The dubious ‘problem’ of purported global warming has become a key driver of public policy, bringing social coercion and huge capital allocations by governments and corporations across the world. Thus, very skeptical scrutiny should be brought to bear on proposals for frantic ‘urgent action’ on this matter. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives are at stake, depending on their recommendations and proposals.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘IPCC’, the United Nations body assigned to study Global Warming – now rebranded as ‘Climate Change’ because there is no ‘warming’ – has issued yet another dire warning – one, unsurprisingly, of imminent doom and apocalypse caused by human activity, particularly of Western countries’ consumers.
This latest report, formally called a ‘Synthesis Report’, is nakedly biased and unabashed. Alex Epstein, a prominent U.S.-based energy analyst, has responded:
“A proper climate synthesis report must cover two key issues. One, an evenhanded (covering minuses and pluses) and precise account of our climate impacts. Two, an account of our ability to master climate danger, including the use of fossil fuel[s] to neutralize its own negative climate impacts.”
Epstein notes that the ‘Synthesis Report’ fails on both counts. Even worse, the report veers into bias and advocacy of specific remedies while ignoring contrary ideas. The report emphasizes dangers of a warming world omitting its positives-fewer deaths from cold – and only the possible negatives of rising levels of the main greenhouse gas, ‘GHG’, carbon dioxide – CO2, while CO2 ‘s benefit in nurturing plant life (well documented by botanists) and the resultant greening of the planet.
In the IPCC’s world CO2 is the only component of the badly modeled climate system that could cause dangerous future temperatures. Despite media hype over anecdotal episodes of heat waves, droughts and heavy precipitation events there is plenty of counterevidence – witness this spring’s New York, Toronto and New Delhi temperatures. On cue, green alarmists and politicians cited numerous and large wildfires in Canada as proof of global warming although the longer-term trend is for fewer fires and burnt land. Currently, sea levels are up just a few centimetres; despite the ‘Synthesis Report’ forecasts of a rise of an easily-adapted-to metre or so by 2100.
The ‘Synthesis Report’ further reveals an agenda: first, by explicitly condemning fossil fuel use over its ‘sinful’ CO2 production which is based on the much disputed climate change mantra that Co2 is pollution ; and, second, asserting that only the complete adoption of intermittent and therefore unreliable solar and wind energy technology would save humanity from a total fiery ‘Climate Doom’.
Epstein also notes that the ‘Synthesis Report’ avoids what he calls ‘climate mastery’, what he terms recursive learning: a behavioural change responding to observed evidence – higher variability of temperature or precipitation, causes people to become more resilient. The report ignores fossil fuel benefits particularly how it accelerates the economic growth and living standards of poor nations), through essential transportation and fertilizer, and building their capacity to be more resilient to naturally occurring climate events.
Finally, the Report’s endorsement of only solar and wind reveals IPCC collusion with the now-huge, powerful, subsidy-hungry Green industry – which has captured much of the political and regulatory classes.
Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
