When a single publication dedicated to climate alarmism publishes three panicky posts in the last two days of a year, you know they’re anxious.
First, on December 30, came “The Satellite Images that Show a Decade of Climate Change”—the author apparently not realizing that individual images can’t show trends.
Then, at 9 a.m. the next day, came “This Was the Decade Climate Scientists Stopped Being Polite”—the author ignoring all the vicious ad hominem attacks alarmists have used against skeptics for over 30 years.
And an hour later, Gizmodo finished off 2019 with “In 2020, Here’s How You Can Help Address the Climate Crisis”—the author ignoring the conclusion of the global climate conference in Madrid last month.
Despite protests demanding immediate action, COP-25 (the 25th annual Conference of the Parties of the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change—UNFCCC) produced no significant outcomes. Mainstream media declared it a failure.
That was no surprise to scientists and policymakers in the UNFCCC. They recognized that “climate mitigation” by reducing greenhouse gas emissions would not significantly slow global warming. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables and using “carbon capture and sequestration” would do next to nothing.
Global warming skeptics and realists have challenged the tall claims about these actions for decades.
Now the UNFCCC admits they were right.
In a report released just before COP-25, the UN Environment Programme, a parent of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said, “If current unconditional NDCs [Nationally Determined Contributions to emission reductions] are fully implemented, there is a 66 per cent chance that warming will be limited to 3.2°C by the end of the century.” That is 60–113% more warming than the 2°C and 1.5°C initial targets set by the Paris agreement.
You wonder why? The UN says this failure means more reductions in CO2 emissions are required. But the real reason is that the CO2 emissions don’t control global temperature.
How do we know? Proxy temperature measurements over thousands of years show that CO2 levels follow temperature changes. They don’t lead. That’s largely because as oceans warm, they emit CO2, and as they cool, they absorb it.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations do contribute to warming. But their contribution is far too small to cause rapid and dangerous warming.
Further, the computer climate models predict two to three times the warming actually observed. That means they’re falsified. However useful as exercises by which to try to understand the climate system, they are useless for predicting future climate.
The IPCC insists that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions can significantly reduce warming. Observational evidence shows otherwise.
In the last two decades, warming slowed, as satellite measurements showed, compared with the previous two. Yet the rise in CO2 concentration accelerated. Global average temperature did not follow CO2.
The IPCC has not explicitly admitted its wrong assumptions. But top climate scientists working closely with it admitted a flaw in their fundamental assumptions. The reason? Faulty computer climate models.
Besides, the current warming trend began in the 17th century. That was during the Little Ice Age. It was long before industrial CO2 emissions rose significantly.
Climate science is still young. Not even the best climate scientists can predict future temperatures with precision.
But the evidence indicates that the mainstream media and some scientists have exaggerated the role of CO2 in global warming.
You can expect that the UN’s admission of uncontainable temperatures is just the first of many confessions.
Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.