Booker On The UN’s Latest Mega Panic
By Paul Homewood
Andrew Marr and guests on the BBC this morning were bemoaning the fact that the Sunday Papers showed virtually no interest in the latest IPCC “We’re all going to die” scare.
As an example of the BBC’s approach to impartiality and balance, one of the two guests invited to review the papers was a certain Sian Berry. No, I had not either, but as well being a London Assembly member (town councillor to me and you), she is also co-leader of the Green Party, which tells you more about the quality of Green Party politicians than the ability of young Sian!
She actually had the nerve to suggest that Britain was lagging behind the rest of the world when it came to climate change. Unsurprisingly Marr did not challenge on such a dishonest statement.
The GWPF noted last week what the newspapers were headlining the day after the IPCC published its report:
There could of course be lots of reasons why neither the press nor the public appear to give a damn. Like:
- They have heard the same “Ten years to save the world” scare stories many times before.
- They know that the UK’s emissions are only 1% of the world’s and that whatever we do will have zero effect on anything.
- They also know that countries like China and India are continuing to build new coal power stations.
- Most are sensible enough to realise that a slightly warmer climate in Britain has made little difference to their lives.
- People have no intention of giving up their modern lifestyles, as the IPCC demands.
- They also have no intention of paying towards the $2.4 trillion a year also demanded.
- Above all, they have much more important things to worry about.
There has been, however, one item in the news today about the IPCC report. Unsurprisingly Marr did not mention it, as it was written by Christopher Booker. It certainly would not do for BBC viewers to learn about a denier’s point of view!
So astounding are the implications of that “special report” published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) that the media didn’t really know how to handle it. Inevitably, last Monday, the BBC went into overdrive, leading its news bulletins with the story from morning till night. But most newspapers gave it only fairly perfunctory coverage, tucked away on an inside page.
To avert complete climate catastrophe, with wars, famine and disease spreading across the globe, says the IPCC, what it now proposes is nothing less than “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” – ones that will affect almost every aspect of all our lives. This means, it says, that during the next 30 years we must reduce our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to “net zero”. We must stop using virtually all the coal, oil and gas on which our modern industrial civilisation has been built.
To appreciate the scale of what this would involve, we may recall that, according to the International Energy Agency, the world currently relies on fossil fuels for 81 per cent of all the energy it uses.
As one measure of how far the report is based on wishful thinking, it does allow for very limited amounts of coal and gas still to be used; but only on condition that we find ways to capture their “carbon emissions” to bury them under the ground and to suck vast quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere, both of these using technologies that, the report itself admits, have not yet been developed.
What we must do to replace those fossil fuels, we are told in a brief paragraph on page 29 of the 33-page report, is spend a mind-boggling $2.4 trillion (£1.8 trillion) every year until 2035 on new “energy infrastructure”. This will enable us to draw up to “85 per cent” of our energy from “renewables”, such as wind and solar. These currently supply only three per cent of the world’s total energy needs.
And, of course, the report does not explain that the only way to keep the lights on when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun shining would be to use instantly available backup from the gas that the IPCC wants to see eliminated.
The IPCC fondly imagines that all this would somehow keep the rise in global temperatures to “1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels”. But already the world has warmed by one degree of that amount since the 19th century, in the Modern Warming, which began when it emerged 200 years ago from the Little Ice Age. Until now, the IPCC has recognised that much of this was due to natural causes. But now, without proper explanation, this is all blamed on human activity.
So how does the IPCC justify its new mega-panic? This was summarised by one of the report’s organisers as “more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice”. But even the IPCC itself, in its last major report in 2013, found that there had been no discernible increase in extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, floods and extreme heatwaves.
As for the controversial subject of those rising sea levels, as the world-renowned atmospheric physicist Dr Richard Lindzen put it in a lecture in London last week: “Sea level has been increasing at about eight inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it.”
As for Arctic sea ice, a graph from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that, contrary to all those computer model predictions that the summer Arctic would soon be ice-free, there has, in fact, been only a comparatively modest decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice since satellite records began in 1979; and there is evidence that there has been significantly less ice at times in the past.
