New UN IPCC report claims ‘Now or Never’ to flight climate – That’s an easy choice – NEVER! – More tipping points – Point-by-point rebuttal

From Climate Depot

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot

IPCC climate change report headline via AFP: Scientists warn it’s now or never to limit global warming – The boss of the United Nations has erupted at world leaders as scientists warn the planet is in peril unless urgent action is taken.

UN Claim: “Humans have less than three years to halt the rise of planet-warming carbon emissions and less than a decade to slash them by nearly half, UN climate experts said. … It’s a last-gasp race to ensure the world has a “liveable future”.

“It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5C,” said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and co-chair of the working group behind the report.

Climate Depot Response: “‘Now or Never’ again?! Easy choice, NEVER!” See: Earth ‘serially doomed’: The official history of climate ‘Tipping Points’ began in 1864

AFP: UN Claim: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: “Some government and business leaders are saying one thing, but doing another. Simply put: They are lying. And the results will be catastrophic.”

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: “Absolutely nothing in this IPCC report is true. It is all fake and threatens the existence of civilization, especially the West because the East and the South don’t buy it. We must reject it or face the consequences. Celebrate CO2!!” 

UN Claim: “The IPCC made clear that individuals can also make a big difference…Cutting back on long-haul flights, switching to plant-based diets, climate-proofing buildings and other ways of cutting the consumption”

Climate Depot Response: “Ignore the UN’s promotion of energy lockdowns to ‘fight’ climate change. More restrictions on plentiful energy to turn peoples’ lives into micromanaged deprivation all in the service of some cultish climate goals. See:Intl Energy Agency report urges ENERGY LOCKDOWNS: ‘Banning use of private cars on Sundays…Reducing highway speed limits…more working from home…cutting business air travel’ & SUV ‘tax’UN Claim: Olha Boiko, an activist from the Climate Action Network, based in Ukraine, said: “The money, that we begged not to invest in dirty energy, is now flying over our heads in the form of bombs.”

Climate Depot Response: “Let’s rework Boiko’s claim into a true statement: Accurate revision: “The money, that we begged the U.S. & Europe not to invest in unreliable solar and wind that produces very little energy compared to fossil fuels,  is now flying over our heads in the form of bombs because Europe and the U.S. had to rely on Russia’s fossil fuels and thus fund Putin’s war machine.”

#

Full article from AFB below: 

AFP: The UN has blasted “lying” politicians, as it reports the world is rapidly running out of time to avoid the “catastrophic” impacts of climate change.

Humans have less than three years to halt the rise of planet-warming carbon emissions and less than a decade to slash them by nearly half, UN climate experts said.

It’s a last-gasp race to ensure the world has a “liveable future”.

And it’s a daunting task that is – only just – still possible.

But current policies are leading the planet towards “catastrophic” temperature rises, with politicians and business leaders coming under fire for “lying” about the action they are taking to deal with climate change, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: “Some government and business leaders are saying one thing, but doing another. Simply put: They are lying. And the results will be catastrophic.”

Future of the world in the balance

The 2800-page report is by far the most comprehensive assessment of how to halt global heating ever produced.

But it also documents “a litany of broken climate promises”, Mr Guterres said in a blistering rebuke of governments and industry.

The world’s nations, the report said, are taking our future right to the wire.

In recent months, the IPCC published the first two instalments in a trilogy of mammoth scientific assessments covering how greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet and what that means for life on Earth.

This third report outlines what we can do about it.

“We are at a crossroads,” IPCC chief Hoesung Lee said.

“The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future. We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming.”

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said these tools “are firmly within our grasp”.

“Nations of the world must be brave enough to use them,” he said.

The solutions touch on virtually all aspects of modern life, require significant investment and need “immediate action”, the IPCC said.

The very first item on the global to-do list is to stop greenhouse gas emissions from rising any further.

“It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5C,” said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and co-chair of the working group behind the report.

“Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”

Slashing coal, oil, gas

To do that, the world must radically reduce the fossil fuels which are responsible for the lion’s share of emissions.

Nations should stop burning coal completely and cut oil and gas use by 60 and 70 per cent respectively to keep within the Paris goals, the IPCC said, noting that both solar and wind were now cheaper than fossil fuels in many places.

But just cutting emissions is no longer enough, the IPCC said.

Technologies to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere – not yet operating to scale – will need to be ramped up enormously.

While government policies, investments and regulations will propel emissions cuts, the IPCC made clear that individuals can also make a big difference.

Cutting back on long-haul flights, switching to plant-based diets, climate-proofing buildings and other ways of cutting the consumption that drives energy demand could reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 to 70 per cent by 2050.

Those with the most, also pollute the most, the report said. Households whose income is in the top 10 per cent globally – two-thirds of whom are in developed countries – emit up to 45 per cent of carbon pollution.

“Individuals with high socio-economic status contribute disproportionately to emissions and have the highest potential for emissions reductions – as citizens, investors, consumers, role models and professionals,” the IPCC said.

With war in Ukraine spurring efforts to transition away from Russian oil and gas in the West, observers said the report should sharpen nations’ focus on climate commitments.

More Coverage

Eye-watering cost of fossil fuels revealed
Grim sign as ‘point of no return’ approaches
“It is heartbreaking for me, as a Ukrainian climate activist, to be living through a war which has fossil fuel money at its core,” Olha Boiko, an activist from the Climate Action Network, based in Ukraine, said.

