Photo by Freysteinn G. Jonsson

IPCC Prepares to Release More Hot Air

by James Corbett corbettreport

The IPCC is preparing to release a „Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC.“

That sentence alone should be enough to make everyone within earshot duck for cover from the coming barrage of climate-related doomporn. But, sadly, half of the public will actively cheer the occasion and the other half will have no idea what is even happening. This is as sure a sign as any that the propagandists of the Global Warming Fear Cult (and their corporate/bankster/globalist backers) have succeeded in the most successful brainwashing campaign in the history of humanity.

Allow me to explain.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a monster created by the Frankensteins at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and their cohorts at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Founded in 1988, the panel bills itself as an „international body for assessing the science related to climate change.“ More specifically, it produces „assessment reports“ (often referred to as the „climate bible“) that seek to assemble the scientific evidence for climate change, assess its impacts and future risks, and evaluate options for adaptation and mitigation.

So far so cute and cuddly, right?

Well, our good friends at the UN are currently convening the 48th session of the IPCC in South Korea, an event that IPCC chair Hoesung Lee describes as „one of the most important meetings in the IPCC’s history.“ Their mission? To „consider the Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC,“ an assessment of the risks that will be associated with the 1.5 ºC rise in temperatures that the Paris Climate Accord of 2015 ludicrously claims to be targeting.

While the world collectively holds its breath for the delivery of this report (or, more accurately the summary of this report), it’s worth taking the time to consider the origin, purpose and history of the IPCC, an organization that is often glossed over as a collection of revered scientists but is in fact something very different.

The primary „customer“ for the IPCC’s reports (besides the repeaters of the mockingbird media) is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body formed by international treaty at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The UNFCCC seeks to „stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.“

There are two things to note about the UNFCCC and its role in setting the climate change agenda.

Firstly, as viewers of Why Big Oil Conquered The World will already know, the 1992 Earth Summit was the love child of Maurice Strong, the highly unlikely father of the modern environmental movement. Strong himself founded UNEP in 1972 and served as its first Executive Director. He was the founder or board member of a bewildering array of environmental institutions. He was the co-creator (with Mihail Gorbachev) of the (bizarrely religious) Earth Charter. Oh, and, by the way, Strong also happened to be a millionaire oil tycoon who was personally selected to be the protégé of David Rockefeller by none other than David Rockefeller. But for some strange reason the environmentalists who like to play the spot-the-oil-shill among any and everyone who ever strays from the climate religion’s dogma (myself included, naturally) have no problem at all with Strong’s business interests, or indeed the business interests of any of the billionaire arch-globalists who have founded and funded the mainstream environmental movement for most of the past century. Strong was, needless to say an influential figure in the founding of the IPCC and, more importantly, in the drafting of the Framework Convention on Climate Change which bases its actions on the IPCC’s reports.

The second thing to note about the UNFCCC is its stated objective of „prevent[ing] dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.“ One will note that the convention (signed in 1992) assumed from the very start, before the IPCC had even delivered its first assessment report, that „anthropogenic interference with the climate system“ was „dangerous“ and that it was the convention’s duty to prevent it by stabilizing greenhouse gases. If you think this means the conclusion of the IPCC’s work has been baked into the cake since before that work even really began then you are exactly correct. The very definition of „climate change“ in the UNFCCC itself is „a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity.“ Natural causes of climate change are not even considered within the UNFCCC’s mandate.

The „conclusion“ that humans are responsible for climate change was never a conclusion at all; it was an axiom. The IPCC’s work over the past three decades has been to provide the fig leaf of scientific justification for the UNFCCC to „reach“ that „conclusion“ (read: affirm that axiom).

So it should not be surprising to discover that the IPCC itself is a sham of historic proportions.


Hailed as the measured conclusion of the world’s leading experts in the relevant scientific fields, the IPCC’s assessment reports are in fact political documents written largely by political appointees and based not on peer-reviewed research, but on the activist literature of globalist-funded environmental organizations. This is not even controversial. Veteran journalist Donna Laframboise’s well-reviewed 2011 IPCC exposé, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, documents in exhaustive detail the grad students, political operatives and non-credentialed laymen who are largely responsible for the report, and proves that the IPCC’s claim to be based purely on peer-reviewed scientific literature is a bald-faced lie.

