The Threat From Climate Disintegration Is Not Coming, It’s Here
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the largest scientific panel ever created on any subject in human history. Many have, unfortunately, chosen to believe this panel of scientists is paid to put out falsified "alarmist" data. The reality is this, yes, the IPCC has put out a great deal of false and misleading information, but in the exact opposite direction of what many have convinced themselves of. The threat we face is not off on the horizon somewhere, the climate and biosphere implosion is here, now, and the entire web of life is at stake. Government sponsored organizations like the IPCC are tasked with masking the true extent of climate disintegration, not disclosing it. Once the wider population fully awakens to the truth that the biosphere is indeed imploding and that we have all been forced to be a part of a massive and highly toxic climate engineering experiment (which has helped to fuel the overall planetary meltdown), panic will ensue. What other steps have governments taken in the attempt to hide the converging cataclysms and the climate engineering insanity? The US is firing many climate scientists and putting illegal federal gag orders on the rest. On the other side of the planet US ally Australia is doing the same. In the meantime, the carbon industry continues to fund a constant parade of disinformation while the Arctic melts and heat records continue to topple. Global climate engineering is further fueling the planetary meltdown from every direction. If the human race does not completely and immediately alter its current course, "Venus syndrome" will be the final destination. Though the report below does not cover the geoengineering factor, the front line assessment of biosphere damage is on target. Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org Global climate engineering is helping to fuel the overall planetary meltdown. Could This Be Our Biggest Blunder On Climate Change? Source: The Mound Of Sound In the early years of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, we were introduced to what was presented as a long-distance, multi-generational phenomenon. We were told if we didn't change our ways things would be pretty rough for those who would follow us two or three generations down the road. Take Arctic sea ice, for example. The IPCC warned us, not that long ago, that if we continued with our usual fossil energy pattern the Arctic could be "ice free" by 2100. To forestall that we were told we needed to sharply cut our carbon emissions and rapidly transition to a clean energy economy. 2100, they might as well have said 4100. A number of studies have shown that it's human nature to see numbers as distant as 2100 as almost irrelevant. People will sacrifice if necessary for their children's survival. They might even entertain some sacrifice if they perceive a realistic prospect of harming their grandchildren. But 2100, 84 years from now? Who cares? They can't connect themselves to that. It's too distant. Why should they sacrifice now for something that might, might benefit people they can't even envision that far down the road? You know what does work, what does motivate people? You may see it soon enough. What works is when people see what's barreling down on them – here, now, or in the next ten to twenty years. That gets their attention. Florida. When it comes to climate change many Floridians have been dead from the neck up until very recently. Three words – sea level rise – and the switch was flipped. The governor may still be brain dead but people with those lovely waterfront homes and condos woke up from their collective coma. They began to understand that the seas were going to rise and this was not a good thing when you own low-lying waterfront property. They began to understand the climate change Trifecta – sea level rise, high tides and storm surges. People began to learn what that holds in store even for their utilities – electricity, fresh water and that all important one, sewage. Let's go back to the Arctic and that sea ice business. 2100 was the date until just a couple of years ago when the US Navy said its people figured the Arctic would be ice free for navigation by 2020, perhaps even as early as 2016. Guess what? It's going to be ice free for navigation this year and, if not, next year for certain. What ever happened to 2100? In 2010 they were telling us 2100. They were only out by 84 years. How in hell did that happen? What else did they get wrong? Plenty, it seems. Back in 2010 we talked a lot about "tipping points." The idea was that we had to keep man made warming below 2 degrees Celsius if we wanted to avoid triggering these tipping points that would launch us into runaway global warming. These tipping points were triggers that would activate natural mechanisms that would release masses of greenhouse gases far in excess of anything man ever emitted. That magical 2C target? Well that was a political number ginned up by – you guessed it – the same people who said the Arctic would be ice free by 2100. At the Paris climate summit last December, even our politicians could no longer put up with that 2C nonsense. So they came up with a new nonsensical figure, 1.5C. That was the new, "never exceed" number to avoid catastrophic global warming. The scientific community was quick to point out that, with the existing atmospheric loading of persistent greenhouse gases, we've already locked in 1.5C of warming. In a combination of sarcasm and anger they pointed out that it was a great target but it meant decarbonizing our economy and our societies now, immediately. In other words, that horse has left the barn. Our enviromin, Ms. McKenna can say she's going to close that barn door but she's just blowing smoke up our backsides. How could the IPCC get it so wrong? How could they warn of an ice free