Unveiling the biases in the IPCC Synthesis Report on climate change
The discussion surrounding global warming, now labelled as climate change because there is no ‘warming’, has become a contentious topic driving public policy and garnering significant attention from governments and corporations worldwide.
However, it is crucial to approach proposals for urgent action on climate change with skepticism. The recommendations and proposals put forth in response to climate change have the potential to impact trillions of dollars and millions of lives.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), assigned by the United Nations to study global warming, has issued yet another dire warning – one, unsurprisingly, of imminent doom and apocalypse caused by human activity, particularly of Western countries’ consumers.
|We need to talk about wildfires and climate change
|Are some cows better at weathering climate change?
|Four examples of mass hysteria in the 21st century
Its latest report, known as the Synthesis Report, is nakedly biased. According to critics, this report lacks the necessary evenhandedness and precision required in a comprehensive climate synthesis report.
Prominent U.S.-based energy analyst Alex Epstein points out that “A proper climate synthesis report must cover two key issues. One, an evenhanded (covering minuses and pluses) and precise account of our climate impacts. Two, an account of our ability to master climate danger, including the use of fossil fuel[s] to neutralize its own negative climate impacts.” The Synthesis Report, he added, fails on both counts.
Even worse, the report veers into bias and advocacy of specific remedies while ignoring contrary ideas. Its emphasis on rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the sole contributor to dangerous future temperatures disregards the documented benefits of CO2 in nurturing plant life and the subsequent greening of the planet.
On cue, green alarmists and politicians cited numerous and large wildfires in Canada as proof of global warming, although the longer-term trend is for fewer fires and burnt land. Currently, sea levels are up just a few centimetres, despite the ‘Synthesis Report’ forecasts of a rise of an easily-adapted metre or so by 2100.
The report also tends to overlook counterevidences, such as the variability of temperature and precipitation patterns and exaggerates the impact of anecdotal episodes of extreme weather events.
Furthermore, the report reveals a clear agenda by condemning fossil fuel use based on the belief that CO2 is pollution. It advocates for the complete adoption of intermittent and unreliable solar and wind energy technologies as the only solution to avert a catastrophic climate crisis.
Epstein highlights the report’s failure to acknowledge the concept of climate mastery and recursive learning, which involves adapting to observed evidence and increasing resilience. Fossil fuel benefits, particularly in lifting developing nations’ economic growth and living standards through essential transportation and fertilizer, are ignored.
Lastly, the report’s endorsement of solar and wind energy raises concerns about collusion with the powerful and subsidy-hungry green industry, which has gained significant influence over political and regulatory bodies.
In conclusion, the IPCC’s Synthesis Report on climate change has generated controversy due to its biased approach, failure to present a comprehensive assessment of climate impacts and mitigation strategies and its promotion of a narrow set of solutions. It is essential to engage in open and balanced discussions that consider a range of perspectives if we are to effectively address the complex challenges posed by climate change.
Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
For interview requests, click here.
© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.