The climate of deception 9

Look up and see the wonder. Pigs are flying.

The latest report by the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) actually tells the truth. It is “a far cry from the IPCC’s usual slipshod, scaremongering standards.”

Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where “right” means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest — sometimes it just takes a little while.

A few quotable quotes from the report:

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”

“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”

“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature:

“Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses … but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research.”

So what this IPCC report is saying is that WE DO NOT KNOW if there’s an anthropogenic signal in extreme weather patterns, and that there does not seem to be a trend towards increased extreme weather events such as tornados and tropical storms.

Our quotes come from an article by James Delingpole in the Telegraph.

Here’s more:

They’re calling it Global Weirding now, as I suppose, inevitably they were bound to do in the end. Well “global warming” stopped working in 1989 when the globe stopped warming. Climate change was always a bit of a non-starter because climate does change regardless of whether or not we all drive 4 x 4s, or buy carbon offsets …  And Global Climate Disruption, as some pillock tried to christen it, was never going to catch on because, well, it’s just too blatantly contrived and desperate isn’t it?

So Global Weirding it is. The concept was popularised last week in a characteristically dire and parti pris BBC Horizon documentary which purported to have lots of new evidence (or ‘hearsay’ as it would more likely have been termed in a court of law) showing that our weather is getting more extreme – weirder. It seems to have been broadcast to coincide with a new IPCC report which has been excitedly written up in newspapers like the Guardian and the Detroit Free Press as evidence that we are heading towards climate disaster.

Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts and heatwaves that nations should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of scientists has said.

The greatest danger is in highly populated, poorer regions, but no corner of the globe is immune. The document, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heatwaves, deluges and droughts, and blames man-made climate change, population shifts and poverty.

But this is pretty much the exact opposite of what the IPCC report actually says. …

How can the warmists bear it? How do the left-biased media deal with this document?

James Delingpole has told us how – they lie.

The liberal MSM is reporting the opposite. How come?

Well here’s the weird part. The misinformation comes from the IPCC’s summary of its own report .. which has been regurgitated, in classic churnalism style, by all the usual lazy MSM suspects.

It begins:

Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today.” …

Thing is, the warmists are losing and growing desperate.

As we know, the great global warming alarmism Ponzi scheme is looking extremely vulnerable at the moment. Global warming has stopped. There’s a growing public backlash against eco-taxes, ugly flickery lightbulbs, higher energy bills, bat chomping eco-crucifixes [?] and all the other paraphernalia of the environmental religion.

And unfortunately … what these kind of people do when they get backed into a corner is not surrender but get nastier and more devious.

We’ve seen this recently in the Fakegate affair. …  And in the Planet Under Pressure comedy conference staged last week by comedy organisations including the Royal Society, mainly in order to try to breathe new life into the stagnant, green-tinged corpse of climate alarmism. …

Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South. …

As Paul Joseph Watson notes at Prison Planet: “The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over.”

Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance.

Some at least may concede that their cause is lost.

Look for more pig-flights this year.

  • Harold

    My final bit sems to have been duplicated – can’t have too much of a good thing (not).

  • Harold

    Hi George, here I am.
    The first quotable quote, without which the report makes no sense:
    “Assigning ‘low confidence’ in observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this extreme. Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to make assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity. The more rare the event the more difficult it is to identify”.

    This reports main purpose is not assessing the reality of AGW.   That said, the quotable quote about future trends in very clear:

    “It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century at the global scale.”

    In other words, global warming is virtually certain.

    And the one about whether we should take action or not:
    “Actions that range from incremental steps to transformational changes are essential for reducing risk from climate extremes (high agreement, robust evidence).
    In other words – it is essential we do something about it.Seems quite clear to me. Global warming is real and we need to take action.
    In other words – it is essential we do something about it.

    Seems quite clear to me. Global warming is real and we need to take action.

    • Liz

      Global warming may be real, but the idea that it is man-made is what is in dispute.  If man is not the cause of it, then I don’t think there is much man can do about it.

    • George

      Yes Harold you are here indeed  as expected and it’s amazing that this is the ONLY topic that you respond to on an ATHEIST CONSERVATIVE website.   We have articles on this website about terrorist acts being carried out , people being beheaded , bombs exploding all over the world and  as soon as the subject of  [  climate change    ] comes up this seems to be your ONLY interest. Yes , you have the privilege of posting on whatever you like but my question is why is this the ONLY topic of concern on a secular conservative website ? Just curious .  I’m not complaining,  but only pointing out the obvious. I have read a multituide of articles by scientists and have listened to their broadcast reports and overwhelmingly the credible scientists around the world are acknowledging that this GLOBAL WARMING fiasco is nothing but a HOAX and a FRAUD.   It’s a political SHAM.   They ( resesrch scientists ) have proclaimed that our climate changes are cyclical and most are caused by solar flares /sun spots ,  earth/moon/sun  effects ,  and even  they have declared that these are natural causes and are NOT because of polution from SUV’s  and factory smokestacks or aerosol cans. Mt. St. Helens spewed out more pollution in one volcanic eruption and has cause more climatic disruption than every automobile on  earth since the first Model-T by Henry Ford.  I heard one scientist on a conservative radio program  report that we are NOT approaching a coming age of global warming but are approachin a coming Ice Age if any. In fact , he wrote a book which I plan to purchase titled—- ” Not by Fire but by Ice “.  Furthermore if scientists are arguing among themselves regarding this matter then the populace at large are asking —- Who do we listen to ? Who do we trust ?  From my personal observations , it has been only LIBERALS   ( especially liberal atheists ) who have bought in to this global warming rubbish.  Yes we do need to take care of the pollution problem and the inustrial effects on our environment but it has been shown beyond any doubt tha this global warming  thing has become overwhelmingly POLIICAL . I’m not buying it and I won’t waste my time debating the issue . I am NOT a scientist but my comments are indeed from scientist sources which I am simply relaying in my posting. If you or others disagree , then so be it as I am respectfully not convinced by those who continue to assert the global warming presentation.    

      • Harold

        Hey George, I agreed with one of your posts a while ago – it was not about global warming.

        Just one fact- volcanos give out about 1% of the CO2 compared to man.

        Liz – glad to see you are on board with the reality of global warming, if not the cause. 

        • George

          Harold , I am aware of the miniscule amount of CO2 in volcanos , however it isn’t the CO2 component that I was addressing but rather the ash, and poisonous and harmful smoke and other substances per se.  That was only one example out of a multitude.  I’m still awaiting sir your answer of why is this the only or primary topic that you respond to when we have articles reporting about massive acts of terrorism , mayhem and inhumane acts galore ? Just curious.     Also, why are you asserting that Liz is now sudenly on board ?  Could it possibly be because a comment she made is in agreement with a point of view that you agree with ? These are just some things that have been puzzling me and I am not asking to be abbrasive but only curious. That’s all.

  • Bat chomping eco-crucifixes = windmills.

  • Liz

    I can’t believe that they are admitting anything. Thats weird.
    The drugging and brainwashing part is much more believeable.

  • George

    Where’s Harold ?