It has been some time since posting on this topic, one which readers will recall, features prominately on this blog. More and more information continues to be available to the public, or those of whom who are not exclusively dedicated to the mainstream brainwashing media, so promoting this information published by Madhava Setty presented below.

The Dubious Origins of the Carbon Dioxide driven Global Warming Hypothesis
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” -IPCC

Commencing with:

“Be forewarned. This is a long essay. Despite what Vice President Al Gore Jr. led many to believe in “An Inconvenient Truth”, there’s no way to be accurate or remotely complete about climate science without using a lot of words. Nevertheless, Gore summarized “the science” in under seven minutes, concluding:

“When carbon dioxide is high, the temperature gets warm.”

Carbon Dioxide is going through the roof, ergo, we are going to fry. Gore told that story to millions of people in 2006. Seventeen years later CO₂ levels are higher and nobody has done anything about it. But we are starting to! Governments around the world are uniting under the goal of carbon neutrality. We have a chance to save the planet if we could only act together!

This call for global cooperation also comes with divisive undertones that are becoming less subtle. If you don’t agree you must:

• Not care about the environment
• Not care about your fellow human beings
• Not care about children
• Be uneducated
• Be selfish
• Be a Republican
• Be anti-science
• Be an anti-vaxxer
• Be a conspiracy theorist

This is the story I and nearly all my friends have had in our heads for at least two decades. Earlier this year I realized that there is another group of people that don’t agree with the story. They are never mentioned without being denigrated. They are the dissenting experts.

The science is not settled, and it will take more than seven minutes to explain why that is.”

Who is driving the Climate Narrative?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. The United Nations endorsed its creation later that year. According to Wikipedia:

• The IPCC is an internationally accepted authority on climate change and all member governments endorse its findings
• The IPCC reports play a key role in the annual climate negotiations held by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
• The IPCC does not conduct its own original research. They assess what is available and report on it.

IPCC opinion drives the scientific consensus on this issue. This is what they concluded in the Executive Summary of their  Third Assessment Report in 2001: 

“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. “

What does this mean?

It is non-linear. In a non-linear system a change in input will not result in a proportional change in output. In other words a small change in atmospheric carbon dioxide could result in a large change in global temperature. This also applies to the myriad of other factors that determine climate, including those that have a mitigating effect on warming.

It is chaotic. This means that the initial conditions present in the system will have unpredictable results over time. As explained by Edward Norton Lorenz, an American mathematician and meteorologist who established the theoretical basis of weather and climate predictability, chaos is:

When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Consider this description carefully. Future states of a chaotic system can be predicted, but only if the present state can be completely and accurately known. You have to be 100% accurate about today to be able to predict what will happen in the future. Close doesn’t count. Thus, the IPCC working group concluded that “…the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

But the IPCC authors continue, “Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”

These two statements are incongruous. The behavior of a chaotic system can only be predicted if there is absolute certainty about the present state as well as how every variable determines future outcomes. There is no room for probability distributions and possibilities if the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. That is the nature of chaotic systems.

Despite knowing that future climate states cannot be predicted, the IPCC still continues to make guesses based on where agreement exists across multiple models. This is why two decades later IPCC working groups regularly publish their assessment of available climate models that indicate that global temperatures are dependent upon carbon dioxide levels. It is their opinion that continues to drive the CO2-based global warming narrative around the world and here in the United States.

Indeed, the Biden administration’s “Climate Change Task Force” bases their ambitious goal of establishing a net-zero emissions economy by 2050 on IPCC guesswork.  But such an achievement does not come without great cost. What would the benefit be in terms of global warming?

In May of 2023, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) , ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, questioned the Department of Energy Deputy Secretary, David Turk, about the cost that will be borne by American taxpayers to make the U.S. carbon neutral.

Turk was honest but not necessarily forthcoming. He agreed that an overhaul of this scale would cost trillions and did not contest a 50 trillion dollar price tag. 

However when Kennedy pressed him on the benefit of such an endeavor, the Deputy Secretary of Energy did not have an answer. Kennedy stated that he supported carbon neutrality but wanted to know how much it would actually slow the warming of the planet. He asked the direct question:

“If we spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?”

Please continue to the source article for a wealth of well-worth-reading, up-to-date information including relevant videos.

My personal conclusion is that the global “zero CO2” program is politically motivated and driven, with the intention of redirecting the future restructuring of our so-called civilization. Nothing good can be expected for the general public!