“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” ~ Galileo Galilei
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a small staff of 12 volunteer scientists who research Climate Change. They recently published another tome that questions their veracity. It also questions whether Climate Change is real, imagined, but essentially does not resolve that question at all. Its suggested (but unsubstantiated) impact on the environment, society and economic consequences is becoming an indicator for uncertainty rather than explaining real trends.
These assumptions and Climate Change is controversial since it is promoted by “beliefs” rather than measurable facts and metrics. The IPCC said; “scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.” Although there is no change in temperature for the last 15 years, yet that anomaly is downplayed in the report.
Why the disparity? According to the scientists, it is due to the ongoing understanding of climate change. The report made significant adjustments from its previous reports. For example:
- In the 2007 study, the temperature range for doubling CO2 in the atmosphere was 2.0C to 4.5C.
- In the latest study, the temperature range for doubling CO2 in the atmosphere was expanded to 1.5C to 4.5C.
Apparently they needed to expand the range of temperature to “fit” their models? Although this is cynicism, increasing the range in temperatures and assumptions affect predictions of sea level rise that will proceed faster, ocean warming, and other areas where warming is projected to continue in all scenarios. Here are some other areas where recommendations from the IPCC impact scenarios:
- Rising Sea Levels
- Ocean Acidification
- Heat Extremes
- Lower agricultural yields
- Risks to Human Support Systems
- Non-linear impacts tipping elements
So, where is the reporting Transparency in the study? It is public, right. But shouldn’t the IPCC stand on the same level of scrutiny that corporations are encouraged to provide? It stands with “scientist’s belief” that man has created the problem of climate change, yet recent IPCC models do not explain man’s significance on Earth’s climate.
What be other explanations? Here are a few examples: volcanoes in the lithosphere or hydrosphere, recent earthquakes that created an island off the coast of Pakistan that is made of methane infused clays, possible thawing of the permafrost and possible underestimate of the sun’s influence, especially with the recent large solar flares.
Predicting the Climate Change of our planet is a huge undertaking. Given this rather “flexible” notion to Climate Change, based on a dozen volunteer scientist’s “beliefs” and opinions. Why would executives give any credence to Sustainability? Executives make decisions on facts. And according to other sources, there are other significant megaforces that executives would recognize as a threat to their bottom line.
IPCC has been a target for promoting their own agenda, not the science. I would have thought that criticism could be minimized if they took a recommendation from their organization, the United Nations. Both the UN Global Pact and CERES have principles for BUSINESS. Why doesn’t the UN have principles for CLIMATE CHANGE? My suggestion is to read and become more informed. Here are a couple of recent articles that also question the recent IPCC publication: