Skip to content

The US National Climate Assessment Report They Did Not Want You To See!

November 29, 2018

By Paul Homewood




The BBC inevitably made a lot of propaganda out of the latest US National Climate Assessment report, which I have already shot holes in.

But below is the report the climate scientists did not want to publish:



  • Summer heatwaves are much less intense than they used to be. Meanwhile, cold spells are also much less common.



  • Bitterly cold winters are a thing of the past.



  •  Rain is much more plentiful and droughts are much less common






  • There has been a marked reduction in recent years in the number of hurricanes hitting the US, particularly major ones.






  • The frequency of strong tornadoes has also declined significantly in the US.




  •  Sea levels continue to rise very slowly, and at a similar rate to the mid 20thC.






The US has unquestionably been experiencing a remarkably benign period of weather in recent decades.

Extremes of weather are now much less severe and less common than on many occasions in the last century or so.

Of course, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, who put together this report, NOAA, who are the lead agency, and the assortment of climate scientists who wrote it never intended the public to see the real facts. Those would have been far too inconvenient to their agenda.

And even if they had done, I doubt whether the BBC would have reported it!

  1. November 29, 2018 6:23 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  2. November 29, 2018 6:33 pm

    So the report really isn’t an assessment of the climate. It’s not even good propaganda. Propaganda at least makes up facts to support the argument.

  3. A C Osborn permalink
    November 29, 2018 6:34 pm

    There is something wrong with the Hurricane Charts, as they are identical.

    • November 29, 2018 6:58 pm


      You’ve saved my bacon for more reasons than one!

      • November 29, 2018 8:09 pm

        Talking of bacon, ‘Farming Today’ this morning had an item about the carbon footprint of various types of food. You know the typical BBC propaganda: beef is worse than bacon which is worse than chicken, which is worse than lettuce – except its not that simple, because lettuce is actually worse than bacon but we tend to eat a greater weight of bacon than lettuce in our BLTs.

        The propaganda on the BBC is really ramping up at the moment; anybody might think there was an earth-shattering global conference coming up – you know, one with a massive carbon footprint, just like all the others they have every 2 or 3 months.

      • November 29, 2018 9:00 pm

        I also had the misfortune to hear that programme about farming, which the BBC has demonised as a source of pollution. The “interview” with Owen Paterson was extraordinary, here was an MP who had visited the US to talk about agriculture, but he was treated like a naughty schoolboy being told off by a scary headmistress.

      • Hivemind permalink
        November 30, 2018 3:47 am

        I don’t understand something. If farming is so bad, why do we keep doing it? Why not just go down to the supermarket and buy our food there?


    • HotScot permalink
      November 29, 2018 7:02 pm

      A C Osborn

      Glad you said that, I thought I was missing something.

  4. JimW permalink
    November 29, 2018 10:05 pm

    But we know this has nothing to do with facts ( outbreak of mildness), and everything to do with indoctrination. Hence the ‘eating habits’ to go with transport, energy supply etc, plus all the attacks on ‘whiteness’, masculinity, etc. It really is a concerted attempt to overthrow the western economic model and replace it with something else. Its too simplistic to say its ‘left’ or Marx, yes there are elements of that, but its more fundamental, its more akin to a ‘hive’ , insect type of society. This is an attempt to change the very essence of what it is to be ‘human’, at least from ‘hunter-gatherer’ to something else.

    • dennisambler permalink
      December 1, 2018 12:22 pm

      AGW is a red herring that helps them drive their long term goals, by distracting the masses from what is really happening behind the scenes with Agenda 21 and now Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals, etc. It ties up the debate whilst the real work goes on at innumerable UN meetings right through the year. It deosn’t matter to them how many times something is refuted they just move on to the next claim, knowing the headline will be remembered, not the rebuttal.

      Gro Harlem Brundtland Socialist International 15 -17 September 1992
      “Securing peace, sustainable development and democracy requires that nations, in their common interest, establish an effective system of global governance and security.

      To pursue social justice, freedom and democracy will require that we pool our collective experiences and national sovereignties. There is no alternative to obligatory coordination of financial and monetary policies.

      Potsdam’s Ottmar Edenhofer, 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

      Ban Ki Moon, February 2012, Remarks to KPMG Summit:“Business Perspective for Sustainable Growth”
      “We are nearing the point of no return on climate change. You all understand the high stakes — for jobs, for social justice, for the Millennium Development Goals, for the health of the planet. Only with your strong support and leadership we can change and shape the world we want and we can make this world better for all. I have been urging leaders of the world not to be prisoners of their constituencies. When they have a vision and commitment they have to carry them out.”

      LSE working paper 2012, “After Copenhagen”:
      “The attempt to develop international cap and trade markets for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, ultimately aiming to determine a global price for carbon, is the most extensive attempt ever made to use market-mimicking mechanisms to deal with an environmental externality. Addressed to the problem of climate change, it is an exercise in the adjustment of the social welfare function on a global scale, and it envisages expenditures which will run into trillions of dollars.”

      Christiana Figueres, 2015:

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
      “The key objective of the meeting is to adopt the implementation guidelines of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

      This is crucial because it ensures the true potential of the Paris Agreement can be unleashed, including ramping up climate action so that the central goal of the agreement can be achieved, namely to hold the global average temperature to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

      Some good quotes here:

  5. November 30, 2018 12:39 pm

    Will tweet
    I have also found that the current warming trend one of diminishing coldness rather than one of increasing hotness. Pls see

  6. RAH permalink
    November 30, 2018 1:45 pm

    Roy Spencer has a nice piece of landfalling US hurricanes. The trend is down, markedly according to his analysis. And there is no trend for Florida land falls.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: