No one should need more proof than this.
Earlier this year, the United Nations Environment Programme released another alarming report on climate change. It categorically stated that there are no credible pathways to meet the 1.5 degree Celsius target. Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP, said, “We had our chance to make incremental changes, but that time is over. Only a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies can save us from accelerating climate disaster.”
This came ahead of COP27, the annual Conference of Parties that was held in Egypt last month. The goal of the conference was to assess commitments by countries on climate mitigation and adaptation, and transition to cleaner energy sources. But the pledges are not ambitious enough, and the countries are failing to meet their commitments to keep the temperature from rising more than 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Now, why is it important to stop the temperature from climbing more than 1.5 degrees? The earth is already 1.1 degrees hotter than during the pre-industrial period, 160 years ago. Right now, the race is to stop it from rising more than 0.4 degree Celsius by the end of the century—a scenario that seems unlikely. According to the UN statement, the world is on track to see a rise in temperature between 2.4 and 2.6 degree Celsius by 2100. This will be catastrophic.
Even at 1.5 degrees Celsius, 14% of the population will experience heat waves at least once in five years. This statistic goes up to 37% with 2 degrees warming. Coral reefs will decline by 70-90% at a 1.5-degree projection and 99% at a 2-degree projection. At 1.5 degrees, sea level rise would affect 510 million; at 3 degrees, 800 million will lose their homes. Read this interactive guide by The Guardian on how the Earth is already becoming unliveable and how it’s going to get worse.
If we breach the 1.5-degree red line, every part of the world will see unimaginable disasters. Sea levels will rise further, low-lying areas will be flooded more, animal species will become extinct, mass migration will happen, and extreme weather events will become common.
Look at what’s happening in the world right now, and one can deduce that things will 100% get worse if we don’t control our carbon emissions.
Why is everything proof global warming is true? Any honest scientist will give their hypothesises 2 outcomes: if A is true, that proves my theory, but if B is true, it disproves my theory. Why do you NEVER see the negative proof published? For example, if the Great Barrier reef has survived much warmer temperatures than currently projected? (it has). Or say the total amount of ice on earth (glaciers and polar caps) has net increased? (it has). And why do all solutions being offered demand communism and putting people back to a standard of living over 100 years ago? If it is as desperate as stated, we should be pushing for nuclear power now, while technology catches up for alternative "green" options.
The "negative proof" is never published because the climate change scientists are financed by $22B in green grants. What else are they going to say, other than we're doomed? This country was covered by ice at one point, in the Ice Age. Far more area than the Artic, but the Artic was bigger then too. So, what happened when all that ice melted? And what made it melt? Had to be global warming. Fires? First of all, lightning caused fires on our uninhabited continent happened all the time, and only rocky areas or rain would stop them. Now, people have built homes in forest areas, and their underbrush has been neglected. Recently, a large storm hit the California coast, south of San Francisco. The Climate Change gang jumped all over the amount of damage to buildings in coastal towns, and the logs and debris on their beaches. The Mercury News shortly thereafter showed photographs from 1926, with the same kind of damage---and mentioned another big storm in 1913, with the same results. The CC group doesn't know what the word "cyclical" means.