#intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC)

[darkmaga-returns]

A group of leading climate scientists have declared that the so-called ‘climate emergency’ is a scam being perpetuated by the global elite.

A two-day climate conference in Prague, organised by the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), which took place on November 12-13 in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague, “declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary ‘climate emergency’ is at an end”.

Wattsupwiththat.com reports: The communiqué, drafted by the eminent scientists and researchers who spoke at the conference, makes clear that for several decades climate scientists have  systematically exaggerated the influence of CO2 on global temperature.

The high-level scientific conference also declared:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.”

The declaration supports the conclusions of the major Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC [presented to the Conference by Marcel Crok, Clintel’s co-founder].

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

[thoughtlessarse]

The UN’s climate science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is currently meeting in Bulgaria to decide on a timeline for its next “cycle” of reports over the rest of this decade. That decision should have been taken in January, but government divisions arose over aligning IPCC outputs with UN climate negotiations, at a meeting that the IPCC chair described as “one of the most intense” he had experienced. Political struggle over the final wording of IPCC reports is well known, but this division at the start of the process reflects the organisation’s achievements. The more successful it becomes in disseminating climate knowledge, the more deeply imbued in climate politics it becomes. I have studied the IPCC for 15 years and think these political factors are often overlooked. For instance, though the reports are written by scientists, governments play an integral role throughout the process. The IPCC is after all an intergovernmental body – it’s governments that decide to produce the reports and give the final approval, not scientists. Most notably, this involves the final line-by-line approval of a report’s key findings in the “summary for policymakers” (the only bit most people read). Media reporting and accounts by IPCC authors frequently reveal the extent of negotiation over how the latest knowledge of climate change is presented to the public. This has lead to whole sections being deleted and open conflict between scientists and government delegates. However, decisions made at the start of an assessment cycle are equally fraught with politics. These include electing the bureau and approving the report outline. The politics sometimes come to light, as it did when Wikileaks revealed US manoeuvring to secure the election of the US co-chair candidate for a previous round of reports which were published in 2013 and 2014.

continue reading

We're being lied to, in case you were wondering.

[wastelesscrafts]

New IPCC report (March 20, 2023)

The newest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published on the 20th of March 2023.

Read the synthesis report, or check out the IPCC's YouTube channel if reading isn't your thing.

Climate YouTubers Zentouro and ClimateAdam have also released a short summary video of the report.

(If you're currently dealing with climate anxiety, you may want to skip these reports.)

[aperint]

Reprobados en cambio climático

Reprobados en cambio climático #aperturaintelectual #vmrfaintelectual @victormanrf @Victor M. Reyes Ferriz @vicmanrf @victormrferriz Víctor Manuel Reyes Ferriz

12 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2023 Esto es para ti papi POR: VÍCTOR MANUEL REYES FERRIZ El día de hoy culmina la cumbre del clima “Conferencia de Partes” (COP) en su edición número 28 que comenzó el pasado 30 de noviembre en el “Expo City” de Dubái y ésta reúne a los delegados de 197 países, organizaciones no gubernamentales, empresas, científicos, representantes de la industria, activistas y por supuesto…

[man-and-atom]

Quite a few people have seen this image, and said “well clearly wind and solar are the way to go, there’s no need or role for nuclear”.

Look again at that headline.

“Relative potentials and costs will vary across countries and in the longer term compared to 2030.”

Simply put, although in broad strokes the industrial potential of the world is equal to installing (say) 10 GW of new nuclear-electric capacity a month, which would make a vast difference to global emissions, getting to that point by 2030 would be exceedingly difficult and costly.

Even if we imagine all the legal barriers swept away ― if we imagine, for instance, Germany to say “well, now that the nuclear power plants have all been shut down, you can start building new ones as of July” ― it takes time to build or expand the necessary production facilities, train personnel, and so on. Likewise, a programme of building power stations must begin at a modest pace and ramp up, so that designs can be optimized.

If we extend the time horizon just to 2035, the situation looks very different. Again, of course, that assumes we start now, and don’t allow ourselves to be lulled into inaction.

[carolkeiter]

How to Persuade Others to Care about Biodiversity?

Back in Rhode Island when I was bicycling 6 or so miles from Providence – to swim in the only nearby lake at Lincoln Woods State Park – I encountered a dead deer along the road. The Police were already standing next to it. It was upsetting. It’s an area where Power lines cut through the trees, which in fact provide space to allow animals (with no residential properties or fences blocking their…

[omg-erika]

Who is afraid of CO2?

by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext What the mainstream media is hiding Why we should fear and hate carbon dioxide – A guest article by Elena Louisa Lange about the sense and folly of worrying about “man-made climate change.” In September, the world witnessed five minutes of climate ideology at its finest. Apple, the world’s most capitalized company, produced a promotional film designed to…

[irreplaceable-spark]

Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge

Steven Koonin is one of America's most distinguished scientists, with decades of experience, including a stint as undersecretary of science at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration. In this wide-ranging discussion, based in part on his 2021 book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Koonin gives a more refined look at the science behind the climate issue than the media typically offers, guiding us through the evidence and its implications. As Koonin explains in this interview, he was “shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed” and that the “overwhelming evidence” of catastrophic implications of anthropogenic global warming wasn’t so overwhelming after all.

[n0thingiscool]

Last week, the judge in Held v. Montana handed down a victory for the 16 young plaintiffs, who argued that the state’s continued production of fossil fuels violated their constitutional rights. Advocates say the landmark ruling could have broad ramifications for future climate litigation. But it’s also clear that Montana was woefully unprepared to face climate science on trial.

[rodgermalcolmmitchell]

How to be a climate and COVID denier by calling warnings, "panicked fearmongering."

If you were in a burning building and people yelled at you, “Get out, the building is on fire,” I assume Bjorn Lomborg and Jordan B. Peterson would call that “panicked fearmongering.” It is the only conclusion I can draw from the ridiculous Trumpian article published under their names. Stop the panicked fearmongering if we want to make the world better By Bjorn Lomborg and Jordan B. Peterson…