This helps to explain why the IPCC and their dutiful PR representatives in the bankster-funded, globalist-controlled mainstream media have pulled out every trick in the book to dupe a gullible public into going along with the farce. As I reported five years ago, the IPCC’s much-ballyhooed claim that they were „95% certain“ that humans are causing climate change is just one of those tricks.

How do you reach a „95%“ level of certainty about such a claim, anyway? Well, the IPCC employs a “likelihood scale” that assigns percentages to various phrases, ranging from “exceptionally unlikely” (0-1% probability) to “virtually certain” (99-100% probability). This sounds like it is based on a precise scientific measurement or well-defined statistical process, but when it comes to deciding how likely it is that climate change is man-made, this is quite literally nothing more than a word choice of the report’s authors.

According to the IPCC: “The approaches used in detection and attribution research […] cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.”

In other words, the “95% probability” that launched a thousand headlines is nothing more than an arbitrary number decided on in closed door meetings between the report authors. Still, it serves an important propaganda purpose in giving a veneer of scientific credibility to the decision, one that a media that never bothers to explain these decisions to you thinks you will be too stupid to figure out for yourself.

But, as Dr. Roy Spencer points out, there is a significant 95% figure when it comes to discussing uncertainty and climate: Namely, the fact that the climate models (which we are expected to believe will accurately predict the climate decades, even centuries, in advance) actually overestimate observed warming 95% of the time. How ironic.

But worse than all of this is the fact that the IPCC’s „Summary for Policymakers,“ the document that receives all the attention from the fake news purveyors in the MSM, is a purely political document, written independently of the science report itself.

Let me repeat that for the hard of thinking: This „summary“ is a negotiated political document that is written before the science report that it purports to summarize.

The authors of the science report are then made to ensure that their report agrees with the summary. This is why the summary is customarily released first (to an endless stream of free publicity in the mainstream media), and then, often several months later, the scientific reports are finally presented to the public.

Remember this well when the CNNs and New York Times and BBCs and other known purveyors of globalist propaganda start going berserk over the latest „IPCC report“ next week. Everything they will tell you about this report is either a lie by commission, a lie by omission, or a half truth.

Crucially, they will only report on the Summary for Policymakers, pretending that it is a scientific document. It is not. It is (as even the more honest outlets will admit) a purely political document, negotiated over the course of months by diplomats and politicians representing the UNFCCC signatories. In fact, this forthcoming „summary“ has been under negotiation since at least January, a full 10 months before the report’s release.

You will see a lot of breathless coverage about the coming „end of the world“ via fiery CO2-induced heat death over the course of the next week, but as you listen to these propaganda reports, bear this in mind: the Summary for Policymakers that the IPCC is about to release is nothing more than a political document, worked over by politicians for the sole purpose of getting the public on board with the carbon eugenics agenda. You have been warned.


Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser signs the Clintel World Climate Declaration


Nachhaltigkeit + die Entdeckung Trojanischer Pferde…

Populäre Projektionen dessen, wie eine Bewusstseinsveränderung aussehen wird, sind in den meisten Fällen nur eine Neugestaltung der „alten Denkschablonen „. Eine größere, bessere Box, in der das Paradigma aufgewertet wird, das die Bedingungen verbessert, unter denen wir unsere Sucht auf eine „grüne“ Art und Weise genießen können.

So wichtig wie das ökologische Bewusstsein ist, es ist nicht genug. Das neue Paradigma kann nicht aus der intellektuellen Abstraktion einer dualistischen Interpretation einer „besseren Welt“ verwirklicht werden, die auf der Infrastruktur der existierenden Varianten-Matrix aufbaut, die dieses Paradigma erzeugt.

Gut zu wissen
Informationen zu akutellen Themen