Run for cover! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is warning that we only have a few years to save the planet — a nugget of fear porn the United Nations and the media have been peddling for decades.
Liberal outlet The Guardian ran a climate propaganda story headlined “Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet.”
The outlet took a nosedive into absurdity by blaming humanity for “climate crimes”: “IPCC’s verdict on climate crimes of humanity: guilty as hell.”
The outlet took the IPCC report and screeched that unless “rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade” are initiated, temperatures would rise by “more than” 1.5 degrees Celsius “above pre-industrial levels,” bringing a “climate breakdown” of “widespread devastation and extreme weather.” President of the 2021 U.N.
Climate Change Conference (COP26) President Alok Sharma fearmongered that failing to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would be “‘catastrophic.'” [Emphasis added.]
The IPCC’s latest scare tactics reflect the words of the University of Southampton Professor emeritus John Brignell, as reported by Climate Depot:
“The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.”
Hoover Institution visiting fellow Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out on Twitter, “UN routinely warns us that we have just a few years left until catastrophe.” The U.N. has a sorry record of those predictions failing to materialize.
Lomborg proceeded to tweet a litany of failed climate predictions that the U.N. has attempted to scare the world with over the decades.
He said that “[i]n 1972, half a century ago, Maurice Strong, first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe.”
In addition, Lomborg noted that “[i]n 1982, [Mostafa] Tolba, head of UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
Eighteen years from 1982 for the climate “nuclear holocaust” would have been 2000, which was 21 years ago.
Also, in 1989, “a senior UN official warn[ed] [the] Associated Press that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or climate change goes beyond human control,” Lomborg said. [Emphasis added.]
UN routinely warns us that we have just a few years left until catastrophe:
In 1972, half a century ago, Maurice Strong, first UN Environment Programme director warned that
the world had just 10 years to avoid catastrophehttps://t.co/W7mxpVeXJd pic.twitter.com/Ve4QEoWmPa
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) August 8, 2021
Lomborg wasn’t the only climate expert to excoriate the IPCC. Environmental Progress Founder and President Michael Shellenberger classified the IPCC’s stipulation that “‘[o]n a warming planet, no one is safe,’” as “just dumb.”
He also listed a number of factors that undermined the IPCC’s estimations. Shellenberger hammered the IPCC:
The basis for such alarmism is sociological not scientific. It is driven by the need among secular people for purpose and meaning. The belief that you’re saving the world from Apocalypse appeals to Marvel moviegoers as well as mid-level career diplomats stuck in powerless UN jobs.
The United Nations has apparently decided to market its new climate report with the slogan, “On a warming planet, no one is safe”
I’m sorry, but this is just dumb
The fact of the matter is we’re safer than ever
Here’s why https://t.co/0KzsvjDdcV
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) August 9, 2021
Read more at NewsBusters
Providing to the fact that back in the 1970’s it was Global Cooling and New Ice Age was coming liberal rags like Time and Newsweek were giving it Front Cover and Front Page Coverage
I’ve read Michael Shellenberger’s book “Apocalypse Never” and I’ve almost finished Patrick Moore’s book “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom”.
Both publications are excellent and confirm that the writers know what they are talking about. In addition – their credibility is further enhanced when one considers where they came from – environmentalism.
There’s a lot of science in Patrick’s book and bucket loads of common sense in Michael’s. These books are also educational and should be read by those who aren’t really sure about what to believe.
Agree with much of what was written here except that as much as I admire much of what Bjorn Lomborg writes and says he is NOT a climate expert. His PhD is in a non-science field, Political Science (talk about an oxymoron!) He actually believes humans are causing a warming by burning fossil fuels (no proof of that) but says that destroying the global community by stopping the use of fossil fuels is wrong. What he does believe is that taking a small amount of the money that would go to trying to go to zero CO2 emissions and using it to reduce any negative effects of a warming planet. Same would be said about how to deal with flooding, wild fires, hurricanes–how do you ameliorate the damage from these natural occurances.
Hmmm Im wondering, but is money involved here somewhere, just a guess…
I don’t think the term “Climate Porn” is appropriate. Pornography, at least that which does nothing more than show people in immodest situations, is very honest. What is being referred to as “Climate Porn” is a collection of lies and deceit.
Years ago in the US there was a Judge who commented on pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” — or words to that effect.
“Climate Porn” – ‘click bait’? – yes, but I think acceptable. ‘Ephemera’; promises everything, delivers nothing.