“The money, that we begged not to invest in dirty energy, is now flying over our heads in the form of bombs.”

5 19 votes
Article Rating
100 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Spetzer86
April 10, 2022 6:05 pm

So who’s going to enforce this new edict with China and India?

Dudley Horscroft(@dudleyhorscroft)
Reply to  Spetzer86
April 10, 2022 6:28 pm

Nobody can. “Aye, there’s the rub” to quote a long dead white writer. And if China and India do nothing, then nothing the rest of the world can do will make any difference.

Rather than try ruining the West and South (Australia) better we relax and go down to the beach, to have a good rest. Take down a slab and enjoy a prawn straight from the Barbie!

Then come back in three years time, to find that this next tipping point has passed and there is still a good earth, fruitful and productive.

Old Gobie Jumper
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
April 11, 2022 10:23 am

The emergency is that in another 3 years the western world may wake up and conclude the entire climate change thing is a scam.

Simon
Reply to  Old Gobie Jumper
April 11, 2022 5:39 pm

Is it coincidence that 3 years is also the end of Biden term

Bob Close
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
April 12, 2022 2:32 pm

Actually Dudley, we have to be more proactive than that in Australia now that the May election is upon us and we have to try and stop a Labor-Greens coalition government who will really screw up the economy with its overt net zero climate policies. The IPA are trying to show what responsible climate polices look like, but given the wishy washy liberal attitude to climate matters and ignorance of the population about the real issues, plus the dominance of the leftist media, don’t expect any miracles. Should Morrison grasp the nettle and appeal to his conservative base once again, we might vote for him again but otherwise its One Nation or similar parties for us lost souls.

Dennis
Reply to  Spetzer86
April 10, 2022 8:29 pm

China mines more coal than Australia mines, China’s emissions increase every year by more than the total of emissions from sources in Australia.

In fact Australia is a very small source of emissions compared to global sources.

Yet Australia is continually targeted by the UN IPCC and others demanding an end to coal mining and even to commit to a lower emissions target than already agreed in the Paris Agreement now that Australia is on track meeting the target schedule for 2030. And exceeded the Kyoto Agreement emissions target, one of the few UN member nations that did.

b.nice
Reply to  Dennis
April 10, 2022 9:24 pm

Actually, Australia is a net carbon sink.

KcTaz
Reply to  Dennis
April 10, 2022 10:05 pm

The US did, too, thanks to fracking and the use of natural gas replacing coal. In fact, the US had lowered emissions more than any other nation in the Paris Accord and continued doing so even after Trump pulled us out. Most of the others haven’t come remotely close to meeting their targets. If Biden gets us off natural gas as a primary source of energy and builds more bird choppers and roasters, look for our emissions to rise. Fossil fuels having to maintain 24/ spinning reserves and power up and down to take electricity from “green” things does not lower but increases emissions CO2 and real pollutants.
Duke Energy application points finger at solar for increased pollution
http://bit.ly/2qU0grH
8/14/19

Bill Powers
Reply to  Dennis
April 11, 2022 7:45 am

Australia is the UN’s Canary in the coal mine and most of your countrymen are as oblivious as the canary.

Wade
Reply to  Spetzer86
April 11, 2022 4:59 am

China already has the type of government they desire. Therefore, they are exempt.

Joe
April 10, 2022 6:13 pm

Totally wrong-headed post. Immoral babbling

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Joe
April 10, 2022 6:31 pm

Come on Man, what was Xi Jinping really like when you went trekking through the Himalayas with him when you were Vice President?

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
DonM
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 11, 2022 11:38 am

Greatest presidential quote ever:

“America is a nation that can be defined in a single word; blblers i drblurs aeuih was in the the foothills of the Himalayas with Xi Jinping, traveling with him. That’s when I traveled 17,000 miles when I was Vice President. I don’t know that for a fact.”

philincalifornia
Reply to  Joe
April 10, 2022 7:58 pm

Ha ha, is that the best you got? It must suck to be in the zero-data tribe right now, but keep coming back. You’ll have your ass handed to you every day if you have no other friends to talk to.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 10, 2022 11:05 pm

It’s not Zero Carbon now though,

it’s Negative Carbon

b.nice
Reply to  Joe
April 10, 2022 9:26 pm

Dear Joe, it is interesting to note that you are totally incapable of countering a single point that was raised. 😉

griff
Reply to  b.nice
April 11, 2022 12:53 am

Well it is so clear and obvious and so clearly supported by a wide range of scientific evidence that the planet is warming rapidly due to human produced CO2 and that this is having a clear adverse impact right now, with potentially catastrophic impact in future…

Saying it is all a leftist plot (etc, etc), making up your own science (we’re looking at you Monckton!), cherrypicking old weather events, ignoring physical evidence and attacking models and all the other stuff just isn’t good enough any more.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 1:33 am

Shouldn’t you be glued to a road somewhere?

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
April 11, 2022 5:33 am

I’ll help. Middle of the M25? At night?

JF

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 3:23 am

Go ahead Griffiepoo, reveal the actual, empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 determines temperatures, and not vice versa.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Graemethecat
April 11, 2022 9:48 am

Griffypoo’s persistent failure to produce scientific evidence to support his claims demonstrates that he is operating on religious faith when spouting the CAGW party line. A cult member has blind unwavering faith in his cult leaders and what he is told to believe.

Someday, if and when the U.N. and its “scientists” are actually (and finally) challenged and made to defend and produce evidence to support what they are claiming, people like Griffypoo may get a very serious wakeup call.

As I have said in the past, one of the worst things about being in a cult is not knowing you are in one.

George Daddis
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 5:20 am

Another fact and data free assertion from our friend.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 5:34 am

“Well it is so clear and obvious and so clearly supported by a wide range of scientific evidence that the planet is warming rapidly due to human produced CO2 and that this is having a clear adverse impact right now, with potentially catastrophic impact in future…”

That’s a ridiculous statement, not backed up by the facts, Griff.

It’s wishful thinking on your part. Just saying something is so, does not make it so.

Evidence, Griff. That’s what we need, and you don’t have any. Assertions are not evidence.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 5:40 am

Show us some references, or at least one, that shows CO2 doesn’t lag temperature increases. That might convince some skeptics.

We need evidence that the warming up from the Little Ice Age didn’t also start the rise in CO2 and that the current rise isn’t mostly caused by increasing temperature.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 5:43 am

Going up 1.1C over 150 years is not rapidly. It hasn’t even gone up 1% yet.
So your basic premise is wrong.

Then go outside during the winter and go outside in the summer. What time of year is life in full bloom? You then might realize that warm is better

Alba
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 7:02 am

Even if you are correct in everything that you allege, griff, do you think that the IPCC ‘climate experts’ are right when they say that “Humans have less than three years to halt the rise of planet-warming carbon emissions and less than a decade to slash them by nearly half.… It’s a last-gasp race to ensure the world has a “liveable future”?
Do you think that there is any probability that the rise in “planet-warming” emissions can be halted in three years?
Do you think that there is any probability that the rise in “planet-warming” emissions can be slashed in half over the next decade?
And, if you don’t agree with these ‘climate experts’, why not? After all, these are the people who are producing the ‘wide range of scientific evidence’ you rely on.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 8:59 am

Well Griff, two days ago it was 37F colder where I live than it was last year on the same date. Using the same logic and scientific thought you use, I can state with conviction that we will be at 0 Kelvin in just a few more years.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 9:18 am

It is clear and obvious to schizophrenics that there are voices in their heads and that they see things others don’t. In their case it is not their fault. The science doesn’t say anything at all like what you claim. And no, climate models are not science, they are theories. And they are not proven theories, not even plausible theories when the vast majority of predictions they make are wrong.

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 9:34 am

Your talk of a couple of degrees of increased warmth for countries will start to make them unliveable seems very odd when you give a couple of minutes of logical thought to it.

Two thirds of warming, induced by increased CO2, goes in increasing minimum temperatures not maximums.

Most warming occurs in high latitude countries at night and in the winter. These are two undisputed climate facts.

Just suppose the UK warmed by another two degrees. Not to two degrees but by another two degrees on top of the current warming. That would be a rise over three degrees since the end of the Little Ice Age, when, coincidentally, Mankind began to measure global temperatures. That would leave the UK cooler than France is currently.

What about France? Well an additional 2 degrees leaves it significantly cooler than Spain is currently. Spain then? Two degrees leaves them cooler than Greece is currently. Greece? Another two degrees leaves them well short of the current temperatures in Cyprus.

None of these countries temperatures are risky in any way, the weather is just fine for day to day living agriculture etc, indeed a lot of Europeans go to these countries for the warmer temperatures. Also the hotter the country is currently the slower it will be to warm an extra two degrees.

So if there are no ‘catastrophes’ in Europe, the disasters must be occurring elsewhere.

What about the rest of the world? Well the worlds two biggest countries are Russia and Canada. If their temperatures increased by two degrees their average annual temperatures would rise to minus 3.1 and minus 3.35 respectively, that is pretty cold.

Next are China and the USA. If China warmed an additional two degrees it would still be colder than Ireland is currently, the USA would be colder than France is currently.
Australia is next biggest, if it warmed two degrees it would still be colder than India is currently.

Humans prosper more in hotter places, than they do in cold places and that’s a fact.
Africa, the warmest continent overall, is experiencing the greatest population explosion on the planet and is on course to double its population by 2050.

Take India, the most highly populated country in the world 20 times the UK population (itself one of the most crowded countries in the world) but with only 10 times the space. India is a warm country 15 degrees warmer than the UK for instance.

Humans do very well in India they are fed and watered and propagate at a very high rate. Russia and Canada could never support the population densities of countries like India, Indonesia etc they are far too cold in the main.
Russia would have to warm nearly 30 degrees to be as hot as India, China 17 degrees. All that warming just to be as hot as a country were humans absolutely thrive.

If India was two degrees warmer, it would be colder than the Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria etc, are currently. Places again, where humans are crowded in and do very well as a species, just look at the their populations and their birth rates.

Do you accept that around the world humans do better where it is warm rather than where it is cold?

So be specific about which countries are going to be experiencing a ‘heat catastrophe’ and the nature of the catastrophe?
It surely can’t be natural disasters, droughts, flood, wildfires etc losses from them have absolutely collapsed since it started warming, even though far more humans are packed into the places affected by these events.
 
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

So Griff, detail the countries that are going to suffer ‘catastrophes’ and the exact nature of the catastrophe, when the world warms another 0.3C?
 

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
April 11, 2022 9:47 am

the planet is warming rapidly

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” –Voltaire

1) On what timescale “is” (present tense) this supposed “warming” (present-continuous tense) occurring ?

2) Please quantify the word “rapidly”.

3) To me “The planet” = “A ball of rock and metal roughly 12,750 km (7,925 miles) in diameter”.
Which definition of “the planet” are you using here ?

PS : On the subject of just how much danger “the planet” is in, see “George Carlin”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Paul
Reply to  griff
April 12, 2022 5:22 pm

you can help with the CO2 problem by offing yourself
right now Griffypoo

KcTaz
Reply to  Joe
April 10, 2022 10:19 pm

“Immoral?” Thank you for proving CAGW has nothing to do with science but is all about theology. How about skeptics won’t demand that you follow their religious beliefs and you not try to impose yours on them? Deal?

EXCERPT:
“…No action should be taken on CO2. But I enthusiastically support action on real pollution of air, land, or water, by fly ash, oxides of sulfur, and nitrogen from careless coal combustion, or water pollution by careless use of fertilizers and pesticides, or plastic debris in the oceans from human slovenliness. I regard the war on the responsible use of coal and other fossil fuels as deeply immoral. It will impoverish most people by raising the cost of energy. It will enrich crony capitalists who have government backing to force people to buy their inefficient, costly, unreliable windmills and solar farms. It is like the French noblewoman, who was told that the peasants had no bread and responded: “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (“let them eat cake!”). When used responsibly, fossil fuels release negligible real pollutants like fly ash, oxides of sulfur, nitrogen, etc. The much demonized CO2 that must be released, along with H2O, is actually a benefit to the earth, not a pollutant.
Dr. William Happer
FOCUSED CIVIL DIALOGUE ON GLOBAL WARMING
William Happer
http://bit.ly/2nGA8zc

Surrr
April 10, 2022 6:14 pm

All the leaches of the unelected IPCC, UN are panicking because they see the writing on the wall for their gravytrain disappearing before their eyes. Putins paranoia war, has woken up the world that renewables don’t work, and developing countries want reliable baseload now, not Western unreliable. China offers these developing countries new coal-fired power stations and the arrogant West only offers ruinables. Easy choice for them.

April 10, 2022 6:26 pm

There is NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
THE CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!

5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warn period  
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, came our current warm period. You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
 
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and ALL claims of unusual climate are based on claims of excess warmth caused by man’s CO2.

http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com

Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.

Stop worrying about climate – Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks, http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/alarmist_claim_rebuttals_updated/

Tom Halla
April 10, 2022 6:28 pm

I have seen over fifty years of green catastrophism fail to come true. Some people like scary stories, but they really should come up with a new one.

commieBob
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 10, 2022 7:45 pm

I blame the education system. It no longer rewards you for knowing what you’re talking about. It rewards you for plausible B.S. The trick is to sound like you’re saying something profound while actually saying nothing. It’s called word salad.

Profound thought is the product of a deep understanding and knowledge. “Thinking skills” as they are conventionally taught are alien to that concept.

If students were rewarded for paying proper attention to the world, and evaluating ideas in the light of their own experience, they would become rather skeptical of serial failed prognosticators.

Defund the universities.

.KcTaz
Reply to  commieBob
April 10, 2022 10:35 pm

Very true, Bob. As the great Thomas Sowell said,

“Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity.”
Thomas Sowell

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  commieBob
April 10, 2022 11:16 pm

But the rot has reached down into the secondary and primary schools.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 11, 2022 5:40 am

Kindergarten, if the radical Left has it’s way.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 11, 2022 11:05 am

Kindergarten, Tom? They’re pushing down to preschool.

commieBob
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 11, 2022 6:25 am

Over the years I can think of three teachers who have developed teaching methods that enable ordinary students to achieve superior math abilities.

The most familiar would be Jamie Escalante who was the subject of the movie Stand and Deliver. To him, I would add Canadians, Charles Ledger and John Mighton.

You’d think the educational establishment would welcome better education, but no. In the case of all three of the above teachers, when the system couldn’t ignore them, it actively resisted. Apparently it prefers the B.S. constructivist system that thinks students should be able to figure out math for themselves.

Every year I administered the same test to our incoming first year students. Their scores steadily slipped over the two decades I spent in academia.

So, there’s something that needs fixing.

LdB
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 10, 2022 7:45 pm

It’s like WOMD in Iraq they just have to say it to justify what comes next … it doesn’t actually have to be real.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  LdB
April 11, 2022 5:45 am

Iraq had WMD. Saddam would not let inspectors into Iraq to confirm no WMD, even though this resulted is great hardship for Iraq, although not for Saddam since he was insulated from any suffering.

So what should we think when we know Saddam had WMD in the past and had used WMD in the past and then Saddam resists inspections. Why? What does he have to hide? Logically, he is hiding something if he acts this way.

Not to mention that every intelligence agency on Earth thought Saddam had an active WMD program, and even Saddam’s generals thought so because that’s what Saddam wanted them to think.

If Saddam had allowed the UN weapons inspectors in, there would not have been a war.

Saddam brought that war on himself.

commieBob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 11, 2022 7:27 am

If he didn’t have WMD, it wasn’t for lack of trying. link

commieBob
Reply to  LdB
April 11, 2022 7:24 am

You wrote WOMD, I read WOMAD. That left me seriously confused.

Meab
Reply to  LdB
April 11, 2022 8:36 am

Iraq had WMD. The left has exposed themselves as liars claiming that Iraq never had WMD but also claiming that many soldiers received debilitating injuries suffered at the burn pits used to destroy the Iraqi chemical ….uh….WMDs. Biden just repeated this claim last week.

aussiecol
April 10, 2022 6:44 pm

”To do that, the world China must radically reduce the fossil fuels which are responsible for the lion’s share of emissions.”

There, fixed.

Surrr
Reply to  aussiecol
April 10, 2022 6:48 pm

Yes, they never mention the canary in the coalmine. But the UN at every chance chastise Australia because of our coal exports.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Surrr
April 11, 2022 5:49 am

The UN ignores China and kicks Australia so they look like they are doing something positive to fix the “problem”.

China is untouchable for the UN bureaucrats.

Old Gobie Jumper
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 11, 2022 10:46 am

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?facet=none&country=USA~GBR~CHN~OWID_WRL~IND~BRA~ZAF&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Select+a+so

I hope this link opens the latest world emissions data showing that CO2 emissions are still increasing even after the extreme sacrifices of western countries. It also shows that nothing the western world does in the future will stop the growth of COI2 emissions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Old Gobie Jumper
April 12, 2022 3:26 am

“It also shows that nothing the western world does in the future will stop the growth of COI2 emissions.”

That’s the bottom line. The alarmists won’t accept this view, and carry on as though their CO2 reduction efforts will make a difference.

Alarmists need to wake up and smell the coffee, and stop bankrupting their economies over uncontrollable CO2.

There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign, life-giving gas.

That makes two good reasons to stop trying to control/regulate CO2: No matter what they do, CO2 will increase; and, there is no reason to try to control/regulate CO2 in the first place..

.KcTaz
Reply to  aussiecol
April 10, 2022 10:52 pm

Yes, and it’s not even just the coal plants China is building in China but all over the world!
CNN Report: China Proudly Going Coal (clean, new generation plants at forefront)
October 22, 2019
https://www.masterresource.org/china-international/cnn-report-china-coal/

…* “Not only is China’s funding of coal power stations domestically a problem, but a 2019 report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that Chinese companies were helping or promising to finance at least one in four newly-constructed polluting plants globally.”

When these fools aren’t saying a word about China and are pushing ruinables and not nuclear, you know this entire CAGW thing is a charade and hoax and, I believe, it’s being done to depopulate the planet and for totalitarian control of same. When they start calling out China for their emissions and their role in new coal plants worldwide, I might, at least, listen to them but, until then, no way.

Reply to  aussiecol
April 10, 2022 11:49 pm

sorry mate, firstly oil and particularly natural gas are not fossil fuels. Secondly, emissions were always dust and metallic ore particles (eg lead, arsenic etc) and toxic gases (eg sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide etc). CO2 is a benign gas breathed out by all animals including humans and is necessary for plant growth. CO2 does not heat the surface (note 2nd law of thermodynamics which is an engineering subject). The major increase of atmospheric CO2 (which still is a trace gas) comes from outgasing of slightly warming oceans. The solubility of CO2 in fresh and salty water decreases with increasing temperature. The increasing CO2 and warming of surfaces has cause an increased greening of the planet as sighted by satellites.

Reply to  cementafriend
April 11, 2022 5:39 am

I have a plausible guess of an ocean warming machanism that doesn’t rely on CO2. I think that the Sea of Marmara gives a clue.

JF

RicDre
April 10, 2022 6:51 pm

“The UN has blasted “lying” politicians…”

The easiest way for them to locate lying politicians would be to look in a mirror.

Last edited 1 month ago by RicDre
commieBob
Reply to  RicDre
April 10, 2022 7:26 pm

Q: How do you know when a politician is lying?

A: Her lips are moving.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  commieBob
April 10, 2022 11:56 pm

All politicians tell lies, regardless of their sex, it’s what they do so well!!! I’m going to found a new charity, called the Impoverished Politicians Charities Council, or IPCC, they can’t seem to screw enough cash out of ordinary hard-working people fast enough, it must be a terrible affliction for them to bear & endure!!!!!!!!!! Can’t wait to hear a member of the IPCC announce that they don’t actually enjoy being the harbingers of bad news, in fact they hate it having to tell lies openly just to fill their pension pots for them, their extended families, & hangers on, & those who suck on the teat of taxpayer funding without providing a useful service, etc!!!

Pat from kerbob
April 10, 2022 7:20 pm

I hope somebody is keeping track of all these outlandish statements, an itemized list, for future reference when this all falls apart so they don’t get away with flushing Trillions$$.

“You can’t just steal $600mil, they will find you”.
Hans from Die Hard.

Need to make sure they have nowhere to hide and nothing to hide behind

philincalifornia
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 10, 2022 7:34 pm

Class action lawsuits typically need to go after bigger targets, but these blowhard twerps should understand that they can be named, called into depositions and forced to confess as part of the settlement.

The retribution could be fun.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 10, 2022 11:18 pm

Unfortunately for the small folk apart from an occasional few scape goats they disappear to a quiet life of luxury. Those that replace them don’t want to create a precedent.

George Daddis
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 11, 2022 5:28 am

That would be to no avail.
How has Paul Ehrlich or John Holdren suffered for their ridiculous predictions and policy advice? Prestigious awards and appointment as “Science Czar”.

Graham
April 10, 2022 7:48 pm

I know that this climate scare is a ‘Fraud’
In fact it is the biggest Hoax that the world has ever seen .
We are getting exactly the same message from our news media here in New Zealand that the world is running out of time to avoid a climate disaster .
What really annoys me is the statement that we should eat less meat and dairy .
This is straight out bull scit as farmed livestock are actually carbon neutral as they do not add one additional atom or molecule of carbon to the atmosphere .
Every mouthful of forage that farmed animals consume has absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and the very small amount of Methane CH4 emitted during digestion is broken down in 8 to 10 years into CO2 and H2O water vapour .
The process is a closed cycle .
As I have pointed out before, methane atmospheric levels flat lined for ten years from 1999 untill 2008 .
Where was the problem with farmed livestock or for that matter methane .
There was no problem as the methane was breaking down in the atmosphere at the same rate that it was emitted .
Methane levels started to rise in 2008 as Asian countries increased their use of coal as world coal production increased from a steady 4.7 billion tonnes to over 8 billion tonnes in 2018 .
Those pushing this scam refuse to acknowledge that farmed livestock are carbon neutral .
The scientists that are pushing this scam are dishonest to put it bluntly as you do not need a science degree to see that it was not the cows but it was the coal that increased methane levels .

philincalifornia
Reply to  Graham
April 10, 2022 8:17 pm

In fact it is the biggest Hoax that the world has ever seen”

I would like to respectfully suggest that it is only the bast@rd child of the “Phony-socialism is really, really great for poor people” Hoax. Hey, that one required targeted mass murder to keep it afloat. This one will die at a relatively early age.

Steve Case
Reply to  Graham
April 10, 2022 10:13 pm

Graham, What you are doing is agreeing that methane is a problem,
and you’re blaming the coal miners.

Please stop. Methane is not a problem.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Case
April 10, 2022 11:35 pm

Isn’t Hydrogen a potentially bigger problem than Methane? It rapidly rises through the atmosphere and reacts with Ozone 3H2 + O3 = 3H2O and H2 + OH = H2O + H.
Both O3 and +OH reduce Methane, therefore using Hydrogen will increase Methane residence time?
Of everything depends on CO2 and Methane actually being a problem in the first place

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Steve Case
April 11, 2022 12:19 am

A message for Graham, natural gas is comprised of 85% methane, 10% ethane, & around 2-3% butane & propane!!!

Graham
Reply to  Steve Case
April 11, 2022 12:58 am

I agree methane is not a problem and I have no gripe with burning coal .
But one thing at a time Steve .
The green activist blob introduced enteric methane emissions from live stock at the Kyoto Accord and the UN and their scientists accepted it without question and they cannot understand or do not want see to that it is a closed cycle .
Not one scientist has come up with proof that enteric methane is a danger to the world.
They just accept that because methane is produced by farmed animals that it must be controlled .
We all breath out CO2 so when are they going to start controlling humans ?
This is how stupid the global warming scare has become as they believe methane is 86 times more potent than CO2 but will not accept that the band widths are over lapped by water vapour and are also saturated so that any further increase in methane levels can not raise the earths temperature .

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Graham
April 11, 2022 12:18 am

Just ask them why the last four Inter-glacials were warmer than today with no fossil fuels around! ( Stalin laid the law down to his scientists & engineers to research oil/gas etc, they concluded that oil was in fact a mineral fuel NOT a fossil fuel, & I understand that the Russian oil/gas industry went from strength to strength ever since)!!! The wets in the meeedja here in the UK can’t stop going on about Russian Oil & Gas, or in reality Ukraine’s oil & gas, as that other well known Socialist Adolf Hitler knew all about half way through the last century, that’s why he ordered his troops into the Ukraine to seize control of the region!!!

TonyG
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 11, 2022 11:11 am

Just ask them why the last four Inter-glacials were warmer than today with no fossil fuels around!

“It’s different this time”

April 10, 2022 7:56 pm

Apparent Title of the article above:

“New UN IPCC report claims ‘Now or Never’ to flight climate”

I know alarmist climate research is full of loons, but surely even they cannot make climate fly?

Or is the intended adjective, ‘fight’? I’m assuming ‘fight’ as I read this post and comments.

Dennis
April 10, 2022 8:32 pm

So the UN and IPCC will now stop flying in private executive jet aircraft and holding conferences and meetings around the world at luxury resorts for good times had by all?

Terry
April 10, 2022 8:45 pm

Each and every couple of years Prince Charles gives us 5 years. I’m going with him.

Last edited 1 month ago by Terry
Bob
April 10, 2022 9:03 pm

How can those at the IPCC write this stuff? Talking catastrophe if the global average temperature raises another .4C, if we don’t reach net zero, we must all sacrifice (except for nations like China, India and the continent of Africa) and on and on. The only evidence they offer is anecdotal and disgraced models. How much longer can they be allowed to continue this charade?

Peter K
April 10, 2022 10:10 pm

UN “less than 3 years to halt global warming” Another item for the list in “extinctionclock”.

.KcTaz
Reply to  Peter K
April 10, 2022 10:57 pm

I have very long lists of Failed Climate Predictions. This is another one to add to that list.

Robert Wager
Reply to  .KcTaz
April 11, 2022 7:34 am

Can we see your list one day?

drh
Reply to  Robert Wager
April 11, 2022 10:42 am

How’s this list: https://extinctionclock.org/

Art
April 10, 2022 10:32 pm

“Scientists warn it’s now or never to limit global warming – The boss of the United Nations has erupted at world leaders as scientists warn the planet is in peril unless urgent action is taken.”
======================================
They say this at least once a year. When will the media finally notice they’ve reported on it dozens of times, and only the dates are changed?

rah
April 10, 2022 10:39 pm

I smell desperation and fear.

And why isn’t the UN moving to Antarctica since it is obvious that the climate disaster they claim is coming will not be averted based on all past efforts. I think a petition to fund a new HQ there is in order. Let China pay for it since they already own the UN. NYC would then regain some valuable real estate.

Ireneusz Palmowski
April 10, 2022 11:09 pm

The temperature of the Peruvian Current is falling again. La Nina will not cease.comment image

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
April 10, 2022 11:56 pm

Alex, I’ll take “never:” for a $1,000.

michel
April 11, 2022 12:07 am

People, you are getting furious about the claims of impending disaster. They are of course quite mad, but that is the wrong place to start.

The place to start is the policy recommendations.

Humans have less than three years to halt the rise of planet-warming carbon emissions and less than a decade to slash them by nearly half, UN climate experts said.

Do the numbers, This is going to mean about 18-19 billion tons a year in 2032. The thing to demand the UN or anyone else advocating this does is, allocate this 18+19 billion by country. Demand they say how much, in 2022, various countries have to emit in order to save the planet.

You see immediately that its not going to happen, since the combination of China, India and Indonesia will be doing at least 20 billion by 2032. Then there is Japan, Russia and the rest of the world….

The way to put this is not to argue that China etc should reduce, because that will just change the subject into arguing about historical fairness, per capita emissions, GDP intensity…. etc.

The way to put this argument is to demand the other side tell you, are they really sure that 18 billion is really essential to avert climate disaster? Because, you have to point out, 18 billion is not not going to happen whatever we do, so if climate disaster is coming our way whatever we do, we have to make our highest priority not reducing emissions, but preparing for it.

While government policies, investments and regulations will propel emissions cuts, the IPCC made clear that individuals can also make a big difference.

Cutting back on long-haul flights, switching to plant-based diets, climate-proofing buildings and other ways of cutting the consumption that drives energy demand could reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 to 70 per cent by 2050

This is the ‘ban driving on Sunday’ argument. Similar ones are the ‘turn off standby’ idea, turn down the thermostat, and so on.

Here what readers of this site usually do is to get indignant about the restrictions on their freedoms. Again, wrong approach. Right approach is to demand quantification of how much difference this will make.

Take the UK as an example. Currently emitting around 450 million tons a year. Target is to contribute to a reduction of about 18-19 billion globally. OK, UK stops as a nation driving on Sunday. Totally. How much difference does it make? Turn down the thermostat. How much difference? Go vegan, how much difference?

I doubt doing this stuff can reduce UK emissions by more than 50 million tons a year. The big stuff will still be continuing, trucks, farm use, office blocks, industry, the necessity for lots of people to drive to work, shop and get kids to school. Its just a total lie that individual action by citizens in their own lifestyles can reduce a country’s emissions by any amount which will materially affect either the national total or the global total.

Then we have the crackpot idea about CO2 extraction. Here the thing to argue is not whether its essential. Instead the focus must be on how to do it on the scale required, how much it costs, and who pays. If you want to do it by extraction, you need to take out 500 million to 1 billion tons a year. And put it someplace. Fine, how many plants? How much per plant? Where to store the stuff? How to maintain the storage?

The truly hare brained aspect of this is not so much that there is no catastrophe in the offing. Its that if there is, the policies proposed will have no more effect on it than us all standing on our heads before breakfast. In fact, its even worse than this, the measures proposed will divert resources that could be used to protect our citizens against the catastrophe.

If you want to see this argument in a nutshell look at the UK Net Zero plans. These are to double electricity demand by moving everyone to heat pumps and EVs, while at the same time making the grid unable to support it by moving electricity generation to intermittent wind and solar. None of which will reduce UK emissions, and even if it did reduce them a little, would not affect global ones.

DaveS
Reply to  michel
April 11, 2022 5:24 am

The truly hare brained aspect of this is not so much that there is no catastrophe in the offing..”

Yes, but (i) there are still plenty of gullible griff-types who swallow the hysterical pronouncements of doom, and (ii) there are still many pea-brained politicians who peddle them and conduct policy on the basis of them. All the political parties currently represented in UK Parliament peddle the same climate change cr*p, indeed it’s a competition for who can demand the most extreme ‘climate emergency’ measures. Rationality has long since gone out of the window.

George Daddis
Reply to  michel
April 11, 2022 5:40 am

That argument only works with rational people.

In contrast, our (US) special Climate Envoy, John Kerry admits upfront that we could go to net zero tomorrow but it would have no impact on total global emissions. However we should proceed with national suicide anyway because…(choose one: “it’s the right thing to do.”, “as a world leader we need to set an example”, “Gretta said so.”, “Climate Justice requires it.”, “the polls favor the GND.”)

“All of the above” is an acceptable choice.

TonyG
Reply to  michel
April 11, 2022 11:14 am

“Right approach is to demand quantification of how much difference this will make.”

Except that they never do that, no matter how much they’re asked.

Simon
April 11, 2022 12:48 am

This ridculous claim by the IPCC will go round world in flash Again.

Clearly sites like this and all the others are simply not getting the message out. Go back and read the articles and posts from over a decade ago, it’s all going round in circles and no one is listening,  

The IPCC and Alarmists are running rings everyone because their message is simple ‘”were all go to die” is simple to understand to your average 18 your old who wants to glue his hands to the road.

Here is an idea I have been mulling over for a while — the smart folk here design an experimental challenge open to all to prove the factual basis for the C02 climate change theory.

The kicker is it needs to be backed by a stupid amount of money — $1 million at least, but the bigger the prize the bigger the cut through. Even the most ardent activist glued to the road might start questioning why none of the scientists he believes in have not bothered to collect the $millions

The point of the prize is also to make it too big for mainstream media to ignore – make a great publicity stunt to launch it the week before Cop27.

This might be fanciful, but unless something is done this, and all the other sites will never cut through with the people that matter –the mainstream media, the noisy activists class and the people on Reddit posting their anxiety issues about climate change. This site is in touch with the who’s who in this field and a campaign coordinated with all the other sites might make it feasible.  

Matthew Sykes
April 11, 2022 1:12 am

So, they have been getting it wrong since 1964 eh, and not just since 1989! 🙂

So, what did he actually say… “it is certain that climate itself has in many instances been gradually changed and ameliorated or deteriorated by human action”

Well, that’s non committal. Certainly nothing like the endless doom predicted today.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
April 11, 2022 3:50 am

1864…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
April 11, 2022 6:16 am

“So, what did he actually say… “it is certain that climate itself has in many instances been gradually changed and ameliorated or deteriorated by human action”

I wonder what he based that opinion on in 1864? Perhaps he is referring to the smoke in cities caused by coal burning, so he’s not talking about the climate but the environment.

I don’t think he would have enough information back then to form an opinion on the Earth’s climate, and whether humans have changed the climate or not.

DaveS
April 11, 2022 5:28 am

At the joke COP26 they made arrangements for the next two boondoggles. If we’ve got less than three years, will they be cancelling COP28 – it’ll be kinda pointless unless they are planning one helluva end-of-the-world party.

Peta of Newark
April 11, 2022 5:50 am

The 2,800 pages speaks (haha) volumes
iow: Intimidation
i.e. It is a Socialist Manifesto and they are trying to hide that very fact

Published by Magically Thinking (self-brainwashed) folks who are quite effectively ‘drunk’
Drunk on each other, on the money, on the conferences, on the idea of having power, that they have the ears of our leaders and that they can ‘Save The World’

And just like folks who are actually (alcoholically) drunk, they are completely closed to any sort of rational conversation or negotiations.
Just as drunks do, they will appeal to their authorities (the report itself, each other, computers, folks such as griffles, the media) and when they don’t get their way, resort to intimidation and violence, (Ad-homs, de-platforming, Fact Checking not least)
Possibly also otherwise = Out of control children## throwing a tantrum because they’re not getting ‘their way’

It’s near impossible to see what to do with them – in the Real World of actual drunks, they’d be carted off to the cells while they sober up
Is there any equivalent here……..

## What would you get or be left with, if you took a normal well-adjusted adult and ‘somehow’ switched off everything it had learned since age = 8 or 9 yrs

A Child perchance?

What if that ‘switch’ is what comprises 90% of everything you’ll find in the average supermarket these days?

Paul Johnson
April 11, 2022 6:26 am

More nonsense from those who wish to make Human Extinction a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Alba
April 11, 2022 6:51 am

“The IPCC made clear that individuals can also make a big difference…Cutting back on long-haul flights, switching to plant-based diets, climate-proofing buildings and other ways of cutting the consumption”
Does the IPCC seriously believe that doing all those things is going to halt ‘the rise of planet-warming carbon emissions’?
Now, if each member of the IPCC gave us the evidence that they are doing all these things then they might just be seen as taking themselves seriously.

Trying to Play Nice
April 11, 2022 8:55 am

#FIPCC.

Slowroll
April 11, 2022 8:59 am

The IPCC reminds me of the entertainment world where they hold gala extravaganzas to congratulate each other for great work playing make-believe. Only difference is the IPCC is dangerous.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 11, 2022 12:38 pm

Just wondering why we keep returning again . . . and again . . . and again to the point-of-no-return on climate change™.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” (attributed to Albert Einstein).

Mike Meleen
April 11, 2022 2:56 pm

Technologies to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere – not yet operating to scale – will need to be ramped up enormously.

I wish someone would invent a solar-powered, self-replicating machine that could convert atmospheric CO2 into breathable oxygen and food. If it could be invented, we would have to make sure it had plenty of CO2 to run on. We could do that by burning the products of very old plant and animal material to release the CO2.

Gunga Din
April 11, 2022 5:23 pm

Is that 3 Earth years or 3 Neptune years we have left?

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 12, 2022 8:36 am

So if 3 years pass and emissions aren’t cut by 50 % and the world hasn’t gotten catastrophically warmer, will the Alarmists finally STFU? Or do they ask for another do over? I am betting the latter.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
April 13, 2022 7:26 am

“The Science is Settled”! … But never the date.

%d bloggers like this: