IPCC: A Climate Report Riddled with Conjectures and Contradictions

News media all over the world have presented recent flooding and wildfires as evidence that the climate “has gone mad”, even though it is known that such fires are often set by arsonists and that the floods are often due a lack of infrastructure.

However, such disaster, together with the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are used by the political establishment to push for so-called “decarbonization” (cf. SAS 32/21). The IPCC report, despite its title (The Physical Science Base), is not based on science but on unproven dogmas.

For instance, the report acknowledges that “During 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid, temporary decline in fossil CO2 emissions, estimated to be around 7%” on a global scale. “Global daily CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel sources had a maximum decline of 17% in early April, compared with the mean 2019 levels.” (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf)

These are dramatic figures, if one considers that emissions have never decreased globally, but have rather, since the Paris agreement, increased until now (for man-made reasons according to the climate lobby and the IPCC). Were this theory correct, the dramatic drop in emissions during the lockdowns should have a positive effect on the global temperature – but did not.

Thus, the IPCC found a “magic formula” to defend its theory, even though the empirical evidence contradicts it. Its argument: “Short-term reductions in CO₂ emissions, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, do not have detectable effects on either CO₂ concentration or global temperature. Only sustained emission reductions over decades would have a widespread effect across the climate system.”

In other words, it’s all a question of believing: “Have faith and you will be saved.”

The real aim of the fake science spread by the IPCC “is to spread panic, in order to gain money or political careers from it or, for some, academic careers otherwise unreacheable”, commented Franco Battaglia in the Italian daily La Verità. Battaglia is professor for chemical physics at the Modena University and spoke at a July 24 Schiller Institute webinar on climate change.

He notes that one thousand scientists recently signed a petition to the UN Secretary General entitled “There is No Climate Emergency”. But they have been “ignored by the political and media establishment, which prefers to hang on the lips of the illustrious scientist Greta Thunberg”.

Another recent paper, produced by 23 scientists from 14 countries, challenges the IPCC conclusions because they ignore the impact of solar activity (http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4906. Reviewing the report on RT, author Norman Lewis asserts that “The science of climate change – what ought to be a field of open contestation – has been transformed into a narrow one of religious consensus. It has become a barrier to science itself. There is no doubt that climate change is real, and it is a problem facing humanity. But just because it is a problem does not mean we are facing an apocalypse.”

Nonetheless, the IPCC report’s conclusions “are dogmatic and (…) are based on partial research chosen to support a predetermined misanthropic narrative”.