Climate Crisis Hysteria Is Corrupting Civilization

"Global warming", "climate change", "climate crisis", "climate emergency", and "climate disruption" are phrases that continue to appear frequently in the news, instilling unreasonable fears of carbon dioxide throughout the world.

Exaggerated claims continue to abound in supposedly respectable news reports and revered scientific papers, having reached a level of absurdity that easily leads rational people to conclude that a unique form of mass brain washing has overtaken the planet.

The primary leader in this brain washing is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In the year 2001, the IPCC issued a report called Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T.,Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.

On page 774, Chapter 14.222, paragraph 5 of this report, a very important statement about limitations of the IPCC's information appears -- a statement that seems to have been cleverly hidden by prominent reporting agencies that explained IPCC findings. The statement reads as follows:

• In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Anyone reading this report should have viewed all its other language through the lens of the above critically important statement. No amount of intellectual gymnastics or academic toying with the language of uncertainties and probabilities can erase this underlying truth. Yet, the sheer volume of this other language (framed in the name of science) has supported an emotional outlook, completely at odds with the underlying reality expressed in that pivotal statement.

This bizarre coexistence of a blatant statement about forecasting with an entire volume of other words to explain it away gives a person cause to reflect on the dominance of word quantity over word precision in controlling human minds.

The sheer quantity of words in this IPCC report, thus, enabled ample freedom for many of its readers to fabricate all manner of scare stories that actually had no solid scientific foundation.

Read the last part of that critical statement again:

"... the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Now ask yourself, "What is the purpose of this 744 pages of words, other than to justify an academic, political enterprise that ultimately lacks the required foundation in actual facts to guide leaders in making real-world decisions? "

Ask yourself, "What are climate model experts doing for the practical world?" In 2001, they knew that they could not forecast future climate, and yet today, decades later, they still allow people to believe that climate models can do what their original creators knew that they could not do.

Nowhere is the questionable delivery of information more evident than in IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)].
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

This is often abbreviated as SR1.5

As explained by Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin

• SR1.5 departs from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in conveying an increased sense of planetary emergency, without giving rigorous scientific reasons for doing so.
• It fails to communicate to policymakers a considerable body of important observation-based research that has accumulated since the Fifth Assessment, which reduces the sense of a looming emergency.
• It fails to communicate important information made public by climate modelers since the Fifth Assessment regarding the empirical tuning of models to achieve desired results.

Consequently, Bates concludes that the SR1.5 report does not meet the standard of a scientifically rigorous document for use by policymakers.

Although criticized in detail for his assessment of SR1.5, Bates responded to the criticism in equal detail, thereby strengthening his analysis.

An associated United Nations organization - the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) - issued a summary of its 1800-page special report with dire warnings of future mass extinction resulting from human-caused climate change.

Like SR1.5, this report raises alarm over human-caused climate change to new heights. The summary alone, released without the full-length report, was enough to cause a media frenzy, where news outlets accepted IPBES claims on faith alone, not bothering to examine real evidence or to verify the validity of the statement that "around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades".

Veteran geologist and author, Gregory Wrightstone explains how this summary (remember, released before the report itself) manipulates data and facts to arouse the most fear. The IPBES report, he points out, states that we can expect 25,000 to 30,000 extinctions per year, yet the average over the last 40 years is about 2 species annually, which means that the extinction rate would have to multiply by 12,500 to 15,000 to amount to the dizzying 1,000,000 predicted by the IPBES.

He further explains the irony in this study, where the number one cause of predicted extinction is habitat loss, not CO2-induced, human-caused climate change, and where the stated solution is to pave over enormous stretches of land with solar or wind factories that would further consume habitats and kill the endangered birds or other species the study authors claim to want to save.

The two United Nations (UN) studies described above, in combination with other studies that use UN information as sources, clearly have upped doomsday hype to unprecedented levels, targeting emotionally driven people and even children as pawns in a global political chess game. Smart people would be wise to wake up to this reality.