The world is running out of time to avoid catastrophe, new UN report warns
By Paul Homewood
It’s the same old!!
The world is rapidly approaching catastrophic levels of heating with international climate goals set to slip out of reach unless immediate and radical action is taken, according to a new UN-backed report.
The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a statement to mark the launch of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s synthesis report on Monday. “Humanity is on thin ice – and that ice is melting fast,” he added.
The report draws on the findings of hundreds of scientists to provide a comprehensive assessment of how the climate crisis is unfolding.
The science is not new – the report pulls together what the IPCC has already set out in a cluster of other reports over the last few years – but it paints a very stark picture of where the world is heading.
This report is the most dire and troubling assessment yet of the spiralling climate impacts we all face if systemic changes are not made now,” Sara Shaw, program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, said in a statement.
The impacts of planet-warming pollution are already more severe than expected and we are hurtling towards increasingly dangerous and irreversible consequences, the report says.
While the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels is still possible, the report noted, the pathway to achieving it is rapidly closing as global production of planet-heating pollution continues to increase – emissions grew by nearly 1% last year.
Concentrations of carbon pollution in the atmosphere are at their highest level for more than two million years and the rate of temperature rise over the last half a century is the highest in 2,000 years.
The impacts of the climate crisis continue to fall hardest on poorer, vulnerable countries that have done least to cause it.
This latest report is nothing new, merely the summary agreed by governments of the original AR6 published two years ago. And in AR6 there was nothing to justify this sort of hyperbole.
Yes, the climate has warmed slightly since the Little Ice Age, but there is no evidence whatsoever that weather is becoming more extreme across the board, and undoubtedly some regions have benefitted from the warming.
The claim that we are approaching catastrophic levels of heating is patently absurd, given that we have already had 1C of warming, which the human race has somehow managed to survive intact!
And, of course, we have been here many times before. In 1989, for instance, the UN warned:
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
In 1995, based on the first IPCC report, experts claimed that:
“ At the most likely rate of rise most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years.”
And in 2006, Al Gore claimed that:
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2006-al-gore-does-sundance/
The UN was back at it again in 2008, with the President of the General Assembly saying:
“It has been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010”
https://press.un.org/en/2008/ga10725.doc.htm
Most absurd of all was a Pentagon report on climate change in 2004, which claimed:
- By 2007 violent storms would smash coastal barriers, rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities such as The Hague would have to be abandoned.
• Between 2010 and 2020, Europe would be hardest hit by climatic change, with an average annual temperature drop of 6°F (3°C). Climate in Britain would become colder and drier,
as weather patterns began to resemble Siberia.
• Deaths from war and famine would run into the millions, until the population had been reduced sufficiently to allow the Earth to cope.
• Riots and internal conflict would tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.
• A ‘significant drop’ in the planet’s ability to sustain its present population would become apparent over the next 20 years.
• Millions would be prevented from growing crops, either by climate change directly or by sea-level rise. Rich areas such as the US and Europe would become ‘virtual fortresses’ to prevent millions of climate migrants.
• Mega-droughts would affect the world’s major breadbaskets, including America’s Midwest, where strong winds would bring soil loss.
• China’s huge population and food demand made it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh would become nearly uninhabitable because of rising sea levels.
The UN becomes ever more desperate and its message increasingly apocalyptic, as most of the world continues to ignore its message and carry on with business as usual.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
My letter to the DT (with little hope of publication):
“Sir,
I have been following the Climate Change story for 20 years now. I have followed most of the reports from the various COPs along the way and now, am digesting the latest report of doom ad gloom the IPCC has released – which tells us we are all going to fry when the Global Average Temperature rises just ONE-HALF of a degree C to reach the mythical 2.0C degrees above pre-industrial times’ average temperature.
According to their spokesperson who was interviewed by the BBC we are all going to suffer a cataclysm unless ‘we’ (not sure who the ‘we’ is) spend Trillions of Dollars/Pounds/whatever on changing society (whose society they are not precise about). And only when we have spent all this money and reduced society too Net Poverty will we be saved.
And how will we know that we’ve been saved? Why, because the omnipotent IPCC, which is the sole publisher of the bible of climate change, will then publish a report to say that our net-poverty societies have reached the promised land and that CC is beaten. And our new global governments will believe it.
Oh George Orwell, how did you get to be so prescient??”
More bollocks
I’m sure that was a comment about the IPCC report rather than my comment….I hope it was. 🤔😀
Tou are correct
Aah, the ‘Empire’ strikes back! As they see their doom-laden narrative starting to fall apart and the peasants beginning to revolt.
About b***dy time too…..
I’ve been a revolting peasant for years !!
I wasn’t going to mention that…..
(but don’t let the ba*****ds grind you down!)
Or alternatively “Nil carborundum!”
I applaud your indefatigable efforts to state the truth about this terrible wicked scam.
It needs saying in all places at all times even though it appears few are listening.
Looking at the satellite data, we appear to have stabilised the trend – there’s been no warming for a decade or more now. So I’m unclear how things can be getting worse if temperature isn’t increasing? And if temperature isn’t increasing, we must have limited the rise, surely?
Or is the yet again data versus model claims?
“we appear to have stabilised the trend”
Actually, from data past and present I think the trend has stabilised itself (as is its wont) and, as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has entered its negative phase, the “Global Temperature” is currently decreasing and will continue to do so for a couple of decades.
When this becomes obvious even to “Climate Scientists” I await the desperate attempts to backtrack and blame this reversal on some human activity – should be fun!
Likewise I have written to the Telegraph on a similar theme. However I was told by someone from ‘Fleet Street’ that he believed that the editor of the Telegraph, Chris Evans, had told his letters editor not to publish any letters critical of the IPCC or its theories. I have no way of knowing how true that is but certainly there is an almost complete absence of critical comment of NetZero in the Telegraph.
2hmp: As I posted earlier I have had an occasional letter printed but based on success vs failure I certainly agree that being controversial especially about climate ensures failure. Chris Evans is leaving isn’t he? I blame his stewardship for the squishy middle ground editorial policy that has dominated recent years.
Perhaps this might have something to do with it:
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=daily%20telegraph
Thank you Cat – astonishing. Surely Offcom should concern itself with national newspapers taking cash from a wholly political organisation and not evenmaking it public. Yes, it must give some indication as to editorial policy.
Same thing for the Guardian:
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=guardian#committed_grants
And we mustn’t forget the BBC!
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=BBC#committed_grants
The problem is that the IPCC propagandists (the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Grauniad etc) spread the IPCC lies, and presumably lots of gullible and naive (green) people, politicians and scammers believe them (or go along with the lies because they are making lots of money).
It should be the IPCC that’s running out of time after its decades of overblown and erroneous predictions.
It’s notable that climate panic is almost solely a middle-class thing, whether young or old. I’ve reached the conclusion that they enjoy feeling guilty and wish to belabour themselves and everyone around them in order to inject some meaning into their lives.
Both BBC and ITV made this doom mongering message their main item on their early evening news yesterday. There was no discussion on the merits and demerits of this UN report – it was just presented as incontrovertible fact. The Pakistan floods were referred to as “proof” of imminent climate catastrophe, and ITV even despatched their health correspondent to Pakistan to report on them, again.
What on earth has happened to investigative journalism? Is their no-one in the media who has the capacity to think about this and start to ask awkward questions?
Talk Tv this morning …. Matt Ridley on JHB show and Ross Clark on Mike Graham – a beacon of objective journalism
+l for MG and JHB. Back about twenty years ago, MG was a Forth FM broadcaster (Edinburgh area) and worth a regular tune in.
Meantime, JHB, too was on BBC HIGNFY.
Beeb, of course, chose distinctly not to further eithers’ careers.
GBN and TalkTV albeit free-to-air as us plebs get them is as we suspect – a privilege.
Watch out for the headed recent from Ofcom. Guess who’s the head of that?
Not i9f they are paid multi million dollars by the Bill Gates and Melissa Foundation and other organisations to keep quiet about it.
I had a look, it is written by academics, 39 of them, all reliant on grants, there are two videos on you tube, the second has a shot of a power station belching out water vapour from seven cooling towers, as soon as I saw this misrepresentation of CO2, it confirmed the report was balderdash.
YouTube·Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)·20 Mar 2023
I have scan read the document, here is a paragraph from page 5 which sums up the complete document… It is just not true!!!!
A.2.3 Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial,
36 freshwater, cryospheric, and coastal and open ocean ecosystems (high confidence). Hundreds of local losses of
37 species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (high confidence) with mass mortality
38 events recorded on land and in the ocean (very high confidence). Impacts on some ecosystems are approaching
39 irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes
40 in some mountain (medium confidence) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (high confidence).
41 {2.1.2, Figure 2.3} (Figure SPM.1)
If you have 11 mins to spare, here is Sandi Adams addressing Glastonbury Council on climate change, smart cities, technocracy, etc and giving their origins.
https://fb.watch/jojYjJtu5m/
https://sandiadams.net/
The willing propagandists of the BBC put their own sexed up spin on it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65000182
Matt McGrath and Georgina Rannard are the purveyors or doom.
We all are familiar with the baseless ramblings of the McGrath. Georgina Rannard is an interesting addition to the outpourings from the BBC climate doom desk. Would anyone be surprised to learn that this person called “Climate and science reporter” by the BBC does not have any scientific education of any kind? She actually is educated in Modern History! I supposed in the BBC’s cynical view that means she will just regurgitate any old garbage put in front of her without question.
Under a foto of two stern looking ladies of colour it is written “World-leading scientists wrote the UN report which must also be agreed on by governments”.
Interesting wording given that the report is NOT written by scientists but political activists who take input from captive scientists and put their own spin on it.
I suppose that had she a science degree the BBC would worry that she might just become sceptical – as all good scientists ought to be – and go off-piste.
You can see her “appropriate” qualifications mentioned here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgina-rannard-38b001b5/
I suppose as she appears to be an activist that was more than enough for the BBC to hire her.
Harry
Going off (to get) piste is all a disgruntled man can do ^.^
Pau’s excellent review of the failed predictions seems to have disappeared. Is there a link i could use.
x
‘The report draws on the findings of hundreds of scientists to provide a comprehensive assessment of how the climate crisis is unfolding.’
“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” – Einstein
‘The climate time-bomb is ticking’
Nah. It’s been stuck at 11:59 for 30 years.
‘This report is the most dire and troubling assessment yet of the spiralling climate impacts we all face if systemic changes are not made now,” Sara Shaw’
I complement her on her ability to differentiate this report from all before. To the untrained eye, it looks like the same old $#|+.
In 1856, Eunice Foote, generally credited with the discovery of the heat absorbing properties of CO2, conducted an experiment using two identical glass tubes each containing a thermometer. One was filled with ‘Common Air’ the other with 100% CO2. ‘Common Air’ in 1856 was estimated to contain approximately 300ppm CO2. Both tubes were subjected to direct and indirect solar radiation for a fixed period of time after which the temperatures were measured and compared.
Interestingly, the maximum temperature reached by the tube containing ‘common air’ was 37.8C while that in the tube containing 100% CO2 reached 48.8C, a differential of 11.0C. In the shade the respective temperatures were 27.2C and 29.4C, a differential of just 2.2C.
The precise details of the experimental protocols are vague and there are questions with the actual apparatus, rotation and concerns with the control of the IVs, DVs and the identification of potential confounding variables. Nevertheless, I believe that insofar as a headline outcome is concerned the figures are an acceptable baseline guide.
OK, so far, so good, her findings appear to support the theory that CO2 can absorb more IF than other gases (with the exclusion of water vapour) and warm accordingly.
But hang on a mo, the concentration of CO2 that demonstrated this warming effect was at 100% while that in the sample of air was only at 0.03%. Ergo, by increasing the levels of CO2 by a whacking great 99.97% the temperature in full sun was only raised by 11.0C while that in the shade by a measly 2.2C! So why are we being force-fed with the claim that a miniscule rise in CO2 levels can produce an unprecedent leverage effect wholly disproportionate to the results obtained in Foote’s experiment?
Or am I missing something?
Using a closed container means most of the temperature change is a temporary pressure effect. CO2 tube pressure will be higher than the air tube immediately after the experiment.
Should say temperature difference, not temperature change.
ITV News last night had a long spot about this report (“Scientists say..”) and the flood-disaster in Pakistan with all the usual emotive images to prove that doom is imminent. Not one comment from real weather history experts, or any other doubter: balance in the UK News is a forgotten value!
It should be obvious to all those not literally “invested” in the Climate Hoax, that forty years of failed predictions is enough. Climate should be ranked right up there with the planned-demic as but tools of the WEF and the WHO as nothing more than a means of control, designed to topple the economies of the West, while the CCP laughs as they shovel coal into the engines of their economy. We are being lied to, and this is but the latest.
Where on Earth do they dig these moro nic so called experts up from? I learned about cyclical ice-ages 80 years ago in school, even a cursory glance at history shows the bunkum they spout. Just after more funding, time to stop this eco netzero scam.
Popeye: Lucky you – I only klearned about Swiss farmers making watches in the Winter. All around me in Rhyl was some amazing Victorian engineering for drainage, flood control and such like which I have since wtitten about!
“….and the rate of temperature rise over the last half a century is the highest in 2,000 years.”
Most people understand that it’s not the rate, it’s the amount at the end. According to NOAA, as of 2021 the total amount of warming is still less than one degree C. plus 0.84°C. Climate emergency? Catastrophe?
The part most people do not discus is, they started to keep climate records in the early nineteenth century, 1815 or so, just at the start of the current warming cycle. Global temps had been dropping till then and look to be leveling and starting to drop now. There is no such thing as man-made global warming, period. It is called weather. Climate change is a hoax.
Something else those in the UN and elsewhere choose not to discuss is the fact that if we rapidly lower CO2 emissions toward zero there is nothing to replace fossil fuels for all of the transportation required to continue the transition to the all-electric world. How they can be so clueless is remarkable. And that includes many journalists reporting on this.
“It is called weather. Climate change is a hoax.”
Yet you play along. With “climate records.” There is no such thing. They have weather records.
BWTM. They don’t even have weather records.
“the highest in 2,000 years”
Just exactly do they know the temperature 2000 years ago? They don’t even know it 200 years ago.
The greatest danger to the world is the verbal and anal flatulence of the climate change fantasists. The sooner we reduce them to Net Zero, the better.
Good one–I am gonna use it.
The best strategy in confronting and ridiculing the IPCC is to find a sponsor who will under write the cost of publishing the conspicuous statistical movements on a yearly or half yearly basis of all the trends which Paul has so reliably drawn to our attention. I know that to a large extent this is being done but the circulation seems limited. The constituency that can see the opportunism and confected ’emergency ‘ for what it is should be large enough now to ensure that most of the catastrophists can be identified starting with those with history degrees like Georgina Rannard.
If we were to achieve net zero anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and volcanoes did not emit sufficient CO2, then the continual decline of atmospheric CO2, which has taken place over the last 150m years as a result of shelled marine animals using up the CO2 for their shells, would eventually go below the 150 ppm required for plants to survive and all life on the planet would die.
‘all life on the planet would die’
Lighten up, John. Yeah, bad stuff could happen. But all life is hyperbole.
But hyperbole is the talk of climate ‘science,’
When I see all those well fed UN ‘evangelists’ sat at the table I only want to know one thing:
Just who is funding these people, how much of the UK taxpayer’s money is wasted on the UN?
Surely if we stopped paying them then there would be no Climate emergency.
Imagine if all the money wasted on this rubbish had been spent on real problems.
We wouldn’t still be getting assaulted by TV adverts to stop blindness from easily cured disease and parasites, there would be ample food stocks and distribution waiting to respond to every new shortage, no child would still be spending half a day walking to collect filthy infected water…..
Mr Nasty, you like your herring red?
“This report is the most dire and troubling assessment” says Sara Shaw, program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International.
Probably the only thing Sara Shaw has ever said that contains a morsel of truth.
Certainly absolutely dire in its never-ending, weapons grade, mendacity laced with incompetence and greed.
It is troubling to think that we seem irretrievably locked into the “United Nations” the epitome of corrupt authoritarian, globalist, nonsensical ‘Governance.’.
Troubling that the “assessment” is written by people masquerading as “Scientists”. A bunch of drunken homeopaths might have done better.
