Special Opinion by Paul Plante.
For those unfamiliar with the term “IPCC,” it stands for the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” which is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations supposedly dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options, and I use the word supposedly on purpose, because the horse**** coming into Our House of Representatives on September 18, 2019 in the form of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 is anything but an objective, scientific view of climate change, because first of all, the IPCC itself is not objective, it has a definite agenda, and more to the point, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, so in a word, it does not know what the **** it is talking about, and that is a fact.
As to the underlying agenda, we can see it at least strongly hinted at, if not clearly stated in the following from the REMARKS BY THE MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI (MP) AT COP 23, to wit:
The Zimbabwe Government views climate change as a serious issue and a matter that needs urgent attention.
At the same time, we have this concerning Zimbabwe from the Reuters article “Zimbabwe fires 211 striking doctors as economy worsens” on November 8, 2019, as follows:
HARARE (Reuters) – Zimbabwe on Friday fired more than 200 public sector doctors who have been on strike for more than two months demanding better pay to protect them from soaring inflation.
Other public workers say they cannot go to work because they have no money.
Police on Wednesday blocked a handful of public sector workers from marching to government offices with a petition demanding better pay.
Junior and middle level doctors from state hospitals have been on strike since Sept. 3.
They want their pay indexed to the U.S. dollar to stop their earnings being eroded by triple-digit inflation.
Patients are being turned away from hospitals because there are no doctors to treat them.
The board plans to call in 516 of the government’s 1,601 doctors for disciplinary hearings.
Tawanda Zvakada, spokesman for Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association, said he could not immediately comment.
The government said last month it had doubled doctors’ salaries.
They said that was inadequate, as it would only increase their monthly salary to about 2,000 Zimbabwe dollars ($130).
Zimbabweans are bearing the brunt of the worst economic crisis in a decade, with shortages of foreign currency, fuel, power and medicines.
The crisis has been worsened by a drought that has left more than half of the population in need of food aid and forced the government to scramble for scarce dollars to import grain.
Mnangagwa has asked for patience while his government tries to fix the economy.
But hope has dimmed that he can end years of economic troubles that were a hallmark of the rule of the late Robert Mugabe, who was ousted in an army coup two years ago.
So, they need money and lots of it, and as a result, we now have a contrived climate crisis to shake that money loose, as we see by going back to those remarks by the MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI of Zimbabwe, as follows:
My country has ratified the Paris Agreement and now a Party to this crucial treaty.
We view the Paris Agreement as a stepping stone towards tangible action in addressing the climate change challenge facing the world today.
Except as we are going to see from the real science, there is not a “climate change challenge” facing the world today, which takes us back to his remarks as follows:
We need to move with speed to finalise the development of the rulebook for implementation of this Agreement.
Access to climate finance remains a challenge to Zimbabwe and most of the developing world as the Green Climate Fund which is the main funding mechanism of the UNFCCC, remains slow in processing applications and the disbursement of resources.
Our GCF Readiness Proposal was approved more than a year ago, but up to date, GCF has not released the funds.
We need to see a change in the way these funds are handled and simplification of the GCF projects approval and funds disbursement processes.
Yes, it is all about getting access to the money, people, and that money is supposed to flow from us to them, which is a great deal for Zimbabwe, and a real lousy deal for us.
Getting back to the IPCC, it was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly with membership open to all members of the WMO and UN.
With respect to the IPCC having an agenda, it produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, which is about “social justice and equity” as core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change per Chapter 5 of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018.
Now, contrast that with this statement from the propaganda concerning the IPCC:
The objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
Except the term “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” is more bull****, as we can see by examining the real science, not this bogus “science” contrived by this IPCC crowd, which is the purpose of this essay.
With respect to that contrived science, which is based on thin air, we have as follows this hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.
It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.
“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
“The changes are accelerating.”
The dire effects will be felt on both land and sea, harming people, plants, animals, food, societies, infrastructure and the global economy.
“The world’s oceans and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades.”
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Except that is not true, as we clearly see by consulting the real science this IPCC crowd is attempting to bury under a huge mountain of bull**** from the IPCC, to wit:
From CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb:
COOLING IN THE ARCTIC
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950–60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the present century, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans but also in the Norwegian—East Greenland Sea.
In some places, e.g. the Franz Josef Land archipelago near 80°N 50–60°E, the long-term average temperature fell by 3–4°C and the ten-year average winter temperatures became 6–10°C colder in the 1960s as compared with the preceding decades.
It is clear from Icelandic oceanographic surveys that changes in the ocean currents have been involved.
Indeed a greatly (in the extreme case, ten times) increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current, bringing polar water southwards, has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years (fig. 97): in April–May 1968 and 1969 the island was half surrounded by the ice, as had not occurred since 1888.
Such ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production.
In the 1950s the mean temperature of the summer half year in Iceland had been 7.7°C and the average hay yields were 4.3 tonnes/hectare (with the use of 2.8 kg of nitrogen fertilizer); in the late 1960s with mean temperature 6.8°C the average hay yield was only 3.0 tonnes/hectare (despite the use of 4.8 kg of fertilizer).
The temperature level was dangerously close to the point at which the grass virtually ceases to grow.
The country’s crop of potatoes was similarly reduced.
The 1960s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years.
At the same time the changes in the ocean have produced changes in the spawning grounds and seasonal range of migration of fish stocks — a not much publicized aspect of the international wrangles and ‘cod wars’ of recent times.
With the fall by over 1°C in the mean sea surface temperatures off west Greenland from the peak years in the 1920s and 1950s, the cod fishery there declined by the early 1970s to a tiny fraction of what it had been in those times.
The Greenland cod migrated to Iceland waters, and for a few years (1967–71) offset the declining stocks there; but since 1974 the spawning stocks in Iceland waters have been only a tenth of what they were in the late 1950s and the total stocks have fallen by almost a half, the decline being probably attributable to combined effects of the change in water climate and over-fishing.
Similarly, herring stocks have moved from Iceland waters to the wider reaches of the Norwegian Sea farther east, south and north and to the North Sea, while a southward shift of the southern limit of cod seems to have led to increased catches in the North Sea since about 1963.
An interruption of the colder regime introduced by the 1960s affected Europe and Iceland, part of east Asia and the eastern United States in the early-mid 1970s and was perhaps too hurriedly hailed as a reversal of the trend.
Most of Europe and parts of the other regions named experienced between 1971 and 1977 four to seven mild winters in a row, largely thanks to repetitive occurrences of anticyclones in positions which gave them southerly or southwesterly winds.
One or two of these winters produced extreme phenomena such as the roses still blooming in the parks in Copenhagen in late January.
But much of the remaining areas of the northern hemisphere, in Asia and Africa and including the polar region and the two great oceans as well as eastern Canada, had a straight run of colder than usual winters in the same years.
As the pattern depended so largely on the positions of stationary (‘blocking’) features in the wind circulation in middle latitudes, no great surprise should have been caused when conditions were reversed again in many of these regions in the immediately following years later in the decade.
By the end of the decade in Iceland, as in other regions of the Arctic fringe, it had to be concluded that the colder regime which set in in the 1960s seems to be continuing; and after notably cold years in 1979 and 1980 the widely debated expectation of global warming setting in as a result of the impact of the man-made increase of carbon dioxide on the world climate is being called in question in these countries.
That, people, is the real science that is being buried by the contrived science of this IPCC crowd, with aid and assistance from the NOAA in this country.
This essay asks the essential existential question as to why that is – why is this IPCC crowd lying to us, and why is the United States House of Representatives foisting those lies on us as if they were the truth?