AS with the Bible’s Armageddon — God’s war to end all wars — it looks like the United Nations’ recent forecast of colossal global climate catastrophe in 12 years may have entered a cumulus of doubt and rejection. Instead of humanity bowing to fate, many are saying nyet. The global warming warning could pass into symbolism — to be recalled from time to time to squelch opinion and scare the living daylights out of certain people.
The reply of skeptics and deniers and world leaders to the UN’s climate report last Sunday, October 7, was swift, total and devastating. It will take a while for the UN to gather its wits and reply effectively.
Three developments this week underscore the gigantic problem that now faces the catastrophe warning and its ardent proponents.
1. The White House, in its first official comment on the UN report, cast doubt on the UN‘s call on the world to fix climate change quickly or face catastrophe.
Donald Trump assigned his chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, to give the response.
Kudlow was polite in the reply aired in a TV interview: “Personally, I think the UN study is way, way too difficult. I won’t say it’s a scare tactic, but I think they overestimate. These models have not been very successful in the last 20 years and we have to be cognizant of the work that needs to be done.”
2. On Sunday, October 14, a full week after the UN report’s release, newsmax.com, the conservative website published a hard-hitting report headlined: “New reports: There is no global warming.”
It said that the US is already spending $1.75 trillion every year, three times larger than the entire US federal budget deficit, to fight the global warming crisis.
The article then refuted various claims that the planet is warming, by asking: How much has the planet really warmed?
3. James Delingpole, writing in the Breitbart website, exposed the $38.4 trillion “ransom note” presented to the world by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the price for saving planet Earth.
The IPCC insists that the world must spend $2.4 trillion per year over the next 16 years if it is to avoid catastrophic climate change. This is the equivalent of half the global economy.
The article then exposed and questioned the credentials of the 91 supposed leading scientists from 40 countries who prepared the special report.
Casting doubt on special report
Kudlow addressed directly the IPCC’s claim that the world has only 12 years to dramatically reduce its carbon emissions or else face irreversible warming.
More than branding the report as exaggerated, Kudlow took issue with the readiness to describe global warming as man-made. He said: “I’m not denying any climate change issues. I’m just saying, How much of it is man-made? How much of it is solar? How much of it is oceanic? How much of it is rainforests and other issues? I think we’re still exploring all of that. I don’t think we should panic. I don’t think there’s an imminent catastrophe coming.”
Kudlow is not the only member of the Trump administration to express doubt about the UN’s dire warnings. Trump himself expressed hesitation over the report, telling the media he wished to “look into” the people who wrote it.
“[The report] was given to me. It was given to me,” the president said. “And I want to look at who drew it. You know, which group drew it. Because I can give you reports that are fabulous, and I can give you reports that aren’t so good. But I will be looking at it. Absolutely.”
US officials also criticized some of the language in the study and its failure to recognize fossil fuels as a major resource for lifting countries out of poverty.
There is no global warming
The newsmax.com article bluntly rejected the claim of global warming, saying “the liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.”
“Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform, more policy, more money to combat climate change. But how much has the world really warmed?
Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.
But how much has the world really warmed?
It’s an important question, considering the US government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).
To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives. But that’s just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.
According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.
That’s three times larger than the entire US federal budget deficit.
So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?
Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.
According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!
We haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.
Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43 percent to 63 percent.
This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Al Gore could not have been more wrong.
However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.
For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: ‘97 percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.
The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, ‘The assertion that 97 percent of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.’ Forbes headlined “Global warming alarmists caught doctoring ’97 percent consensus’ claims.”
Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on global warming initiatives, and where is the money going?”
$38.4-T ransom note
James Delingpole’s article on the Breitbart media website did not only expose the IPCC’s $38.4 trillion ransom note, it also exposed the credentials of the 91 supposed scientists who composed the report.
If you believe the Washington Post, the IPCC report was the work of “ninety-one leading scientists from 40 countries who together examined more than 6,000 scientific studies.”
In fact, very few of the people who compiled the report could properly be described as climate scientists. Many are geographers, energy analysts, economists, sociologists, engineers, sustainability experts, and eco-psychologists — often with considerable UN and World bank affiliations.
These people are not scientists as scientists should be: dispassionate seekers-after-truth. Rather, they are passengers on the global warming gravy train.
No more credible than Armageddon
To conclude, the UN’s grim special report on global catastrophe is in in no way more credible or imminent than the end of times in Holy Scripture.
As its 12-year deadline draws near, the warning will become more and more a piece of symbolism, in much the same way that Armageddon is now symbolism, and heaven and hell are now largely symbolic.
This global catastrophe will become a symbol of human folly and gullibility.