Why is the IPCC Still Being Quoted?
In a conversation with a Climate Changer, I brought up the inconvenient fact that the successful pursuit of the CC agenda would result in the deaths of billions of people. There are over 7 billion humans alive today. The only way we can sustain this many people is through the massive expenditure of cheap energy. As a form of “green” energy, nuclear is a non-starter, wind will never be a significant source of energy and solar is decades away from becoming significant. So energy consumption must be sharply curtailed…with devastating results.
His response was to quote the latest IPCC report:
As the new IPCC report shows, climate change is a far greater threat to food security than any proposed climate action. Consider the following estimates from the report:
10%-25%: Projected increase in losses in global yields of rice, maize and wheat per degree of warming
$63 billion: Cost of losses and adaptation to crops with 1.5°C of warming
$128 billion: Cost of losses and adaptation to crops with 3°C of warming
5%: Decline in marine animal biomass for every 1°C of warming
2: Multiple by which marine heat waves are estimated to have increased in frequency between 1982 and 2016
550 million: Number of agricultural workers and small-scale fishers around the world who face significant losses above 1.5°C of warming
Apparently, the loss of billions of lives is acceptable in order to save $200+ billion over some unspecified time frame.
Or let’s put it another way, using another IPCC estimate: if the world continues on its present course (“business as usual”), the cost of global warming will reduce the anticipated global GNP by 5%.
The projected global GDP, per capita, is expected to increase by 210% by the year 2100. So we are ready to almost destroy human civilization so our grandchildren can be 210% richer than we are today instead of 205%.
This is about as lop-sided a result of any cost/benefit analysis as I have ever seen.
But it gets even worse…
Is there any way to evaluate the accuracy of the IPCC estimates?
The Earth is already supposedly well into the warming. Here is what NASA says it looks like:
This shows global warming starting as far back as 1910…112 years ago. With this in mind, let’s look at some of the IPCC estimates.
10%-25%: Projected increase in losses in global yields of rice, maize and wheat per degree of warming
In the last 110 years, there has been, reading off the chart above, about 1.5 degrees centigrade of warming. So rice, maize and wheat harvests should have been getting smaller over this time until it is about 15–37% lower today. Here are some charts to illustrate:
How about the rest of the world?
Maybe I have accidentally placed the graphs upside down, but I don’t see an alarming trend here. In fact, if I were to interpret these charts, I just might be tempted to claim that global agricultural yields increased as temperature rises. But I only show corn and wheat. Maybe the other crops are trending down.
If you can find one, please produce it. I can’t find it.
5%: Decline in marine animal biomass for every 1°C of warming
Here’s a graph to illustrate this alarming trend:
This shows a 270+% increase in wild fish catches and 2200% increase in farm fishing just since 1960. If this trend continues for very much longer, the entire world will be swimming <ahem> with seafood!
2: Multiple by which marine heat waves are estimated to have increased in frequency between 1982 and 2016
Increased in frequency from what to what? And was this increase out of the ordinary in any way? What was the frequency in the 34 years prior to 1982? And the 34 years prior to that?
We don’t know. Marine heat waves have only been recorded since 1981 when satellites made it possible to do so. When discussing global climate, 34 years is much too short a time to derive any meaningful trends.
What we do have are land heat waves:
This certainly shows an increase in heat waves since 1980 — but only because there were almost no heat waves in the twenty-year period prior to that. Keep going back to the 1930s and — just wow! Notice that if you ignore the quiet of the 60s and 70s and also whatever was happening in the 30s, the activity of the last 20 years has been right about normal.
Look at heat waves at different places around the world and the picture is fairly consistent.
The point is, we don’t know what the IPCC is using to make the estimates they publish in their Report, but as we can all see, it is not based on any actual real-life trends that are actually taking place. In fact, there have been many predictions and estimates made in the name of Global Warming/Climate Change. Here is an interesting site that documents quite a few. Some of these predictions come directly from the IPCC and many are based on the “estimates” published by the IPCC in their Report. While many are predicted to take place at a time still in our future, there are many that were already supposed to have happened. These predictions range from mass starvation due to food shortages to an ice-free Arctic Ocean. (The latter is a prediction that has been made over and over again.)
None of these predictions have happened. None have even come close. So why are people still quoting anything the IPCC has to say?
Now, it is possible that the site cites only predictions that have failed while ignoring predictions that have been accurate. Surely there is a site somewhere that lists the IPCC success stories. I have not been able to find it but that doesn’t mean it isn’t out there somewhere. Can anyone supply a link?
