WUWT, Professional, 1st Place Competition Winner – ‘The Greta Leap Forward’ – Moving on with that?

I’m happy to publish our first position contest winner in the professional category,

Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?

Write the best arguments against the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming to convince your neighbors that there is no climate crisis.

I present “Greta’s Leap Forward.” Congratulations Jim Kelly. Look for more essays that won this week and the runner-up to be published next week. -Anthony

By Jim Kelly,

I used to accept that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was a real threat, as that was the consensus. But nervous. Believing in something because everyone else believes it cannot be a reliable guide to physical reality.

My anxiety finally came to me, and I poured my physics degree into reading the IPCC reports. I quickly recognized the emperor – not giving up as one would expect – and changed my mind.

I don’t consider your change. Most people are in my position, assuming that they lack the background knowledge or the courage to test the science on their own, and are therefore subject to consensus and authority. For those content with consensus, as NPR and Hollywood have said, there may be no access to deeper wisdom. They had to wait for Leonardo DiCaprio to find it first.

I can only tell you what changed my mind. And if you’re worried because I want a clearer view of the emperor, I can recommend some vantage points.

This is not the same as reading science

I look forward to the scientific body of the IPCC sound sciential. Seeking the truth, not promoting an institutional narrative.

However, Chapter 8 of the First Assessment Report (FAR), “Detecting the Greenhouse Effect in Observations,” reverses the scientific method. With bottomless climate data, you can find a number to confirm any hypothesis. We call this procedure confirm bias.

Or review the page xxv Later Summary of the FAR for Policymakers:

Although scientists are reluctant to come up with a single best estimate…, presentation of climate projections is necessary to make the best estimate selection.

I sensed an official peering over the scientist’s shoulder, demanding that his scientific findings be edited to meet the needs of the “presentation”.

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) makes qualitative statements more suitable for podium than a scientific paper. Like the scriptures, they are helpfully numbered. Here is A.1.5:

Human influence is most likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019… . There were no significant trends in the Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to opposing regional trends and large internal fluctuations.

IPCC determined very potential meant to fit over 90% of the models they’ve run, as if those models had no system errors. However, they defend with oddly selective intervals and reject Antarctica’s refusal to melt with truffles. Now I feel a lawyer looking over the officer’s shoulder.

Wait, they can’t predict the climate?

The money shot of any scientific paper is a chart where authors compare what they predict with what they observe. I hope the predictions are narrow enough to be useful, and that the authors must answer first about the shortcomings of their model.

AR5 presents one such chart in chapter 9, “Evaluating Models,” reproduced below because AR6 doesn’t appear to have an update. Temperatures have leveled off over this 15-year period, surprising the models.

There is not even a consensus among the researchers running these numerical simulations.

I wouldn’t expect the models to work perfectly. Trying to predict Earth’s complex climate as a function of a single CO2 concentration variable is always an attempt at optimism.

In IPCC’s WG3 report Mitigating climate change I am expected to read a plan to fix the climate — a set of achievable steps that will solve the problem.

For example, “Build 3000 nuclear plants” is planned: specific, focused, feasible, and impactful. We can imagine a day in the future when the last tree glows and we get climate change off our list of worries.

Instead, WG3 approaches it from the opposite direction. It catalogs the global economy – electricity generation, housing, etc. – and suggests how governments can intervene in each. Although it frames its analysis around the UN 1.5°C target, it does not recommend interventions specific enough to meet it, nor does it describe any accomplished state when we can declare the crisis over.

In other words, the WG3 report invites Maxima disruption in every aspect of life — for unnamed parties to redesign where we live, what we eat, how much energy we use, etc., continuously. Roadmap for everything But climate repair.

In 1958, during the original Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong closed China’s private farms to promote the development of industrialized agricultural collectives. Millions of people starved to death in a short time. Current Governments shutting down power plantscausing energy crises, freezes, and power outages. People die when it gets cold. Is that part of the plan? If the IPCC doesn’t define the plan who is it and can we please have a look?

No Trillion Dollar Problem Solved

When trying to make sense of the reports, it helped me notice IPCC’s Mission. Not to understand climate science, but to provide climate information Involvement:

The IPCC’s goal is to provide governments with levels of scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies.

IPCC’s Resolution established in 1988 consider AGW as a fact that requires government action. It is not tasked with finding out if that is true, but rather studying greenhouse gases and recommending containment measures that governments can impose to slow the spread.

Since then, climate alarms have snowballed and threatened more disruption than sea level rise ever did. Governments have kicked off their biggest corporate welfare program ever, so every tin mug blows up. Industrialists want to subsidize their solar panel companies, and cheap, reliable fossil fuel competitors close their doors. The anti-fundists saw their opportunity to take over the industrialists. SJWs see a lever to distribute wealth more. And they all want normal political processes to take precedence because of Science.

Suggestions are less disruptive to cool the Earth is quietly ignored. Climate optimists are wizen and doubt financial motivation, if you can imagine. Despite the failure of the CO2 models, the IPCC is not looking for other climate drivers. It’s odd behavior if the powerful are really worried about the Earth, but perfectly reasonable if they believe in a growing climate alarm. Could it be that the only thing in Davos scarier than climate change is climate stability?

FISA Court Science

If the IPCC omits the key graph that will validate (or accuse) AGW and instead dials in in “obvious” language, they know how their results are equivalent.

Promote an institutional narrative, negate dissenting views, even deny the existence of dissidents, not how science works. That’s not how the press, NASA or Twitter work. The West is waging a Maoist cultural revolution, eradicating the pluralism and tolerance that liberal societies have long valued.

I understand the reasoning behind trying to silence dissidents. If people hear that climate change is not an issue, it will likely be harder to tackle climate change. We have a word to justify the circle: theology.

Journalism sooner or later catches up with dogma. If we forsake public debate and other confrontational processes for discerning truth, we will get more fake news, gratuitous wars, public health policies meaningless, power shortage—And increased the pressure pretending not to notice. At the social level is cruel, at the individual level it is disorderly.

Freedom from the doctrine of the great flood

I’m happy to be called a denier if it helps me think for myself. I go well with atmospheric physicist, Nobel Prize Winners, Geologists, geophysicistand other heretics preach optimism and tolerance.

And in any case, I couldn’t see the emperor’s bare kneecap. Scientists understand climate or they constantly find out “it’s even worse than we thought, ”But they cannot do both. If you have refuseryou do not have unite. Either you believe that climate change threatens the very existence of humanity or you prioritize it with subsidized broadband.

I cannot accept more contradictions than Greta Thunberg can. The man terrorized her with climate disaster no instant green leap, but refused to take the leap. I share her anger if not her conclusions. We don’t need more action, we need less terrorism. And a leap behind to practice rather than ideology, to institutions that inform rather than manipulate, and liberalism has powered the West for centuries.