Main menu

Pages

Climate Panic Behind Energy Crisis; Calls for Review of Climate Science


On Friday, September 16, 2022, a mural by Brazilian artist Eduardo Kobra turned attention to climate change and stewardship of the planet on display outside United Nations headquarters in New York City. AP PHOTO

first word

The United Nations General Assembly opens today, 20 September, with an annual forum to discuss global issues and concerns among heads of state and governments around the world. Our President Fedinand Marcos Jr. is also one of the speakers.

At a time when all of humanity witnessed and experienced a period of war and devastation in Ukraine and Europe, the two-year coronavirus pandemic that claimed millions of lives is now the specter of inflation and the ravages of food and energy. It is an opportunity for countries and governments to come together and discuss issues together.

There is perhaps no better place for this than the General Assembly of the United Nations.

“Think of the United Nations as a bridge,” said Eleanor Roosevelt at the founding of the United Nations. .”

get the latest news


Delivered to your inbox

Sign up for The Manila Times daily newsletter

By signing up with my email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

One such issue and concern at this year’s General Assembly is the wake-up call to a suspected climate emergency and the profound and fundamental changes in the global economy and major upheavals in energy production and supply.

Who will lead this debate? Who will speak the language that helps define our course?

“Right way to go”

On September 15, renowned author and environmental policy advocate Michael Shellenberger testified before the US Congress for the seventh time in two years.

In his testimony, Shellenberger surprised everyone by tracing the cause of the global energy crisis primarily to the climate change movement, which is driven and led by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. I reproduce some key parts of his testimony.

“I share the Commission’s concerns about climate change and misinformation. That is why I have been doing energy analysis for over 20 years, working as a journalist, promoting renewable energies, the switch from coal to natural gas. , has advocated nuclear power as a force to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

“At the same time, we are deeply concerned that climate change concerns are being used to stifle domestic energy production. No. The consequences are the worst: a once-in-50-year energy crisis, with continued inflation and a toll on workers and consumers in the United States and the West. and the overthrow of the government, and is about to get worse.

“We should do more to tackle climate change, but within a framework that prioritizes energy abundance, reliability and security. disasters have been declining since the beginning of this century. There is no scientific scenario for mass deaths from climate change. A much more immediate and dangerous threat is the shortage of energy supplies. to the policies and actions of the U.S. government.

“The Biden administration claims it is doing everything it can to increase oil and gas production, but it is not. Not issuing leases for oil and gas production on land Petroleum refining.Using environmental regulations to curtail liquefied natural gas production and exports.Venezuela,Saudi Arabia and other OPECs but not the United States It encourages member states to increase production, and its representatives continue to emphasize that their goal is to end the use of fossil fuels, including the cleanest natural gas, in the private sector. Undermine investment…

“The right way forward is to increase oil and gas production in the short and medium term, and to increase nuclear power production in the medium and long term. .

“We need to seek significant expansion of our natural gas and oil production, pipelines and refineries to provide greater energy security for our country and produce enough for our allies. We should seek a significant expansion of nuclear power to increase the abundance and security of nuclear energy, producing hydrogen and eventually phasing out the use of all fossil fuels. While it shouldn’t be a focus, radical decarbonization powers our great nation and civilization with a prosperous, safe and low-cost energy supply.”

Red Team, Blue Team Review

At the same time, there are movements calling for a fundamental overhaul of climate science so that the world can fully understand and address the alleged climate crisis. Climate researcher Richard Roode submitted the following report on the review proposal.

“Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt has called for a review of the ‘red team and blue team’ to challenge the science behind climate change…

“Most commonly, red team and blue team reviews are used as a mechanism to improve the security of information systems or military defenses. The red team will be responsible for the attack, the blue team aimed at revealing the vulnerability….

“As a climate researcher, I participated in reviews where weather and climate projects were explored for budget cuts. Others looked at the role of risky research and technology along the project’s critical path. I also participated in the forum Scientific Discussions. This is where scientists provided evidence in support of competing arguments to explain unresolved observed behavior. A testable and therefore scientific hypothesis.

“From my experience in both types of reviews, I can confidently say that red team and blue team exercises are not mechanisms for scientific debate. It’s not designed to be examined to support or refute it…they resemble Heath Ledger’s Joker in “The Dark Knight” causing confusion, distortion and confusion.

“Thus, Pruitt’s call for red and blue team reviews is not intended to test the scientific robustness of our knowledge of climate change.

“Administrator Pruitt’s call for review of the red and blue teams has been debated by many other scientists.” Discussing Peer Review and its Checks and Balances: The office’s former director, John Holdren of the Boston Globe, addresses the political nature of Pruitt’s position and chronicles extensive reviews of climate change science by many organizations. increase.

“Many of these reviews of climate change science are motivated by the consequences of climate change. The disruptions to the world are enormous and costly. We need to change our ways, we need to essentially eliminate fossil fuel emissions, and for decades getting the right answers on climate science is in the best interest of our prosperity and environmental security. It has therefore been reviewed from many perspectives.

“Indeed, law professor Daniel Farber reviewed the practice of climate science and concluded: ‘Climate scientists create their own institutional systems for evaluating and improving models.’ , go far beyond the usual system of peer review, and their conclusions therefore have considerable credibility by courts and institutions.

“Furthermore, climate change science has been the subject of political and public debate for decades. The results of these hearings persist today in the political and social arena, and many political hearings followed.

“Pruitt’s call for red and blue team reviews was apparently inspired by a Wall Street Journal commentary by physicist and New York University professor Stephen Coonin. Coonin maintained that such a review would be a step in the direction of “against evidence-based policy-making and the politicization of science.” I guess. The goal is to “test the ‘consensus’ and improve public understanding through an open and adversarial process.”

“However, in my view, the ‘consensus’ argument in favor of the accuracy and reliability of climate change is poorly put forward. Consensus arguments likely emerged as a communication tactic, but they are not wise tactics. It sets the choice: Which do you Are you on the side of? Who or what do you believe?

“More fundamentally, the consensus debate is not the climate science debate. It is the communication or political science debate. So testing the ‘consensus’ is not achieved by an adversarial review of climate science.” Adversarial reviews of climate science, especially those motivated by hostile political appointees, will only escalate the politicization of climate science and undermine evidence-based policymaking.

“As I see it, a red team and blue team review of climate science, if promoted at the global level, would go a long way toward dissolving the confusion, fear and anxiety caused by a decade of climate phobia. It will help.”


[email protected]

.

Comments