Media hype IPCC ‘climate catastrophe’ by 2040 prediction 

Posted: October 2, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Politics, predictions, Temperature

Yet another climate conference?

They’re still playing the same broken record after nearly ten years. These fake dramas wore very thin a long time ago, but the tedium carries on seemingly ad nauseam.

Hundreds of diplomats from around the world are set to scrutinize the IPCC’s latest Summary for Policy Makers, which contains predictions and benchmark findings on staving off a climate catastrophe by 2040, reports AFP.

The world’s nations will gather at a United Nations conference in South Korea on Monday, October 1 to review and approve a 20-page bombshell – distilled from more than 6,000 scientific studies – laying out narrowing options for staving off climate catastrophe.

When the 195 countries who signed off on the Paris Agreement in 2015 requested a report from UN-led scientists on the feasibility of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, the gesture seemed to many unnecessary.

The treaty, after all, enjoined the world to block the rise in Earth’s surface temperature at “well below” 2C compared to preindustrial levels, adding a safety buffer to the two-degree threshold long seen as the guardrail for a climate-safe (sic) world.

Since then, however, a crescendo (sic) of deadly heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and superstorms engorged by rising seas – with less than 1C warming so far – has convinced scientists that the danger cursor (sic) needed to be reset.

“There is increasing and very robust evidence of truly severe and catastrophic risks even at the lower bounds of these temperature targets,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based research and advocacy group.

The promise of “pursuing efforts” to limit warming to 1.5C – added to the Paris treaty at the last minute, in part to assuage poor nations who felt short-changed on other fronts – caught scientists off-guard.

“There wasn’t very much literature on 1.5C warming 3 years ago,” said Jim Skea, a professor of at Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy, and a co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the UN science body charged with writing the “Special Report” on 1.5C.

Continued here.

  1. dennisambler says:

    Peter Frumhoff, the guy who obtained, by false representation, documents from the Heartland Institute.

    One of the members of the Scientific Steering Committee for this “Report” is Social Scientist, Suzanne Moser, who in 2004, co-wrote a document called “MAKING CLIMATE HOT – COMMUNICATING THE URGENCY AND CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE”

    She has been an IPCC author on both AR4 and 5.

  2. dennisambler says:

    Sorry, wrong guy, Frumhoff is Union of Concerned Scientists, it was another Peter, Peter Gleick.

    Sorry Mr Frumhoff.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Is proof by assertion being attempted?

    Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[3]

    This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.

    Seems to fit the climate propagandists.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Industry boss says EU rules putting battery storage ‘in jeopardy’

    An industry chief is warning that the EU is “putting thousands of jobs and the future of a critical battery energy storage industry in jeopardy through a regulatory process packed with unintended consequences”.

    Dr Andy Bush, head of the International Lead Association, said that a proposal for an “in-effect ban on the use of four chemical compounds, mainly used in the manufacture of lead batteries, is now threatening the future of the continent’s battery-making capability and the industries it supports”.

    If battery storage is going to be ‘critical’ we’re in big trouble :/

  5. ivan says:

    This is the Nazi propaganda große Lüge (big lie) perfected by Joseph Goebbels – If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

    Since the politicians and sheeple are believing it it is obvious that we learned nothing from WW2 or the millennial snowflakes don’t want to believe us because they aren’t taught real science any more (‘social science’ is nothing more than brainwashing).

  6. Phoenix44 says:

    “There is increasing and very robust evidence of truly severe and catastrophic risks even at the lower bounds of these temperature targets,”

    Severe and catastrophic eh?

    That’s about as fake news as you can get. Just totally untrue. The only good thing is that this sort of nonsense seems to turn off people rather than make them more worried.

  7. oldbrew says:

    A 30-year non-catastrophe…’Missed It By That Much’
    Posted on October 2, 2018

    Tony Heller writes:
    On September 26, 1988, experts predicted the 1,196 islands of the Maldives would drown in the next thirty years. That date has passed, and they only missed by 1,196 islands.

    So no points for that one. Now it’s ‘climate catastrophe’ by 2040 unless…blah blah.
    At least we *only* have to wait about 22 years to find out how the latest doom prediction is going :/
    – – –
    Back in the UK, September in general was a fairly average month, says the Met Office. No ‘Hothouse Earth’ here.

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    they’ve beat this dead horse so long now it’s been turned into puree.

  9. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    In a plush all expenses paid hotel somewhere in South Korea a group gathers.
    Trougher #1 “I rather enjoy these meet ups in far flung places. Can you believe we’ve had 30 years of wondrous hospitality?”
    Trougher #2 “I know I’d gladly go on for another 30 but I think the food will kill me long before then.”
    Trougher #3 “Speaking of which, I’m finalising my summary and I left the date for doomsday blank. I started loosing track some time in the noughties. When is it again? ”
    Troughers #1 & #2 “2030”
    They all look at each other and laugh nervously.
    Trougher #1 “..that means we’ve only got 11 more years of this” he says nosing the oppulance around him.
    Trougher #3″ I’ve always liked the ring of 2050, it being mid century and all.”
    Trougher #1 ” Heavens man! How on earth can it be an emergency if it’s bloody decades off? It needs to be close but not that close the jig is up.”
    Trougher #2 “How about 2040 but we add that the bezan shall be huge and black, and the eyes thereof red with the blood of living creatures, and the whore of Babylon shall ride forth on a three-headed serpent, and throughout the lands, there’ll be a great rubbing of parts.”
    They laugh.
    Trougher #1 “Quoting Monty Python, I like it. 2040 it is then.”
    They all nod agreement.
    Trougher #3 “Great. I’ll go email that BBC journalist. Can I quote the Monty Python bit? He’ll print anything these days.”
    Trougher #1 “Is he still treating Greenpeace as an Oracle?”
    Trougher #3 “He’d quote a broken clock twice a day.”
    They laugh nervously.

    [reply] 😂

  10. tom0mason says:

    With reference to this UN-IPCC report and to paraphrase Churchill —
    “Never in the field of human science has so much been extrapolated from so little knowledge.”

  11. oldbrew says:

    New study: Conservatives not fooled by “extreme weather” in media but liberals suffer imaginary droughts

  12. michael hart says:

    ““There wasn’t very much literature on 1.5C warming 3 years ago,” said Jim Skea, a professor of at Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy, and a co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the UN science body charged with writing the “Special Report” on 1.5C.”

    That is quite a surprisingly frank statement, coming as it does from a member of the political organisation that essentially makes up any number it feels is necessary to achieve its ends.
    I suspect someone else will have a quiet word with him, cautioning him that honesty is never the best policy if you want to get anywhere in Climate Science.

  13. oldbrew says:

  14. […] just waiting for the quotes on the rubbing of parts caused by the impending, just round the corner you trust us, Climate catastrophe […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s