Back in the real world, much more relevant to how we should view this latest IPCC report, and exactly as they indicated they would do at Paris in 2015, the leading CO2-emitting countries outside Europe, led by China and India, have continued to build fossil fuel power stations just as if Paris had never happened. However much those behind this report may delude themselves and try to delude the rest of us, the fact is that the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Nailed it.
Even the MSM (other than Auntie) is losing interest.
When crying wolf for 40 years hasn’t been successful, how does the IPCC expect “Look, It’s a humongous wolf!” to help?
The BBC and Marr and all the rest don’t get that they are in a hole with the fake climate issue so they just keep digging themselves further in, which makes a bizarre spectacle for the rational public.
I really do believe the alarmists have blown it
The numbers behind the emissions to 1.5°C of warming appear to be out by a country mile. Compared to AR5 SR1.5 lowers ECS from 3.0 to 2.7 and lowers emissions to raise CO2 by 1 ppm from 17 GtCO2/ppm to 16 GtCO2/ppm.
Following AR5 the impact of other GHGs are netted off against aerosols etc, and it is assumed 100% of the warming since 1850 is due to rises in GHGs, and that it takes maybe a century or more for the full impact of rises in CO2 to feed through to temperature rises.
On this basis 2°C of warming is reached at 468 ppm and 1.5°C at 412 ppm.
With current CO2 levels at about 406 the emissions to 2°C are about 16(468-406) = 992 ppm. This is in line with reports projection that 2°C of warming can be stopped by a straight line reduction in emissions to zero from 2020 to 2050. See SR1.5 SPM Page 6 chart c)
But there is a conundrum here.
Based ECS = 2.7 and the starting level of CO2 is 280 ppm, then in round numbers, 1.5°C of warming results from CO2 levels of 412 ppm and 2.0°C of warming results from CO2 levels of 468 ppm. With CO2 levels in September 2018 at 406 ppm for 2.0°C of warming requires a rise in CO2 ten times greater than for 1.5°C of warming. So how can the IPCC claim that it is only about twice the amount of emissions?
The same conundrum applied to AR5 when ECS = 3.0. This gave 1.5°C at 396 ppm and 2.0°C at 444.5. Only in AR5, limiting warming to 1.5°C was not seriously considered. Like with SR1.5, the basic calculations (based on the assumptions) fit the 2.0°C of warming, but not the 1.5°C. There is a long history behind this.
Sorry but your post is irrelevant.
CO2 has virtually no thermal capacity and almost nil capability to influence the climate. So all this playing with numbers is pointless. CO2 cant warm the planet at 400 or 800 or 1000ppm!
Professor emiritus William Happer – Physics (Princeton) the worlds leading expert on CO2 has explained this many times -CO2 has negligible thermal capacity in the atmosphere (minor effect at 12microns IR but thats all). CO2 is irrelevant.
+1 but it’s not “irrelevant”. That being said, I think we/skeptics need to change from being defensive to offensive. Tough without media support but we need to start somewhere.
But 97% of climate scientists believe otherwise. Your views are increasingly de-platformed.
I believe that the onus is on those who propose policy to substantiate their own arguments. The logic and assumptions to derive emissions to 2C of warming has not been applied to that to derive emissions to 1.5C.
Further, the assumptions behind the 2C warming limits changed for the IPCC AR5 in 2013/2014 and changed again for SR1.5. The IPCC keeps changing the goalposts in line justifying the consistent policy objective of reducing CO2 emissions to zero within a feasible timescale.
But all the numbers are silly. Even if the underlying theory is correct, we do not know any of the figures such as ECS to anything like the degree of accuracy claimed. These are little better than ill-informed guesses.
Exactly. Further they are highly sensitive to changes in assumptions (guesses) within the uncertainty ranges. For instance, we find that in 2011 when CO2 levels were 392 ppm, on WG3 SPM states in the last sentence on page 8 for all GHGs
“For comparison, the CO2-eq concentration in 2011 is estimated to be 430 ppm (uncertainty range 340 to 520 ppm)”
But only CO2 is considered in the warming projections to 2100, as it is assumed the negative forcings, such as aerosols, offset the other GHGs. These negative forcings have their own uncertainties.
MBC: I see you using ECS, which I note is the generally accepted calc. However, in another blog an alarmist commenter swore blind that the Geo Soc Lon’s use of ESS (which I’d never heard of) should take precedence. It gives a far higher multiplier than ECS. Can you comment on that?
I have not heard of ESS either and the IPCC does not use it. An “innovation” in AR5 was to look at warming to 2100 then to use a Transient Climate Response of 1.8 (or a range of values). The current SR1.5 assumes ECS = 2.7 and historical TCR as 1.6. That would be lower if the IPCC assumed a part of that warming was not caused by CO2 (i.e. natural or by other GHGs).
The implication is that it takes more than 100 years for climate equilibrium to be achieved. Looks like the IPCC have pushed the to the extremes to maintain the most warming effect from CO2 emissions whilst maintaining a large impact from CO2 on warming.
Thanks, MBC.
I wish I could use the IPCC’s construct of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity when applying for a loan.. Based on cherry picked payments into my bank account from a cherry picked range of dates, together with vague assumptions about my future career trajectory, I will definitely be a millionaire in a few years.
Bravo. But, the media creates the wall of ignorance and too few understand the decades of propaganda. A rip off by smart people using Lenin’s useful idiots as foot soldiers.
‘the wall of ignorance…’ Quite so. Today, the stupid Vine on R2 had a go at Fracking. He used the flaming taps (!!!) film as an example of the hazards of fracking. Then, he allowed some idiot activist blocking the fracking site in Lancs to make all sorts of wild claims without once challenging him on their veracity. But, haing banned sceptics from the Beeb after claiming that Lawson mis-spoke himself on temperature records, there is no one to argue the case. SO I sent an email rant to Vine questioning his journalistic credibility.
Having done the same thing on previous examples of his, Vine’s, green indoctrination I don’t think he reads anything that might opposé his views. I regard him as another Tom Heap.
Vine’s name came up during the BBC gender/pay dispute where it was disclosed that his annual salary is £700,000. This is a man who merely chairs silly panel games and cannot conduct a debate on technical matters without resorting to the most dubious, and unjustified , propaganda.
Yet a few years ago I was working with a group of physicists who could design and engineer the most modern radar equipment, intended to increase the nation’s defence capability and. in civil areas. stop aircraft falling from the skies .Their reward: £30000 / year and no fringe benefits . So an ignorant, innumerate BBC presenter , too lazy to do proper research , can earn more in a year than a professionally educated physicist, at the cutting edge of modern microwave design, can earn in half a lifetime.
This is modern Britain.
I sometimes, in such bleak musings , wish for another war which would sweep away such pathetic dross, but the reality is probably that Vine would be awarded the role of Chief Scientist to that idiot May and the real scientists would be handed wooden rifles to go and guard the south coast.
“As for Arctic sea ice, a graph from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that, contrary to all those computer model predictions that the summer Arctic would soon be ice-free, there has, in fact, been only a comparatively modest decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice since satellite records began in 1979; and there is evidence that there has been significantly less ice at times in the past.”
More on Arctic sea ice
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/04/does-global-warming-drive-changes-in-arctic-sea-ice/
And ocean heat content
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/06/ohc/
We have a massive problem in the UK in that even though “the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe”, the UK Government is still under the control of the Greenblob civil service and its behaviour gets even more loony (if that is possible). Hence this:
“Climate experts will advise the government on whether the UK should set a date for a net zero emissions target”.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/climate-experts-asked-for-advice-on-net-zero-target?utm_source=1fdb2250-a7f2-4562-86a4-27961780e375&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
“,,,mega panic…”
Technically, that should be a tera panic as it involves wasting trillions of dollars.
As to why the papers did not make a fuss…I think that is because they know the British Public – or the part that are cheer-leaders for the decisions of the masters – is a completely believing lump of idiocy ALREADY.
Phillip:
A slight delay may be necessary to deal with n audit.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/britains-met-office-welcomes-audit-by-australian-researcher-about-hadcrut-errors/news-story/c82ba88888d9eba2af9d1dca52e7fe07
It may be pay walled although extractable using Google. Alternately JoNova has a discussion.
The problem for the Met Office isn’t the ludicrous mistakes, more that they accepted Dr. Mclean’s previous report on errors. It may require a very large blanket to shield the public from the distressing sight.
Phillip, did you hear the idiot Perry being interviewed on R4’s Today this morning? Talk about being a hostage to her Green handlers….she’s certifiable!
The BBC WS are currently reporting Donald Trump’s latest comments about Climate Change … without one of their favourite scientivists to counter it. Their only attack on it is that it differs from what he said before, as if that is sufficient to disprove it, seemingly obvious to the fact that the IPCC constantly changes its mind.
On CBS’s ’60 Minutes,’ here are President Trump’s actual remarks:
“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man made. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.”
“I’m not denying climate change,” he said in the interview. “But it could very well go back. You know, we’re talking about over a … millions of years.”
Trump commented on Hurricane Michael: ‘Mr Trump, who is scheduled to visit areas of Georgia and Florida damaged by Hurricane Michael on Monday, also expressed doubt over scientists’ findings linking the changing climate to more powerful hurricanes.’
“They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael,” said Trump, who identified “they” as “people” after being pressed by “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl.
She asked, “What about the scientists who say it’s worse than ever?” to which the president replied: “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda.”
You could tell by the tenor of the article from which I just quoted: CBS not happy.
So glad that Leslie Stahl was able to deduce that President Trump’s reference to “they” was a reference to “people.” For a moment I thought he might be referring to Russian bots as “they.” Leslie, “you go, girl.”
Trump hasn’t changed his opinion as far as I can see. What he referred to as a hoax before was the whole panic industry declaring CAGW and a need to destroy ourselves to ‘fix’ it.
When he said there was no global warming it was 2012 – well before the end of ‘the pause’ since 1998 – so he was accurate. What he referred to as not being a hoax this time was the fact that climate is/does change – he still disputes the cause(s).
The BBC is trying to present this as a shift to near true believer!
I’ve bookmarked this post on WUWT as a good tick list:
OT, I also see that the BBC is to show a programme tonight on chemical weapon use by the Assad regime. I don’t suppose they’ve taken into account Steve McIntyre’s recent posts on it, but will try to keep an open mind. Some parallels with climate change politics:
BBC’s Andrew Neil did slip in one of his ‘tired of it all’ sounding digs.
Along the lines of –
The IPCC has warned of a tipping point to climageddon, as they also did in………..
And then he went on to rattle off half a dozen or so previous occasions.
He seems to be getting edged out by Jo Coburn etc. and getting less and less airtime.
I think that’s partly his choice as he’s not a youngster any more and partly the BBC getting other presenters up to scratch. JoCo is not in his league, although who is?
I’m a bit surprised ST actually printed this, I thought they were going over to the “Green Side’ with recent articles in DT. Or is ST still a bit more sensible.
But have no fear our idiot Energy Minister, Perry, will take it seriously, after all she has to keep her masters, the Green NGO’s happy. And they approve of the IPCC report..
The DT today is full of it, Green GB week that is, apparently the UK is a world leader, and “climate experts” are such super beings that they can plan the future economy, having done such a wonderful job with diesel cars, bio-fuels and smart meters.
A response to my recent complaint to the BBC. Is this your perception of them?:
‘Thank you for contacting the BBC.
We understand you have found coverage of a recent report on the impacts of global warming was biased in favour of the IPCC’s findings.
The focus of the BBC’s reporting was on the report published by the IPCC looking at how the earth is being effected by climate change and how the findings advised to ensure temperatures do not rise above 1.5 degrees.
As part of our overall reporting we have highlighted concerns raised by both the USA and Saudi Arabia in the report and that representatives had checked the report to before it was published. Our reporting also reported on the feasibility and the significant challenges that are faced in the recommendations by the IPCC’s report.
The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on this complex issue. Our position remains exactly as it was – we accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly. However due impartiality isn’t necessarily always achieved in one single report or programme, so we would ask that you take account of how we cover a topic over time.
We are careful to check and report the facts surrounding any debate, examine relevant arguments, and offer detailed analysis. We believe that by doing this our audience can then make up their own minds.
Nevertheless, I would like to assure you that we value your feedback. Please know all complaints are sent to senior management and news teams every morning and we have included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure that your complaint has been seen quickly, by the right people. This helps inform their decisions about current and future reporting.
Thank you once again for getting in touch.
Kind regards’
So they lied again, nothing unusual about that.
“Temperature increases beyond 1.0 °C may elicit rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear
responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage.”
“An absolute temperature limit of 2.0 °C can be viewed as an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly.”
