Friday, 11 October 2013

You've been had, big time!

Besides the expected sanitisation of the October 2013 UN IPCC report, removing all but the slightest traces of the 17 year ceasing of warming in the world, they did hide a single page of reduction of the majority of expected consequences of global warming which somehow the media managed to miss entirely. So while they raised the certainty of blaming you and me (yes, you) to 95% we are raising the temperature, the scope and consequences of such a raise were reduced (and in some major cases removed entirely) from the new report. I enclose the table here.

Now not the IPCC but the media chose to focus on the general rough conclusion, meaningful in no more than a political way, that now they are 95% certain man is creating warming. The details however were never entered into in any significant detail by a single report. But they are here, and I will work my way through them one by one:
Atlantic MOC collapse: I suspect they have put this in for the same effect it had on me. What the heck?
Ice sheet collapse: No
Permafrost carbon release: No (CO2 to you and me, ie no positive feedback there)
Clathrate methane release: Yes, but  very unlikely. In their own glossary, this means almost zero, so slightly above no just in case it ever did happen. This is more positive feedback much vaunted by the likes of Greenpeace out the window and from their claims (but not mine as I researched it) quite a big one.
Forest diebacks: Very unlikely
Long term droughts: Very unlikely
That's quite a lot gone now. What's not mentioned are the floods, hurricanes and tornadoes (not in this table at least) which many others prior to this report also raised figures for after President Obama claimed they had increased, but they haven't. So they probably won't either.
In conclusion:
The IPCC appear to be saying they are now almost certain man has warmed the planet, but the consequences are way below what they said in every other report, mainly  because they have had over twenty years to see what happened in the real world compared to their models.
To me, that says it all.


  1. The 95% is nothing more than a show of hands. There is no basis for it whatsoever. As with everything UNdemocratic, UNfair, UNelected, and UNnecessary, it is nothing but a load of crap. We must stop funding this crooked scanalous UN mob.

    1. Absolutely. My entire blog is written to expose and highlight the organised fraud all tied together with imaginary global warming. Once you know the big picture you can see how it's all done, and if enough people do it has to come to an end.