What the U.N. through the I.P.C.C. is pressing for is a controlled power down of industrialized society in an orderly and agreed upon fashion by virtue of a binding international agreement, as opposed to hitting the wall of limited supply and growing demand that will soon face a burgeoning population and will eventually be the cause of rapidly declining standards of living and environmental degradation, especially if the chaos of market forces and supply chain breakdowns are not avoided.
Meeting theese reductions of CO2 emissions recommended should help to avert this chaos, whether or not these CO2 emissions are the direct cause of “global warming.”
How much of the one degree rise in global temperature can be accurately assessed to the increase of atmospheric CO2 and how much is attributable to other causes remains a contentious issue, even among climate scientists.
To be sure, it is but a percentage of the total rise.
No credible source will try to tell you that emissions of CO2 and the other “trace” GHG’s are the entire problem.
The actual consensus among the scientific community is that if humanity continues down the current path of unrestricted use of fossil fuels and material resources to fuel industrial growth for the dual purpose of increasing standards of living and continued population growth, that anthropogenic climate influence will continue to grow and the Earth’s climate will continue to get warmer.
On that I can only concur; regardless of my fundamental argument that anthropogenic alteration of the hydrological cycle is principally responsible for the documented warming, not simply the increased percentage of CO2 and other “trace” GHG’s in the atmosphere.
You’ll be hard pressed to find official statements that don’t carefully hedge on this issue.
Most of the I.P.C.C. conclusions and U.N. statements are very carefully worded.
An anthropogenic influence on the climate is now a 90% certainty.
An abatement program of CO2 emissions reducing them below 1990 levels will slow the growth of this anthropogenic impact and hopefully prevent it from becoming more than a two degree rise, but we must act quickly.
So in that regard the “consensus” is being quite forthcoming.
The media portrayal of the I.P.C.C. consensus fueled by the illusions of Gore et al, that atmospheric CO2 levels alone are the central issue, along with the popularized misconception that we can or could continue to increase our standards of living and rates of consumption and population growth so long as we can find a way to do so while meeting the abatement of CO2 emissions is the lie.
Many other limiting environmental factors are already at work and will then come into play.
The bottom line is that these “scientists,”
(The quotes aren’t there to detract from their credentials but rather to emphasize that their roles in this I.P.C.C. decision making process entails more than just the application of academic science.)
are now able to clearly see that mankind’s only hope of averting an environmental catastrophe ultimately leading to economic collapse is a binding international agreement to curtail CO2 emissions that will throttle back and then curtail both the current pace of growth of our global industrial civilization and in the foreseeable future, human population growth as well.
That is the Truth of this matter.