by Paul Homewood

March 11, 2022

from ConservativeWoman Website








YES, it's the latest climate report from the UN Climate Panel, the IPCC, described by the clowns at the Met Office as 'the bleakest assessment yet of climate change risk'.


Every few years since 1990, the IPCC have published their Assessment Report on climate change, and each is more scary than the one before.

After all, they have to do something to keep the alarm ramped up...!

This is their sixth report, hence the title 'AR6' (Sixth Assessment Report).


The first part was published last summer, dealing with the effects of global warming on the Earth's climate. TCW covered it here


Despite much hype, it found very little evidence that our climate was any worse than in the past.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, you name it, there were no adverse trends at all...

Now the IPCC have released the second part of the saga, looking at the supposed impacts of climate change on society, human health, agriculture, ecosystems and wildlife.


We are told that human-induced climate change is causing severe loss and damage to human and natural systems because of the,

'increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events'...

Which is all very strange, given that last year's report found no evidence that this was the case!


Apparently climate change has also altered marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems all around the world, including,

'climate-driven extinctions, mass mortality events and species loss'...

Climate change is also 'stressing food systems' and affecting agricultural productivity.

Half the world's population is suffering from water scarcity, human health is worse, there is mass climate-related migration, and economic losses are increasing because of climate-induced events...

I don't think any sane person would recognize any of this concocted drivel.

Human health, contrary to the IPCC's assertions, is far better than it has ever been, access to clean water has much improved, food production is at all-time highs, and so on.

Economic losses caused by weather events have of course increased, just as they have for every other cause.


This is not because the weather is worse, but because we all have 'more stuff' these days.


As an example,

many more people now live in hurricane-prone regions of the US, such as Florida, and they have big houses, cars and all the other trappings of modern society.


When a hurricane comes their way, their insurance losses are much higher than their forefathers' would have been.

Dr Roger Pielke Jr., of the University of Colorado, is one of the world's leading experts on the economic costs of climate change.


He has shown that losses as a proportion of global GDP have actually been falling since 1990:



Roger Pielke Jr.



Throughout the report, the IPCC deliberately conflate 'weather' with 'climate', using the phrase 'climate-induced' even though their own Part I report found no evidence that weather is more extreme now.

So every death or loss from a weather disaster is due to climate change...

There are many unsupportable claims in AR6, but let's look at just one:

'Human-induced global warming has already slowed growth of agricultural productivity over the past 50 years.'

As the graphs below show, food production has been steadily increasing since the 1960s, both in terms of quantity and value, and stands at record levels.


This is just as true for Africa and Asia as the rest of the world.


But according to the IPCC, food output would be even greater now if it had not have been for global warming.


Of course, they have no way of knowing that:

their guesswork is the product of computer models, programmed to produce the results they want...

In fact during the 1970s, after three decades of global coolingworld leaders and scientists were extremely worried about dwindling food supplies, caused by shorter growing seasons and widespread drought, both the result of global cooling.




United Nations Food & Agricultural Organisation



As with all the other IPCC reports, this is not a scientific exercise but a political one...


The content of AR6 is tightly controlled by a tiny number of Lead Authors, all ultra climate alarmists, and they ensure nothing gets into the report which is critical of their beliefs.


It only has one purpose:

to promote the UN's climate agenda...




Wind or gas?


The war in Ukraine has brought to a head the debate concerning the energy crisis which has been boiling up for the past few months.


Rapidly rising gas prices have divided opinion on where we should go from here.

The climate change establishment is adamant that we should increase investment in renewable energy to reduce our reliance on the global gas market.


Others believe that the UK should be maximising its own reserves of oil and gas.


Predictably the government is in the former camp.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has told the Mail:

'With gas prices at record highs, and the price of renewable energy plummeting, we need to accelerate our transition away from expensive gas.


Now, more than ever, we must focus on generating cheaper, cleaner power in Britain, for Britain. This is how we become energy independent in the long term.'

The choice that Kwarteng presents is a false one, as wind power and natural gas cannot be directly compared.

Wind power is intermittent and therefore cannot supply energy as and when needed in the way that gas can.


Indeed, far from becoming 'energy independent', if we follow his policy we will be dangerously reliant on Europe for our electricity.


Much more fundamentally, wind power supplies only a tiny fraction of our energy.

Oil and gas supply 74 per cent of the UK's energy consumption, whereas wind and solar contribute a tiny 4 per cent. Natural gas alone accounts for 40 per cent.


Even if we double wind capacity, it will barely make a dent in overall demand.


It gets worse...!

Demand for gas spikes in winter at around three times the annual average because of the need for heating.


In comparative terms, demand for gas peaks at about 250 GW for all users, whereas our TOTAL demand for electricity peaks at less than 50 GW.

We currently have about 20 GW of wind power capacity, but because of its intermittency its actual output is less than 10 GW.


Clearly building more wind farms will do little to reduce our reliance on natural gas.


We can also forget about any meaningful contribution from nuclear. The new reactor at Hinkley Point will bring 3.2 GW, but this is less than the capacity which will be lost from the imminent closure of old nuclear plants.


Given the lengthy timescales involved, any extra nuclear capacity is many years away.




Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy



Just like all his predecessors, Kwarteng is firmly under the control of his civil servants and other green advisers.

It is they who determine policy, not the government, and the Business Secretary merely repeats the green dogma he has been fed.

The government machine has now been so comprehensively infiltrated by the Green Blob that it is hard to see how the looming disaster can be avoided.





Winter is cold, Met Office reveals


Is there a point to the Met Office...?


Not only do they spend half the time trying to brainwash us with their global warming propaganda, they now seem to think we are all a bunch of simpletons.


Take this latest offering on their website.


Under the heading 'Why is winter weather a risk to our health?' it says:

'Cold temperatures have an impact on our health, but there are other risks in winter including physical injuries from slips, trips and falls.


As we get older it becomes harder for our bodies to detect how cold we are, and it takes longer to warm up which can be bad for our health.


For older people in particular, the longer the exposure to the cold, the more risk of heart attacks, strokes, pneumonia, depression, worsening arthritis and increased accidents at home (associated with loss of strength and dexterity in the hands).' 

Who would have guessed it?


Isn't it time the Met Office returned to its original function of forecasting the weather...?