Posts Tagged ‘ IPCC ’

So where are these climate scientists, gurus, our government is so sure of?


A planet in peril, or a society?

On ABC’s QandA political affairs program last Monday, aside from GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s collapse, we were privilege to the dulcet tones of Climate Change minister, Greg Combet.

A major part of his reassuring argument is that the government simply cannot ignore the warnings of all the world’s top scientists.

Noted empirical evidence – namely that we haven’t seen any warming in at least ten years – was dismissed as a rubbish argument.

No, Combet smoothly argued the scientists had to be trusted.

So? Who?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Even they’ve admitted they are just another UN body, and certainly not the “gold standard”.

They admitted they don’t necessarily promote views of the world’s “top scientists”, but rather, make sure every geographic region is represented as equally as possible.

Sorry, but that’s not the world’s top scientists.

No Frakking Consensus:

Leading scientists. Top climate scientists. The best scientific minds. That was the fiction. Now, at long last, the IPCC is admitting that its authors don’t, in fact, all belong to the highest echelons of the scientific community. Instead we’re advised that the IPCC has “always sought” to “achieve geographic representation.”

The end of Chapter 5 in my book reads:

Journalists say we should trust the IPCC’s conclusions because its reports have been written by the world’s finest scientific minds. But in order for that to be the case the IPCC would need to apply very different criteria when selecting its authors.

It would need an explicit policy that says something along the lines of: Even though we are a UN body, we are not influenced by UN diversity concerns. We select the world’s best experts and only the world’s best experts – regardless of where they come from or what gender they happen to be.

In fact, readers may recall that the crux of the IPCC argument, the one governments such as our own are rolling with (OK, well basically just ours), was written by a teenage boy.

The blurb:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. It surveys climate science research and writes a report about what it all means. This report is informally known as the Climate Bible.

Cited by governments around the world, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a United Nations report.

What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.

So?

Who?

What top climate scientists? Could Combet quote one? A credible one?

The “father” of global warming Gaia theory, perhaps?

No. Remember, James Lovelock came out recently and admitted much of the doom and gloom he’d forecast simply isn’t and hasn’t turned out to be the case.

Unfortunately, not so many other climate scientists are as free to revise their views as Lovelock is. You see, he doesn’t require government funding to keep him afloat.

That is a significant catch 22 that simply cannot be dismissed.

So?

Who?

Australia’s very own Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, who the government pays $180,000 per year for three days work per week?

Well, this is a bloke who predicted permanent drought for Australia’s three major eastern coastal cities.

Now the dams are as good as full, and the desal plants have been mothballed – at a cost of considerable billions.

So? Who?

That other government-paid climate expert, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who predicted our thriving reefs would be wiped out by now?

Who, Combet? Who, Gillard?

Who are they, are they on your payroll, and have any of their predictions come true?

Of course, their argument is bunkum, like as if a trace gas, of which humans produce only a fraction of, somehow drives global climate.

Hence, you’ll see more arguments like GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s; that being, “to rise above the politics”, like he said on QandA last Monday.

You see, to them, it was never about the science, even though that’s of course what they claimed and possibly what they also believed to a point.

And when the science started riding home, the hard empirical data that refuted the models, they argued it was time to “move on from that”.

OK. So we’re back to the political argument many claimed it always was?

Oh no, now it’s “let’s rise above the politics”.

Utterly vacuous words and sentiments. Deceitful, too – and perhaps to themselves the most.

People like Sheikh I do believe mean well. But he’s trying to change the way the world works because essentially, he doesn’t understand how the world works (and he must have been asleep in history class).

I would argue, however, that he does see genuine problems such as real pollution but has unfortunately, like many of our politicians and scientists, been caught up in CO2=pollution nonsense hypothesis.

He’s stuck.

He, like the other 50,000 delegates at the Rio+20 convention, have made and staked their careers on this.

Families to feed.

For example, what would he and his wife, Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) chairperson, Anna Rose, do if this all came unravelled?

What would Combet do?

What would Flannery do?

What would Gillard do?

Looking at the big picture, that is hardly important. It’s what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what they will do before time is up that actually matters in the broader sense.

Larry Pickering:

Now we know what Emerson’s “Whyalla” rendition was all about. It was a “get that up ya” celebration which wasn’t directed at us at all. He had already lost us.

Gillard’s old bed mate, Emerson, was serenading Abbott alone in a taunting display of ridicule.


*You know, if they’d actually just made it a big money-go-round – not a take from the rich, give to the poor – but an actual money-go-round, and admitted it as simply as that, something that might have stimulated the economy, I’d probably be half for it…*

Also, if this carbon tax did ANYTHING to lower global temperatures, then they might have a sliver of an argument. That said, the whole world could adopt it and not even Tim Flannery claims it would make an iota of difference.

Their argument of, “So what? We do nothing?” is fallacious. By wasting so much time, money, and endeavour on the carbon caper, there is in fact a lot we are not doing that we should be doing again.

