When Biden was sent to the White House, he created a position never before seen in the history of the White House – “climate envoy” – and climate policy was elevated to unprecedented heights by Biden and the forces behind him. Why is climate policy so important to leftist authorities? In recent years, climate policy in Europe and the United States has been based on the same assumption, namely “global warming. “Global warming” used to be an almost scientifically unquestionable judgment; but over the past few years, the “global warming” hypothesis has quietly disappeared from the documents, slogans, and propaganda of national climate policies. What has gone wrong with the “global warming” hypothesis? What does its disappearance mean? What are the mysteries behind it? To analyze the past life and present life of climate policies of various countries, it will be confusing if we don’t figure out why “global warming” has disappeared.
I. Origin of the “global warming” hypothesis
What exactly is “global warming”? Wikipedia, a socially popular website, introduces it this way: Global warming or global warming refers to the climate change that causes the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans to rise over a period of time due to the greenhouse effect, and the effect it causes is known as the global warming effect. The 5th Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 concluded that “Human impacts are likely to be the main cause of the warming observed since the mid-20th century.”
The above text describing “global warming” shows that there is no very definite scientifically incontrovertible conclusion about “global warming” and therefore it is only a vague statement of “believe it or don’t believe it It is therefore a vague statement of “believe it, don’t believe it”. In particular, the key phrase used in the UN report is that human impacts “may” be causing “global warming”; such a phrase also implies the exact opposite in the scientific field, that is, that the impacts of human activities also “may” not necessarily cause “global warming”. If we follow the common sense of scientific research, once it is established that the effects of human activities are definitely causing “global warming”, then “global warming” will not end as long as humans continue to live. However, as noted at the beginning of this paper, the term “global warming” has indeed disappeared; and what this disappearance implies is that the “global warming” hypothesis may not be valid.
If “global warming” is taken literally, “global warming” means that most of the planet, without exception, keeps getting hotter and hotter, and never gets cooler. However, when Wikipedia introduces the term “global warming”, the first sentence says, “This entry is based on selected regions and may not have a universal view”. This is a roundabout way of saying that there is no such thing as universal global warming, except that some places are getting warmer. However, when does the Earth not experience changes in climate and temperature? Following the opening restriction of the concept of “global warming” in Wikipedia, doesn’t it mean that “global warming” may not exist in fact?
II. “Do global warming predictions hold water?
The subheading of this section is taken from the title of a July 5, 2018 article in the Wall Street Journal by Pat Michaels, a U.S. agricultural meteorologist, and Ryan Mau, director of the Center for Scientific Research at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, and research associate, respectively, at the time of this writing. and research assistant, respectively, at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. In this article, they explain the error of the “global warming” judgment in more general terms.
According to the authors, the first person to formally introduce “global warming” was NASA scientist Hansen, who testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on June 23, 1988, that he had “considerable confidence ” concluded that “there is a causal relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed global warming”; he then published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which drew attention to the This led to a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which drew attention to the greenhouse effect. Then came the reasoning in environmental research circles that “rapid global warming will bring high costs of response,” which informed Obama’s environmental policies while in office.
The author of the Wall Street Journal article points out that 30 years have passed since Hansen’s “global warming” theory was introduced, and global surface temperatures have not increased significantly since 2000, excluding the extraordinary El Niño of 2015-2016; Hansen testified in 2007 that most of the ice in Greenland In 2007 Hansen testified that most of the ice in the region would soon melt and that sea levels would rise 23 feet in the next 100 years, while a study of the history of the Greenland ice sheet published in Nature found that only a small amount of ice would ever melt in Greenland over the next 6,000 years, even if the Earth’s temperatures far exceeded the levels that human activity could sustain. It’s not just Hansen who is wrong; the projections of national experts employed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have doubled the Earth’s temperature rise compared to the actual values observed by the Global Satellite Temperature Monitoring Program over 40 years. Hansen and the UN are wrong because they ignore the fact that aerosol emissions will slow the warming effect caused by greenhouse gases.
Aerosols are solid or liquid particles that are suspended in the air and can cause haze. Things like clouds, fog, and dust in the sky, smoke from unburned fuel in various boilers and engines, and solid dust from mining, quarrying, and food processing all slow the warming of the planet.
Pat Michaels and Ryan Mau refer to a 2018 paper by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the mainstream journal Journal of Climate that suggests that if the faulty projections of experts employed by the United Nations are corrected, the international community will be faced with an important problem: since the experts employed by the U.N. are not able to predict the global warming of the planet, they will not be able to predict it. If the experts employed by the United Nations are corrected, the international community will be faced with an important question: Why should people around the world pay a high price to reduce CO2 emissions when the global temperature will be similar with or without CO2 reductions?
Third, surface temperature fluctuations are “global warming”?
The temperature of the earth’s surface is always changing, and this change is often fluctuating, possibly in cycles of decades or millions of years; the range of surface temperature fluctuations can be regional or global. Most of them are natural factors, including solar radiation, changes in the Earth’s orbit, continental drift, changes in ocean currents, mountain-building movements, etc. For humans, these natural factors are irresistible; of course, surface temperature changes may also be related to human activities, such as greenhouse gas emissions.
However, it would be seriously misleading to attribute all the surface temperature changes caused by natural factors to human economic activities, or to exaggerate the short-term changes in temperature as permanent irreversible changes, and to explain the temperature fluctuations as linear trends.
In terms of natural factors affecting surface temperature, first, the drift of the Earth’s continental plates causes changes in the location and area of land and ocean, and therefore affects global atmospheric circulation, resulting in global or regional temperature changes. Second, mountain building movements of the Earth’s crust may form mountains or canyons, and changes in landforms can cause topographic precipitation and even the formation of alpine glaciers. Third, the Sun is the Earth’s primary external energy source, and the Sun’s own activity affects the temperature of the Earth’s surface. Short-term changes in the Sun’s radiation, such as the 11-year cycle of changes in sunspot activity and the 1-in-20-year cycle of radiation changes, have an impact on the Earth’s climate. Sunspot changes on an 11-year cycle can have a 1.5 degree Celsius effect on the Earth’s stratospheric temperature, making higher latitudes colder and lower latitudes hotter. Based on the observation of temperature changes from 1900 to 1950, perhaps this change is what triggered the emergence of the Little Ice Age. Fourth, ocean currents over the oceans have a tremendous impact on the temperature of the Earth’s surface, with the Gulf Stream alone giving off more heat than the world generates from burning coal in a year, and changes in ocean currents that occur in cycles of years or decades can also cause climate change, of which you often hear about the El Niño phenomenon in the eastern Pacific.
The human scientific community’s ability to know how these natural factors affect climate change is so far very limited that it simply cannot tell. However, since temperature changes can be measured on the ground, some people simply exclude all natural factors and use carbon dioxide emissions to explain short-term temperature changes on Earth, resulting in the bankruptcy of the “global warming” theory.
Can we trust the climate assessments of UN agencies?
It has always been believed that climate change is caused by natural factors. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations organized a global climate change assessment in 1990; in 1992, it published its first Climate Change Assessment Report, which declared that the continued accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere would lead to climate change.
However, before the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, some national media accused the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” of having found a downward trend in temperatures in the mathematical models produced by its own experts, who then removed the relevant data from the report in order to cover up the situation. The experts removed all relevant data from the report to cover up the situation. The agency’s 2007 forecast was that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear completely by 2035; but in 2010, the commission (IPCC) had to admit that its report had made five errors in its representation of the rate of Himalayan glacier melt; and the recalculation was that the Himalayan glaciers would not disappear completely by 2035, but might be delayed until 2350, which would be more than three hundred years from now. Can the committee’s dubious mathematical model accurately predict the Earth’s climate 300 years from now? It doesn’t even predict 30 years from now.
The very cold global climate of 2009 has raised doubts about “global warming,” and questions about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report are alive and well. For example, Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has long argued for “global warming,” calculated the climate over the past 1,000 years and concluded that temperatures would peak by the end of the 20th century; however, a panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Statistics declared that his method did not conform to general mathematical principles. Even more shockingly, the emails of Phil Jones, the director of the British Climate Research Centre, were stolen and it was discovered that the leader of the “warming theory” had his assistants “correct” the climate change data in order to confirm “global warming”. In order to confirm “global warming,” the “warming theory” leader had his assistant “correct” climate change data, not only by amplifying the data in favor of proving warming, but also by removing and obscuring data from the annual rings of ancient trees that show temperature changes over the Earth’s history. The “cooling” experienced by the United States in February 2021 once again proves the fault of the “global warming” assertion.
V. The vested interests behind “global warming
Soon after taking office, President Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to address global climate change, arguing that the global warming narrative is a hoax. There is some basis for this judgment, as discussed in the previous sections of this article. So, must the U.S. follow the global climate guidelines set by the U.N. agencies and listen to the “politically correct” people in various countries who are advocating for a “global warming” crisis?
Many people tend to look at reports issued by UN-affiliated agencies with awe, as if a statement with a UN seal of approval suddenly creates an authority to be worshipped. In fact, the fact that a UN agency is concerned about “global warming” does not represent a global authority. Because the UN has a bad reputation, it has become a tool for developing countries to blackmail developed countries, and the UN Human Rights Committee has helped the tyrannical Chinese Communist Party to do whatever it wants without being pressured by justice.
The UN operates on a one-country-one-vote rule, and a large number of developing countries support the “global warming” narrative for the simple reason that they will support any narrative that gives them money. The Paris Agreement, which announced the fight against global climate change, requires developed countries to pay money to developing countries to help them reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and China is one of the beneficiary countries. Not long ago Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian also said that U.S. climate envoy John Kerry came to Shanghai to talk about controlling climate change and wanted to bring the climate improvement subsidies owed to China during the Trump presidency. The Chinese Communist Party is very powerful at the UN because it knows how to pander to and buy off corrupt elites in developing countries. Of course, this does not mean that the elites in developed countries are not corrupt; the Chinese Communist Party is able to take what it wants and manipulate the UN and many international organizations because it knows how to buy off the elites in various countries.
Those developing countries that are waiting for money to support the Paris Climate Agreement are only supporting more funding or subsidies from the West, and the money is likely to fatten the elites of those countries. Just like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s decades-long food development projects for African countries, throwing as much money in will never improve the backward agriculture of those countries, but it will definitely improve the family fortunes of corrupt officials in those countries.
Is global warming real or not? Is the global climate getting warmer or colder? This is always a long-running debate. It should be noted that the study of “global warming” has in fact become a profession and a livelihood for a group of people who cater to the government’s concern about the negative effects of “global warming” in order to obtain research funding and keep their institutions from being abolished. Therefore, many of them will follow the government in their research conclusions.
As for why politicians advocate climate policy, which has even become “politically correct” in the United States, there is a complex relationship with their political and economic intentions. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his advocacy of “global warming”; two years after he won, the “global warming” hypothesis was challenged by the reality of global cooling. The report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the “global warming hypothesis” and Al Gore’s carbon trading company were seen by many as representatives of a “conspiracy theory”.
The absurdity of the “global warming” theory is that it is not very reliable in the first place, but if it is not astonishing, it will not be able to bluff the public; and really push its speculation to the extreme, the peak of the “global warming” theory flourished to, it The day of the “help” is not far away.
Recent Comments