This was stated in a report from the Stockholm Environment Institute in 1990, “Targets and Indicators of Climatic Change” edited by F.R. Rijsberman and R.J. Swart, before the IPCC first assessment.
Aren’t we already at or past 1 deg C?
This entire new report is faked to fit the AGW narrative.
Exhibit A, a revised start year for warming and in turn for ‘human influence’. Allocating ALL warming since that start date to humans is the height of arrogance and just plain wrong. Pure Green Blob BS.
Next report will allocate 150% of the warming to human influence. Someone may notice that that would imply the beginnings of a slide towards an ice age otherwise. Then we can all say that warming isn’t bad after all.
They come across as sounding desperate now and must be a bit mortified at the lack of front page coverage.
The IPCC states (SPM-15 C1) that the “pathway” to “no or limited overshoot of 1.5ºC” entails a “net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030”. In 2010, global emissions were 33,590k ktons. Therefore, to meet the IPCC’s requirement, they would have to be reduced to 18,475k by 2030. That cannot possibly be achieved.
Consider the three top emitters: China, the USA and India.
China. Its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the 2015 Paris Agreement indicated that its emissions would “peak” around 2030. Commentators, including Paul, have suggested that could mean a doubling of its 2015 emissions (10,462k) by 2030. But let’s assume it does far better than that and keeps the increase (2015 to 2030) to only 20% – i.e. to 12,554k.
USA. Its emissions (5,012k in 2016) have come down by 8% since 2010 – because of renewables and coal’s replacement by fracked gas. Let’s assume that continues and emissions are reduced (2016 to 2030) by 20% – i.e. to 4,010k.
India. Its NDC indicated no absolute reduction. Commentators, including Paul, have suggested that could mean a trebling of its 2015 emissions by 2030. It’s already increased them by 37%. But let’s assume it keeps the overall increase (2010 to 2030) to 100% – i.e. to 3,688k.
Those assumptions are probably optimistic. Yet 12,554k + 4,010k + 3,688k = 20,252k – i.e. more than the IPCC’s 2030 global requirement. So, even if my assumptions were valid and all the other countries in the world cut their emissions to zero (over the next 12 years), that still wouldn’t be sufficient. Therefore, if the IPCC’s got it right, we’re doomed.
Note: the emission statistics cited above can be found here: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8.
Robin’s comment was well understood at the time of the Paris Agreement. At the end of the conference there was a document produced “Adoption of the Paris Agreement”
Paragraph 17 noted that all INDCs if fully implemented would result in emissions in 2030 of 55 GtCO2e (55,000k in Robin’s terms). Further that 2C of warming required that they be 40 GtCO2e. The 1.5C of warming was to be determined by a special report.
Para 21 requested that a Special Report from the UNIPCC. This latest report is the response to this request. They IPCC took 4 months to accept the commission and a further 2.5 years to produce the report. This is my initial response to the adoption document in Dec-2015 and the noting of the failure.
The gap between policy aspiration and policy reality that Robin writes about it not unknown. Every year UNEP produces an Emissions Gap Report. The 2018 edition is due out in November. The key figure from the “UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2017” (Bing or Google to find it) is as follows.
The conditional case is with lots of money – $100 billion a year or so. This is not happening. So in 2030 UNEP is forecasting the gap to be 19 GtCO2e. This is inconsistent with SR1.5, as it is only a 26% reduction on 2010 for 1.5C of warming. That is from 49 to 36 GtCO2. A 45% reduction implies 27 GtCO2e in 2030 to achieve the 1.5C of warming. That is the revised emissions gap is now 28 GtCO2, about half the projected emissions of 2030. Will the IPCC / UNEP admit that the 1.5C emissions targets will not be met? Or will they just push out even scarier fantasy-driven nonsense?
Robin – What’s a “k”?
P.S. Perry must go. Let,s hope May goes this week and the interim leader (Davis?) has the sense to get rid of Perry.
It’s just a short way of writing for example “33,590,000”. Apologies for not making that clear.
The end is nigh. It has always been, and it will always be. Hardly a front page stuff.
