I & I Editorial BoardThe United Nations issued yet one more climate report Monday. It’s best ignored. Of course the Democratic Party and its media department, always looking for a Reichstag fire, have weaponized it.
The hysterical responses to the Summary for Policymakers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report were exactly what we expected.
“A Hotter Future Is Certain, Climate Panel Warns. But How Hot Is Up to Us,” says the New York Times’ screamer headline.
The BBC dutifully quotes U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, a member of Portugal’s Socialist Party, who said the report “is a code red for humanity.”
CNBC says “the world’s leading climate scientists on Monday delivered their starkest warning yet about the deepening climate emergency.”
Despite the alarms, and claims that some irreversible damage has been wrought, the IPCC says there is still a small chance to avoid devastation. If we act now. If we make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. If we enact policies that just happen to be identical to the pieces of the policy lineup the political left has been pressing for decades but hasn’t been able to pass by other means.
To better understand what the U.N. and its political and media allies are up to, let’s backtrack to a previous climate report.
Eight years ago, when the IPCC issued its Fifth Assessment Report, Chip Knappenberger, then the Cato Institute’s assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science, called it an “embarrassment of internal inconsistency,” and an “entirely self‐serving” document that was “beyond misleading.”
“That’s because the IPCC is more intent on maintaining the crumbling ‘consensus’ on global warming than on following climate science to its logical conclusion; a conclusion that increasingly suggests that human greenhouse gas emissions are less important in driving climate change than commonly held.”
That’s still the IPCC’s goal: To further the narrative that human activity is overheating Earth, so that left-wing politicians can gain further control of economies, and more effectively restrict the liberty of those who aren’t part of the global elite.
At roughly the same time as Knappenberger’s observation, a pair of scholars who contributed to the report were appalled by the methods used to produce what is in effect an executive summary.
Robert Stavins, a Harvard professor, said the process for generating the report’s Summary for Policymakers, which condenses thousands of pages of text and more than a dozen chapters from the full report into a document of a few dozen pages, created “an irreconcilable conflict of interest.”
“It has got to the point,” he wrote in an online letter in 2014, “where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC.”
Sussex University’s Professor Richard Tol, who had “been involved with the IPCC since 1994, fulfilling a variety of roles in all three working groups,” “stepped down” in September 2013 “from the team that prepared the draft of the Summary for Policymakers from the Fifth Assessment Report.” He called it a “debacle.”
His criticisms of the process included the eventual removal of references that don’t “support the political agenda for greenhouse gas emission reduction,” which appear in early SPM drafts, and the development of “later drafts” that “put more and more emphasis on the reasons for concern about climate change, a concept I had helped to develop.”
“The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and groupthink,” Tol concluded. “Academics who worry about climate change are more likely to publish about it, and more likely to get into the IPCC. Groups of like-minded people reinforce their beliefs. The environment agencies that comment on the draft IPCC report will not argue that their department is obsolete. The IPCC should therefore be taken out of the hands of the climate bureaucracy and transferred to the academic authorities.”
In short, the IPCC has a habit of doctoring the summaries in an effort to frighten and manipulate the public. And it’s been doing so for some time. According to Canadian academic and author Tim Ball, while the 2001 IPCC report “was the most influential in establishing global warming as a serious threat demanding political action,” it “also achieved another distinction, unknown to the media, public and politicians.” A “disconnect between the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and the Science Report Of Working Group 1,” he said, was particularly extreme.
“So much of the so-called science the IPCC created was to amplify the threat of human-produced CO2 to global warming,” Ball wrote. “The political mandate was the ultimate arbiter of what and how an issue was included.”
When Ball wrote that six years ago, he wondered “how long the IPCC can stay in business and continue to push” its “totally discredited” hypothesis that man is warming his planet. The 2021 report unfortunately indicates that the answer might be “forever.”
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
The IPCC does not stand for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It means Intergovernmental Panel for Conversion to Communism.
Really, is namecalling and sticking your head in the sand the best you can do?
There are no statistically valid models with predictive validity in the real world that relate man-made greenhouse gasses to climate. Feel free to cite your sources.
Anthropomorphic global warming is a doomsday cult wrapped in pseudo science. It’s an excuse to impoverish free countries while China and India double and redouble their carbon emissions. Science is never settled. It should never depend on suppressing research papers that find facts that oppose the curren paradigm.
He makes a very valid point that many people believe that politicians have hijacked the global warming theory and are using it to gain power to make the world more socialist. It also happens to be the main point of the article.
Cloud cover which is dynamic cannot be effectively modeled and that alone brings into question any conclusion the IPCC is or has made. I’ve not seen any data on daytime absorption vs night heat rejection into space… too many variables… not sure if assumptions would produce usable and reliable results.
Climate change with mass extinctions has happened 5 times, they were called ice age! These Ice ages had names, Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo, and Quaternary. There was even a little ice age.
