Peter Clack

@MareIntern 475 million is correct... A conservative figure....

@PeterDClack (…) of 475 million wild animals yearly? Show a reliable source or correct it. The fight against climate agenda that cripples my country is serious and pulling numbers and narrative out of a hat, does not help.

They bulldozed vast stretches of the living Amazon basin for a crude highway to help shuttle 50,000 delegates to COP30. This was November 2025 - and modern civilisation was crashing the party of an ancient rainforest in order to save the planet. It was a profound environmental insult already shrouded in the past. Instead of global outrage, its an enduring scar. The road access debacle carved a 13km wound directly into the bloodstream of the protected Belém Environmental Protection Area. A causeway of lifeless red dirt was driven through dense green jungle, as mud-caked excavators sputtered under the banner of summit preparation. This was progress on the march. But this isn’t just 'any' jungle - and it was a real highway only for a moment. Now the 'Avenue of Liberty' is a tawdry access road for the drug cartels, illegal loggers, and opportunistic cattle ranchers. Cash crops like soybean and oil palms are also eating the jungle alive. The legacy of this crime are the fragmented habitats and a massive localised spike in fresh roadkill (in a country losing 475 million wild animals yearly to roads). The global elite descended on Belém, lectured the world on the environment for a few days, then flew away. The bureaucratic class got their photo-ops, but the ecosystem was left permanently changed, and powerless local indigenous peoples were left to rue their shrinking homelands. Now, no one even bothers to remember. It's just another example of the biodiversity nuisance getting in the way of progress.

@Stillwa32737642 Thanks...

@PeterDClack I always enjoy your posts, Peter - beautifully written!

Harsh climate scenarios have spent decades painting Earth's likely future landscape as dystopian, dark, barren and forbidding. Yet, recent physical data argues exactly the opposite. Instead of plunging the planet into chaos, it's becoming eye-catchingly greener - and CO₂ is the key. The formal models predicted a scorched planet, but NASA satellites unleashed a world that is biologically thriving. This silent miracle of global greening isn't some theory, it's the physical reality captured by the orbiting space platforms; MODIS instruments on NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites. This is how these jarring narratives have been unfolding: * Official Climate Narrative: Rapid, systemic desertification and global canopy loss due to rising temperatures. * Hard Reality: Persistent structural greening across more than 30% of the global vegetated area over the last two decades. * Official Climate Narrative: CO₂ acts strictly as a destructive atmospheric pollutant driving extreme weather. * Hard Reality: CO₂ is plant food, driving down stomatal conductance, making plants use water more efficiently and expanding the leaf area index. * Official Climate Narrative: Global food supply chains are on the verge of climate-driven collapse. * Hard Reality: Agricultural yields bolstered by CO₂ fertilisation are expanding green cover in semi-arid zones like the African Sahel and Western Australia. Plants are not passive victims of these often fudged climate waystations. Increased atmospheric carbon should be a blast of rich green reality. Higher, more robust CO₂ is not a death sentence - which is what they argued. It allows vegetation to open their pores (stomata) less, yet absorb the same amount of carbon. This drastically reduces water loss through transpiration. It's why the world's arid desert regions are blooming and the fragile living desert is raging into life - plants are also becoming more drought-resistant. This oft-neglected climate resurgence reveals that the biosphere is its own self-regulating flywheel. A massive global expansion of leaf cover is already visible from space. Official computer models consistently fail to mention it. Nevertheless, a vividly coloured renaissance is dutifully taking place, sweeping away all doubts.

@Preporhtnasim The climate scheme has nothing to do with science. It's sheer propaganda by the socialists running the UN, and the greedy asset managers, investment schemers and the utterly brainless leaders in the dying light of western life.

@PeterDClack The vast majority of scientists, using the scientific method, say differently. If 95 scientists said ice was unsafe to walk on & 5 said it was..I might risk walking on the ice..but not with my kids..You?

@RichardPaving The 'unborn people'? What are you on?

@PeterDClack This greening is unfortunately the proverbial canary in the CO2 coal mine. It is on its back with its legs in the air. But it's okay to enjoy it if that's what you like to do. The unborn people of the future may not exist if we carry on with our selfishness though.

@chuzbucket You are well judged in your choice of a fictional name. The dying of the light won't affect you.

@PeterDClack Last I checked, climate change has produced many examples of dry, barren, brown landscapes. AND nice green tropical ones. As predicted decades ago, CC increases precipitation AND evaporation. No surprise that CC deniers cherrypick the pretty examples.

@x22Report110 It means the people behind this entire charade have no clue about climate on our blue green world. They are obsessed with their own agenda of one world government.

@PeterDClack In short, parts of the planet are becoming greener in some ways, but that doesn’t contradict climate risk models or mean the system is uniformly “thriving.”

@salingergregor Pathetic ... Inaccurate... Unchecked... Misleading...

one reason why climate change denial isn't a thing really in Europe (some right wingers deny its human cause tho) is because Europe is the place which has heated up the most and will further have about 2x as much temperature rise as the global average unless the AMOC slows down

@ralph_jreinhard That is not what i said. Take your lies elsewhere...

You are right: “Human energy systems changed faster than the old models thought possible.” Who would have forecast the tremendous cost declines in solar, wind and battery technologies, or the rapid rise of EV cars and trucks? Who would have predicted that China would become the global leader of the transformation… Time to adjust the basic assumptions of the scenarios, right?

The IPCC has now explicitly acknowledged that their own forecast of a 5°C future driven by human emissions is no longer credible. It is the baseline trajectory of our world 'no longer'. This dire forecast was quietly dropped because human energy systems changed faster than the old models thought possible. Over the last two decades, trillions of dollars in capital allocation, global treaties, national regulatory frameworks, and corporate ESG metrics have been anchored to a one-dimensional climate model. That model says bluntly: we are headed down a species-ending climate black hole. But as technical experts increasingly point out, the extreme catastrophe scenarios used to justify these sweeping economic changes are actually highly implausible. They create a massive belief gap and an erosion of authority. Why should anyone believe the sweeping mandates just because 'they say so?' The picture remains muddy because the IPCC writes by massive consensus, which blurs their language. It is indecipherable to almost everyone. They won't use a blunt word like 'implausible' in their public summaries because they want to guard against unexpected Earth-system feedbacks—meaning us. To maintain political and financial momentum, it is much easier for the IPCC to quietly reclassify its worst-case scenario as a low-likelihood 'stress test' in the fine print. Yet it's keeping the public-facing rhetoric largely unchanged. They stopped short of calling these futures completely impossible. Instead, they changed how those scenarios are meant to be used, moving them from 'business-as-usual' to extreme high-risk outliers. The scientific community is moving to confirm this lack of clarity. Climate scientists designing the next generation of models for the upcoming IPCC Seventh Assessment Report have openly discussed dropping the old extreme scenarios because real-world trends have made them indefensible. Instead, the technical focus is shifting to a new baseline that peaks much lower, around 3°C to 3.5°C, even under a hypothetical rollback of clean energy policies. The public narrative still lags behind this technical realisation—the institutional river keeps coasting on the momentum of the older, hotter models. In other words, they refuse to openly admit it. When a policy goal transforms from a flexible, data-driven scientific inquiry into a rigid moral directive, it stops reacting to new evidence. If the 1.5°C or 2°C targets are treated as absolute baselines, then admitting they were calculated using flawed or overly pessimistic assumptions threatens the entire administrative structure built to police them. It creates a strange paradox: the data says the extreme 5°C future is off the table because global energy dynamics changed. Yet the bureaucracy insists the crisis is more urgent than ever, and the mechanisms must remain in place. Nothing is clearly stated anymore. When the language of science is adopted by a centralised bureaucracy, clarity is the first casualty. It was replaced by consensus-driven wording designed to protect the institution's mandate rather than reflect shifting real-world data. The original assumptions diverged significantly from reality. Specifically, those old 5°C models wrongly assumed there would be a five-fold expansion of coal use through 2100, effectively replacing other forms of energy with coal. Real-world exponential growth in solar, wind and electric vehicle adoption, alongside tightening global policies, made that massive pivot back to coal an impossibility. The bureaucracy simply exploits fear of natural feedbacks to justify keeping a human-emission model they already know is broken.

@SS9weatherman I prefer not to be your old chap. My text is fully correct. If you say there is an error, what is it?

@PeterDClack Read the full report old chap?

This is absolute truth. What's your problem? The IPCC has now explicitly acknowledged that their own forecast of a 5°C future driven by human emissions is no longer credible. It is the baseline trajectory of our world 'no longer'. This dire forecast was quietly dropped because human energy systems changed faster than the old models thought possible. Over the last two decades, trillions of dollars in capital allocation, global treaties, national regulatory frameworks, and corporate ESG metrics have been anchored to a one-dimensional climate model.

@PeterDClack Fear mongering

@FozzTheMozz This is true - and bulletproof. What do you disagree with? The IPCC has now explicitly acknowledged that their own forecast of a 5°C future driven by human emissions is no longer credible. It is the baseline trajectory of our world 'no longer'.

@PeterDClack Incredible how wrong you are

@arealmermaid2 Dismantle the United Nations.

@PeterDClack So, long story short, what are your recommendations?

@Satnaai No I am not.

@PeterDClack It changed because we’ve built renewables faster than thought possible. We need to keep increasing the pace of renewable energy investment. Glad you’re now in favour of renewables, Peter.

@JimBowersclimb More rubbish... you don't know. Nobody does.

@PeterDClack And yet actual warming WORSE than worst case scenario

@151Call Well, i don't know. Nobody does. Ideally, it should be around 1,000 ppm to match the levels used in professional greenhouses for maximum growth and quality.

@PeterDClack What do you believe the maximum concentration of CO2 will be in the atmosphere over the next 100 years? 700ppm or will it be more? What do you believe climate sensitivity is to CO2? 3.6C or do you believe it to be higher?

@GeoFreC What a laugh. I covered that story on the night. It was an absolute fizzer. A waste of years of money and effort by woke sick people, all imagining voodoo in the machine.

@PeterDClack You are following the same argument they trotted out after the Y2000 event. People said there wasn't ever a problem. No, Y2000 was avoided because people took action. If this is true for climate change then hoorah! Maybe we saved the planet!

@oscar32736 Unfortunately, the global warming narrative is just a convenient scam for the socialist led Un-united Nations.

@PeterDClack And this also " The dominant driver of recent global warming (mid-20th century onward) is unequivocally anthropogenic (human-caused), primarily from greenhouse gas emissions. Natural factors have played a very small role."

@StevenBagley10 Yep, $9.2 trillion more every year, new graveyards for this junk all the time. Meanwhile, how many Eagles, bats and other avians plunge to their deaths every day?

@PeterDClack Don't be fooled by these people, hold them to their earlier predictions as mush as possible and never forget them. They are simply trying to buy time. The world is still wasting enormous sums on climate policies and climate research, money better spent elsewhere.

@BarkmeijerMenno @ppglane You failed to provide a word of argument and evidence. It was just mouthing off.

@ppglane @PeterDClack Try again, this time with facts, argumentation and evidence. Name-calling is a good strategy when you're in kindergarten.