Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Naomi Oreskes: – “if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing?”.

IPCC, You’ve Made Your Point: Humans Are a Primary Cause of Climate Change

It’s time to redirect your major focus to how we deal with the problem

By Naomi Oreskes | Scientific American November 2021 Issue

…

But this raises a question for the IPCC: What now? The answer is for scientists of Working Group 1 to declare their job done and pass the baton to the rest of the scientists who populate the organization. Many people don’t realize that the IPCC has three working groups. Working Group 1 (WG1), which issued this summer’s statements, addresses the “physical science basis” of climate change. WG2 deals with “impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability,” and WG3 looks at mitigation. Put another way, WG2 explores in detail why climate change matters, and WG3 tries to figure out how to stop it. Now that we know that DAI is fully underway, it’s time to focus on preventing the problem from getting even worse and figuring out how to adapt to the changes we can no longer prevent. One step that could help that happen would be for the IPCC to declare the job of WG1 to be done and close it down.

After all, if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing? Closing WG1 would answer that question and would allow climate scientists to refocus on basic science, which is, after all, what most of them are trained to do. And it would encourage public and policy attention to shift to solving the problem. This change in focus will require us to pay closer attention to what our economists, sociologists, urban planners and biologists have to say than we have to date, and these experts are mostly to be found in the IPCC’s other two working groups.

…

Read more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-youve-made-your-point-humans-are-a-primary-cause-of-climate-change/

Oreskes has a point. If we truly have only ten years to save the world, why do we need another report next year saying we now only have nine years?

Congratulations guys, you identified the problem. Now it is time to step aside with grace, and allow all academic climate funding to be diverted to addressing the problem you identified, implementing Biden’s zero carbon vision.

Related