Here's the thing about radical agendas that have a poor (if any) grounding in facts: They dissolve, sooner or later, under the weight of their own piled-up fallacies. The climate change agenda is one such. Now, I'll repeat my usual disclaimer: Yes, the climate changes. It always has. It always will. Right now, in our tiny little snip of geological time, the Earth is a slightly warming interglacial, wherein the global mean temperatures have been increasing slightly since the last major glaciation. There have been dips and spikes, but the trend has been slightly upwards. Through most of this planet's history, though, it's been warmer than now; and yes, human activities do have some effect, as does everything.
The climate change agenda, as opposed to the science of climatology, is aimed at getting us to surrender much of our modern, comfortable lifestyle. That's the rock on which the climate scolds always founder. Now, we see that 46 scientists who have done work with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, have broken ranks with that organization and its agenda.
The what - the scientists in question breaking ranks - is interesting, but the why is really revealing.
According to a recent report by the German online TKP, a movement is gaining momentum within the scientific community that threatens to dismantle the official IPCC narrative from the inside out. This rebellion is led by 46 scientists, many of whom have direct experience working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who are now publicly challenging the foundational claims that have dictated global policy for decades.
The heart of their argument lies in the fundamental failure of current climate models.
These prestigious researchers – among them Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Lucka Bogataj, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Judith Curry – contend that the IPCC has relied on simulations that are heavily biased toward human-induced CO2 while systematically ignoring or downplaying natural variables. By prioritizing political consensus over raw data, these models have consistently overestimated global warming, creating a gap between alarmist predictions and the actual temperature trends observed over the last several years.
The scientists suggest that the “climate emergency” is less a scientific reality and more an ideological construct designed to drive the Net Zero agenda.
If you'da asked me, I could'a told you.
Here's the onion:
Furthermore, this group highlights the critical role of natural drivers that are often missing from the mainstream conversation. They point to solar activity, atmospheric water vapor, and complex cloud cycles as the true drivers of Earth’s climate. By looking back at historical periods like the Medieval Warm Period, they argue that the planet’s current warming is well within the bounds of natural variability and is not the unprecedented catastrophe it is often portrayed to be.
Here's the thing with all of those factors: They may well have been left out, or at least underestimated, in the IPCC's work for two reasons: To reduce the number of variables, which in this case isn't reasonable, as all of those inputs can and generally do have far more impact on global and regional climates than humans do, and to focus the work narrowly on human factors. Why? Because this isn't science, this isn't a scrupulous examination of data, this is an agenda.
Of course, the major problem the IPCC has and still has is that they are relying on climate models and downplaying climate data through recent and geological history. The Earth's climate is a vast, chaotic system, complex beyond our capacity to easily understand, and is driven not only by what this piece mentioned but also by solar and orbital cycles, some of which are measured in thousands of years. And it is these models, these incomplete, imprecise models that ignore too many inputs, that the climate scolds rely on to convince us we need to give up our cars, trucks, air conditioners, and even our cheeseburgers.
Read More: Rising CO2 Doesn’t Starve Crops of Nutrients: Now Here’s the Real Science
New Data: US Air Pollution Plummets 78 Percent Amid Boom in Fossil Fuel Use
But reality is, inevitably, re-asserting itself. Now, in the wake of this, the IPCC is reportedly ditching many of the more extreme climate models in favor of moderation.
The international committee responsible for the official scenarios that feed into climate modeling that are the basis for most projective climate research and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios.
Big news: The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades — specifically, RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0. This is an absolutely huge development in climate science which will have lasting impacts across research and policy.
The future is not what it used to be.
The future of the climate change movement may not be what it used to be. But the future of the Earth's global climate will be as it always has been, largely impossible for us to predict with any real accuracy within a human lifespan, much less to predict a change in global mean temperatures of a couple of degrees. For a while now, the best guess anyone has is that the global mean temperatures will continue to move upward, slowly and slightly. It's happened before. And, sooner or later, we may well see another major glaciation, but nobody alive today will be around to see it; geological time scales are another thing most people have a hard time wrapping their heads around, being that we're kind of attuned to a threescore-and-ten lifespan.
We're slowly winning this one, too. So, if you get some time today, go outside. Soak up some sunshine. Soak up some of that nice, clean, natural Vitamin D, and relax. The Earth isn't about to explode into flames, no matter how much the remaining scolds cry about it.
