The second sword of Damocles – the UN IPCC agenda poised above the neck of humanity

Yesterday I posted an article on the sword held by the UN WHO

(100) The Two Swords of Damocles hanging over the heads of humanity – cause and effect of one sword held by the UN’s WHO – the other sword is the UN’s IPCC (substack.com)

It had this opening paragraph:

“Setting aside the global military industrial complex - who have a desperate need to promote kinetic wars – there are two emerging “de facto” global tyrannies within the United Nations (UN) – the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) .”

I penned these articles on global population and CO2

(100) Global population – where it is heading over the next 25 years and what the genocide would need to be if targets of halving it to 4 billion eventuate (substack.com)

(100) Doodling with data on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – not so much impact on climate, just background notes (substack.com)

 A fun fact from the Global Population article – if the Earth was a densely populated as Bangladesh, there would be 64 billion people on the planet! Not recommended and Bangladesh is not the richest country with the best health systems, but here’s some more fun facts – Bangladesh has almost exactly half the US population. It suffered 175 deaths per million with C19 present and 12,141 “cases” per million over the three years of the pandemic compared to 3,472 deaths per million with C19 present in the US and 318,910 “cases” per million.

Deaths per million in the US were 20 times higher and “cases” were 26 times higher than Bangladesh. Bangladesh made extensive use of Ivermectin treatment protocols, the US – did not. Its GDP per capita in 2021 was around 2,500 bucks v US GDP per capita of around 70,000 bucks. The WHO and the MSM’s “Trusted News Initiative” does not comment on such trivial matters.

Before getting into the UN IPCC and the “Climate Change” campaign being inflicted on all of us, let’s put things in context.

The UN and its organs are not elected by anyone. Its views are opinions that cannot be challenged in any court. Its employees have diplomatic immunity. “All care and no responsibility”, “all hat and no cattle”, “all mouth and trousers”.

You cannot prosecute the UN.

Countries can expel diplomats, but where would you expel a UN diplomat to?

Here is a link to the UN’s sustainable development agenda.

The Sustainable Development Agenda - United Nations Sustainable Development

“At the core of the 2020-2030 decade is the need for action to tackle growing poverty, empower women and girls, and address the climate emergency.”

Here is a link to its “About” page. I cannot see a single named individual, About — IPCC

Many of you will have seen this video that shows how UN IPCC propaganda is used.

My Gift To Climate Alarmists - YouTube

It highlights how the UN IPCC gas lights gullible politicians and policy makers by changing the start dates to formulate out of context claims about changes to the climate.

Remember the Jon Oliver clip about 11,000 scientists and a UN report that “the end of the world is nigh”, from eight years ago?

Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

Of course that tiny-brained plonker will not consider these:

Easily debunked: Who are these '11,000 Concerned Scientists'? - American Thinker

And countered: Global Warming Petition Project – 31,500 American scientists alone!

All depends on how you frame the question of course. You could ask scientists “will anthropogenic global warming result in the extinction of the human race in the next hundred years?” or you could ask “does human activity impact the global climate in any way?” All part of the process for the “great sleepening” rather than the “great awakening”!

 (100) "Answer these and only these questions" - how the NWO solicits answers they want and suppresses actual opinions (substack.com)

Further debunking of the models used the UN IPCC is here:

(100) Dr Willie Soon of CERES debunks the “global warming” assumptions of the UN IPCC - They turn everything into a cartoon … all of it is not even close to the truth, it’s a joke” (substack.com)

“One of the claims the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) makes in their August 2021 report is that “urbanisation bias” is very small, less than 10%.  Dr. Willie Soon says this is nonsense. It’s at least 40% and it’s easy to prove.”

Lots of science in that Willie Soon embedded video – a recommended watch highlighting measurement issues using urban heat spots to base calculations of temperature changes in models.

Incidentally, I recall that there are nine models used by the UN IPCC to predict global temperature changes, none of which could model PAST temperature changes – the closest was the Russian model. This should not come as a surprise when you check out the video:

“Methane – The Irrelevant Green-House Gas” Dr Thomas P Sheahen - YouTube

There’s more “ignored science”.

(100) UN IPCC uses dry air in its modelling. Wet air is THE major greenhouse gas. Excluding water is ignorant. UN IPCC models assume only positive feedback – no negative feedback Garbage in – Garbage out (substack.com)

“Methane – The Irrelevant Green-House Gas” Dr Thomas P Sheahen - YouTube

Then there’s the fact that climate is cyclical and the UN IPCC models are linear – exposed by Tony Heller (again).

(100) Tony Heller strikes again! He demonstrates the false and misleading cherry picking of data by the likes of the UN IPCC and other “Green” party chicken littles – like Al Gore (substack.com)

Alan MacRae B.A.Sc., M.Eng., has been covering this for decades. In his paper “CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY, from June 15, 2019 here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/ he states this: “Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past.” dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with temperature changes, but its integral CO2 changes do NOT lead, they LAG temperature changes in time. The CAGW scam was independently proved false in this way in 1990 (Kuo et al, Nature), 2008 (MacRae) and 2013 (Humlum et al, Science). All these papers have been deliberately ignored to promote the CAGW scam.”

So how much will the “faux science” of the UN IPCC cost?

Let’s throw some numbers around for electric vehicles to start with:

From here: The People Promising Us 'Net Zero' Are Clueless About Energy Storage - Climate Change Dispatch

“So California will need about 22,302 GWH of storage, Australia about 18,720 GWH, and New York about 12,960 GWH. That is to supply current levels of demand. For the “everything electrified” case, triple all of these numbers: 66,906 GWH for California, 56,160 GWH for Australia, and 38,880 GWH for New York. Price that out at current costs of Tesla-type lithium-ion batteries (~$150/KWH) and you will get around $10 trillion for California, $8.4 trillion for Australia, and $5.8 trillion for New York.”

I guess California will demand reparations for not enacting this folly. Makes you wonder why cities aren’t combining public transport plus UBER in an “on demand”, “bookable” “for anyh journey” EV system – driverless, maybe – after all, we probably only use cars for 3 hours a day maximum on average. An “on demand” service might remove close to 90% of all cars from the roads – provided of course there are sufficient EV’s – maybe further complement this with ride sharing.

There is a growing realization that there are fundamental flaws in the logic applied to “electrifying” society beyond the impracticality of “batterifying” cars.

From here: The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics | The Tyee

“One of the great lies of modern technological society is that of endless mineral abundance. Urban consumers, who have little knowledge of energy realities underpinning their existence, have swallowed the idea that digital gadgets and automation will somehow detach society from the physical world and allow us to do more with less, leading to a dematerialization of society.”

“The average smart phone contains at least 40 elements from the periodic table including cobalt and six rare earth minerals that make the screen glow. The average electric car uses six times more critical minerals than a combustion car. An onshore wind plant needs nine times more mineral resources than an equivalent gas-fired power plant. An e-bike is more mineral intensive than an ordinary bike. And so on. Renewables just haven’t accelerated the demand for rare earth minerals but a variety of base metals such as copper, silver and cobalt.”

“Every electric vehicle contains about 75 kilograms of copper or three times more than a conventional vehicle. A single wind turbine generally contains 500 kilograms of nickel. That nickel requires 100 tonnes of steelmaking coal to be refined. And every crystalline silicon solar panel contains 20 grams of silver paste. It takes 80 metric tons of silver to generate approximately a gigawatt of solar power. (In power terms that’s equivalent to 9,000 Nissan Leafs.)”

So, a reality check. Swapping one form of resource and pollution for another equally if not worse – all cheered on by the policy goals for 2030 and 2050 echoing the agenda of the UN’s sustainable development agenda.

So, what might be a better solution? Miniature nuclear reactors in vehicles? Keep in mind that there have been many “free and limitless” energy inventors. Unfortunately they don’t seem to have a very long life expectancy.

(100) Freaky Friday – from both the “Things that make you go hmmm” files – and the “Died Suddenly from Inventing Free Energy” files (substack.com)

You do wonder though – why aren’t universities receiving research grants to do things like “capture all IC exhausts and sell them” or “develop trackless maglev” or “miniaturize nuclear power” or one of the ideas in the preceding link – and here’s a billion to be getting on with to do it. Instead, much like Fauci’s control of health research budgets that suited his agenda, scientists only get grants that suit a political agenda of closed-minded morons!

Onwards!

Please upgrade to paid, or donate a coffee (I drink a lot of coffee) - “God Bless You!” if you can’t or don’t want to contribute. Coffee donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan  - Buying just one Ko-Fi a week  for $3 is 50 bucks more than an annual $100 subscription!