How I Think About Climate Change

@john2001plus
0 seconds ago
Neil,

It is possible that climate alarmists are correct and that human CO₂ emissions will lead to disastrous climate change unless we take drastic action. However, I have about a hundred reasons to believe they are not. We will find out in time because we are currently running the experiment. While some changes are occurring, they do not seem significant enough to warrant panic. I believe we have far more time to address this issue than alarmists suggest, as these changes are happening very slowly.

Looking at temperature data, it took approximately 140 years for the average atmospheric temperature to rise by just 1°C—starting from 1880, which was an exceptionally cold decade.

One major reason for resistance to drastic climate policies is that human civilization depends on cheap, reliable energy to thrive. The proposed solutions are often expensive, unreliable, and require draconian government controls. I do not want the government to control the entire energy sector unless there is an overwhelmingly strong existential reason to do so.

I have followed this issue for 37 years and have seen many dire predictions fail to materialize. Around 35 years ago, some claimed that we would face catastrophe within 25 years. Yet, our supposed doom always seems to be 25 years away—much like nuclear fusion. 🙂

As I mentioned earlier, the rate of change is slow, but another key factor is climate sensitivity to CO₂ doubling. Just 15 years ago, some climate scientists estimated climate sensitivity to be between 6 and 12°C. However, these predictions have gradually been revised downward. Around 2010, experts warned that we were on track for a 3°C increase by 2100 and that this would be dangerous, though a 2°C rise would be manageable. Less than a decade later, I saw similar claims, but the numbers had shifted: now a 2°C increase was the catastrophe, and 1.5°C was the new "manageable" threshold. The goalposts keep moving.

We have nearly doubled atmospheric CO₂ since pre-industrial levels—though not quite yet. However, we have not observed a 6–12°C increase. After analyzing temperature and CO₂ data from 1880, I did some calculations and estimated a climate sensitivity of around 2°C.

A 2015 graph comparing climate model predictions with actual temperature changes showed that nearly all models ran too hot. Only the Russian model was close to reality.

We now live in a political climate where truth is often defined by narrative rather than data. It is a post-truth society. There have been numerous reports of scientists struggling to secure funding or publication unless they align with the official narrative.

The IPCC is not an unbiased organization. They have refused to hire anyone who does not already subscribe to the belief in catastrophic man-made warming. This is not how science should be conducted—starting with a conclusion and working backward. Given that the IPCC is funded by governments, it should remain neutral and let data guide its conclusions. Instead, it behaves more like a political entity. The IPCC has also attempted to prevent skeptical papers from being published and has hired individuals affiliated with environmental lobbying groups—an obvious conflict of interest.

Some scientists have resigned from the IPCC, citing excessive bias. One former member stated that the real goal of the organization was to dismantle free-market capitalism.

Antonio Guterres, the socialist from Portugal who has led the UN since 2017, routinely makes exaggerated claims about climate change—such as his statement that oceans are "starting to boil."

Unfortunately, I do not trust the political system or academia to provide an honest assessment. I wish I could, but too many individuals and institutions appear to be pushing their agendas.

Best wishes,

John Coffey