The recently-published IPCC synthesis report is a useful summary of the last five years of supra-national climate activism and hysteria undertaken under the control of the United Nations. The big takeaway from the 36-page summary for policymakers of the sixth assessment reports is that a large group of activists and state-funded scientists have signed up to the improbable notion that the climate should be stable, and any variation can somehow be controlled by humans. To support this suggestion, almost all the evidence provided is opinion, somehow given credence by being produced by computer models. Actual scientific facts are very thin on the ground.
In addition, a stonking level of economic naïvety is on display. At one point, the environmental footprint of battery production and “growing concerns” about critical minerals is noted, but with what is described as medium confidence, “this can be addressed by material and supply diversification strategies and material efficiency improvements, and circular material flows”.
It might be observed that this type of meaningless waffle is often produced by people who have never run a wealth-generating activity. Something will turn up, seems to be the hope, as collectivists promote their command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Meanwhile, the ‘unit’ cost of renewable energy is said to have fallen in recent years, but no account is taken of the enormous costs involved in countering the unreliable and intermittent nature of wind and solar power.
In the U.K. at least, the report, with its usual climate Armageddon warnings, was downplayed in a surprising number of media and relegated to short items on inside newspaper pages. The Daily Mail had a brief editorial headed ‘Climate hysteria‘ in which it wrote: “The prophecies of catastrophe by UN climate scientists yesterday were distinctly familiar… Yet we’ve heard such hair-raising predictions many times over the years and they often fall short of reality.” Matthew Lynn in the Daily Telegraph called the ‘scientific’ report, “nothing more than confected hysteria”. The science journalist Matt Ridley noted on Talk TV that the IPCC reports were mostly the work of activists these days, and any temperature rises were at the bottom of climate model forecasts. Overall, he noted, a recent period of warming had been beneficial.
IPCC reports are funded by national governments and every line is signed off by the funding parties. At times, the obvious compromises made to satisfy all the parties are almost comical. For instance, climate change is said to have reduced food security. But it is noted that “although overall agricultural productivity has increased, climate change has slowed this growth over the past 50 years”. The problem here, of course, is that useful scare stories about diminishing food supplies are easily debunked by graphs showing often near vertical production rises in many grains, fruits and vegetables over the last 70 years. The IPCC gets around this by accepting an obvious scientific fact, but opines without evidence that climate change has slowed the increase.
In all regions, increases in extreme heat events “have resulted in human mortality and morbidity”, it is observed. Of course a few people are taken away in a heat wave, but it is an established scientific fact that many more people die of the cold than the heat. Humans are sub-tropical creatures, so it is hardly surprising that cold is estimated to kill nine times more people than heat, something that is seemingly ignored by the IPCC. In some regions “mental health challenges” are associated with increasing temperatures. Others might note that mental health challenges – from women foregoing childbirth to children crying themselves to sleep – owe a great deal to 50 years of relentless green forecasts of ecological disasters that never seem to happen.
Looking, in particular, at you, IPCC, writing opinionated guff like this: “The likelihood and impacts and/or irreversible changes in the climate system, including changes triggered when tipping points are reached, increase with global warming.” None of this is based on scientific fact, or even relevant observations from the past. The IPCC continues that with warming levels increasing, there is “high confidence” of coral reef extinction, an opinion that flies in the face of tropical coral’s known ability to thrive within a near 10°C temperature range.
All of this scare-mongering is based on a small 200-year rise in global temperature of about 1°C. It is a scientific fact that such a rise has been seen many times in the past, possibly over much shorter time periods. The often-quoted 1.5°C warming ceiling has no grounding in science, and is a political invention. IPCC estimates of over 4°C warming by the end of the century are just the product of computer models.
The eminent Australian geology professor Dr. Ian Plimer has little time for opinionated activists. After all, geologists spend their life surrounded by the evidence thrown up by more than 600 million years of life on a habitable planet. In his view, the number of geologists who believe humans are responsible for most climate change can be counted on the fingers of a sawmill worker’s hand. In a recent article for Quadrant, he wrote:
During human times on Earth, the atmospheric temperature has varied by over 10°C, with increased disease and mortality during cold times. Humans thrived in far warmer times which saw longevity, populations, empires and wealth increase. There has been no recent increase in droughts, hurricanes, bushfires, temperature extremes, rainfall, flooding or death by climate disasters. A 30-second smart phone search shows this.
There has never been a public debate over climate change, he continued, yet we are told the science is settled.
