It's not about most people believing what the propagandists tell them; it's about them being too disinterested and dopy to question what they are told: to actually use what intelligence they have to make their own decisions. And that doesn't mean accepting the first thing that pops up on Google. Most people are slaves to crooked politicians, to whom they have surrendered their thinking. They even keep voting for the same crooks, no matter what is done to them.

The article makes several inaccurate claims about the IPCC and UNFCCC.

Firstly, it suggests the IPCC acts as a lobbyist and that the UNFCCC exaggerates its findings to pressure governments. In reality, the IPCC provides scientific assessments on climate change based on peer-reviewed literature and extensive expert reviews, while the UNFCCC facilitates international cooperation based on this science.

The article claims the IPCC focuses solely on man-made climate change, ignoring other causes. However, the IPCC assesses a wide range of factors, with the scientific consensus identifying human activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, as the primary drivers of recent warming.

It misleadingly attributes higher temperatures in the 1980s to El Niño events. While El Niño affects short-term temperatures, the long-term warming trend is driven by increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Climate models, which the article describes as primitive, have evolved significantly and are validated against historical data, confirming the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

The article questions the accuracy of the "hockey stick" graph, which depicts a sharp recent temperature increase. This graph has been validated by multiple studies. The IPCC considers a broad range of scientific literature, including natural climate variability, but the consensus remains that human activities are the main cause of recent changes.

It incorrectly claims that IPCC models are unvalidated. These models are crucial for understanding and predicting climate dynamics and are rigorously tested. While the IPCC primarily relies on peer-reviewed papers, it also cites credible government and international reports, providing a comprehensive view of available knowledge.

The article criticises the IPCC for not mentioning the benefits of mild warming, overlooking that the IPCC assesses both risks and benefits. The overwhelming evidence indicates severe risks from continued warming, outweighing any short-term benefits.

The Paris Climate Agreement is based on validated climate models and observational data, supported by the scientific community. Claims about dubious pre-industrial temperature accuracy are addressed by using proxy data like ice cores and tree rings to estimate historical temperatures.

The article's claims are based on misconceptions, selective information, and misunderstandings of climate science and the roles of the IPCC and UNFCCC.

it's about them being too disinterested and dopy
ttbn,
Yep !

ttbn,
It took only four days to prove yourself right !