That's what you were told, their next theme after the Covid (to impose the globalist dictatorship), will be the 'climate virus', using the 'scientism', because who can go against the common good?
Le 6 e IPCC report (1275 pages – 3949 with references!) on the physical bases of knowledge in climatology (AR6 – WGI) was released on August 9, and it only took a few hours for the subsidized press to dissect this report and title on the basis of one of the strongest analyzes ever for 40 years climate emergency; urgency to act for the climate by changing our entire societal and industrial model.
The scientific part of the sixth IPCC report is available. For the past few days, the subsidized press and the television news have been in turmoil, multiplying their titles on the "sternest warning ever issued" by the international organization and to announce to us that everything is screwed up.
The former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, Bjørn Lomborg points out in one of his tweets, that for fifty years successive directors of the United Nations Environment Program (on which the IPCC depends) have been warning us of "disaster" if we do nothing: for Maurice Strong, in 1972, we had ten years left to stop the catastrophe ; in 1982, the new director predicted “an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as a nuclear holocaust” around the 2000s; in 1989, we had to stop climate change by 1999 before it got out of hand ; in 2007, Rajendra Pachauri said: “If there is no action before 2012, it will be too late”…, etc.
So, is the apocalypse for tomorrow?
The new report offers five climate scenarios based on CO2 emissions estimates. The “best estimate” of the intermediate scenario is an increase of 1,5 degrees by 2040 and a range of 2,1 to 3,5 by 2100. These models encourage politicians to spend billions on renewable energy. Moreover, the scientist Steve Koonin, former climate adviser to Obama, taught us to be wary of the modeling practiced by the IPCC. It wouldn't be very reliable...
“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans and lands,” the report states in its main conclusion. There are eight billion of us on Earth, it's somewhat normal for humans to contribute a little. But by how much? The report is more ambiguous on this.
However, the IPCC concludes on a planetary scale that the planet is greening again and it notes it black on white (IPCC, AR6, WGI, Technical Summary, page 50): "The increase in atmospheric CO2, the warming of high latitudes and land use have contributed to the observed greening trend..." NASA tells us, from satellite images, not only that the planet is greening globally but also, and this is very important, that the forests of the Congo and the Amazon are also greening, despite some of their highly publicized forest fires.
The distorted view of subsidized media
Headlines in the media point to predictions of future temperature increases if emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, continue to rise. To illustrate this high level of understanding of climate issues, our unanimous national press (from Huma to Figaro) broadcast photos of forest fires. However, contrary to the photos of browning that the press uses, the planet is turning green as a whole and it is even one of the major points of agreement that is unanimous in the scientific community.
But, despite this greening of the planet recognized by the IPCC and NASA, there is always the possibility that there will be more forest fires, if only because there is more fuel because of this greening.
Why is the subsidized French press not delighted with this global greening? Because humanity must inevitably run to its end so that the monumental green investments of world capitalism, those of the oligarchy which owns this same press, can be profitable at all costs with populations tamed by media alarmism.
The reasons for an alarmist compromise
Western countries are engaged in increasingly coercive policies towards their citizens, and the change in society that is in preparation must be justified (especially since the covid health crisis is less and less successful). This is particularly the case in Europe where, last July, the European Commission has unveiled its draconian measures to reduce CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions by 55% by 2030. In France, a binding “climate plan” was also adopted in July.
On the basis of a simple scientifically unproven hypothesis defended by the UN via its IPCC organization (to which the term "experts" has been added in its French translation IPCC - to make it more serious), either that human activities are responsible for catastrophic climate change, Europe is imposing and will impose gigantic efforts on its populations to achieve a suicidal "Green deal", while other parts of the world continue their development and take over what remains of the European industry.
Is all this justified?
I am not a scientist or a climatologist (like some members of the IPCC for that matter). But if I refer to my common sense, the evolution of global temperatures of the lower atmosphere, in June, the temperature anomaly was -0,01°C. Nothing cataclysmic. Admittedly, Greenland suffered a significant loss of ice during July, but the mass of ice rose above the average for the period 1981-2010 and the accumulation of ice for the year is also much higher than this mean. The extent of the Arctic ice is certainly quite low this summer, but that of the Antarctic is well above the 1981-2010 average. The media are very discreet about these records.
The argument that will thus be opposed to me is to confuse Climate and Weather. When the temperatures go in the direction of the IPCC, it is noble and respectable climatology; conversely, it is vulgar and popular meteorology.
I invite you to regularly read the following sites:
- Myths, Misconceptions & Mathematics | A mathematician's thoughts on the weather in our heads (wordpress.com)
- Association of climato-realists | Climate, Energy & Environment (climato-realistes.fr)
- The climate issue
- Science, climate and energy | Reflections on science, climate and energy (science-climat-energie.be)
source: Lecourrierdesstrateges.fr
Further information :
Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Report
My comments