Limiting temperature rise by 2100 to less than 1.5°C is feasible, at least from a purely technological standpoint, according to the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and others. The new study examines scenarios for the energy, economy, and environment that are consistent with limiting climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and compares them to scenarios for limiting climate change to 2°C.
“Actions for returning global warming to below 1.5°C by 2100 are in many ways similar to those limiting warming to below 2°C,” says IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, one of the lead authors of the study. “However, the more ambitious 1.5°C goal leaves no space to further delay global mitigation action and emission reductions need to scale up swiftly in the next decades.”
The authors note, however, that the economic, political, and technological requirements to meet even the 2°C target are substantial. In the run-up to climate negotiations in December 2015, such information is important for policymakers considering long-term goals and steps to achieve these goals.
Key elements: accelerated energy efficiency gains and CO2 removal
The study identifies key elements that would need to be in place in order to reach the 1.5°C target by 2100. One fundamental feature is the tight constraint on future carbon emissions.
“In 1.5°C scenarios, the remaining carbon budget for the 21st century is reduced to almost half compared to 2°C scenarios,” explains PIK researcher Gunnar Luderer, who co-led the study. “As a consequence, deeper emissions cuts are required from all sectors, and global carbon neutrality would need to be reached 10-20 years earlier than projected for 2°C scenarios.”
Faster improvements in energy efficiency also emerge as a key enabling factor for the 1.5°C target. In addition, all the scenarios show that at some point in this century, carbon emissions would have to become negative at a global scale. That means that significant amounts of CO2 would need to be actively removed from the atmosphere. This could occur through technological solutions such as bioenergy use combined with carbon capture and storage–a technology that remains untested on a large scale, increases the pressure on food supply systems and in some cases lacks social acceptance–or through efforts to grow more forests, sequestering carbon in tree trunks and branches. Afforestation, however, just like bioenergy plantations, would have to be carefully balanced against other land use requirements, most notably food production.
Overshooting the limit–and declining to 2100
In contrast to many scenarios examined in recent research, which set 2°C as the absolute limit and do not allow temperature to overshoot the target, the current set of scenarios looks at a long term goal, and what would need to happen to get temperature back down to that level by 2100.
“Basically all our 1.5°C scenarios first exceed the 1.5°C temperature threshold somewhere in mid-century,” explains Rogelj, “before declining to 2100 and beyond as more and more carbon dioxide is actively removed from the atmosphere by specialized technologies”.
The recent IPCC fifth assessment report did not describe in detail the critical needs for how to limit warming to below 1.5°C as the scenarios available to them did not allow for an in-depth analysis. Yet over 100 countries worldwide–over half of the countries in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least-Developed Countries (LDCs)–have declared their support for a 1.5°C target on climate change. The target itself is also up for debate at the upcoming climate negotiations. This new study fills this gap.
The authors make clear that an increase of international efforts to curb greenhouse gases is imperative to keep the 1.5°C target achievable.
“The 1.5°C target leaves very little leeway,” says Luderer. “Any imperfections – be it a further delay of meaningful policy action, or a failure to achieve negative emissions at large scale – will make the 1.5°C target unattainable during this century.”
What do you mean by “scenario?”
Scenarios, like the ones described in this study, are not predictions or forecast, but rather, stories about potential ways that the future might develop, with specific quantitative elements and details about how sectors such as the economy, climate, and energy sector interact. By looking at scenarios, researchers look for insight into the paths and circumstances that might lead us to specific objectives.
###
Reference: Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Schaeffer M, Krey V, Riahi K. (2015). Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change. 21 May 2015. DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2572
This is a joint press release from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK).
I suppose 1.5C is the target because 2C is the “tipping point” of no recovery?
“Technically feasible…”
It would also be technically feasible to just give all the money to Elon Musk to build a huge fleet of interplanetary cruise ships and simply decamp the human race to Mars. Might be cheaper and would be a lot more fun.
/sarc
The idea that the world is subject to massive positive feedbacks is a delusional bit of non-science that you could only get from ivory tower academics with no idea about real systems or feedbacks.
The whole question of what would it take is based on garbage.
