UN’s Latest Climate Report Woke Rubbish Masquerading As Science
Like clockwork, the UN is out with yet another climate report and the usual suspects are already blaring the global warming alarm sirens
The New York Times warned the planet is on track “to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade” and the only way to “hold global warming to relatively safe levels” would “require global cooperation, billions of dollars and big changes.”
The Associated Press declared the world is on “thin ice” due to warming. The BBC characterized the UN report as a “survival guide” — if we don’t follow it, we’ll see “the worst effects of climate change.”
The alarmist frenzy was joined by prominent scientists, eco-activists, Democratic politicians, and even the UN chief himself, who called the report a “how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb.
In other words, the media, elites, and the scientific establishment want you to take this report very, very seriously. The problem is no one who actually cares about sound science should give it the time of day.
Any scientific credibility the new UN report might have otherwise had is immediately called into question by its extensive use of “woke” buzzwords.
Variations of the words “equity” and “inequity” appear 31 times in the 36-page document. Variations of “inclusive” and “inclusion” appear 17 times. The document even mentions “colonialism” and repeatedly refers to climate and social “justice” for “marginalized” groups.
“Equity,” if you remember, is the word then-candidate Kamala Harris famously described as a system where “we all end up in the same place.” Sounds a lot like socialism, doesn’t it?
The UN report also contains an entire section titled “Equity and Inclusion,” which states “[e]quity remains a central element in the UN climate regime.”
The report goes on to state that “[r]edistributive policies … that shield the poor and vulnerable, social safety nets, equity, inclusion and just transitions, at all scales can enable deeper societal ambitions and resolve trade-offs with sustainable development goals.”
In other words, the “woker” the policies, the better. How’s that for science?
Now, if you think “equity” is a fundamental pillar of scientific knowledge, then this is the report for you.
But if you’re like most people and don’t think political priorities have a place in scientific documents meant to advise policymakers, this should alarm you.
No reading between the lines is necessary to decipher the real goal of this new UN report. In fact, the report’s accompanying press release is quite explicit about its goal: “Taking the right action now could result in the transformational change essential for a sustainable, equitable world.”
The release goes on to quote one of the report’s authors, who says: “Climate justice is crucial because those who have contributed least to climate change are being disproportionately affected.”
Sounds like political science, not climate science.
Another author calls for “prioritizing climate risk reduction for low-income and marginalized communities, including people living in informal settlements,” adding that: “[i]nsufficient and misaligned finance is holding back progress.”
The report’s scientific rigor is further called into question by its insistence that warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times represents a catastrophe.
There is precisely zero verifiable peer-reviewed science supporting a 1.5-degree climate threshold, but there’s tons of research on the staggering costs of complying with UN models.
One 2020 study in Nature found the cost of meeting the 1.5-degree goal would be “5 trillion dollars per year in 2020.” Given it’s 2023, the price tag is likely even higher.
An analysis by McKinsey & Company illustrates just how meeting the UN’s goal means more than shelling out trillions to overhaul global energy supplies.
They note:
“a 1.5-degree pathway would imply a large dietary shift: reducing the share of ruminant animal protein in the global protein-consumption mix by half.”
Sounds like a dream for wannabe dictators. And they seem more than willing to peddle junk science in order to get it.
See more here substack.com
Header image: PR Newswire
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
monkey*poops
| #
how did we even get here?
well, quite easy, media is not really reporting what is happening in UN or WHO. if anything they mention “another report”, and people think got nothing to do with us.
sheeple just need to switch off their TV for few weeks and they would wake up from this insane dreams.
of course, the powers to be won’t allow that to happen.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Is it just me or is the sturm-and-drang taking a more panicky tone? It was always the politicians who crafted the IPCC message: the political sponsors always had the final say. Sooner or later the temperature will drop. I believe we are already in that stage, and all the monies flowing to solve the non-problem should hopefully stop. But looking to the future I can only be pessimistic: if the temperature drops the religious will cant that the God of Climate change is appeased, so more sacrifices are necessary. The root problem is that we need better politicians.
Reply