So we end up subsidising others to pollute even more by shouldering all the costs of their unrestricted expansion. Positively encouraging it, while we enter a period of industrial decline. That seems fair! (Bites through chair leg.) Just thinking if we spent part of a our trillion contribution removing traffic jams, making transport more efficient, having cars travel at the manufacturer’s recommended speed for economic fuel use, that would be a carbon off-set scheme. The state marketed diesel cars as the answer to pollution problems and duped millions into buying them. They set stupid usage targets which no manufacturer could meet ( plainly ignoring the science) and precipitated the makers into nefarious schemes to make their products look good. What could almost say that they were handed a fait accompli. So had they not interfered in the first millions would have been spared a financial loss, the levels of particulates, soot would have been within tolerance. All that coercion just to make matters worse. See what happens when Governments court the vote.
One more to add to your list. We all know that the people who shout this the loudest are the worst offenders of CO2 polluters than anybody else on the planet. Tell you something ???
I apologize for the length of this comment and if it irritates anyone. This is a summary of many (But not all, especially from the ’70s/’80s global cooling scare):
1864 George Perkins Marsh (father of American ecology), warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’
1977: UN announces that we are nearing a human caused global cooling event.
1982: UN announces we have 20 years in which to avoid AGW tipping point.
1985: Newsweek reports immediate action needed to avoid AGC (Cooling) tipping point.
1989: UN Director Noel Brown says we have 10 years to solve AGW or be wiped off the earth by sea level rise.
2001 (Bonn): Time reports this is our last chance to avoid AGW tipping point.
2002: Prince Charles states we have 10 years to avoid the AGW tipping point.
2004: Top UK scientist Sir David King warned that by 2100 Antarctica could be the only habitable continent.
2005 (Montreal): Climate Activist Mark Lynas warned time is running out to avoid tipping point.
2006: Al Gore told us we had 10 years before we reached the AGW tipping point.
2007: Laurie David said we have to have action now to stop AGW.
2007 (Bali): New Zealand Herald announces last chance to avoid the AGW tipping point.
2007: UN Chief states we have until 2012 to avoid the AGW tipping point.
2008: Al Gore states we have less than 10 years to avoid the AGW tipping point.
2008 (Poland): environmental scientist Tim Flannery warned ‘last chance’.
2009 (Copenhagen: UN EC Stavros Dimas warns this is the last chance.
2009: Al Gore at UN Conference (UN AGW Accords) said we have to do this, this year not next.
2009: UN Secretary-General announces a 2 year deadline to avoid AGW tipping point
2009: Prince Charles announces a 100 month (8yrs 4 mo) deadline to avoid AGW tipping point. Note that over the years Prince Charles faithfully warned about this expiring date and did not give up on it until it expired.
2010 (Cancun): Indian EM Jairem Ramesh warns this is last chance.
2011: Al Gore starts cussing at a AGW conference when challengers asked for evidence of AGW.
2012: UN Foundation president & ex-U.S. Senator Tim Wirth announces 2016 tipping point.
2014: UN climate chief Christiana Figueres states we are running out of time.
2014: UN reports that we have 15 years before we cross the ACC tipping point.
2014: Prince Charles deadline expires & he tiredly says we’re nearing the tipping point.
2014: Penn State Professor Michael Mann weighed in with a 2036 deadline.
2015: Prince Charles ups the time table to 2050 as the deadline to avoid the ACC tipping point.
2015: Michael Mann at UN CC warns 2015 is the last chance to avoid the ACC tipping point.
Note: At every UN CC conference, the UN warns this is the last chance to avoid ACC.
2016: Al Gore’s 4th deadline expires.
2016: 20 world governments choose 2036 as the ACC tipping point.
2017: Multiple green activists groups choose 2047 as the ACC tipping point.
2018 Oct 08: CNN predicts we have only a few short years left to avoid the ACC tipping point.
2018 Oct 08: UN IPCC (SR15) and Al Gore give us 12 more years to avoid ACC Catastrophe.
U.K. Scientist Philip Stott. “In essence, the Earth has been given a [false] 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years.
U.S. NASA’s top scientist Gavin Schmidt is tired of all these wild and false predictions.
Climate is the most complex, non-linear, chaotic system known to man. To ignore chaos is Fraud; to claim that any extreme weather is caused by man’s activities and emissions is FRAUD. Therefore, all those (politicians) who wish to make us pay for a non-existent problem are fraudsters on a grand scale and should be tried and locked up for a very long time.