University of Oslo professor: "the IPPC has decided that the fear of the future is currently their most powerful weapon in the battle for public opinion"

Dr. Ole Humlum, professor of geoscience at the University of Oslo, has written another excellent article about some of the things the global warming establisment does not want to discuss. The article is in Danish, but I have translated these excerpts:

There have been many good effects of the observed warming until 2000, and a possible future warming (if it ever comes ) is also likely to have many positive effects. However, this aspect of climate change rarely gets any attention. According to the UN FAO, agriculture has increased its productivity as temperatures and CO2 have increased, partly because plants generally grow better with more CO2 in the atmosphere and at the same time increase their resistance to drought. FAO reports that global food production on this basis is expected to increase by about 55-60 % by 2050 with the IPCC predicted climate changes. If the temperature would not rise, or if it would actually sink, the results will unfortunately not be as good. Past climate history clearly shows that. However, from the IPCC - well backed up by various news media - we have heard an endless stream of potential climate threats, altough often without backing in the report's scientific section. It seems to me that the IPCC has decided that the fear of the future is currently their most powerful weapon in the battle for public opinion. --

There are many more oddities related to the AR5. In this new report the IPCC for example almost totally ignores the lack of temperature rise during the last 16-17 years. Objectively speaking, this is very strange, since it is supposedly the fear of continued warming, which since the IPCC's creation in 1988 has been the main argument for the large apparatus, which in many countries has been initiated to address a continued increase in temperature. In particular, this apparatus has been directed against atmospheric CO2 that the IPCC considers as the main cause for the rise of the global temperature after 1975.

The fact that the temperature has not risen should therefore logically result in great joy with the IPCC. But it certainly has not been the case. Rather, it is my personal experience that the highlighting of this joyous situation often triggers irritation and anger, or at least a swarm of explanations of where the 'missing ' heat may hide. There is no will to discuss that the climate models could be wrong, even if that really should be the first question to be raised, when nature does something else than what the models predicted. At the same time, it is clear that climate models generally are not able to reproduce important natural climate variations, which according to the IPCC itself may be responsible for up to almost half of the past - but now stopped - temperature rise.