“Climate change has increasingly become an issue where parties are being held accountable because of assumed causation by human greenhouse gas emissions. At the international level, the United Nations COP21 led to the Paris agreement in 2015, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, adopted by 196 parties. Subsequently in 2021 at COP26 in Glasgow, loss and damage was a key issue.
“Attempts to seek financial compensation or enforce restrictions on activities relating to fossil fuels have occurred at various levels in many different countries. In 2022, the U.N. Human Rights Committee found that Australia had failed to adequately protect indigenous Torres Islanders against adverse impacts of climate change. Other cases relate to Project Approval and Corporate Accountability, but there is generally an absence of questioning the IPCC position that climate change during the industrial era has been predominantly caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. However, an examination of the scientific literature reveals that the assumption ‘the science is settled’ needs to be carefully reconsidered.
“Using techniques such as AI provides evidence that the sensitivity of climate change to anthropogenic emissions may be significantly lower than currently endorsed by the IPCC, and the contributions of natural factors is under-estimated, thereby reducing climate sensitivity from a mean of 3.7°C to 0.7°C. Trillions of dollars are being claimed worldwide for loss and damage allegedly caused by anthropogenic climate change. These claims could be greatly affected if the dominant cause of climate change are natural.
I am quoting from the summary of a paper recently published by my husband, John Abbot, in the European Journal of Applied Science. The entire paper can be downloaded from https://journals.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/AIVP/article/view/17962
It seems particularly relevant given the deliberations right now by the International Court of Justice, more information here.
The relative contributions from natural and anthropogenic causation need to be better understood, rather than simply assume natural change is unimportant. Of course, the situation will only change when the paradigm changes, when we think about climate change differently.
And the feature photograph is of John Abbot when he was last in the UK, where the King insists he, King Charles III, can affect the climate – the hubris of the ruling class. Who would have thought it would continue to be so relevant to all our lives in modern times.
David Tanner says
Looks like he should have named himself Canute 2
Stan Moore says
Jennifer, you make a lot of sense and it is based on the evidence and not ideology. The IPCC science, despite them saying they “own” the science, should be challenged.
Bud Bromley says
The following introduction is provided by Friends of Science.
Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Gregory W. Henry, Nicola Scafetta, and Víctor M. Velasco Herrera (2024). Multiple New or Updated Satellite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Composites (1978–2023). The Astrophysical Journal, 975 (1), 102, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7794. (Open access).
The CERES team was invited by the Heritage Foundation to contribute a Special Report on what is known about the causes of global warming since the 1850s. Although we were kindly offered payment for this report, we did it pro bono for the reasons we outline on our website here. [The CERES team is led by Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Ronan Connolly and Dr. Michael Connolly. We work with many researchers from around the world on multi-disciplinary environmental and Earth science projects.]
If you have been following our work, you will probably be familiar with some of this material already. However, we think this new report offers a good one-stop summary, for a general audience, concerning the problems with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s pseudoscientific assertions that global warming since 1850 is “mostly human-caused”.
The report demonstrates that the IPCC’s supposedly “settled science” is scientifically weak at best.
It can be viewed and downloaded from the Heritage Foundation’s website at https://report.heritage.org/sr305
Karen Klemp says
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-48dcae3a6e6a0825cbae893aa685e206-pjlq