Only 150 years ago, Europe came to the end of a 500 year cold snap so severe that thousands of peasants starved. The Little Ice Age changed the course of European history.
Biologists suspect we’re living through the sixth major mass extinction. “We don’t always know what caused them but most had something to do with rapid climate change”.
I wrote a whole article about this, this is just a small part of it
Let’s analyze the climate :
-Drought and forest fires in the Western USA-cause climate change -Torrential rains, floods, tornadoes, Mid and Eastern USA-cause climate change
-Torrential rains, floods in Europe-cause climate change
-Drought in Australia- cause climate change
it is, has been and always will be Mother Nature at work and humans have no way to change it.
Perhaps climatists could explain the lack of humans’ role in the historic cyclical climate history of the earth over the last 12,000 years which is well known, starting with the end of the last great Ice Age and in the last 1000 years the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice age of the Middle Ages, the warm dust bowl of the 1930-40s, the cold period of the 1950-70s and the warm period of the 1980s-1990s. It doesn’t take computer modeling to study the past, actually today’s computer models cannot model the past’s history,
The IPCC totally ignored Germany’s effort to go green by shutting down their CO2 free nuclear powered stations, shutting down the coal powered stations and depend on wind and solar. That was (is)a total failure. The answer import natural gas from Russia.
Perhaps Noah and the biblical flood were climate change, and Moses parting the Red Sea.
There are no statistically valid models with predictive validity in the real world that relate man-made greenhouse gasses to climate. Feel free to cite your sources
Leif Ericson says man-made global warming is a myth. During the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), 950-1250 CE, fields in Greenland were cultivated. During the Little Ice Age (LIA), 1300-1850 CE, these fields became permafrost and still are. That says the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is right now. Fossil fuels weren’t a factor in MWP or LIA.
Look up the Wikipedia entry for Paleoclimatology. The graphs shows the earth has had both no ice and been an ice ball. In neither case did man exist as a species yet.
It is statistical folly to use about 100 years of data to extrapolate climate cycles that last hundreds or thousands of years. Only the gullible or math challenged believe in the statistical validity of models built on 100 years’ worth of data, that have failed to predict future temperature patterns.
IPCC is propaganda (masquerading as objective science) under whose “Save the Planet” banner are lucrative businesses collecting carbon tax revenues and trading greenhouse gas emission permits. All IPCC climate reports should be labeled “advertising”. Climate is a new “religion” with “science” substituting for “god” and “climate dogmas” that cannot be questioned. Real scientific debate is taboo and silenced as heresy (labeled “disinformation”). Climate heresy is punished with excommunication across all forms of media and social media, and loss of financing. It is taboo in “climate religion” to note that CO2 is a minor trace gas (<1%) vital for plant photosynthesis (solar-powered plant protein production) and oxygen production for animal life. Also taboo, because it is too complex for climate modelers, is water vapor (more important to climate than CO2). Equally taboo is recognition that solar cycles may correlate with global temperatures better than greenhouse gasses like CO2. Those who study solar cycles say the sun's solar energy output is entering a decades-long minimum phase (think ice ages). Thus, a natural global cooling cycle is likely coming to planet Earth. Hence, the “rush” to establish climate change religion, electric vehicles and other global policies via UN and IPCC propaganda in time for politicians to take the credit for this natural global cooling cycle. A brilliant scheme, plagiarized in part from Mark Twain's book, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
Climate is just one of what are likely to be many global "forever wars". Like that other "emergency" under whose banner the entire population of planet of Earth is to be vaxxed with 3 jabs per person per year for “however long it takes”. Global lunacy reigns supreme. Interesting times.
Read last paragraph of IPCC report, Chapter 14.2.2.2. Pasted below:
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.
Link: https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
Pure garbage.
Translation: Current models have no statistical significance. With currently available computational power, we have no way to make current models statistically significant. However, we hope you listen to us anyway, and continue to fund our research with lots of bucks. Also, you should be afraid, very afraid, of the doomsday of climate change we are predicting, with no statistical significance.
All about the big three, Power, Control and Money.
Climate science is “settled”
Corona science is changing as we speak.
The left: two standards no waiting.
When uboats patrolled the North Atlantic in World War II, The United States declared an emergency and stopped transatlantic passenger traffic. Later we ordered all manufacturers to stop making cars and washing machines and had them make planes and tanks.
I will be able to consider that we are in a climate emergency when I learn that the White House and all government buildings have disabled their air conditioning systems, that all travel is banned, that Air Force One and all the many sundry jets made available for privileged government people be permanently grounded. It would help my understanding to immediately cancel the Glasgow climate conference and conduct all meetings by teleconference, while simultaneously disabling air conditioning in all UN buildings and banning all travel. It would demonstrate the urgency to proactively cancel all upcoming Olympic Games.
