Ok, as I have suggested to others, why not take this evidence and submit it to Science or Scientific American magazines? If the GOP controls a house in Congress next year, have it presented at hearings, let the experts on both sides get questioned. As to the IPCC, what is the evidence they downplayed the two publications, were they challenged for doing so, and what reasons did they give?
I go back to two things on this topic: First, what the late John McCain said, something to the effect that if human cause climate change is real, we need to do things to counter it. If not real, many of the things suggested are good policy anyway. Second, in the past industry-funded groups downplayed the dangers of auto exhaust/smog, industrial waste tobacco use, pesticide safety, etc. and I assume acid rain and the ozone layer. Time showed that these things were dangerous, or in some cases I assume not so much. Now, when I look at oil company websites, I see that they recognize the problem and are taking steps to lessen it. What gives?
I read once that the GOP was the only conservative party in the developed world that didn't profess belief in climate change. Even that has changed, as the last platform acknowledges the problem. My assumption is that conservatives are skeptical because they don't like government regulation, and if one assumes the validity of human caused climate change as a danger, one has to concede that regulation may be necessary. Liberals famously don't mind government regulation, hence their willingness, rightly or wrongly, to accept the science. Where one stands on the issue often depends on where one sits politically.
Finally, I know the motivation of an oil company to have paid people to debunk the accepted theories, but what it the motivation of the IPCC, Science and American magazines, and climate science to perpetuate this massive fraud, which if true is almost without precedent by my understanding. The only thing I have seen offered is fear of ostracism from the academy, pretty weak tea.
Firstly the data is already published in peer review, and cited by the IPCC, that is not the problem, the problem is that they choose
to downplay the science because it did not fit into the narrative.
Also that the climate's sensitivity to CO2 is lower, has been presented to Congress by Dr. Judith Curry.
Opening Statement to the Space, Science, and Competitiveness Senate Subcommittee on Climate Change
What you ask has already happened.
Human caused climate change is very real, but the changes suggested are unnecessary if the sensitivity of added CO2 is as low as the data suggests.
There are several causes for the models of ECS to run hot, but the largest factor is that ECS is the wrong thing to simulate, in that an abrupt
doubling of the CO2 level can never happen, so why are we simulating, and basing legislation, on that simulation?
The oil companies fall into to two unique camps, those who will profit massively from a carbon tax, and those who will loose money.
Exxon, Shell, BP, ect, are ready and would capitalize on a carbon tax to make carbon neutral fuel. The companies who do not have their own refinery capacity
would have to pass on the added cost to their customers, and brand loyalty, does not run deep, with gasoline, it is a commodity.
Consider two scenarios of CO2 climate sensitivity,
The IPCC would say that warming by year 2100 would be a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 3C times the (business as usual) RCP8.5 CO2 level of 1370 ppm.
Because of the log curve, one has to calculate a multiplier, for 2XCO2 that is 3C/ln(2) = 4.32, so the warming expected by year 2100 is 4.32 X ln(1370/280) =
6.85C
A more realistic scenario is that of TCRE where 2XCO2 is equal to .82C, and the level expected by year 2100 is 700 ppm, 1.195 X ln(700/280) =
1.09C
One predicts a hell scape requiring urgent action, while the second, has mostly already happened.
The numbers from the second sensitivity came direct from the
IPCC AR6 SPM
Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed
to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°C.
I know they present it in odd units, one has to question why.
www.foxnews.com
www.desmog.com
