United Nations IPCC Solutions Report On Climate Change Is More Science Fiction Than Science Fact
Many may think that Trump pulling the united States out of the Paris Climate Accord would at the very least put out the fire “Gore Church” followers have in their pants to save the world from us humans who exhale carbon dioxide. In fact, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to publish a new report focusing on keeping global temperatures limited to a 1.5 degree Celsius warming above pre-industrial levels. But, Trump officials claim there are major problems with the report, submitting nine pages of comments back to the IPCC.
The Daily Caller reported:
U.S. officials criticized the summary for policymakers (SPM) section, which lays out the supposed consequences of future warming and policy pathways to limit such climate change.
“The SPM narrative fails to communicate the scale of the global technological and economic challenge to meet the 1.5C objective,” the U.S. wrote in its comments.
“The SPM implies that these challenges will be minor and any trade-offs easily resolved, whereas the underlying report and the published literature clearly demonstrate the scope and depth of these barriers to limiting emissions consistent with 1.5C,” officials added.
The Trump administration also called into question the climate models used to estimate future impacts of any warming. Indeed, climate models have come under increased scrutiny in recent years since they’ve consistently over-predicted warming.
“There is no discussion — or a summary thereof — in the SPM regarding the credibility of models (or methodologies) used in the report to project future impacts,” U.S. officials said, adding that “most” models incorrectly predicted the rate of warming since the 1990s.
University of Colorado professor, Roger Pielke Jr. identified many problems with the UN assumptions on climate change outlined at the Paris accords in a published paper for Issues in Science and Technology.
Pielke wrote, “In the face of ongoing failure to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, they are rejiggering the way they define the climate change challenge as if that will somehow allow policies that have been failing for over 25 years to become successful.”
So, since reducing global “greenhouse gas emissions” has failed, the next step is to “redefine” the climate change challenge. Pielke asserted that in order to maintain the target temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius per the Paris accord, the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) would be required. BECCS essentially removes carbon dioxide from the air through growing plants, which are then burned for energy. The emissions are then caught and stored underground.
But, there is a major problem. The UN IPCC assumes BECCS technology to be used on a grand scale, but Pielke claims that use on a massive scale is science fiction – “like a lightsaber, incredible but not real.” He claims that UN climate projections overestimate energy efficiency gains and use unlikely by using “worst case scenarios to tip the cost-benefit ratios to favor their ‘science fiction’ policies.”
Pielke claimed, “Climate policy business as usual means that we go exactly where we have been headed, repeating the same behavior, and modifying our assumptions to accommodate our continuing failure to make progress.”
This information uncovered by Pielke is another stake in the coffin of “climate change.” His comments come at the same time the first audit of global temperature data revealed boats on land, freezing tropical islands and boiling towns.
Climate Depot reported:
The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by the climate models contains hundreds of errors and more than 70 different sorts of problems. Trillions of dollars have been spent because of predictions based on this data – yet even the simplest of quality control checks have not been done.
Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC expertise and demands for cash, rests on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.
Why. Why. Why wasn’t this done years ago?
This busts the facade. How can people who care about the climate be so sloppy and amateur with the data?
There are cases of tropical islands recording a monthly average of zero degrees — this is the mean of the daily highs and lows for the month. A spot in Romania spent one whole month averaging minus 45 degrees. One site in Colombia recorded three months of over 80 degrees C. That is so incredibly hot that even the minimums there were probably hotter than the hottest day on Earth. In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean temperatures from as far as 100km inland. The only explanation that could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
The audit also indicated that real temperature data was ignored.
But, if you are the UN IPCC, this is trifling since the body claims to review thousands of scientific papers published each year, with the latest report relying on more than 6,000 references. While this sounds impressive, it is blatantly false. According to Climate Depot, academic publishing is experiencing a reproducibility crisis.
Quoting nofrakkingconsensus.com, “A disturbing percentage of the research published in medicine, economics, computer science, psychology, and other fields simply doesn’t stand up. Whenever independent third parties attempt to reproduce/replicate this work – carrying out the same research in order to achieve the same findings – the success rate is dismal.”
So here’s the bottom line: We know that studies about promising drugs typically fail when strangers attempt to reproduce those studies. We know that flashy physics research published in Science and Nature has been wholly fraudulent. We know that half of economics papers can’t be replicated, even with assistance from their own authors. We know political bias distorts the peer-review process in psychology.
We therefore have no earthly reason to imagine that climate science is exempt from these kinds of problems.
If half of the scientific literature is untrue, it therefore follows that half of climate research is also untrue.
This means that 3,000 of the IPCC’s 6,000 references aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
This goes back to the use of the Scientific Method – third parties can take the same information and using the same tests, replicate the original results thereby confirming the hypothesis. So far, no one has been able to do so with the IPCC climate change models.
Climate Depot stated, “This is the IPCC’s standard MO. It controls the message by feeding the media a politically-negotiated Summary of its latest work. Then it stands back and lets gullible reporters mislead the public about what the science says.” Busted!
However, never fear because a new scientific study confirmed climate change – CO2/global warming is shrinking men’s testicles. Really, you can’t make this stuff up.
From the correlation is not causation department, and Mother Jones, comes this absurdity:
A new study from researchers in California has reached some astonishing new conclusions. An interdisciplinary team composed of members from physics, physiology, statistics, and atmospheric sciences began with results from a metastudy of sperm concentration in men.
This study confirmed that sperm concentrations have been declining since the early 70s. At the same time, measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory show that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising during the same period.
One has to ask the question, “what dingbats did they get to participate in this study to come up with lame results?” Soy boys?
Now we know that it isn’t soy products or the feminazi movement that is effeminizing men, it is carbon dioxide emissions. If you believe that, I have an island in the Bahamas for sale, really cheap.
The UN, standing on inaccurate, false data and inaccurate, false, and crazy scientific test results, claims humanity has only 12 years to make “unprecedented” changes to all aspects of society or we are doomed. Climate “minister” Al Gore piggybacked off the UN’s dire warning and bull manure data. However, NASA’s lead climate warming advocate, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, has had enough of the UN’s and the media’s climate garbage tipping points, but continues to support the climate change rhetoric.
What is more absurd about this entire “climate change/global warming” farce is the solution presented to the nations of the world involved money. The latest is a $240 per gallon of gas tax equivalent by 2100 is needed to alleviate “climate change.” The useless international body claims a carbon tax to fight climate change would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100. In looking closer at the year 2030, the carbon tax would be approximately $5,500 per ton or a $49 per gallon tax equivalent for Americans.
It is unlikely this will ever be implemented, but stranger things have happened. While the UN IPCC and the Church of Gore lobby for carbon taxes, no one ever explains what taxing an individual’s carbon emissions is going to do to “combat” climate change. The reason it is never explained is because no amount of money can “combat” climate change because climate change is a farce, a hoax, created to redistribute wealth globally – no more, no less. Buying into this farce will totally cripple our posterity by the year 2100, making them “slaves” to the global cabal enriching the billionaire globalists and crooked corrupt politicians.
The Trump administration should do more than question the climate change farce; it should reject all notions of this absurdity. This is another point on the checklist justifying the US pulling out of the UN, ceasing funding the corrupt cabal, evicting the entire body out of the US, and dismantling the useless organization that only wants to milk wealthy nations to enrich globalists and corrupt third world dictators. Science should be the determining factor when evaluating climate change. And, fortunately, science is not on the side of the global government wannabe.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost. Article by Suzanne Hamner.