@Scottish Sceptic
The Climate is subject to positive feedback (forget ‘massive’ – it’s your term, not the term of science). You are factually wrong because ALL peer-reviewed science says there are positive feedbacks in the climate system.
“The Climate is subject to positive feedback “
Can’t be.
If it was, the Earth would have turned into a cinder or a snowball and stuck there billions of years ago.
You don’t understand feedbacks, do you?
@catweazle666
Are you an engineer, mathematician or scientist? If you were, you’d know that positive feedbacks are only unstable when feedbacks are strong enough to amplify system outputs sufficiently to cause an unstable growth in output. Otherwise, positive feedback only serves to cause output to increase more than they would with no feedback. (Negative feedback, in contrast, suppresses system output below which it would be with no feedback.
Positive feedbacks in The Earth’s Climate system are not large enough to cause instability, although the potential exists for larger positive feedbacks if there were melting of all permafrost, or the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps were to slide into the sea. Such massive events are not contemplated in this century.
warrenlb: “Are you an engineer, mathematician or scientist?”
YES.
warrenlb:
“Positive feedbacks in The Earth’s Climate system are not large enough to cause instability, although the potential exists for larger positive feedbacks if there were melting of all permafrost, or the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps were to slide into the sea. Such massive events are not contemplated in this century.”
Sounds like what you are saying then is that negative feedbacks dominate. Nobody doubts that positive feedbacks exists, but if they were dominant (as your ilk assume CO2 dominates all climate), then surely catweazle’s scenario would have played out.
Good to know, crisis averted.
@William Howard R
You say: (See my replies in CAPS).”Sounds like what you are saying then is that negative feedbacks dominate.(NO I SAID NO SUCH THING, NOR DID I IMPLY THAT THEY DID). Nobody doubts that positive feedbacks exists (REALLY? THERE ARE PLENTY ON THIS THREAD THAT DO, INCLUDING SCOTTISH SKEPTIC WHO SAYS SO, DIRECTLY ABOVE), but if they were dominant (as your ilk (MOST CLIMATE SCIENTISTS) assume CO2 dominates all climate (MORE ACCURATELY, INCREASED CO2 ppmv DOMINATES THE INCREASES IN RADIATIVE FORCINGS) then surely catweazle’s scenario would have played out. YOU MISSED THE POINT OF MY POST. HIS SCENARIO WOULD HAVE PLAYED OUT ONLY IF THE FEEDBACKS WERE SO LARGE AS TO CAUSE INSTABILITY.
I’m waiting for the earth to cool the 0.8c it has supposedly warmed and for the alarmists to take credit and pat themselves on their back for their accomplishment. Either that or they will change the narrative to catastrophic global cooling where polar bears would die from lack of open water.
If you look at the absolute number of gallons of gasoline consumed in the US in the turns of the decade, 1970 vs. 1980 vs. 1990 vs 2000 – it is interesting because US per capita consumption of motor vehicle fuel actually has gone up one of those decades vs. the previous one.
1970, per capita annual use was 454 gallons
1980, 507 gallons
1990, 526 gallons
2000, 574 gallons
So even disregarding the 50% increase in the US population, the overall consumption has not reduced despite decades of CAFE regulations.
If we were to cut emissions to 1990 levels unilaterally in the motor vehicle transport sector, this would mean something like a 30%+ drop in per capita fuel usage – back to pre-1970 levels.
Maybe more long distance commuting with urban sprawl? I know people who used to drive 2hrs or more to AND from work in the 1990’s in the UK. That was not common in the UK in the 1980’s for instance.
Scenarios to be useful must be based on knowledge. There are many scenarios for nuclear war, all with different variations of the consistent outcome of MAD, mutually assured destruction. The solution is easy, super powers need to stay away from nuclear war and modern civilization does not go on hiatus for an indeterminate period.
