Climate Change: no, we shouldn’t trust the science
“The science” we were supposed to trust was always a lie.

Do you remember Global Warming? It was going to melt the polar ice caps, all the glaciers, and pretty much everything other than mountainous parts of Colorado and the Grand Tetons of Wyoming would be underwater in, oh, ten years or so, until ten years had passed and then it would be another ten years, and this time they meant it! The election of Barack Obama was the moment the planet healed and the rise of the seas stopped, except no healing was necessary and the seas weren’t rising.

Then some annoying, actually replicable, science with data and everything came along that proved global warming and the “science” backing it was falsified, so our existential, certain—in ten years or so—doom became “Climate Change.” Of course, the climate changes all the time and always has, and there was that nasty Medieval Warm Period where there was no man-made pollution that was as warm or warmer than now, but what are you anyway, a science denier?!

Graphic: X Post (See why he’s canceled?)

Oh, we had warnings. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth among them, but like every other bit of climate hysteria, those predictions of imminent—in ten years—doom didn’t happen, though they made Gore and others multimillionaires. And right up until the second term of Donald Trump—how could anyone not understand that Kamala Harris was an Obama-like savior (cackle, cackle)?—our climate-caused doom was certain…in ten years or so, and then just like that, it wasn’t: 

And now, it seems they are admitting it was BS all along.

It’s nice when something you knew was a fraud all along turns out to be a fraud, but it’s even nicer when the people perpetrating the fraud admit it was a fraud all along.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios,” science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr wrote late last week, and in what he called “big news,” the new framework “eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades.”

So the oceans aren’t about to boil off or freeze over or whatever the current scare story is?
Exactly: “The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.”

This is important because the IPCC’s changes resulted in “an update to the Science Based Targets initiative’s rules eliminates the need for steep emission cuts by 2030,” Trellis reported on Friday. In other words, even the people committed to radically reduced carbon emissions now say we don’t need to radically reduce carbon emissions to save the world or whatever.

Interestingly, the IPCC, long ago, quietly admitted that even if climate alarmists got all the trillions they demanded to save the planet, the global temperature might be reduced by about 1° centigrade, give or take, by the end of the century. It was always about the money, which is ironic in that if the world was ending in ten years, wouldn’t money be superfluous? After all, only so many people can live on the top of Mt. Everest, and they’d be a bit short of breath.

We continue:

Without getting too technical — you can read Pielke’s full report for that, should you feel the need to go shoulder-deep in the weeds — the upshot is that the previous frameworks lacked “any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios.” Now, however, “the new HIGH scenario is exploratory — a thought experiment, not a projection.”

My guess is that the IPCC still includes the non-scientific, scary-sounding “HIGH scenario” because otherwise the money might dry up.

Graphic: X Post (except for the Covid vaccine)

So, sure. Climate change is real. Happens all the time—geological time/millions of years—that is. But “the science” we were supposed to trust is a lie and always was, ten years into the certain doom future and now. Note the IPCC’s scientific-sounding sort of admission, not that they haven’t been lying for decades the better to fleece us. It’s just the noble, honest scientists that they are never bothered to determine whether their predictions of ten-year doom made the slightest sense, scientific or otherwise. Ooops. Our bad.

And what’s with ten years anyway? By then, when the predictions they knew would fail failed, no one would remember them. The media certainly wasn’t going to bring that up and in the meantime the money would keep flowing.

But what about Al Gore? Recently speaking to a Hollywood—where else?—audience, Gore predicted that in 25 years (get it?) the Gulf Stream will collapse and we’ll all be doomed due to—wait for it—global cooling.

I can’t wait.