Glob­al­ist bully boys’ du­plic­i­tous re­port is not about weather but wealth trans­fer


Last Septem­ber the usual me­dia sus­pects got wind of yet an­other In­ter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change re­port. To those fa­mil­iar, it was ob­vi­ous from the “fire and brim­stone” head­lines. No mat­ter how in­con­se­quen­tial, no heat­wave, drought, hur­ri­cane or flood was missed. This is the cus­tom­ary soft­en­ing-up pe­riod, in- tended to en­sure that when a scary IPCC re­port lands, politi­cians will be pushed into tak­ing even more dras­tic ac­tion on “cli­mate change”.

And so it came to pass. Last month, the world’s “lead­ing cli­mate sci­en­tists” con­firmed we had only 12 years left to keep global warm­ing to a max­i­mum of 1.5C above pre-in­dus­trial lev­els.

De­bra Roberts, a co-chair­woman of the work­ing group on im­pacts, says: “It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the mo­ment and we must act now.” Even half a de­gree more would sig­nif­i­cantly worsen the risk of drought, floods, ex­treme heat and poverty for hun­dreds of mil­lions of peo­ple. Crikey! It’s only three years since Paris, when we were as­sured 2C could save the planet. What’s next?

At least it’s 10 years longer than Prince Charles gave us. He warned in 2008 that “the world faces a se­ries of nat­u­ral dis­as­ters within 18 months, un­less ur­gent ac­tion is taken to save the rain­forests”. A decade later, in tes­ti­mony be­fore the US congress, Roger Pielke Jr, pro­fes­sor of en­vi­ron­men­tal stud­ies in the Cen­tre for Sci­ence and Tech­nol­ogy Pol­icy Re­search, Univer­sity of Col­orado, con­tra­dicted Charles, say­ing it was “mis­lead­ing, and just plain in­cor­rect, to claim that dis­as­ters as­so­ci­ated with hur­ri­canes, tor­na­does, floods or droughts have in­creased on cli­mate timescales”.

But then in 2011 the In­ter­na­tional En­ergy Agency, af­ter “the most thor­ough anal­y­sis yet”, warned that five more years of con­ven­tional devel­op­ment would make it im­pos­si­ble to hold global warm­ing to safe lev­els. The prospects of com­bat­ing dan­ger­ous cli­mate change would be “lost for­ever”. Well now, in the tra­di­tion of ever-re­ced­ing hori­zons, the IPCC gives us an­other 12 years to act.

Cat­a­strophic sce­nar­ios aren’t new. In the 1960s and 70s, man­made global cool­ing was the fash­ion. In 1971, Stan­ford Univer­sity pro­fes­sor Paul Ehrlich pre­dicted: “By the year 2000, the United King­dom will be sim­ply a small group of im­pov­er­ished is­lands, in­hab­ited by some 70 mil­lion hun­gry peo­ple.” Ehrlich is now a warmist.

Whom or what to be­lieve? Af­ter 50 years of failed pre­dic­tions, peo­ple are rea­son­ing that some­thing other than sci­ence is be­hind this alarmism. And that some­thing is the UN. What else? Its global reach, back cor­ri­dors and du­plic­ity have al­lowed it to build an un­chal­lenged, mu­tu­ally re­in­forc­ing $1.5 tril­lion in­dus­try of cap­tive politi­cians, sci­en­tists, jour­nal­ists, crony cap­i­tal­ists and non-gov­ern­men­tal or­gan­i­sa­tion ac­tivists bent on glob­al­ism through anti-West­ern sen­ti­ment and wealth trans­fer.

The IPCC’s cor­rupt hand in this is un­mis­take­able. Its peer re­viewed sci­ence turned out to be noth­ing but ve­neer. The re­viewer of a re­port on re­treat­ing Hi­malayan glaciers said he was “well aware” it was not peer-re­viewed but thought it would en­cour­age pol­i­cy­mak­ers to take ac­tion.

We now know Green­peace and WWF opin­ion pa­pers have formed the ba­sis of some IPCC re­ports. A re­tir­ing Green­peace leader con­fessed to “emo­tion­al­is­ing is­sues” to “bring the pub­lic around”. The Cli­mate­gate dump of emails, which re­vealed sci­en­tists ac­tively col­lud­ing to fal­sify and hide data, demon­strates sci­en­tific in­tegrity is ar­bi­trary. Sim­i­larly, US whistle­blow­ers have ad­mit­ted to agen­cies in­vent­ing “warm­ing” trends and con­fess that “un­ap­proved data sets” were used to sen­sa­tion­alise head­lines ahead of the Paris cli­mate con­fer­ence.

Aus­tralian John McLean is the lat­est cli­mate sci­en­tist to shine a light. His au­dit found the main global tem­per­a­ture set used by cli­mate mod­els ex­ag­ger­ated warm­ing and was not fit for global stud­ies. Fahren­heit tem­per­a­tures were recorded as Cel­sius, lon­gi­tudes and lat­i­tudes were in er­ror, crude ad­just­ments were un­ex­plained and place names were mis­spelled. Trop­i­cal is­lands recorded a monthly av­er­age of zero de­grees, a place in Ro­ma­nia av­er­aged mi­nus 45C for a month and a site in Colombia for three months recorded an im­pos­si­ble 82C.

For two years the south­ern hemi­sphere tem­per­a­ture was es­ti­mated from one land-based site in In­done­sia and some ship data.

Bri­tain’s Met Of­fice po­litely re­sponded: “The HadCRUT data set, on which the au­dit was based, stretches back to 1850 and con­tains over seven mil­lion points of data from in ex­cess of 7500 ob­ser­va­tion sta­tions on land around the globe to­gether with mil­lions of mea­sure­ments of sea sur­face tem­per­a­ture.” Clearly, if sci­ence is not the pri­mary fo­cus, near enough is good enough.

The truth will out and, for all the virtue sig­nalling in Paris, a re­view con­ducted by the Gran­tham Re­search In­sti­tute re­veals only 16 coun­tries “have re­pro­duced their na­tion­ally de­ter­mined con­tri­bu­tion com­mit­ments as tar­gets in na­tional laws and poli­cies”. This lack of ur­gency likely re­flects the dif­fer­ence be­tween UN bully pul­pit rhetoric and pub­lic opin­ion.

Still, UN glob­al­ists will not sur­ren­der. From the out­set, the pur­pose of the IPCC was clear. It was to ef­fect a mas­sive wealth trans­fer on the premise that “cli­mate change and en­vi­ron­men­tal crises are the re­sult of vastly un­equal lev­els of devel­op­ment in the last few cen­turies” and that the bur­den of cli­mate change “falls most heav­ily on poor coun­tries”. The IPCC char­ter di­rects it “to un­der­stand the sci­en­tific ba­sis of risk of hu­man-in­duced cli­mate change”.

No pos­si­ble other cause can be con­sid­ered. So, as there is lit­tle em­pir­i­cal ev­i­dence to sup­port the an­thro­pogenic the­sis, cau­sa­tion must be in­vented to pre­vent the UN’s case col­laps­ing. If that fails, there’s al­ways co­er­cion. Bill Nye, US TV’s “sci­ence guy”, is al­ready open to cli­mate scep­tics be­ing pros­e­cuted as war crim­i­nals.

Why not? If jail’s an op­tion, no need to fab­ri­cate sci­ence.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.