In comparison the 1.5C and 2C scenarios have no where near the same level of knowledge. We know the disastrous destructive power of thousands of nuclear warheads, since we have exploded a number of them, 2 of them in cities. We do not know with that same certainty what the temperature will be or that the 2C warming will disastrously affect earths climate and ecology. Anyone claiming that is presenting prophesy. Prophesy can indeed present strong logic but based on imaginary premises and little to no evidence. Even accepting the 2C scenario as disastrous, the solutions are far from clear, realistic, or not worse than a changed climate.
Q: What would it take for True Believers like the Poundster to stop Believing?
A: A brain transplant.
A: To stop following the Science.
warrenlb
Science is the method in which data is “followed”, hypotheses are constructed to explain the data, and theories are accepted as being the best available hypotheses at present.
Science follows data. People don’t follow science but some people (e.g. engineers, physicians, etc.) make use of the theories of science.
You really don’t understand any of this, do you?
Richard
Science doesn’t require belief
@richardscourtney
You’re now playing a trashy word game. Deal with the substance.
warrenlb
I DID “deal with the substance” of your nonsensical twaddle.
I gave a detailed explanation of how and why you are wrong.
And I was NOT “playing a trashy word game”.
Read and learn, boy.
Richard
They have not yet established how human CO2 emission affect total CO2..
If they do not understand this then it is speculation as to whether human emissions caused any of the warming if it starts again.
All of this elaborate data massaging is predicated on the so-called Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, taking CO2 as THE only variable to change the temperature.
We have been told that climate systems are complex, non linear, end even chaotic.
But the authors accomplish the miracle to reduce their sensitivity to one single parameter!
This is, once more, ascientific.,silly at best, grotesque in any case.
They might as well ask how much it would cost to make the Sun rise half an hour earlier.
Where this crackpot notion that we can change the Earth’s climate by putting up taxes came from I just don’t know.
Eggsactly. Or, what it would take to keep space monsters from taking over the earth.
Believe it or not, NASA thinks that may be a problem!
Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu
Like I say, crackpot notions.
To think we fund these buffoons to the tune of billions per year…
Maybe they were looking for/thinking of the “Clangers”?
It looks like POTUS Obama has been working on this scenario …
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years
Regional war could spark “unprecedented climate change,” experts predict.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/
There’s an old saying, catweazle666: “Be sure Brain is engaged before putting mouth (or pen) in gear” Or more accurately “Be sure you have facts straight before writing”
A revenue-neutral carbon tax is not a tax increase. It’s a shift in tax policy, reducing taxes on incomes, and increasing taxes on carbon. No change in total tax burden.
Once more: Have you read those links on carbon tax?
Clearly the 1.5°C scenario is designed to make a 2.0°C target look reasonable. “See? We compromised!”
warrenlb who is a major contributor to Western Thought,
In 1978 I took Econ 101 from Professor Fusfeld at the U of Michigan. He was a Communist. The class discussions for the six weeks I lasted consisted of me arguing with the TA and the other 26 in the class. The TA was a Malthusian proponent of the Club of Rome, insisting that the economies of the West could not grow any more.
These guys had all published in peer-reviewed Econ journals or would not be professors at U of Michigan. “Peer Review,” I don’t think that word means what you think it means. The Universities have become cesspools of mendacity with notable exceptions such as RGB above. “Climate Scientists” are nothing more than advocates wearing lab-coats, and most are clueless about physics, statistics, thermodynamics, etc.
Are you paid to comment here? Otherwise you seem to derive satisfaction from continuing to demonstrate your foolish inability/disability with respect to critical thought.
The real question is who pays you stay ignorant? Or do you do it for nothing?
Carbon fee and dividend is supported by a lengthy list of free-market economists, Republican politicians, and Republican Policy Advisors, including (a partial list only):
George P. Schultz, sr advisor to several Republican presidents, economists WiIliam Nordhaus of Yale, Milton Freedman, Adele Morris, Arthur Laffer, Greg Mankiw Economics advisor to Mitt Romney, Jerry Taylor of the Conservative Niskanen Center, Bob Inlgis Republican from South Carolina and head of the free-market Energy and Enterprise Institute of George Mason University, Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute, Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal, Alan Greenspan, Gary Becker of the Conservative University of Chicago School of Economics, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Advisor to John McCain, Irwin Stelzer of the Conservative Hudson Institute, Alan Viard and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, and others.
