The IPCC ignored crucial peer reviewed literature showing that normalized disaster losses have decreased since 1990, human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC cherry picked from literature and drew opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change.  These are just two of the conclusion of the report ‘The Frozen Climate View’ of the IPCC. Published by Clintel Foundation

These are very flawed IPCC Reports that NZ Government and other governments worldwide are using to wreck our economies. * IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario. There is also another much larger report . The IPCC cherry picking literature. The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC published by Clintel Foundation is a must to read. One that should be used to target all those political cronies in the cesspit of Wellington.

 IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths
* IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C
* IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario
* Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010.

An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analyzed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC.

https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/

It has introduced a new hockey stick graph, which is the result of cherry-picked proxies. And it has ignored temperature reconstructions that show more variability in the past, such as the well-documented Little Ice Age.

The IPCC claims there is an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in recent decades. Clintel has shown this claim is flawed, because the IPCC ignores decadal variability in sea level. We also show that its sea-level tool – made available for the first time – shows a mysterious and improbable jump upward in 2020. On top of that, the IPCC is ‘addicted’ to its highest emissions scenario, so-called RCP8.5

IPCC has done a poor job of assessing the scientific literature. All countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies and most of the media blindly trust its claims. The Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC shows that this trust is not justified.
Clintel has reported the following “In our view the IPCC should be reformed, and should include a broader range of views”. Scientists with different views, such as Roger Pielke Jr and Ross McKitrick, to participate more actively in the process is a necessary first step. If, for some reason, such inclusion of different views is unacceptable, the IPCC should be dismantled

Three Pages https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Press-release-Clintel-The-Frozen-Climate-Views-of-the-IPCC.pdf

Putting the ‘Con’ in ‘Consensus’ There is no 97% consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues (Appeared in the Financial Post May 2015). It was the lead up to the Paris Climate Summit, there was massive activist pressure in and on all governments to fall in lines with the ‘global warming’ agenda, to accept emission targets which was reported as “could harm our economy”. Governments worldwide, including NZ’s threw out domestic economy under electric vehicles, wind and solar farms, the economy was to be like a train wreckage

It was reported that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change debate, as it turns out that was a massive lie, it was made up. Climate Activist Bill McKibben claimed there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are a ‘grave danger’. He was challenged, asked where his source of information came from, he promptly withdraw it. Barack Obama US President at the time sent out a tweet claiming ‘97% climate experts believe global warming is ‘real’ man -made and dangerous”, he was referring to a survey that did not even ask that question, he made it up

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50%) of the post 1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. (But does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, its unknown as to how many experts agree with this). And the statement, even if were true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs. One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. Both statements are inconsistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of government.

The most highly cited papers supposedly found 97% of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers show that 66% actually took no position. Of the remaining 34%, at least 33% supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. OK, so divide 33 by 34 and there you have it 97%, however 33% includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position. There are more recent surveys that shed light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

They are liars, there was no 97% consensus on man-made global warming. Half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession are split on the issue. The Netherlands Environmental Agency published a survey of International Climate Experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, 1868 responses were received. The questions referred only to the post 1950 period. 66% agreed with IPCC that global warming had happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either  did not know or think human influence was not dominant. Again NO 97% Con(Sensus) behind the IPCC

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC. The Dutch survey that described ‘climate experts’ a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. Of 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998. ¾ of the respondents disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and and stated it cannot be predicted.”

The  IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” There are unresolved discrepancies between models, observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity, and Natural Climate variability. Its much too difficult to realistically climate model, simulate clouds. Clouds are an enormous influence in Climate Assessments, conclusions.

Lots of people get called ‘Climate Experts’ and they appear to contribute to the appearance of ‘consensus’, without necessarily even be knowledgeable about the core issues. A massive consensus by the misinformed really is NOT a Consensus.. It’s a big Fat Lie. Its worth nothing of any value. The phony claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence. The Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … People I urge you to call out all these political corrupt propagandists that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington.

They laugh at you if you dare to publicly debate, discuss this Global Warming Agenda. They derail, shut people down. They even shut the real scientists down. This is not real science, this is about controlling populations worldwide into smart cities, to eat bugs and plant foods. To destroy farming communities, small businesses.This is Corporate Capture world wide, the profiteers are those that are the DAVOS Crowd. The WEF and the UN. The WEF representing the Multistakeholder Corporations. The UN with their International Rules. Like hand in glove WEF and UN official partnership agreement 13^th June 2019.. The United Nations implements their one world global governance rules and regulations worldwide to be adopted by UN State’s (Includes New Zealand) and the Corporations are deployed worldwide to accelerate the Global One World Governance Agenda to enslave populations worldwide.  UN Agenda 2030. Leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere, at every age.

Those political cronies that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington with their political policing are determining that the people have no voice to call them out on their corruption and lies. I urge you do not remain silent stand up, the more you speak up publically the easier it gets. It may seem uncomfortable, you may feel nervous at first but the more you do this, the more courage you get, the more empowered you are. Remember Silence is the CON in CONSENT.

God Save New Zealand.

Link:  https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

We the people need to drain the swamp again another UN Agreement signed by the Labour Party only a few weeks before the General Election. I question how legal is this when Parliament has already broken up and resumes by different parties, hopefully when Parliament reopens..??

Daily Telegraph NZ 22^nd September 2023 reported Winston accuses Mahuta of breaking constitutional convention over UN Agenda 2030 Agreement signing.

Nanaia Mahuta has signed the ‘Beyond Biodiversity National Jurisdiction Agreement (BBNJ) at the UN in New York on 21^st September 2023. Winston Peters has accused her of breaking the ‘caretaker government’ constitutional convention in signing the international UN agreement. This agreement is part of the accelerated push across the world of the UN Agenda 2030 Global Development Goals (SDGs). To manage at lease 30% of the worlds terrestrial and inland water area by the year 2030. Parliament has already risen and its less than 2 weeks from when early voting begins which is the 2^nd October 2023. This should have been left for the next government to deal with. Mahuta when interviewed said she was doing this on behalf of Aotearoa New Zealand. Wrong the name of our country is still officially New Zealand you will not find Aotearoa on the world map. The dirty tricks of Labour, this UN Agreement is open for signatures for another two years, but she chose to do this just before the election

Why would you ever trust those behind the closed doors of Parliament, of course they all knew about this, but they all kept it secret from the public eye, until it was signed. There you have it, this means that UN approval will be required when it comes to shipping and deep sea mining, all activity on the high seas. This also means the inclusion of a diverse range of voices beyond UN Nation States (Beyond New Zealand) The BBNJ is legally binding under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This was agreed upon under the Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework in December 2022.

The Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted at COP15 it represented the most ambitious global agreement on biodiversity in the history of environmental governance, serves as the worlds framework for actions taken at all levels as to worldwide biodiversity. This has extensive provisions as well as reference to ‘survey activities, prospecting, exploitation in relation to seabed mining. The implementing of sustainability and blue economic objectives. The agreement Mahuta signed is interlinked with the SDG’s of Agenda 2030, namely to contribute to the realization of the ASDGs learning opportunities (SDG4) gender equality (SDG5), sustainable economic growth (SDG8 and climate action (SDG 13), Oceans (SDG14) All Global Goals.

Agenda 2030 Target 14.C aims to enhance the conservation sustainable use of the oceans and their resources by implementing this international law under the Convention, with international efforts on the attainment of the SDGs by using science, education and gender empowerment as drivers for this one world global transformation. The UN Agreement Mahuta provides a legal basis for partnerships with the private sector and holders of traditional knowledge. Drives a codification of new norms.

The Global Biodiversity Frameworks refers to ‘valuing nature after COP 15, systems, policy, action. The key takeaways include- Giving corporate sectors an economic reason to act in support of the GDF objectives. Where Nature is essential to the global economy, in accounting systems and corporations etc.,  Today there are Public/Private asset classes that offer ‘nature positive investments’. Leaders of Governments help scale up so called sustainable investments by detailing policies, objectives of  the Global Biodiversity Framework (Corporate Capture)

The GBF articulated by the Kunming Montreal COP15 is Agenda 2030 Target 19 focuses on the mobilization of US$200 billion annually by 2030 from public and private sources, is crucial for large businesses, corporations and governments. New Zealand Government joined nearly 200 parties in adopting the Kunming Montreal Biodiversity Framework on 19^th December 2022 at COP 15 meeting all but two countries signed up to this. Conservation Minister Poto Willians refers this global deal of nature as protecting land and oceans, ecosystems where the government committed to $1.3 billion to International Climate Finance to support global ambition. NZ doubling its contribution to the Global Environment Facility to $23.5 million

Poto Williams states “The global biodiversity framework recognizes the essential contribution of Maori and other Indigenous peoples to UN Sustainable management, and now we must partner with others to play our part. To implement our commitments through Te Mana  o te Taiao” . NZ Government introduced a National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB). This includes a Biodiversity Credit System Iwi Elite and Government Partnership. The growing interest in investing in Nature partnering with Local and Central Govt.

Researched By Carol Sakey

https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2022-media-releases/new-zealand-welcomes-new-global-deal-for-nature/

https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/biodiversity/Biodiversity-credit-system-snapshot.pdf

https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/winston-accuses-mahuta-of-breaking-constitutional-convention-over-agenda-2030-agreement-signing/?fbclid=IwAR1gFTMw9xmhJFKhKStUk9W2GtwQQL2JmZSiGhkivnAG2kJjKJEEmDQEafY

The IPCC was established and endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1988
The last IPCC Assessment report was 8,000 page synthesis. 264 scientists with findings on physical climate science * 270 scientists on impacts, adaption and vulnerability to climate change, 278 scientists on climate change mitigation. (Synthesis report is the combination of different parts to make up the whole).

The Grim Reaper Secretary General UN Tedros announcing to the world “Global boiling has arrived”. That humans are responsible. Tedross stating in a stressed mannerism “The air is unbreathable, the heat is unbeatable, the level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable”. The latest twist in the fear mongering as Guterres stated “Confirming that July 2023 has become the hottest month in the past 120,000 years”.

IPCC Section 4, ‘Near-term Responses in a Changing Climate’, assesses opportunities for scaling up effective action in the period up to 2040, in the context of climate pledges, and commitments, and the pursuit of sustainable development.
This is the era of ‘Global boiling, accelerated climate action by government leaders- policy makers, those that the public are not allowed any public debate about. Guterres the “era of global; warming has ended” we now have an “era of global warming”. Using fear and the pandering to ignorance I guess is a different kind of coercion, how ever coercion using fear is now a familiar one. Do as your told, change your behavior or you may get scolded or even scorched.

Persuasion far left socialism with controlling communist demands to impose their narratives on the whole population, where are the elements of the truth? Oh, that’s right = non-debatable.
Pushing, increasing fear is a well known tactic of promoting propaganda to support a narrative. Note in IPCC reports certain words such as ‘could’ this context has no content and what about likelihood of a referred event?

Political bullies that push the ever increasing lies to mislead and frighten people until they submit to whatever policies the government intend to impose. Agree or not agree they impose them anyway. Think about it ‘global boiling, scorching, scalding oouch steam burns, boiling water second degree burns eem touches the nerve endings. Of course its not global boiling. Oh, wait a bit, they are saying science is settled but they want you to feel frightened and unsettled.

UN Members Nation Governments worldwide have done their utmost to frighten populations of citizens into anxiety and distress, one crisis after another yep it does your head in. So you go silent, can’t deal with it anymore, bugger ‘Silence is Consent’. Loss of freedom is one of those responses to fear that the government has conjured up. Climate cooling, global warming, climate emergency, global boiling the only threat to existential humanity are the evil bastards that are playing this all or nothing fear mongering game with peoples lives.
There is no evidence of global boiling but there is evidence of the various scenarios adopted, embedded in the IPCC Assessment reports. This is all hot air and media hysteria the world is not on fire and the polar bears ae doing very nicely thank you.

Oh, by the way whom are behind the international climate governance beyond the State, these include individuals, companies, corporations, international organizations, industry associations, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations. The non-state actors involved in the UNFCCC system include environmental NGOs, activist groups, intergovernmental organizations, city networks, oil companies, consultancy and legal firms, carbon brokers, indigenous communities, trade unions, women’s groups, youth organizations and religious communities
You might find this interesting:-

The IPCC use certain scenario’s some are widely and aggressive. For example RCP 8.5 generally taken as a basis for the worse case scenario, is proved to be overestimation of projected coal outputs. It is also used for predicting mid century and earlier emissions based on current and stated policies

RCPs are space, time and dependent trajectories of future greenhouse gas concentrations and different pollutants caused by different human activities. RCP 8.5 is the highest baseline emissions scenario in which emission continue to rise throughout the 21st century, therefore much more severe than RCP4.5. This is quoted as being a ‘business as usual’ scenario, meaning the likely outcome of society does not make a concerted effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions

Researched By Carol Sakey