The IPCC’s Global Warming Baloney and Noah (A new wave of Hot Air)

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.







3 thoughts on “The IPCC’s Global Warming Baloney and Noah (A new wave of Hot Air)

  1. Good article – I’m forwarding it to my brother-in-law, a devoted Global Warming/Climate Change worldview consumer. I’ll never change his Liberal/Progressive/Socialist stance and beliefs, but it is nice to see his worldview crumbling as he desperately strives to circumvent facts with conjured up mumbo-jumbo. 🙂 Thanks Jane for another reminder of the government-suckling left who can’t survive without feeding from organizations funded by taxpayers.


  2. You’ve covered the topic so well and so truthfully that there is little that I can add. The atmosphere contains only 3.8 parts per ten thousand CO2; if that were to increase by a whopping ten percent (even Gory Al hasn’t made that high a claim, partly because he can only count to three)the increase would only be 3.8 parts per hundred thousand, increasing the Earth’s total heat absorption by less than one part in fifty thousand…not enough to notice.
    And CO2 is plant food; an increase in CO2 would stimulate plant growth, and the plants would then take more CO2 back out of the atmosphere, making any CO2 increase at least partly self limiting. Any heat increase would also be self limiting (more evaporation of sea water and more clouds reflecting sunlight) and the resulting increased precipitation, too, would (along with longer growing seasons and warmer temperatures in high latitudes) stimulate more plant growth.
    During the Holocene Optimum (roughly from five to ten thousand years ago) the Earth was warmer than even Gory Al is predicting, and the seas did not rise and the wittle poly bears did not melt. However, the Sahara and many other deserts became green…can’t have that, now.


  3. I’m so fed up with the political “who ha” totally disenchanted with the lies and twisting of facts. The ratio of government scientist verses the honest scientists shows a few can be bought for self glorification (soon to be revealed). I for one have not fallen for their trumped up theories.
    Ben Stien made it clear in “Expelled”
    Thanks Jane and Mr. Stoecker for your comment.


Leave a Reply to Monica Brett Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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