The left seldom, if ever, present us with the actual studies and methodologies upon which they rely to arrive at their conclusions. They usually present us with summaries or other self-serving and limited propaganda publications. The position of the left on climate change is predominantly speculation, and that is why they do not reveal their methodologies, which would subject them to scrutiny, review and question, the basis for all real science.
In the manner of the left, if they are called on any of their positions, they lash out and label such person a climate denier. Even if the Earth is actually warming, the left does not present us with a compelling argument to distinguish whether such warming is of human origin or natural means.
My observations and conclusions are supported by my review of the recently published Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report (which includes the usual Summary for Policymakers), produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and posted on the website of the United Nations (the “CCSR”), probably the leading proponent of human-caused climate change. My statements are further supported by my review of various other published documents of the left on climate change, the vast majority of which most likely are researched and written by parties whose funding and very existence are dependent on the left and reaching a conclusion of human-caused climate change.
In reviewing the CCSR, I observed that the analysts assign levels of confidence to their assertions such as “very low,” “low,” “medium,” “high” and “very high,” use modifying terms such as “limited evidence” and “limited agreement” to support their claims, and utilize other qualifiers related to their conclusions. Do we want to expend resources and vast sums of money to fund such qualified analysis?
The CCSR does not explain the methodologies and procedures that were used to arrive at the stated determinations, which in some cases are based on periods of time that go back millions of years. Should we just blindly accept the determinations of analysts without sufficient support?
The CCSR frequently mentions its reliance on models to support its conclusions. Models are based on structures, assumptions, data and other factors, all of which are subject to judgement, question and manipulation. How come the models have not been presented for our review?
The CCSR considers gender, ethnicity, disability, age, equity, inclusion, class and other similar topics of social consequence in its analysis without adequate explanation. What do these listed areas have to do with climate change? If climate change is the leading existential threat to the world as claimed by many on the left, shouldn’t we be concentrating on the science and not social issues?
The CCSR does not adequately address or consider that climate change could be caused by other than human activity. While the CCSR does give passing mention of historical global warming caused by orbital variations of the Earth and other natural phenomena, the publication claims that based on “climate models and observations,” its “best estimate is that all the warming observed between 1850-1900 and 2010-2019 is caused by humans.” Should we be relying on models that attempt to assess the distant past as well as the future to arrive at a qualified conclusion? When do we get to review the methodologies and models? How was it determined that “all the warming” over the referenced periods was caused by humans and not natural causes or a combination thereof?
The CCSR does not adequately consider the ability of man to adapt to changes in the environment through technological advances and other means. Maybe we should consider investing more in adaptation measures and less in questionable mitigation efforts?
The CCSR is as much a social and political statement as it is a scientific assessment. Social issues run throughout the CCSR in support of the left’s woke ideology. When the CCSR does raise financial issues, such as support for wealthy nations funding the climate change efforts of poor countries, it’s done with a globalist, Marxist, race-driven message.
The CCSR paints a picture of doom and gloom. It speaks about the urgency of addressing climate change, a constant scare tactic. We have been hearing the same dire predictions since at least the 1990s from Al Gore and others, and overwhelmingly such omens have not come to fruition in the periods of time prognosticated.
These scare tactics help the left retain and solidify power, which is a source of wealth. Probably in an effort not to raise the ire of China, the CCSR never recognizes that efforts by Western countries to address climate change are useless if China and other nations continue to emit greenhouse-gas emissions at an increasing rate, while making less than sufficient climate change mitigation efforts.
In addition, if the U.S. continues down the climate change mitigation path while our adversaries do not, it will compromise our economic health and national security. This avenue appears similar to calls by some in Western countries during the Cold War for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Thankfully, the U.S. and other Western nations did not go down this road in the past with respect to nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, they appear to be going down this road in the present with respect to climate change.
These are only a small number of the many troubling observations I made in my review of the CCSR.
Depending on the document, much if not all of my preceding observations and many more, to varying degrees, apply to the other publications that I have reviewed of the left supporting their theory of human-caused climate change.
I believe that we need to see significantly more evidence from the left before any support can be given to their climate change agenda. Based on the current evidence, I am of the opinion that future generations will take a dim view of the present analysis and consideration of climate change by the left.
In summation, we must consider the facts and not be fooled by the fiction.
And that’s my take.
Perry V. Kalajian is an attorney, consultant, and analyst with extensive experience in the areas of banking, finance, and restructuring. He possesses multiple degrees in each of the areas of business and law. Mr. Kalajian has had numerous appearances on Newsmax TV.
© 2023 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.