Close this search box.

For the second time in 12 years, we have 12 years to ‘save the planet’

Anthony Watts of the skeptical climate blog Watts Up With That has looked at the latest U.N. report on climate change and points out that it’s nothing we haven’t heard before.

The United Nations has once again issued another dire climate change report (SR15, see it here) claiming we must act before it’s too late.  Summary here.  In the meantime, the audit of faulty climate data suggests the rush to judgment is unwarranted.  See our WUWT story: BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

The media has dutifully reported this latest round of climate “tipping points.”   The latest UN report has extended the climate deadline by which we must allegedly empower the UN bureaucrats to save the world until 2030 or just 12 more years!

Former Vice President Al Gore has also joined in, piggybacking on the UN for yet another tipping point warming.

Bear in mind, he once before said we have 10 YEARS, back in 2006 with his “An Inconvenient Truth[.]”

That the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can release these reports and keep a straight face should qualify the group for an Oscar.  Even NASA’s top climate scientist is skeptical:

Gavin Schmidt


Some thoughts on the @IPCC_CH report.

“The best time to start [reducing emissions] was 25 years ago. The second best time is today.” 

IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC

Responding to climate change is far more like a marathon than a sprint. The IPCC 1.5ºC Special report (#SR15) has been released: The press release Frequently Asked Questions The Summary For Policy…

Gavin Schmidt


I agree with @ABTagenda that framing this report as “we only have 10 years to act” as done by the @washingtonpost in their headline is neither correct nor helpful. Making better decisions on emissions is always going to be helpful – whether it’s now, in 5 years or in 20 years.



Watts tells us about a new book from fellow climate skeptic Marc Morano, who lists a few more “tipping points” after which we are all going to die:

But as the new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change reveals, climate tipping points have a long history of repetition, moved deadlines and utter failure.  The book documents that the earliest climate “tipping point” was issued in 1864 by [an] MIT professor who warned of “climatic excess” unless humans changed their ways.

Then there’s this from Al Gore:

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, Al Gore sought UN climate agreement – immediately.  “We have to do it this year.  Not next year, this year,” he demanded.  “And of course the clock is ticking because Mother Nature does not do bailouts.”

Gore has warned repeatedly of the coming tipping point.  Climate change “can cross a tipping point and suddenly shift into high gear,” the former vice president claimed in 2006.

Laurie David, the producer of Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, said in 2007 that “we have to have action we have to do something right now to stop global warming.”

Talking about climate change in terms of a decade or two is ludicrous.  If there is, indeed, a crisis and we are told we have 12 years to do something about it, it’s already too late.  We may as well build a gigantic fire and have a wiener roast and watch the end of the world.

It’s barely noticeable because the media haven’t found it sexy enough to cover, but several prominent climate experts over the last few years have begun walking back the notion of catastrophic global warming.  That’s the problem with the hysterics: they don’t do nuance.  Either it’s the end of the world or you are an anti-science, unbelieving climate apostate who should be thrown in jail for doubting.  The truth is, there is much disagreement in the scientific community – as there always has been – about how warm, what’s causing it, and how much of a threat the warming is.

But the U.N. and their true believing climate alarmist allies keep coming up with these deadlines based more on the political necessity to scare the beejeebees out of the public than on solid science.  They just aren’t credible and continue to give climate science a bad reputation.