Troubling also that the amount of treasure absolutely wasted on their lunatic notions might have provided everyone on earth with clean water, decent infrastructure, enough to eat, a medical service and, let’s not forget, hope.
Not if they are paid multi million dollars by the Bill Gates and Melissa Foundation and other organisations to keep quiet about it.
I have been troubled for along time on how the average temperatures across the World are calculated when temperatures across the globe are moving daily from nighttime lows to midday highs, and often varying up and down from midnight to midday. Add to this the variation of temperatures between the Poles and the Equator and weather variations that reduce or increase temperatures each year coupled with seasonal temperature changes etc,. etc. After all these constant changes these so called experts come up with these convenient round figure average increases of 1.5 or 2 degree increases across the world. Can anybody put me out of my misery please?
Satellite temp readings are made several times a day. The sampling rate is higher than you fear.
BUT . . . satellites measure in only two planes. Considering the depth of the atmosphere, that’s pretty limited.
They also get no readings above 60°N or below 60°S.
All-in-all, our ability to measure is lame. Today. But these yahoos claim to know what the temperature was in 1850 (we are 1.1°C above it today – LOL).
‘the rate of temperature rise over the last half a century is the highest in 2,000 years’
This is clownish. They have no way of knowing this.
This is an interesting site, its graphs are interesting:
Temperature.
Global calculates the current global temperature of the Earth. It uses unadjusted surface temperatures.
The current temperature is the 12M average mean surface temperature over the last 12 months compared against the 30 year mean.
New observations are entered each minute and the site is updated accordingly.
This site was created by professional meteorologists and climatologists with over 25 years experience in surface weather observations.
http://temperature.global/#twitter
“It uses unadjusted surface temperatures.”
That’s my point. The atmosphere is miles deep. “Surface temperatures” leaves the bulk unmeasured.
We pretend it is adequate.
The evidence is mounting, overwhelming even, that the IPCC Report is dangerous scaremongering tripe. I’m increasingly dismayed that there are so many “hard of thinking” who still believe it.
“The UN becomes ever more desperate and its message increasingly apocalyptic, as most of the world continues to ignore its message and carry on with business as usual.”
Speaking of which:
It’s deja vous all over again. I think the great unwashed are getting a tad tired of all of the crying wolves telling them that the world is about to end when all they see is no change in the weather but a huge hike in their costs of living. Even my youngest daughter, who has spent her entire school life assailed by the doomsters running our education system, saw the latest news report and, raising her eyes to heaven, exclaimed ‘geez how many times have we heard that this is the last chance we have to stop the world from burning up and it’s still p***ing down with rain outside? Don’t these muppets ever look out of the bloody window?’ Not scientific, I know, but it made this old sceptic smile.
“The world is running out of time to avoid catastrophe, new UN report warns”
Too late for that! UN, since long, is the actual catastrophe … That includes some of the sub-organizations too.
Wouldn’t you just love for a public figure, confronted with climate change necessities, respond, “Oh, it’s already too late for that, we have passed the tipping point. Best to get on with your lives, and wait for The End.”
After 30 years of “in 10 years” I think we can say we are over it.
Well stated. After forty years of failed ‘predictions,’ all we have to show is ever rising utility costs. There is no such thing as man-made global warming, it is better referred to as weather.
I listened to a podcast a month ago where a journalist has analysed an IPCC report for the quality of “peer review” and as a result, the head of IPCC stopped referring to the reports as peer reviewed. I cannot re-find this podcast. Can anyone help?
The UN is a servant of the New World Order. It is a malevolent organization and should be disbanded. Wish did not have the General Assembly in my hometown, New York City.
I agree completely. You left out the influence of the CCP on the UN and the WEF and the NIH
The next COP will be number 28, 28 years since this nonsense took hold yet, 28 years on global emissions are at a record levels with all those COPs achieving the square root of zero.
How can any sane person not see through this nonsense?
The catastrophic warnings are merely a cover for the classic socialist wealth redistribution agenda under the guise of climate reparations.
Some comments by Rajendra Pachauri, then Chair of the IPCC, listed here: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/08/26/pachauris-squishy-timeline/
An example (dated November 2007):
‘
’