Bearers of validated facts are denigrated, cancelled and deemed controversial by those who have no counter-argument, no ability to critically analyse, and who rely on self-interest and feelings. … We are reaping the rewards of 50 years of dumbing down education, politicised poor science, a green public service, tampering with the primary temperature data record, and the dismissal of common sense as extreme Right-wing politics.
But the United Nations knows best. In fact it “owns” climate science, at least according to its Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming. We think the world should know it, she told delegates at a recent World Economic Forum disinformation seminar, so we partnered with Google to ensure only UN results appear at the top.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If a country and it’s history have to be undermined and ultimately destroyed then our Flag has to go.
The spirit of this country, the very essence of Great Britain is enshrined within the Union Jack ergo it must be destroyed. We can’t have a one world government running the country while remnants of Britishers cling mournfully to their flag.
“Build Back Better” doncha know.
They can Firk right off.
Yes exactly, hux. There’s that godawful word again: ”Inclusive”. Because didn’t we feel just so excluded for all of these decades prior to 2024? I mean, what better way to feel *included*, right? FFS! Inclusivity equates to excluding white folk, from where I’m standing.
Tenuous link here, but you know I seldom come to the table empty-handed. Look at this UN ‘climate advisor’. Yes, the ‘climate crisis’ is not just ‘manmade’ but it is ‘white man-made’. But it’s the corrupt disgraceful UN, which recently unanimously appointed that bastion of equal rights for women, Saudi Arabia, to chair a gender equality forum next year, so it shouldn’t surprise us that they install this shameless racist biatch to chat toxic garbage to Useless Idiots;
”Meet Ayisha Siddiqa, a climate adviser for the UN. She claims the “white man” and “capitalism” are responsible for bringing life to “the verge of extinction” and calls white men k*llers, looters, and abusers.
Her account is filled with hateful anti-white posts.
Apparently, it’s totally fine to be disgustingly racist against white people if you work at the @UN”
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1775191286032523366
.
Thanks Mogs
Lovely bit of womanhood that Siddiqa. Bright too.
A nice way to handle such a nasty bit of work would be to stop all payments of money taken from white people to her. That would cause her income to drop to about nothing and she’d henceforth be forced to save something more proportionate than planets.
You’re getting the German treatment here (the one Britain and the USA co-invented) because to the people who talk of European fascism and colonialism (like the American guy who keeps writing about the new WHO pandemic treaty) you’re equally in the way and equally part of the forces of evil which have to be pushed aside.
Well it does make one wonder just how many white people were in that audience actually…Something tells me a lot, so here we have another example of the nonsensical and toxic, ”white guilt” phenomena. Or basically just ‘delusional, treacherous Leftards’, as I call them. The kind that would attend a BLM protest/riot. Fully masktarded up, of course.
Exactly. Very little of this insanity is organic. The objective is the communist goal of a single identity – the identity that the state will provide for you. Build on the back of existing divisive ideologies to further the demolition of the traditional family unit. Build a blob of people who have so many different identities that there is no identity; identity becomes a characteristic like hair colour – meaningless. Your identity will be your name. Then your number. You will comply because your thoughts are the thoughts of everyone, and everyone’s thoughts are the thoughts of the state. You will be the states identity. Nothing more.
Sam Goldwyn’s quote is appropriate from 80 years ago. “Gentlemen, include me out!”
The Union already includes all within it’s shores. This ‘new’ rebranding is a from of exclusion, in the extreme.
How appropriate having that wilting white rose above the words Team GB.
Team GB = Team Gay Boys?
= Team Gender Benders?
I am sure you can come up with more.
Grandiloquent Bollocks
And another thing… by what right does the alphabet minority have the right to dictate the colours and content of our National flag? How many alphabet people are there in Great Britain? One per cent if that. Dictating to seventy million if we include all the immigrants.
Furthermore, by what right do the Olympic Association deem it within their remit to take a wrecking ball to the Union Jack? The flag and all it represents belongs to all the people of these nations and not some tiny pea-brained minority which clearly has some WEF Fifth Columnists within its ranks.
Absolutely appalling and treasonous behaviour.
But the agency […] says its Team GB redesign should appeal to a “new generation of sports fans”.
With this, the agency (SPECTRE?) means to communicate that it has absolutely no idea whether or not the new design will actually appeal to anyone but is absolutely certain that it will rub the majority of current sports fans absolutely the wrong way. Which is presumably the sole point of the exercise.
“How can we unite all the disparate folk of Britain around their national team?”
“I know! Why not antagonise everyone who cares about the nation?
You mean the ‘Far Right’, decent family type people who pay their bills, and won’t take part in turning their nation into a rancid shithole.
Everybody’s Far Right now – my take.
“For fans of all backgrounds” They’ve just lost one here.
Also has to be said here: This is an absolutely shitty design which steals the general layout of the Union Jack, splashes a blue – pink – purple colour gradient over it and fills all available spaces with seemingly random patterns introducing a lot of optic noise which seems to exist for the sake of it. Kindergartenkids using finger paint would easily come up with something of much more artistic substance because they’d be trying to paint something and not just to obscure someone else’s creation.
Outrageous!!
It reminds me of a section from the Hitchiker’s Guide, which described the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as “a bunch of mindless jerks who shall be first against the wall come the revolution”. A copy of the Guide from the future fell through a wormhole and described them as “a bunch of mindless jerks who were first against the wall…”
For some reason, this made be think of the depressed, telepathic elevators sulking in the basement.
Our enemies are ramping up the pressure. Let them – they will be more clearly seen for what they are.
This chap nails the whole ‘DEI’ anti-white/racist scam, in my opinion;
”The best way to understand DEI is to separate the marketing pitch—which, I agree, is attractive—from the reality of DEI in practice. Here is how I see it:
1. Diversity: We agree that it is important for people of all backgrounds to be treated fairly. But “diversity” in the political sense means treating individuals as a representation of their group identity, sorting them into a hierarchy based on the “oppressor-oppressed” dynamic, and then discriminating for or against certain groups on that basis. In practice, it means putting identity above merit, rewarding and punishing individuals based on their ancestry and, increasingly, their political ideology. In academia, for example, “diversity statements” are used to measure conformity to left-wing racial theories.
2. Equity: We agree that we should maximize opportunity for all. But “equity” is a political ideology that is distinct from, and contradictory to, “equality.” In the highest sense, equality means that the state should treat individuals impartially, as in “equality under law,” while recognizing that individuals have different talents, desires, and motivations, which will inevitably lead to inequalities. In a sense, you cannot have equality without inequality—they are two sides of the same coin. “Equity,” on the other hand, treats all inequality as illegitimate and attempts to force group equalization, or “equality of outcomes,” through redistribution of wealth and property. This is a key tenet of critical race theory.
3. Inclusion: We agree that institutions should have constructive, creative environments. But in practice, “inclusion” is a code word for a distinct, left-wing orthodoxy and is used to suppress disfavored groups and opinions. At many universities, DEI administrators publish speech codes in the name of “inclusion” that restrict the range of discourse and speech on campus. Additionally, the “inclusion” principle is never extended to supposed “oppressor” groups, such as whites, men, and Christians—instead, it becomes a form of exclusion. We can see this in the real world with many institutions implementing “hate,” “bias,” and “safe space” policies, which, in practice, are used to silence dissent and, especially, conservative speech.
This is not speculation. I have substantiated all of these claims with dozens of investigative reports on DEI bureaucracies in universities, schools, and corporations. It is, in fact, much worse in the particular than in the general dynamics I am describing above.”
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1774891216737538166
Great comment
From where I am in France, I simply cannot imagine French men and women of any background standing by if their flag was debased in this way. Or Marianne being portrayed as anything other than a white woman. Hell would freeze over first. Too right, too. And it’s not because they’re racist. They aren’t. They actually care. Common courtesy exists here.
I ain’t patrotic. Too anarchic for that. But just because:
.
The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are intent on destroying our country.
People from all corners of the globe come here to live and work. They obviously come here for a better life and when you ask them “Where do you come from”? they will often get offended and adamantly state “I am British”. —–OK that is great you are all British. So why then are culture warriors fiddling about with the British flag talking about trying to be “inclusive” and other such woke language? ——-There is clearly no need for this absurd idea that our flag may offend people from other parts of the world, since they all say they are British when it suits them. —–STOP IT.
Another Bud-Lite fiasco. They never learn.
They know exactly what they are doing. The thick ones are our unconcerned British (for the moment) brethren.
No other country would allow its National Flag to be disrespected and abused in this way.
Why do we?
The government of the state of Berlin (SPD – Left- Greens) has banned display of the German flag by the police during the upcomfing Euros because of “state neutrality”. And the present chancer (Olaf Scholz¹) is on record for referring to marches where people were carrying placards with stuff like “Against nation, state and capitalism!” written on them a fine demonstration of comittment to democractic values.
¹ Most famous for getting out of an anti-corruption and tax fraud hearing by declaring that he really couldn’t remember anything about the events in question.