Chris Martz perfectly nails net zero.

Backgrounder by CM 05JAN25

".... I used to be a casual believer in the idea that climate change is a huge problem. I accepted blindly the narrative of the day as painted by specific “experts” and the mainstream media throughout middle and high school. I was worried about the weather. Mild winters. Unprecedented hurricanes, or so I foolishly thought. The planet is on fire! I believed it all.

When things started to not add up, and I immersed myself in both the data and literature, I began to understand just how much uncertainty there is about all of this. I was admittedly surprised because I had thought “The science is settled.”

There is some evidence that there is an anthropogenic element to all of this, although how much has been not been quantified because all coefficients used to “compute” natural versus anthropogenic forcing is done using computer modelling, not measurements. In science, you are required to measure things, but I guess in this case, academics are not subject to that. Their models only reproduce global surface air temperature (SAT) trends because the models are forced to agree with the data through artificial tuning.

Some will say semantics doesn’t matter, but it absolutely does. Scientific integrity matters, and if you do not uphold that as a scientist because it might “hurt the cause” for climate action, then you are an activist and should be ignored. 

That notwithstanding, there is very little, if any empirical evidence to suggest that this warming poses a great deal of harm to the state of human welfare and life on Earth in general. Biodiversity loss is, of course, a concern, but that is largely an artifact of other man-made issues, not a gradual warming that is adaptable to for most species. Claims that we are facing an “existential crisis” are just speculation about the future.

Convincing people that 1-2°C or even as much as 4°C of warming is dangerous is going to be an exercise in futility because most people understand that the diurnal temperature variation is several times larger than that. This is why they started to do these “climate attribution studies” to extreme weather events. Because, if you can convince people that all of these bad things are going to happen, then that will raise their eyebrows. 

But, it turns out that these attribution studies were designed with the intention of using their “findings” as evidence in lawsuits filed against energy companies for pollution. This isn’t science. It’s junk science, activism and political lawfare.

🔗 https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1063730129

Then, of course, I found out about the Climategate email leaks, which revealed that IPCC lead authors actively colluded to prevent certain papers from getting cited in the United Nations’ “scientific assessment” reports (which synthesize the literature) because they didn’t want their orthodoxy of doom challenged. Who controls the flow of information controls the narrative. What’s more, scientists withheld their data from others who had questioned their methods and findings. The controversy revealed the sausage-making that went into manufacturing the “science.”

This, along with the professional bullying of “contrarian” scientists that goes on behind the scenes and on social media and is tolerated by prestigious organizations makes me lose trust in the IPCC drafting process and the position of the United Nations being an authority.

I also refuse to blindly trust institutional positions on the issue, as well as stances taken by government agencies such as NASA.

I don’t blindly trust academics either.

I think for myself, and if more people did that, we’d be far better off.

Nailing the issues  CM 02JAN25 

Here’s the deal. 👏

From @chrismartz

• When “climate scientists” stop flying to attend conferences overseas,

• When politicians and celebrities stop flying in private jets to collect environmental stewardship awards, or buying oceanfront properties, and,

• When everyone demanding that we the peasants decrease our carbon footprint and decides to go live off-grid with no electricity, no WiFi, no running water and no plumbing,

I then, and only then, will be convinced that there is a “climate emergency” that we should be worried about.

Demanding that I pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, stop eating red meat and purchasing “carbon credits” will not have any measurable effect on weather conditions 100 years from now.

You cannot reach into my wallet, take my money, and promise to use that to set a thermostat on the planet.

💥 Happy New Year everyone!! 🥳