Since nobody in charge seems to be acting as there’s a real emergency, it’s hard for me to believe them.
Millions will all die unless we cover vast areas with turbines and solar panels and ignore offshore rare-earth mining. We must ignore the vast amounts of CO2 from Chinese electricity production as they make our solar panels. We can consider the megatons of un-recyclable waste later as the vast amount of equipment reaches shelf life in not many years.
Or, we can use nuclear energy of modern nuclear which produces zero CO2 and has killed no one in its 70 year history of producing electricity for commercial and military uses. It produces very little waste that can be managed. If reprocessing is allowed even more energy can be extracted from that waste yielding subsequent wastes with smaller half-lives.
Go figure millions will die if we don’t do something, but nuclear is off the table?
If the US had a common sense energy policy, starting in the 1970’s, implemented molten salt thorium reactors and geothermal, the US would be energy independent from the rest of the world and a much lower carbon footprint. Instead, 50+ years later, investing in “renewables.” Another 10 or 20 years to be wasted until we maybe get there.
The UN partisans miss so much factual stuff it makes your head spin: achieving all of the Paris Accords numbers will do almost nothing to stop their model’s projection. FACT. Their projection is based entirely on models that have been wrong for more than twenty years. FACT. None of their looming disasters are anywhere near happening and the extreme events that they project run counter to all current trends, i.e. hurricanes, drought, sea ice, sea level, wildfires, record hot days, and more. FACTS. To project that temperatures will suddenly change and that all the current trends showing nothing will suddenly reverse – despite growing greenhouse gases with no effects – is the antithesis of science.
More UN hype, and I sure dont buy it.
Remember Al Gore and the polar bears, they’d all be dead by now.
We need to act immediately, to prevent the die off….we didnt, and the bears are doing just fine.
Tipper did the right thing…she kicked that charlatan out of bed.
Hmmm hottest year according to scientists 1462 virtually 0 man made co2, second hottest year 1932 maybe 1% man made co2,third hottest year 1934 1% man made co2, 4th hottest year 1997 4%+ man made co2 5th hottest year 4% man made co2.
Interesting project for anyone who passed grade 2 math.
Except that CO2 was more than ten times higher before an ice age. There is ZERO correlation between CO2 levels and climate. “Major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were characterized by temperature changes that preceded changes in CO2 by hundreds to thousands of years.” Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, former chairman of NAS Climate Change Panel, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May 2. 2001. This feature is called the “lag” and shows up the same in all ice core samples taken from various locations in the world! Something causes temperatures to go up and then this causes greenhouse gas levels to increase. “[C]hanges in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record.” (Idso, S.B. 1998. Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core, Atmospheric Environment 22: 2341-2342.) Petit et al. reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.” Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436. Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.” Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714. Another study concluded: “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.” Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731. The CO2 history over 500 million years in one study “exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.” Rothman, D.H. 2002. “Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167-4171.
Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a natural fertilizer for plants, greening the world and making crops more bountiful. Reports in the news about extremely good crops are frequent. Christiana Figueres, who was at the time the General Secretary of the IPCC, held a press conference several years ago to explain that a climate panic was our best chance to rid the world of hated Capitalism.
The climate panic seems to arise in the computer programs of some science labs, hoping for federal grants and new equipment and funding. Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr.John Christy measure the temperature of the Earth for NASA with Satellite and weather balloons at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, frequently testify for Congress.
Excellent books:: “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom” by Patrick Moore, or Marc Morano’s “Green Fraud.”
One of the first things I learned in becoming a research chemist forty years ago is that argument is the lifeblood of a scientist. Since today’s results are going to be the foundation of tomorrow’s work, it is essential that today’s work is flawless because, if there is any error present, then tomorrow’s work will be worthless. As such, I was trained to demand everyone in my lab search as hard as they could to find fault in our research. This also meant welcoming criticisms and arguments aimed at finding weaknesses in the work from any and all.
This welcoming of of criticism and argument is one of the most basic tenets of science and is what one item that gives science its strength. When one hears of global warming and how argument or dissention is not allowed, where those who want to argue the logic and such are denigrated by being labeled “deniers”, where efforts are made to destroy the lives and reputations of those who dare disagree with the demanded results, etc., then one can only assume that this is no longer science and is instead religious dogma.
What climate change? What science?
This is what it is all about. Money
Mr. Ottmar, co-chair of the U.N.’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of
Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 on the subject:
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” and
“the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit
during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be
negotiated.”
“http://www.investors.com/po…
And
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention
on Climate Change, made a similar statement.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting
ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to
change the economic development model that has been reigning for at
least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in
anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves,
which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for
the first time in human history.”
united [against America] nations
i cannot get a guaranteed forecast for a week from Wednesday, why should i believe their guesswork for the next century?