More Contemptible Lying Bull$hit From The IPCC


Well, there’s another round of sophistry, stupidity, and simple dishonesty coming from the IPCC, again. 

Costs of climate change steep but tough to tally

Yes, imaginary bull$hit his hard to quantify.   This is fantastically stupid jackassery. 

YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) — The economic and financial impact of global warming is complex and not well understood. In some scenarios there would be economic benefits for countries that get warmer and wetter and consequently more fertile agriculturally. Drier weather in some regions would result in sharply lower crop yields.

Overall, changes in climate are expected to cause significant disruptions that also exact an economic toll. Advisers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say that the world economy may suffer losses of between 0.2 percent and 2 percent of income if temperatures rise by 2 degrees from recent levels.

Below are some of the costliest impacts, according to a 49-page summary from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which met in Yokohama near Tokyo this week.


Demand for residential air conditioning in the summer will rise from 300 terawatt hours a year in 2000 to about 4,000 terawatt hours in 2050 and more than 10,000 terawatt hours in 2100. Rising incomes will drive most of that increase, climate change a quarter of it. For comparison, Vietnam currently consumes about 100 terawatt hours of power in a year.

Remember the note about “rising incomes”.  But, I’d dearly love to see the formula they used to determine 1/4 of the AC usage will be because of global warming rather than people becoming more able to afford it.  They’re counting prosperity as a cost!  And, for comparison, we should all live like a third world nation where people can’t afford AC …. beautiful logic! 


Relocation of industries and communities will cost billions of dollars even in wealthy countries. Countries must also reckon with damage to transport infrastructure, homes, industries and agriculture from increasingly extreme weather, droughts and storms, especially in low-lying coastal areas.

Again, I’d love to see the breakdown of how they determine when industries and communities relocate it’s because of global warming rather than it being something which has always been done before.  This may come as a shock to nutters, but, the locations of industry and populations have never been static.  But, then, neither has our climate.  Which begs more questions   as how they differentiate the costs of regular climate change vs their new and improved imaginary climate change.  The reason why I ask is because hurricanes and tropical storms are declining in intensity and frequency.  So, too, are floods. and tornadoes.  There’s been little to no change in our droughts.  So how is it possible to say global warming is causing these things while they either don’t change, or have decreased in frequency and severity?  How much does that cost?


The impact is unpredictable: wetter weather could yield a windfall of $3 trillion in the U.S. in the 21st century; drier weather could raise costs by $13 trillion. Ensuring enough water for industry and other consumption will cost about $12 billion a year worldwide while development of water supply and provisioning in developing countries will cost $73 billion.

That’s utter nonsense.  It’s beyond stupidity.  How much wetter or drier do they believe it will get and where?  Oh, they don’t know the answers to any of those questions, but, they do know how much it will cost?  And people are suppose to believe them?  Well, it could cost us a gadzillion dollars, too!! 


A need for more labor to produce food to offset dropping crop yields could leave fewer workers available for other work. As food becomes more expensive, consumers may shift to cheaper foods but also spend less on other goods and services. Climate change may also increase competition for labor, capital, land and water.

Of course, the only problem with that notion is that crop yields have been consistently increasing for more than the past 50 years.   Do these IPCC nutters  take the time to check any real world data, ever?  Sorry, that was rhetorical.  They’ve got their head up their a$$es so far they can’t seem to manage to look around. 


Scientists say climate change will worsen poverty, especially in tropical, developing countries, but even in affluent countries. Climate-related diseases such as malaria and diarrhea impair children’s cognitive and physical development, while higher child death rates may lead parents to have more children, reducing the amount of money available to care for and educate each child.

LOL!!!  Yes, the old AC use from increasing income which also causes poverty!  Well, which is it?  Is income increases going to cause more people to afford AC or will they become more impoverished?  BTW, neither malaria nor diarrhea are “climate” related “diseases”.  Well, diarrhea isn’t a disease, rather it’s a symptom of many different diseases, but, why let these little facts get in the way of a great work of fiction?  Malaria can occur in just about any climate. 


Climate change raises the risks of violent conflict such as civil wars by amplifying the impacts of poverty and economic crises, while increasing competition for scarce land, water and food. The resulting damage, deaths and instability would exact a steep toll on affected economies.

Hmm, climate change causes scarcity of land?  Water….. again, they have no idea whether or not places will be wetter or drier.  Further, places become wetter and/or drier anyway.  It always has and always will .  We’re going to have more conflicts?  More than today?   Dang, wouldn’t it be nice if we could limit our conflicts back to a time when our climate was pristine and pure, like say …. IDK, 1917 … or the 1940s?  Or maybe when Europe’s climate was near perfect in the late 1700s and early 1800s?


Apart from the monetary toll from damage and uncertainties connected with climate change many impacts will exact a price impossible to tally in dollars and cents, said Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, a co-chairman of the climate change panel.

“We mustn’t forget there are a lot of impacts that you cannot quantify easily,” he said, such as human deaths, extinction of species, damage to ecosystems, loss of cultural heritage, among many.

LOL!!!!  “Intangibles” ….. Intangibles?  The whole idiotic report is based upon intangible BS the lunatics think they can quantify! 

It’s nothing but scary superstitious bedtime stories to tell children.    

This entry was posted in Climate, Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to More Contemptible Lying Bull$hit From The IPCC

  1. philjourdan says:

    The cost is being incurred now. As they squander billions per day while millions starve to death.

    The UN – the unpeople.

  2. Latitude says:

    Have you ever had this problem?…..where there’s so much to say…you can’t say anything?

    ….that makes my head explode

    Great post!!

  3. tom0mason says:

    Oh no! woe is me, woe is me and thrice woe is me….
    It is so bad!
    Worse than we thought!
    The AGW catastrophists are on the news and, and …..
    Woe, woe, and more woe! The five horseman of the IPCC pox have spoken….
    Life is a terminal affliction! And CO2 is the enemy…


    This report is so vapid that it demands a comedy spoof, where are the comedy writers when we need them?

    Meanwhile on the other channel there’s sport …

  4. tom0mason says:

    Where can I buy 200 Intangibles? As these will be a good investment for the future!

    • play nice says:

      yes, they are easy to store and will certainly increase in value but just try and get them pass the TSA
      woe is you

  5. tom0mason says:

    The warming is supposed to get things blooming earlier in the temperate regions, that’s why the cherry’s have bloomed?

  6. tom0mason says:


    More fraudulent science from EPA
    Finalized Tier 3 gasoline sulfur rules will bring bogus benefits at high health and welfare price

    read more at –

  7. robbcab says:


    Haven’t had a lot of time to spend on this stuff lately (I think I last spoke with you about 3 years ago), but I’ve been lurking at the usual skeptic places from time to time.

    The release of the AR5 WGII SPM got me thinking and looking back through the older reports.

    Take a peek at this:

    I decided to go all the way back to 1988 and look at the Hansen et al paper that “started it all” and compare his projections for both low-emission and high-emission scenarios (kind of like Steve Goddard has been doing). Then I decided to take the projections from the 95, 01, 07 and the current SPM and plot the official 2013 temps as approved by the IPCC against all the projections.

    Every projection for the last 25 years is not only wrong, but below the low-emission estimates. You know, the scenarios where emissions stopped in 2000.

    It’s almost like CO² has nothing to do with it. Whoda thunk?

  8. jimash1 says:

    I am going to post your piece in a forum to annoy the climate turds, because it is so comprehensive.

  9. Pingback: Warmist Lunatics Consistently Wrong For Decades!!!! | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s