The UN’s Climate Change Agenda is So Extreme Its Own Analysts Can’t Defend It

Advocates of aggressive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change have posed as the defenders of “consensus science,” labeling any who dissent from their agenda as “deniers” with all of the baggage that term entails.

And yet, as I’ve been pointing out for years, the peer-reviewed economics literature does not support the popular United Nations’ policy goals, of limiting global warming to either 2.0°C or the even more stringent ceiling of 1.5°C. Back in 2014, I used the latest issue of the UN’s own authoritative report—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—to make my case, and last fall I explained that the new Nobel laureate, William Nordhaus, had a career in climate modeling that did not come anywhere close to supporting the aggressive UN goals.

In the present post I’ll make my point with yet another striking example. I will show that one of the lead authors from the UN’s “Special Report” on the 1.5°C target is a co-author of a 2018 paper that admits the goal is difficult to justify. This should be shocking to naïve citizens and those who assumed that “the science” must all support the UN’s temperature goals. Yet as this example demonstrates, the UN’s new goal is so extreme that it’s difficult for even sympathizers to come up with a way to try justifying it using conventional economic analysis.

Rachel Warren’s Credentials

To set the context: Last fall, the United Nation’s IPCC released a Special Report telling policymakers various ways to (attempt to) hit the goal of limiting cumulative global warming to 1.5°C. The third chapter of the report summarized the recent economic research that had been published since the previous IPCC report (the Fifth Assessment Report or AR5). Rachel Warren of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (located at the University of East Anglia in the UK) is one of the lead authors of the chapter. Furthermore, Warren was author or co-author on at least four of the publications cited in the chapter. Here is an excerpt from her bio:

Rachel Warren is Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, UK.  Her research focuses on the production of policy relevant science related to climate change and sustainability.  A particular recent focus has been the quantification of the climate change impacts that can be avoided by timely mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular in relation to risks to biodiversity. She was a coordinating lead author of the 5th (2014) assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and lead author of the 4th assessment which was awarded the Nobel Peace prize on 2007.   Presently she is a lead author of the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C warming.  She has produced over 70 peer reviewed publications and over 40 scientific reports to government departments.

Her academic background and training is in physics and the natural sciences at Cambridge University.  After completion of her PhD she pursued an interest in atmospheric sciences and rapidly became involved in policy relevant research, a purpose to which she remains committed today.  She has assisted in national, European and international policy development relating to combating stratospheric ozone depletion, acid deposition, eutrophication, and (since 2002) climate change. In particular, her former work at the NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories provided evidence on the environmental acceptability of CFC substitutes, leading to inclusion of fluorocarbons in the Kyoto Protocol, winning the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratories Outstanding Scientific Paper Award.

As the above description makes clear, we are not dealing with a “denier” or a “stooge for Big Oil” here. Warren is a leader among scientists who are advising governments on various policies through which they can intervene in the market to reduce emissions from businesses.

Rachel Warren’s (Co-Authored) Paper on the Economics of the UN Climate Goal

Given her background, it is extremely revealing to see that Warren (and co-authors) have a 2018 paper entitled, “The Economics of 1.5°C Climate Change.” Now because I know just how ludicrous (given standard modeling assumptions) this latest UN target is, I was curious to see how Warren and her co-authors could possibly try to justify it.

The reader can hopefully appreciate my shock when I read the first two sentences from the Abstract of their paper: “The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5°C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties. However, it cannot be ruled out that the 1.5°C target passes a cost-benefit test.

The skeptical reader should go ahead and click through to read the quote in context; I’m being completely fair. Believe it or not, the authors—including a Lead Author on the UN Special Report which advises governments on how to hit the 1.5°C limit—are arguing that because we understand this area so poorlyfor all we know the UN target makes economic sense.

Is that the slam-dunk “consensus science” that citizens have been assured undergirds the suggested power grabs? Hardly. As I have been warning readers for years, the case for a carbon tax is far weaker than they’ve been led to believe.


One of the standard talking points among progressives is that the right-wing obfuscation machine will hide behind “uncertainty” in order to stall necessary action on climate change. And yet in this latest episode, the tables have turned. As Rachel Warren—a Lead Author on several important IPCC reports—and her co-authors argued in a 2018 paper, the uncertainty in our understanding keeps alive the possibility that the latest UN climate goal might pass a cost/benefit test after all.

via infowars


      1. It’s not happening here in the US anymore but from the other countries, let the UN go after them. I just don’t think we need to be the ones paying for it.

      2. YOU ARE SO RIGHT!
        BUT! those who advocate Global Warming like Al Gore and
        Leonardo DiCaprio, all fly around in PRIVATE Jets and have
        Carbon Foot prints the size of some towns in America!!!!

        Obama & Biden both purchased Beach front properties for a lot of money??? SO WHERE ARE THEIR PREDICTIONS????
        Not one has come true!!!

  1. The world is being smothered by air pollution, Man can easily control this type of air pollution. He just has to do it. Most of the trouble is he has spent all his money polluting the air, now he has to find some way to clean it up !

  2. Climate Change is not new, but humans have very little to do with it. The leftists are worshiping the creation instead of the Creator. Just like earlier peoples who did not have knowledge.
    The leftists are just using anything they can to control the populous; and only the weak and ignorant fall for it.
    Every bit of leftist theology on climate is simply junk science, written by non-climatologists, as theory.
    Climate is cyclical, based on the Earths’ rotations, the gravity of our neighboring planets, and the heat of the sun. Earth has endured severe climate events well before us, and will well after we are no longer.
    Many major events – more severe than what is cried about today – have happened in the past, that man could not possibly have had anything to do with . . . and we’re still here.
    If we were having any effect on climate, according to their prognostications, the world would have ended before now.
    Politicians, Hollywood dummies, and corrupt investors have been crying about it for decades, and each prognostication has come and gone without fanfare. Then they go on to another version, and go off into the world and spend their hard-earned fees, donations, and profits off “Climate Change” speeches, book deals, and guilted donations.
    Those who cry about it the most don’t live it at all.
    Obama just bought a $15 Million mansion by the sea in the very spot he said would be under water by now; so obviously he didn’t believe. Gore only travels by private jet, and limousine, and has homes pushing out carbon footprints greater than small nations. AOC’s manager admitted her recent policies have nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with controlling the economy and citizen behavior.
    Research the people who push this false narrative about climate, and you will see even they don’t believe it. If they did, they’d live differently. You will find that they are ALL Socialists.
    It’s all about control. Any reason to initiate Socialism will be used by the left.
    “Freedom for me but not for thee” . . . “Give me all your money and I’ll consider giving you what you need” . . . “I’ll tell you you’re getting it all for free, and you WILL believe me!” “I’ll be the King and you will be my serf, since I’m rich and you’re not”. That’s the Socialist Elite’s mantra.
    We SHOULD do what we can to conserve the environment, simply because it makes sense. We should use and reuse and recycle everything, because it makes sense. We should plan a future for our descendents, because that’s what good parents do.
    Smart conservative patriots should learn their own theologies about ‘climate change’. If you are stupid enough to believe any one of the screaming leftists, you deserve everything they do to you . . .

  3. It’s global warming and they changed it to climate change because it wasn’t selling!! Now they say climate change and the idiots are buying now! But it is all a farce and if you study history, really go backwards in time and study, you will see what this author of the article knows his stuff!!!

  4. Your the first person that I have read articles on that knows what climate change is. We cause about 10% of the ozone problems. Look at all the pollution and smoke volcanoes put out into the air. And Brazil burning down the rain forest does not help. The rain forest crate 20% of our oxygen we breath. The ocean puts out more co2 and harmful gas than we put into the air . This all comes up from the bottom of the ocean from vents from volcanoes under the floor of the oceans.

  5. If these Socialist Democrap Liberals want to preach Climate Change then go ahead and if you left leaning loonies want to label me a Climate Denier than so be it! I don’t for one moment believe that Climate Change is a Man Made problem. What I do believe in is Mother Nature and I also believe our Planets Weather goes in cycles. There was a time not so long ago we were all being told were headed for another Ice Age, when that failed to win us over the course was reversed and we were told about Global Warming but that still didn’t have the Sizzle these leftist were looking for so they coined the phrase Climate Change and BINGO they were able to win over the uninformed by the Masses. The old saying You can fool some of us some of the time but you can’t fool all of us ALL the time takes hold here. Until you Clowns can come up with Solid Undeniable Proof that what preaching is True then Climate Change will be viewed as a Hoax to those of us who are informed and have COMMON SENSE. Until that day comes you have All the Credibility of a SNAKE OIL SALESMAN!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *