Ghoulish scold John Kerry, the White House’s climate hobgoblin, has repeatedly warned that the world is not on track to contain a 1.5-degree Celsius increase in global temperature above the pre-industrial level, and this means disaster is looming. Others have made the same point, and the media just goes along for the ride. Their predictions are worthless, though. We know this because the United Nations told us so.
The rock-solid, undeniable fact is that it’s impossible to make long-term climate predictions, because our climate is ever changing and volatile. It says so in the Third Assessment Report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
And it has said this since 2001, when that report was put together.
Yet Kerry and his ilk, and we use that term with with greatest contempt we can muster, continue to tell us they can predict the global temperature of the future and it’s going to burn us all.
The alarmists point to the sentence that follows, which says, “Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.” They then claim that damning passage is taken out of context.
So now there it is in context. Have we misrepresented the IPCC’s point? Not at all. This supposedly probative sentence does not contradict the uncertainty expressed in the previous sentence, it corroborates it. Relying on “probability” and the “possible” does not inspire confidence, especially in light of previous predictions’ failures. The “experts” can do no better than guess.
Not only is the claim that the future climate can be accurately predicted a load of bunk, the 1.5 degree threshold, which most alarmists say is inevitable, is blarney, as well. It is not based on science, says University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr., but on “realpolitik.” The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change “always recognized that the 1.5 C target was much more grounded in political aspirations than in science, noting in 2015, for instance, while following up on its commitment to reconsider the target.”
The 1.5 C target was adopted as an aspirational target under the Paris Agreement, but in much that followed, the rhetoric that has accompanied it has elevated it into an actual policy goal that many take seriously (such as President Biden). However, at the time it was enshrined in the Paris Agreement, many experts viewed the target as an impossibility.
The world is lied to about global warming on a daily basis. The falsehoods are incessant, malicious, and harmful. These unprincipled liars ought to be ashamed. That they’re not tells us a lot about them.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board