical conclusion. Adaptation is a phenomenon that needs generations of studies – generations of humans as well as trees. |
Vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by the presence of other stresses, including water extraction, commercial deforestation | First time a connection to overall industrial practices being made, albeit obliquely |
Future vulnerability depends not only on climate change but also on development pathway | This is nothing for pandering for more funds for development agencies so they can ‘civilize’ the third world. |
Sustainable development may reduce vulnerability to climate change and climate change may impede nations’ abilities to achieve sustainable development pathways | Has no meaning in absence of scientific definition of sustainability. This one is laying the groundwork for Universal carbon tax. |
Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation | This ‘conclusion’ actually is to counter the recent evidence that climate has stabilized and give credit to whatever has been done to ‘mitigate’ |
We will need a mix of adaptation and mitigation measures to meet the challenge of climate change, but this is hampered by a lack of information on the costs and benefits of adaptation | This ‘conclusion’ sets stage for more funding to gather information and research adaptation and justify eventual universal carbon tax. |
Human-induced climate change has contributed to changing patterns of extreme weather across the globe, from longer and hotter heat waves to heavier rains. From a broad perspective, all weather events are now connected to climate change. While natural variability continues to play a key role in extreme weather, climate change has shifted the odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather more frequent and more intense. | This ‘conclusion’ is entirely a premise, which is quickly becoming a cult-like ‘belief’. |
Current level of global warming of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels. | This conclusion is the same as predicted decades ago and is as meaningless as it was then. |
Universal carbon tax will bring in the best result in mitigating global warming | This conclusion is actually a justification for implementing Paris Agreement and channeling funds for the new EU 2030 renewable energy target of 32%, and the new energy efficiency target of 32.5%, all focusing on creating a shift away from carbon and toward toxic alternatives. |
The comments made in Table 11.1 are paramount. These conclusions set the stage for universal carbon tax and the erection of a UN-like body (the new version of IPCC) that would shape the future of the energy industry and global finances. The delivery of Nobel prize to IPCC and Al Gore in 2007 and to climate change economist and a world bank mentor this year are the events that exposes the motive of these conclusions that are touted to be scientific and objective.
In conclusion, we can safely say that the above table shows how hollow the conclusions of the “97% scientific consensus” group has been. Their ‘evidence-based’ science has little real evidence and logic used to draw conclusions has little logic in it. The fact that the 3% who opposed this narration do not have any scientific explanation to support their opposition makes it clear that the debate has long moved from the scientific arena to political one. It is only in media there remains a dispute over the scientific facts that implies ‘carbon is the enemy and non-carbon fuel is the panacea’ to global warming.
In this book, we answer two key questions, which have eluded all climate scientists purporting to conduct evidence-based research. These questions are:
3.149.233.72