The latest IPCC report was a setup – a cynical ploy to produce alarmist media headlines that succeeded beautifully.
Seven days ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a press release along with a summary of its new Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
It’s important to understand that the entire project was a setup – a cynical ploy to produce alarmist media headlines that succeeded beautifully.
The fact that 90+ scientific minds from 40 countries – most of them academics on the public’s dime – spent months working on this is a disgrace.
Gee, says the IPCC. We believe we know what the future will look like decades hence if the planet warms by 2 degrees Celsius.
So let’s re-crunch all those highly speculative numbers and see how much better things will be if the warming stops at 1.5 degrees.
If the IPCC was a truly impartial body, its press release would have said that aiming at the lower number would be beneficial, but since everything involves tradeoffs, elected politicians should decide what makes sense rather than taking orders from scientists.
After all, the world is full of problems that require resources and attention.
Instead, the press release insists Scenario A is strongly preferable to Scenario B. Why? Well, for one thing, Scenario A will supposedly ensure a more “equitable society.”
click for source
If an equitable society is part of your argument, you’re having a political discussion – not a scientific one. Surely this is bleeping obvious.
The press release begins by declaring that “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” are required to achieve Scenario A. The media took that statement and ran with it – which was precisely the IPCC’s intent.
Journalists didn’t spend much time explaining to the public that the report is a wholly artificial comparison of two highly hypothetical scenarios.
Nor did they highlight the dismal track record associated with similar apocalyptic predictions.
For example, this no tongue-in-cheek 2004 news story includes claims that “European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas” by 2020 while Britain is “plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate.”
Now that we’re just 14 months shy of 2020, it’s evident Europe is in no such danger.
Since reporters pay no price for getting these stories wrong, they predictably hype them. CNN told us we must heed the IPCC’s advice if we want to avoid “disastrous levels” of warming.
The BBC quoted an IPCC author, Natalie Mahowald, saying “huge changes” are necessary, while IPCC official Debra Roberts opined that it’s important to put “pressure on policymakers” to respond in a certain manner.
The Guardian further quoted Roberts declaring her hope that this new report “mobilizes people and dents the mood of complacency.”
Take wholly contrived subject matter. Feed the media some dramatic language. Permit your personnel to make non-neutral, anything-but-dispassionate public statements.
Yes, that’s the IPCC I’ve written two books about. That’s the IPCC we know but don’t respect.
Read more at Big Pic News
The article accurately pointed out the political motivation of the IPCC report. The basic problem with the anthropological climate change movement is it is driven by political goals and is using junk science to justify it. The “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” is the real goal of the IPCC and the climate change movement.
The National Enquirer, RIP,
(wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true) set the standard for selling a story.
“A lie can make it halfway around the world, before the truth can lace it’s shoes”
Does anyone remember ONE time when
any official pronouncement from the UN
was truthful ?
A friend of mine told me about a time when
Dag Hammarskjold……………………………….
Were wasting way too much money pouring it all down the IPCC rat hole If Trump can pull us out of UNESCO they we need to pull out of the UN and only give aid after a natural disaster or humanitarian aid