Go here for more: http://www.carbontax.org/services/supporters/conservatives/
“warrenlb
May 22, 2015 at 10:54 am
The real question is who pays you stay ignorant?”
Is that directed at Mr. Moon? If so it’s up to him to respond. If directed at “the general readership at WUWT”, that’s not good matey! Have no idea your age, nor nationality. But I ask, where do you get your info from?
warrenlb King of the Free Thinkers,
Here, have some more Kool-Aid…
@Patrick
My post was in reply to Michael Moon, as you should be able to tell. And I provided a link in that post that answers your question as to ‘where the info comes from.’
Carbon fee and dividend is supported by a lengthy list of free-market economists, Republican politicians, and Republican Policy Advisors, including (a partial list only):
————
And how many on that list have published peer reviewed climate science papers? So according to you, their opinions are worthless, right?
Milton Freedman never publicly advocated a carbon tax, and no one has ever claimed that he did so privately. Why would you repeat such a blatant, easily shown false lie?
Au contraire! In 1999, Uncle Miltie stated that “global warming” was more likely to be beneficial than detrimental. Thus it’s not surprising that he lived until 2006 without ever mentioning support for a carbon tax.
Please retract this lie. Thanks.
@sturgishooper
From Dr Michael Greenstone, the University of California’s Milton Friedman Professor of Economics:
“It’s really remarkable the media always reports this near-consensus among scientists about the effect of human activity on climate change,” says Greenstone. “What does not receive as much attention [is the] greater consensus, starting with Friedman and moving to the most left-wing economists that you can find, that the most correct public policy solution is to put a price on carbon.”
For the full article, read here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/forest-trends/ghost-of-milton-friedman_b_6066348.html
Or for a broader education on Conservative Economists advocating for free-market solutions to climate change, go here: http://republicen.org/
Joseph Goebbels would be proud
@Neo
So Milton Freedman, and the Other Conservative Economists and Politicians listed = Joseph Goebbels?
@Sturgishooper
What do you think about Milton Freidman — and the other conservative gentlemen listed –now?
“Carbon fee and dividend is supported by a lengthy list of free-market economists”
You cannot, by definition be in favor of both free markets, and the artificial price adjustments made by carbon fee and dividend. You’re free to claim such a stance, but it is, by definition, not possible.
If in favor of free markets, you believe buyers and sellers alone should set prices. Everything else is interference.
Fee and dividend openly seeks to raise the price of certain goods arbitrarily, to change how those goods are bought and used. Agree with that plan, or not, but it is precisely NOT a free market.
@Jason
Sorry, Jason, according to Milton Friedman (and the host of other Conservative Economists I listed that support a carbon tax) a carbon tax is a free market solution precisely because it uses the price mechanism you cite:
Bob Inglis, a Conservative South Carolina Republican, quotes Friedman:
“What we need is an adjustment mechanism that will enable us to adapt to what happens as it develops. Everybody in this room knows there is such a system, namely the price mechanism. If we have a problem today, in the air, with pollution, it is solely in my opinion because that system has not been allowed to work.”
And Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago says: “He’s exactly right,” said Greenstone. “The price system isn’t working in the energy sector right now exactly because carbon is priced at zero.” The problem isn’t the U.S. has no carbon policy, Greenstone said, but that it has a poor carbon policy—”that it’s fine to pollute.” By introducing a price on carbon, the government could create a market for free enterprise solutions.
What should I say to warrenlb? Firstly, did you take any science classes in school? Secondly, do you have any interest/passion for science? Thirdly and most importantly, is the heat/air-conditioning running in your home right now, and 3.5ly, (yes I just invented a new word/number) do you understand it cannot any more if the policies you propound are implemented?
Fourthly, do you understand that restricting the use of fossil fuels, while doing nothing to improve the human condition, will condemn the Third World to continued suffering? Is this your intention? Prosperity is a wonderful thing and is IMPOSSIBLE without ENERGY/POWER.
Fifthly, are those too many big words for you?
Goodness, have you thought this through????????????????????????????????????????
@Michael moon (A duplication from posting in the wrong reply thread)
You asked 5 questions. Here are my replies:
1) Yes, I have a Masters Degree in Engineering from Cornell University, and did post graduate work at Penn State. I did additional studies in Physics. What about you?
2) Yes, I have a great deal of interest in Science. I teach Science in Retirement. How about you?
3) Yes I have A/C in my home, and worked in my career as VP of Engineering for the world’s largest manufacturer of air conditioning and refrigeration compressors. How about you?
3.5). No, you are incorrect. The A/C certainly works if the world gradually transitions from fossil fuel power generation to power generation from renewables and Nuclear, as it would with the incentives of Carbon Tax.
4) No, you’re also incorrect on your 4th point, in two ways. First, transitioning from fossil to renewables and nuclear will improve the human condition for my grandchildren and theirs, as it will for the 3rd world, as it mitigates the future harmful effects of AGW. And second, a carbon tax dos not immediately eliminate fossil fuels, it causes a gradual transition to lower carbon fuels such as nat gas, and then to renewables, all of which will work for the 3rd world.
5) Big words? I didn’t see any big words from you.
And I have two final questions for you:
1) What are your answers to my questions back to you on your questions 1 through 3?
2) Did you read my link on carbon tax and understand it? If not, here’s another: http://www.carbontax.org/
In no particular order, did you not know that Obummer wants the carbon tax to pay for Obamacare as he has freely admitted? Can they build any nuclear plants, ever, in sub-Saharan Africa not counting South Africa, and would you want them to? You are aware that Nat Gas products of combustion include CO2? Are you aware that CO2’s ability to absorb and thermalize 15-micron radiation is saturated and 100% complete at an altitude of two meters? You are aware that at TOA, additional CO2 indeed raises the altitude at which our atmosphere radiates to space, indeed trapping some additional heat at an altitude higher than airliners fly, but this heat at maybe -70C can NEVER reach Earth’s surface?
Have you thought this through? You tell me, did I ever study any science?
@catweazle666
Not so fast. I answered your 5 questions in my prior post. And I asked you to answer back the first 3.
Your answers, please:
1
2
3
@Michael moon
My earlier post to catweazle665 should have been addressed to you:
Not so fast. I answered your 5 questions in my prior post. And I asked you to answer back the first 3.
Your answers, please:
1
2
3
Some time between now and the end of the century these same people will be decry man made global cooling and demand funds to warm the earth.
It would be much easier and cheaper to meet the 1.5C goal if they would just quit adjusting the surface temperature records upwards post data collection. If they don’t cease with this practice, no matter what mitigation efforts are taken, the data will easily exceed 2C by 2100 as this pretty much is the only warming that has gone on in the past 20 yrs.
” this pretty much is the only warming that has gone on in the past 20 yrs.”
More like the past 100 years.
It’s not called Mann Made Global Warming for nothing.
@catweazle666
You say “More like the past 100 years” And where did you get that amazing piece of bovine fecal matter from? You want to try to post your source for THAT??
good question
I believe it’s Nature Scatalogical, the new online reference of global warming turds.
From the article:
The new study examines scenarios for the energy, economy, and environment that are consistent with limiting climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels…
They know damn well that their previous 2º scenario probably won’t happen this cycle. So now it gets ratcheted down to 1.5º. The usual head-nodders will run with that.
Forget 2ºC, 1.5º is the new narrative. IMHO it is doubtful we will see even that much warming.
remove all living mammals from the planet earth. Especially humans! There, problem solved. Global cooling is a lot easier than global warming. A geo stationary orbit of dust at 35 K km will more than do the trick. And if you are into advanced weapons, space is it. A rotating cloud of dust that has an orbit that just blocks out the sun light over a particular country or pick your flavor of asteroids, solid, loose jumble of rocks or gaseous and just the right angle. Solve two problems at the same time. End global warming and getting rid of you enemies. If you believe global warming exists, that is. There will be fire and brimstone!!
Errr no! Insects, yes!
rishrac: “remove all living mammals from the planet earth. Especially humans! “
In fact, insects – particularly ants and termites – are responsible for more GHGs than humans, so you would be better off wiping them out first.
As for bacteria…
Hmmm…perhaps I shouldn’t give them ideas…
careful now. don’t give earthfirst any ideas…….
“all the scenarios show that at some point in this century, carbon emissions would have to become negative at a global scale. That means that significant amounts of CO2 would need to be actively removed from the atmosphere.”
Remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Even if they could figure out a safe way to do it, they would end up decreasing crop yields and starving millions to prevent a little unproven warming that might actually be net beneficial to the planet. These people are not only insane but genocidal.
“International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis”
It is difficult to be more idiotic.
Now that the estimated temperature sensitivity to CO2 has gotten so low, is it any wonder that the 2C “doomsday number” is being dialed back to 1.5C?
My Lord, it would he devastating for the cause if it turned out that the doomsday number was unobtainable!
For some unknown (or partialy known) reason, this thread reminded my of the following wisdom which came from some damn place on the inter-tubes. No clue where I first saw it. Anyway, enjoy.
How to Deal with a Dead Horse
-Buy a heavier whip
-Change riders
-Threaten the horse with termination
-Appoint a committee to study the horse
-Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses
-Appoint a project team to re-animate the dead horse
-Create training to increase the rider’s load share
-Change the form to read: “This horse is not dead.”
-Hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse
–Harness several dead horses together for increased speed
-Increase funding to help the horses performance
-Do a time management study to see if lighter riders would improve productivity
-Purchase an after-market product to make dead horses run faster
-Declare that a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore performs better
-Form a quality focus group to find profitable uses for dead horses
-Rewrite the performance requirements for horses
-Hire a consulting firm to perform a strategic study of best practices in continuous improvement in utilizing dead horses
-Promote the dead horse to supervisory position
–“limiting climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”–
Could anyone please tell me what ‘pre-industrial’ temperature they are using as a start point?
What a bollux. There is no danger of actual temperature increase since CO2 is so ineffectual in causing it. So solving a non-problem with an effective lever is also pointless. The only thing that cutting emissions will do is cause widespread hardship.
typo and edit: … with an ineffective lever …
Further, any increases in CO2 and/or warming will be massively beneficial on average.
Confusion quadruply confounded.
Quote of the Day:
“there is no ‘Moore’s Law’ for batteries”
I have searched in vain for any guidance in terms of level of atmospheric CO2 or actual global emission reduction targets that would equate to a target of 2C or 1.5C. There seems to be a disconnect between the two. It seems to me that governments are being asked to propose cuts that would achieve a global temperature goal without having the data they need..
I have analysed this conundrum at the following link. I believe it shows the futility (and absolute waste of money) of this forthcoming treaty.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/05/21/guest-post-peter-obrien-passing-the-hat-around-for-gaia/
Step 1: Fabricate apocolypse
Step 2: Fabricate science “proof”
Step 3: Come up with world saving plan
Step 4: Adjust world saving plan to result at the natural limiting point of the system
Step 5: Claim victory
Let’s see. The following individuals support action on AGW, and so must subscribe to your 5 point program:
The top political leaders of every major Western Democracy,– with the possible exception of Austalia– plus China.
Essentially all Climate Scientists
Nearly all Economists, inlcluding Republicans Gary Becker, Kevin Hassett, Alan Viard, Jerry Taylor, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman (dec), Douglas Holtz-Eakins, Art Laffer, and Gregory Mankiw.
Most Democrat policy advisors
Many Republican policy advisors, including George P. Schultz, Bob Inglis, Peter Van Doren, Holman Jenkins, and advisors to Mitt Romney, Ronald Reagan and John McCain
Conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton
Every Science Academy of every country on the planet.
Every Scientific Professional Association
Every Major University
NASA
NOAA
And you say the common objective of ALL THESE WORLD LEADERS and ALL the World’s Institutions of Science is to ‘fabricate apocalypse” and to ‘fabricate proof’ of AGW? This has to be either the greatest movement to commit worldwide fraud ever seen in history, OR you are deluded. I vote for the latter.