The climate debate of 2011: round up, part 2


Following professor Bob Carter’s Part One of his climate review of 2011, here’s Part Two.

Stimulated by research spending of billions of dollars, inexorably, and month by month. torrents of new scientific information appear that are relevant to the twin issues of global warming and climate change.

No one scientist, or group, can possibly absorb and précis accurately the full range of this literature, though valiant efforts are made both by the IPCC and by its essential counterpart, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

To date, research findings are consistent with a largely natural, though still incompletely understood, origin for modern climate change. Discounting virtual reality computer model studies, no recent paper has provided empirical evidence that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring; and neither the atmosphere nor the ocean are currently warming despite the continuing increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

*my emphasis*

Read on.

Some tidbits:

Those bullet points link to the full stories. Bob’s piece has excellent, briefer summaries.

H/T

Sorry, not much man-made climate change predicted


Over the next 30 years or so, a new IPCC draft report tells us “climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability over the coming two to three decades”.

Could our chief scientist be any more ironic?


Ian Chubb:

AUSTRALIA’S chief scientist has urged the local scientific community to “stand up and be counted” to lift public understanding in the national climate change debate.

Professor Ian Chubb told a parliamentary inquiry the debate should be a “contest of ideas” and not an agenda-driven conflict.

“The scientific community as a whole has a great deal of responsibility to ensure science is elevated to where it once used to be, and not to be subject to attacks by people with all sorts of agendas,” Professor Chubb told the joint select committee inquiry in Canberra.

Australian Greens senator and committee member Christine Milne had asked Professor Chubb for his view on the success of sceptics in painting climate change science as a quasi-religion, with believers and non-believers.

How ironic that an agenda-driven scientist complains of driven agendas.

If our chief scientist wants to look at “agenda-driven” science, he’d best look no further than into a mirror, or perhaps across his desk at Greens MP, Christine Milne.

We have thousands upon thousands of people all banking on this trace gas quack theory. There’s the CSRIO, the agenda-driven IPCC, the ICLEI, Agenda 21, calls for more taxation, calls by the Greens for “global governance”, propaganda being presented to our kids in school… even my beloved F1 is being attacked.

If Chubb is so concerned about agendas, he’d best quit his job and shut the hell up.

Editor resigns because scientific “consensus” breached


Via Bolta who has all the details, basically what we have is the editor-in-chief of a prestigious scientific journal, Wolfgang Wagner of Remote Sensing, has resigned because a peer-reviewed paper they published was peer-reviewed by three scientists with at least some scepticism towards the notion that the minor human contribution to a mostly natural yet essential life-enabling trace gas, CO2, is driving dangerous man-made climate change, itself undetectable through empirical testing.

Not that the paper has been proved wrong, far from it, but the small clique of alarmist scientists wasn’t consulted – “consensus” was breached – and now the proverbial has hit the fan.

Details here.

UPDATE

And remember, this comes just days after another group of scientists at CERN were gagged by their boss from interpreting data they collected – data that flies in the face of the “consensus” of course.

Green energy: The Big Con


First up, if you think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific body rather than a political body with outcomes predetermined by ecotard government policy makers, then you are a moron.

This is especially telling when you have activists like Greenpeace writing key reports for them.

THE United Nation’s peak climate change body has become embroiled in new controversy over its use of Greenpeace and renewable energy industry propaganda in a landmark study on alternative energy.

More cartoons by Josh can be found here.

Continue reading

Drats. Global warming


The Aussie ski season has begun earlier this year.

There’s more snow over in the States, too.

Meanwhile, if anyone is still so worried about the harmless yet necessary trace gas that is our old friend, CO2, they’ve worked out a way to shove it into ice (and with an added bonus to boot).

They’ve done it in a laboratory: Scientists have injected carbon dioxide into the kind of methane ice that underlies vast tracts of permafrost in the Arctic and lurks beneath the deep seafloor throughout the world. In that experiment, the carbon dioxide exchanged with the methane molecules. While the CO2 was sequestered inside the ice, the scientists extracted an energy source that may exist in nature in greater volume than all other fossil fuels combined.

There’s lots there to read on about.

But back to us evil humans killing the planet, and it turns out the IPCC is wrong again and that species loss “is at least twice as slow as previously thought”. Well, at least the IPCC reckons they’re going to undergo some major reforms.

Speaking of dodgy models and predictions, good ol’ James Hansen at NASA has come out and stated that man-made global warming predictions have been exaggerated.

Na. You think so, James? :roll:

By the way, there’s a link at the end of that previous link which also notes the rate of sea level rise is decreasing, despite NASA wanting you to believe it has been increasing by cooking the books. It should also be noted 10% of sea level rise is due to land rising, also.

Meanwhile, a fair whack of this eco greenie claptrap is being scrapped in the UK and Canada.

Of particular note is that Canada link. Yes. They’ve scrapped their carbon tax.

Julia? Bob?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: