Call me a skeptic, but isn’t it a coincidence that the latest fear mongering report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out on the heels of the world-wide premiere of Noah, Hollywood’s latest big-budget disaster movie?
The former was produced by a group of UN hack scientists who all make a living off government grants, either directly or indirectly. The latter was directed by Darren Aronofsky, an atheist who turned the biblical account of the flood brought about by God because of widespread immorality into a movie about man’s degradation of the environment.
The message in both this report and the movie is that “It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature.” The implication in the film is that man’s sin was disrespecting the planet and the movie gives us a taste of what is in store if we don’t shape up.
The controversial director has called his Noah “the first environmentalist” just to make sure moviegoers don’t miss his point.
The god of the IPCC is, of course, the United Nations, which is needed to tax and regulate fossil fuels in order to save us from a similar or worse fate.
April 15 is just around the corner. Most of us shell out roughly half of what we earn to support our various levels of government. Just imagine what you would have left if the UN gets into the act!
You’ve got to admire the audacity of this group. Global temperatures have not risen in the last 17 plus years. Both poles have expanding ice, with Antarctic ice at an all time high. What are the scientists who live off government grants to do? It’s little wonder they have abandoned the term “global warming” in favor of “climate change.”
Can you image what a strange world it would be if the climate were not continually changing?
While this report is being peddled to the adoring press as one of “consensus,” the truth is just the opposite. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning UN IPCC scientist chastised the group recently, calling the warming fears the “worst scientific scandal in history.” He predicted, “When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
There is a reason that no cameras are allowed in those IPCC meetings. The truth is the “science” in this report is voted on line by line, with little or no reference to reality or real scientific data. The end result is designed to please the UN and the local powers that have bought them and paid their way to these gatherings where they are wined and dined at our expense.
Even the IPCC’s lead author, Dr. Richard Tol, disagreed with the findings, so much so that he asked that his name be removed from the final report. Tol said, “The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.”
Nevertheless, the IPCC has many true believers. Maarten van Aalst summed up this report for the Associated Press, “If we don’t reduce greenhouse gases soon, risks will get out of hand!”
To make their point to a world that has grown increasing skeptical of human-induced global warming, the IPCC added a new and dangerous level of risk colored deep purple which surpassed the highest level of risk on its 2007 report which was shown in blazing red. Aalst classified this risk level as “horrible” and said it is one that “we won’t be able to do anything about.”
This is the stuff that fairy tales are made of and if you believe in witches and goblins that have no basis in reality, this report is for you, all 2,610-pages of it.
Fortunately, there is another report from a distinguished group of scientists and research scholars who aren’t beholden to the UN or any government. The report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) examines the claims made by the UN group and completely slays the IPCC’s boogymen.
For example: What is the risk of of flooding, a favorite theme of global warming alarmists? The NIPCC reports “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”
Personally, I prefer fact over fiction, particularly when the fiction is designed to scare us out of our hard-earned money.