I think it’s fair to say that by now most people around the whole world are pretty familiar with the narrative that our planet is facing a dire crisis due to Rising temperatures the general premise of this narrative it was laid out fairly well in January of last year when Al Gore was giving a presentation to the world economic forum and he said the following quote greenhouse gas emissions are now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima class atomic bombs exploding every single day on the Earth that’s what is boiling the oceans creating these atmospheric rivers and the rain bombs and sucking the moisture out of the land and creating the droughts and melting the ice and raising the sea level and causing these waves of climate refugees likewise 13 months after that gloomy speech in February of this year you had the same doomsday apocalyptic message being echoed by the United Nations Secretary General who said this during this year’s United Nations environment assembly quote our planet is on the brink ecos systems are collapsing our climate is imploding and humanity is to blame now here’s the thing though despite the ubiquitous number of articles that have been published saying that there is definitely a universal consensus in the scientific Community surrounding this climate narrative well not all scientists agree and the ones that don’t are not quacks case in point you have Mr John clauser who won the Nobel Prize in physics back in the year 20122 and Mr clauser he sees the data differently speaking last year about the topic here’s what he said quote the popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous Corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock journalism pseudo science in my opinion there is no real climate crisis and so a good question at this point would be how can there be such a vast discrepancy on the topic that is so extensively researched such as climate there isn’t just a small difference of opinion I mean these are two completely different views on something very fundamental well we hear at The Epic Times we were able to speak with Mr Steven kunan he’s a former physics professor over at Caltech he’s currently on faculty at NYU and he was previously the under Secretary of Science in the US Department of energy and having studied the production of climate related data for the last several decades well Professor kunan he told us the following quote I’ve watched a growing Chasm between what the politicians the media and the NOS were saying and what the science actually said nobody has an incentive to portray scientific truth and facts now Professor Coan published a book three years ago titled unsettled what climate science tells us what it doesn’t and why it matters that book went on to become a bestseller and what it essentially did was to analyze the process by which climate data goes from these dense thousand page scientific reports into headline news for public Global consumption and one of the most ubiquitous sources of this Topline climate data comes from an organization called the IPC CC which stands for the intergovernmental panel on climate change this organization was established back in 1988 by both the United Nations as well as the World Meteorological organization now according to its own website the ipcc is a quote collection of scientists and government appointees that are dedicated to assessing the science and climate change and as just a practical matter the ipcc it functions as both a scientific body as well as a political body quote the ipcc doesn’t conduct its own research but rather assembles teams of hundreds of scientists and working groups that collect reports from scientific journals regarding climate change its effects and what should be done about it about every seven years an ipcc working group called working group one synthesizes the latest reports into assessment reports often several thousand Pages thick which are then reviewed and edited by government appointees from 195 member nations now last year in the year 20123 the ipcc released their sixth assessment report you can see it up on your screen however the compiled in this report while seemingly objective is perhaps less so quote the information on which the assessment reports are based often has a bias from the start critics say because research grants typically fund studies that support the prevailing narrative on climate change and because scientific journals often avoid publishing studies that suggest climate change is not dire meaning that because scientific journals have fallen in line with a prevailing position regarding climate change papers that don’t conform to that position have a hard time getting getting published and actually even further those papers have a hard time even getting off the ground and getting funded given the fact that research grants are typically not doled out too easily on studies which might poke holes in the climate change narrative and so even if you wind up compiling thousands of these types of studies you might assume that you’re getting an accurate picture of the science however because there’s Distortion at the level of the journals themselves all the underlying conclusions in the studies have fallen into a type of group think for instance describing the situation Professor William haer who a professor of physics over at Princeton University he told us here at The Epic Times the following quote any literature that supports alarmism is promoted and any that does not is rejected the source of much of today’s climate data comes from centers whose generous funding would cease if climate hysteria were to Abate likewise you have Professor Richard lindsen who is a professor of meteorology over at MIT and who actually served as one of the scientists in working group one over at the ipcc and he told us here are The Epic Times of following quote the ipcc itself is only studying anthropogenic man-made climate change it doesn’t do anything regarding natural climate change and that’s a severe technical shortcoming because you can’t do things like attribution unless you know what natural variability is now here’s perhaps the most interesting part despite all that Professor kunan he told us that quote when you read the assessment reports focusing mostly on the science they’re actually pretty good the data presented in the assessment reports is a relatively sober analysis however it provides little support for The Narrative of climate catastrophe at least as far as what has been observed to date and as a concrete example of what he means by that if you look at chapter 12 of the most recent assessment report the one that was just released last year you will find the ipcc’s assessment on the impact of extreme weather events and the tables that they provide in that chapter it shows that extreme weather events that have already emerged are limited furthermore it states a low confidence for any increase in floods rainstorms landslides drought fire weather Cyclones hurricanes tornadoes sandstorms dust storms hail sea level rise coastal flooding and erosion it also indicates a low confidence regarding a decrease in snow glaciers ice sheets as well as lake river and sea ice beyond the Arctic region furthermore it’s worth noting that these assessments from the un’s ipcc are actually supported by findings from other organizations as well for instance the NOAA the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration they conducted a 30-year analysis of tornado Trends and they found out quote the number of strong and violent tornadoes hasn’t varied much since 1970 likewise there was a report published in nature magazine in the year 2022 and it found a quote declining tropical Cyclone frequency under global warming on average the global annual number of tropical Cyclones has decreased by 133% in the 20th century compared with the pre-industrial Baseline which is 1850 to the year 1900 likewise the drought severity index that’s published by the us government’s EPA it shows quote no material increase in droughts in the United States between 1895 and the year 2020 all right just to pause here for a super quick moment listen it’s obvious that the financial system is not looking too great after being pumped up with trillions of virtually free government dollars for many many years now well the stock bubble might actually burst in the near future and in that process unfortunately it could take away the nest egg of anyone who happens to be exposed to it and so consider taking this opportunity to diversify into something which is beyond the grasp of Washington DC and Wall Street physical gold and silver and the best company to use in my opinion is the sponsor of today’s episode American Hartford gold who I should mention is also my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer and besides myself they have thousands of five-star reviews from other Americans and they also have an A+ rating with a Better Business Bureau and working with them is rather simple they have a huge selection of coins bars and rounds to choose from they have super friendly staff who you can call and they can set either gold delivery directly to your doorstep or they can even set you up in a gold IRA and then lastly best of all if you tell them the Roman sent you they will throw in a free gold coin with your first qualifying purchase so give them a call the number is 866 24223 52 that’s 866 24223 52 or you can simply text Roman to 65532 I’ll also throw a link to their uh web page it’ll be down there in the description box below so given this reality you might ask a very logical follow-up question if all these different analyses including the analysis by the UN themselves say one thing why are news reports inundated with the our climate is imploding and the oceans are boiling narrative and the answer to that question appears to be twofold firstly the public statements from both the ipcc as well as the UN often diverge dramatically from what their own reports actually say and then secondly the predictions of a dire future are based on models rather than an observations because you see alongside each one of the assessment reports the I PCC they also release a summary for policy makers this summary it distills down the large amount of data in the full report to just a short list of bullet points furthermore to make it easier for news outlets to report the correct narrative the ipcc they also produce headline statements as well as press releases to provide a concise narrative on climate change here’s how Professor kunan describes the effect that this ultimately has quote the assessment report gets boiled down to the summary for policy makers and while it’s drafted by scientists a small number number of them the governments have to approve the summary line by line and so you already have the potential for let’s say non-scientific factors entering the summary for policy makers itself is 20 to 30 pages and the media have to cover that and they typically will cherry-pick the most extreme parts of it so that’s how we get the distortions and then that is exacerbated by the politicians seeing opportunity and Distortion and the Nos and as one example of how this actually plays out in the real world despite observing no increase in tornadoes Cyclones droughts wildfires or floods attributed to climate change well the most recent ipcc headline statement it warns that quote there is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all and that right there actually gets to the heart of the matter because much of the basis for climate alarmism it comes not from observation but rather from computer models models that are thought to be highly accurate for instance the USDA they conducted a study of climate models during a 50-year period from 1970 up until the year 2020 and here’s what they said they found quote observed changes in temperature and precipitation have generally been consistent with the changes projected by earlier models the accurate projections of future climate and hindcasting of past climate makes us confident that models can reliably project changes in the climate now that of course sounds very definitive however if you look beneath the surface of the climate modeling industry and you peel back a few layers well it really becomes questionable how reliable these projections actually are speaking about the ipcc models here is what Professor kunan told us here at The Epic Times quote the ipcc draws up its predictions based on averaged results from dozens of models which disagree wildly with one another the average surface temperatures generated by the models in the ipcc reports vary among themselves by around 3° C or three times the amount of warming observed throughout the entirety of the 20th century the assessment reports downplay this embarrassment by focusing not on the actual temperature predictions where models diverge but rather on the predicted change in temperatures where models are more likely to coincide then on top of that you have the process of tuning the models quote the models typically divide the Earth up into grid cells each a few tens of square miles these grid cells are tuned in a process of hardwiring the results from the cells to manually account for more random elements like cloud formations storms or humidity which the models can’t predict but are material to temperature changes Professor kunan then outlined some of the problems present with this tuning process quote there are hundreds of such parameters because the climate system is complicated and has many different dimensions and so as people tune the parameters differently they get different results tuning also helps the model show results closer to observed data but this highlights another shortcoming of the models while purporting to predict the future they often fail to reproduce historical temperatures they also struggle to separate human influence from natural phenomena all of which elevates the uncertainty of model predictions regarding human behavior if you’re trying as a politician or NGO or company to promote a narrative you don’t want to talk about the uncertainties you just want to say it’s going to be 5 degrees warmer and the world is going to hell but here’s the thing and you already know this if you follow the news to any degree if you question the official narrative or if you say there’s a lot of nuance in this discussion you are apt to be labeled as a climate denier as just one example of thousands at the end of last year here’s what Joe Biden said quote anyone who willfully denies the impact of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future the impacts we’re seeing are only going to get worse more frequent more ferocious and more costly and so outside of the bias of the scientific journals and the difficulty of getting Grand funding you also have the leader of the world’s most powerful country repeating the model conclusions as stated fact and labeling anyone who willfully denies those conclusions as essentially a danger to our future however here’s the thing if you take away all the Hyperbole and the political threats here’s what the underlying data actually shows at least according to Professor Konan quote we’ve had modest warming since the 1900s 1.3 degrees Celsius at the global level despite that by whatever measure you want to use lifespan nutrition GDP death rates from extreme events it’s all going in a positive direction sea level rise is continuing at just about a foot a century but the actual and projected economic impacts of warming are in the noise even the ipcc says it’s small compared to many other things that determine well-being and of course in regards to the economic impacts there’s the other side of the coin according to a report published by the Heritage Foundation quote modeling the cost and benefits to the United States of complying with the Paris agreement and meeting the Biden administration’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 52% below 2005 Levels by the year 2030 predicts these policies would reduce global temperatures by 0.5 degrees at the end of the century even with theoretical efficiency we find the cost of the policy to be staggering the economy would in aggregate lose $7.7 trillion of GDP through the year 2040 which is $87,000 per family or four now that’s pretty bad but consider that that’s what the developed world will suffer in terms of the developing World depriving them of fossil fuels will have absolutely severe consequences on that point professor lindsen professor from MIT he told us the following quote the billions of people who don’t have energy who don’t have modern conveniences they will be condemned to Perpetual poverty CO2 has played an important role in increasing agricultural productivity so we’ll see everyone paying more for food and more people starving you are already seeing tragic consequences even in the United States where a whole generation of kids has been told that they have no future they’re not having children themselves because what’s the point of having children in a world that’s going to self-destruct however questioning the underlying narrative that’s leading young people to not have children might have you branded a climate denier if You’ like to go deeper into the story I’ll throw my reference notes the links to all the reports we went through as well as a nomenal comprehensive article that was published in The Epic Times by Kevin Stockland you’ll be able to find all those links down in the description box below if you’re the type of person that likes to dig into the wheat and then until next time I’m your host Roman from The Epic Times stay informed and most importantly Stay Free [Music]
Video Tags: Facts Matter,Roman Epoch Times,trump,epoch times,facts matter roman,the epoch times Roman,Roman epoch times,facts matter,roman balmakov,roman balkamov,epochtv,the epoch times roman,roman epoch times,epoch news,the epoch times,ntd epoch times,facts matter with roman,facts matter with roman balmakov,farming,eat the bugs,no farmers no food,epoch original documentary
Video Duration: 00:16:47
