Starting the article

Part 1 Science
- Science's Answer to the Misconception of the Climate Crisis

Chapter 1: What They Don't Say About Global Warming
Chapter 2: The Minor Influence of Humans
Chapter 3: The Truth About Carbon Emissions
Chapter 4: How Accurate Are Climate Models?
Chapter 5: Lies Surrounding Temperature
Chapter 6: Have Typhoons Really Increased?
Chapter 7: Has Precipitation Changed? From Floods to Wildfires
Chapter 8: Are Sea Levels Rising at a Frightening Rate?
Chapter 9: The End of the World That Will Never Happen
Chapter 10: Who Ruined Science and Why?
Chapter 11: Fixing Broken Science

Part 2 response
-What will we do to cope with the changing climate?

Chapter 12: The Unfounded Illusion of Zero Carbon
Chapter 13: Can Unfounded Illusions Be Corrected?
Chapter 14 Plan B

In closing
Acknowledgements
main

Discussing climate science without exaggeration or distortion, and in a scientific manner.
A hotly debated book that sharply criticizes the current state of climate science.

There is a widespread perception among the public that humans have already destroyed the Earth and that greenhouse gases will destroy it.
Temperatures are rising, unprecedented heat waves, heavy snowfall, and typhoons are occurring, and all of this is due to human influence.

But, in fact, that is not the case.
Of course, the Earth is warming and humans are contributing to this warming, but that's not the whole story.
If we look at it scientifically, we are faced with the following truth.

· It is true that the Earth has warmed over the past centuries.
However, this is not a result of an increase in the maximum temperature, but rather an increase in the minimum temperature.
In other words, the climate is not becoming more violent, but rather milder.
This means that there is no such thing as a 'burning earth' as ​​seen in news headlines.

· The frequency of heat waves in the United States today is no higher than in 1900.

· The blizzard that hit Washington, D.C. in early 2010 is called "Snowmageddon" and is cited as an example of the climate crisis.
However, the next winter with the most snow was 1898, long before humans influenced the climate.

· Typhoons appear to have increased in frequency since 1995, although there was a similar period of activity before 1949.
In other words, there was a time before human influence became prominent when activity was at least as active as it is today.
Additionally, the Comprehensive Storm Scenario Review (CSSR) states that the increase in typhoon occurrence “does not appear to reflect any trend other than the variability of natural phenomena.”


· When comparing the results of currently used climate models with each other or with actual observations, inconsistent or even conflicting results may be obtained.
So researchers adjust experimental conditions, etc.
It is about intervening directly to achieve the desired result.

· In order to achieve the 'carbon neutrality' set forth in the Paris Agreement, it is not enough to simply reduce carbon dioxide emissions; we must reduce them to 'zero' (once carbon dioxide is emitted, it remains in the atmosphere for a long time.
So, ‘reduction’ cannot achieve the desired effect.
To limit global warming to 2°C, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to zero by 2075, and to limit it to 1.5°C, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050.
However, this goal has already not been achieved.


This story, which we haven't heard, comes from Stephen E., a scientist who studied renewable energy and worked as the Under Secretary of Science for the U.S. Department of Energy, preparing plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
It is included in Kunin's book, "The Lie That Saves the Planet."
The author, who worked as a key figure in the effort to "save the Earth" more than anyone else, discovered in the process that current climate science has a very low academic standard and began to have doubts about the climate change controversy.
The fact that the heat waves, heavy snow, and typhoons that the media touts as being caused by global warming have occurred with similar frequency in previous eras suggests that the current climate change is more likely to be caused by large-scale natural flows than by human activities.
Moreover, the fact that climate models' predictions differ from each other and that they cannot even reproduce past climates shows that the scientific basis for the 'climate crisis theory' is weak.
In conclusion, the author concludes that we currently lack the ability to distinguish between natural and human influences.
The Earth is warming, but we don't know if it's because of humans.
Even the great currents of nature cannot yet be known in which direction they will flow.
In other words, when we synthesize the data, all we can know is that 'we don't know the future of the Earth yet.'

Carbon neutrality isn't the answer?
But why are climatologists silent?

In other words, the author's core argument is that the current climate crisis theory is exaggerated.
And he proves the scientific facts he discovered and mentioned above through numerous data and graphs.
However, it is surprising that the sources are reports that are mainly covered by academia and the media when dealing with climate issues, such as the UN's IPCC assessment report and the US's NCA.
Ultimately, these reports contain the author's points, but they are distorted in the process of being conveyed to the public.
So why does this happen? Why are climate scientists silent? The reason they tolerate exaggerations and distortions is because they believe that even if it means resorting to fear, reducing carbon dioxide emissions even a little is a good thing.
The media, politicians, and environmental groups are all exaggerating the sense of crisis connected to climate issues for their own benefit.


But what's the problem? Aren't the climatologists right? After all, if we can't perfectly predict the future, wouldn't it be better to at least be cautious and reduce carbon emissions? The author argues that the current state of climate science, which has lost its scientific perspective, has led to the current obsession with zero carbon emissions.
Because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, to be truly effective, emissions must be reduced to 'zero', which is realistically impossible.
Energy demand is increasing, and the Paris Agreement is not being implemented due to the circumstances of each country.
Even most issue makers, including Bill Gates, agree that achieving carbon zero is very difficult.


The future of the Earth, which cannot yet be determined,
What is the most realistic response we should take?

The authors argue that we should invest in adaptation projects rather than carbon neutrality measures that are unlikely to be achieved.
The alternative of literally 'adapting' to a changing climate is a response that has been consistently implemented throughout human history.
The author, who lives in earthquake-prone California, took earthquake precautions instead of moving, such as securing her home, shelves, and furniture, conducting safety drills with her children, purchasing earthquake insurance, and stockpiling several days' worth of food and water.
This is adaptation.
The important thing is that these adaptation policies must be actively implemented for the vulnerable.
Representative policy targets include farmers who must change the crops they produce due to changing climate, and island and coastal residents who must adapt their living environments to long-term rising sea levels.


Meanwhile, we must also invest in geoengineering technologies, which have long been excluded from discussion due to their risks.
A representative example is the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method, which directly captures and removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Although the technology will require further development and will require significant investment, commercialization will allow developing countries to address climate change without hindering economic development, so it is best to prepare now.
The most realistic way to address climate change is to move beyond the Paris Agreement, which merely talks about reducing emissions and remains stagnant, and to discuss various options that can be put into action right now.