University of Vermont professor and state climatologist Dr. Lesley-Ann Dupigny-Giroux recently joined a global forum with other climate advocacy leaders and made several statements on how society must implement a “systems-based approach” with a “human-sociological perspective” to mitigate climate change.
“It’s critically important that we do this systems-based approach so that we can factor in things like all the various types of natural hazards that are at play, whether it’s wildfires or droughts or changes in air quality, and the ways in which these affect us as human beings,” said Dupigny-Giroux, who also is president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
Dr. Lesley-Ann Dupigny-Giroux, Vermont State Climatologist and professor at University of Vermont
The forum was part of a 12-day global event, the COP26 United Nations Climate Summit. This portion took place on Nov. 1.
Dupigny-Giroux also focused on the notion of using a “human perspective” to address the climate.
“Systems include not just our physical systems so our air, our water, our land, our biosphere, the vegetation but also from a human perspective,” she said.
“So we are looking at all of these systems from a sort of human-sociological perspective, and that allows us to get a sense of how we as human beings are either effecting our natural environment and being affected by our natural environment,” she added.
Earlier this year, Dupigny-Giroux told WCAX that temperatures are rising in Vermont, with “increases in our summer temperatures overall, but also increases in our winter temperatures.”
According to the United Nation’s website on the summit, there is a call for all nations of the world to make sacrifices. Similar to the professor’s statements, few details are offered on what those sacrifices will be.
‘We need unity of purpose,” it states. “We need to leave Glasgow with a balanced package of decisions that reflects the positions of all countries. With a willingness to compromise among the many perspectives we can arrive at workable, ambitious solutions that will help us keep the 1.5C goal within reach.”
One headline out of the event is that China — the largest emitter of carbon emissions in the world — will not be joining western nations in shutting down its coal and oil-based energy production in favor of renewables.
“Beijing still plans to continue mining and burning coal, until 2025. The CCP has only promised to reach carbon neutrality by 2060,” the Epoch Times reports.
At the forum, Dupigny-Giroux stuck to broad climate-change rhetoric while offering few specifics on what exact systems might change, or how humans will have to live differently. She described that nearly every aspect of human activity and lifestyle must be reevaluated.
“Whether it is vulnerability from a human perspective, vulnerability to make sure that we do no harm to the environment, do no harm to us as human beings, whether we can think of vulnerability from a geographic perspective, from a locational perspective, but also from a socioeconomic perspective.”
Dr. Kate Marvel who teaches at Columbia Center for Climate Research Systems in New York City was next to speak, she left no question about who they believe causes climate change.
“Something else is going on, something more than just natural climate variability,” she said. “That something is human activities. We know that natural factors such as changes in the earth’s orbit, fluctuations in the solar output, or large volcanic eruptions can and have changed the climate before.
” … But human activities are responsible for all of the observed long-term warming trends. Actually, a little bit more than all of it, without us the earth would likely be cooling slightly.”
The full video can be seen here, with Dupigny-Giroux speaking about 30 minutes in.
Michael Bielawski is a reporter for True North. Send him news tips at bielawski82@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @TrueNorthMikeB.
Re: “The sun has a message for the climate change cult “
You bet it does. Auroras, solar flares, planetary orbits, earthquakes, and volcanos aside, the sun’s lesson is FUSION!
Why is this discussion not front and center? Why is there not a Manhattan Project to develop useful ‘compact fusion’ reactors?
There are Fusion-based projects ongoing around the world today. ITER (the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). Lockheed Martin’s ‘Skunk Works’ project on ‘Compact Fusion’. The Department of Energy is working on The Compact Advanced Tokamak (CAT) concept using state-of-the-art physics models to potentially improve fusion energy production. An MIT-designed project achieved a major advance toward fusion energy with a new superconducting magnet that breaks magnetic field strength records, paving the way for practical, commercial, carbon-free power. China is touting Fusion progress as new details on Lockheed Martin’s reactor emerge.
Will it take another ten or twenty years to perfect fusion? Perhaps. But so what? The ‘Green New Deal’ globalists are projecting the ultimate effects of their bridge technology programs (wind, solar, redesigned fission reactors, etc.) out 50 years or more.
Where is the emphasis on Compact Fusion? Imagine a reactor the size of a semi-trailer that can power a small city for years. Or a mini-reactor to power your house, or your car, or an airliner. As Lockheed Martin says: Fusion – it’s closer than you think.
Here’s why we don’t hear more about it.
Imagine what happens when a virtually unlimited, non-polluting energy source becomes available for our world-wide society. With Fusion, no more unsightly solar collectors, or windmills. No need for hydro dams. No need for gas stations, carburetor parts, tailpipes, and mufflers. No need for pipelines or ‘the national grid’.
In ‘free market’ economies, when technological advances replace obsolete systems (e.g., the Model T and the horse and carriage, or the Pony Express and the Apple I phone), it’s called ‘creative disruption’. And Fusion’s creativeness will be disruptive – to say the least. Think of all of your retirement plans reliant on energy stocks and their supporting businesses. Think of greedy Wall-Streeters frightened to death of the biggest short-selling panic in history. Think of what we do with all of those super-tankers and foreign policy geeks negotiating our political destiny.
The fact of the matter is, as a world-wide society, we can’t handle the prosperity knocking on our door – at least not yet. And the powers that be know this. Everything we see from the ‘New World Order – Build Back Better’ folks is contrived. And Lord only knows how the Covid-19 pandemic plays into this.
Caveat emptor.
The sun has a message for the climate change cult – it can be read in the recent auroas and solar flares hurling toward earth. Expect a big earthquake soon as the planets are moving into similar formation that set off big ones in the past. The number of volcanos popping off all over the planet will definately effect our weather for the next year or two. UVM = university of morons. A university making up science that is bought and paid for by money laundering scam artists.
Am I the only one thinking while reading this, “Well, this being a quantum world, and energy flows whee attention goes,” if one focuses only on the disasters a system generates, then won’t that be the product of our attention?
What if we focused on how a system WORKS and what positive outcomes a working system would produce, instead of focusing on the ‘disaster’ aspect.
I feel like I’m watching a series of ‘blockbuster’ Hollywood movies with each new ‘theory’ on ‘systems’ and ‘models’ and no one is looking at the rock outside, or up at the aluminum/strontium/barium laden skies and asking, how does THAT affect our climate?
Systems approaches are great in the lab and classroom – but is really just a fancy legal betting game. With a lot of money involved.
And no real pay out.
Because… no one can absolutely control the weather (geoengineering), predict that weather (though by controlling the weather, that is the goal, still failing since Mama has her own idea of what a ‘system’ is), and climate is not a sure thing and never will be. It will always be hit or miss because we live in an organic world, not a linear algorithmic world.
But those in lab coats and teaching sticks in their hands prefer the neat systems approach.
If we just stopped all the petroleum/coal based production in the world, stopped driving for a year, the planet would reset herself in that short a time.
The solution is just to STOP being the stoopid ejits, and just STOP polluting the planet.
Start there.