34 3 mins 14 yrs

earth.jpgI’m sure you may have read the IPCC’s latest "the world is going to end" prognostications. It appears that "Global warming may have “abrupt and irreversible” consequences and could cause the extinction of almost a third of all plant and animal species on the planet. The UN panel of 2,500 scientists is issuing its warning as governments prepare for a crucial climate summit in Bali next month. (Mmmm, nice location for the jamboree, but not exactly emission free, eh?)

Listen, the UN is a political body stacked with tyrannies. The IPCC is a politically appointed body, so let’s drop the pretense that it is somehow "neutral" on the topic of global warming. It’s not – it has an agenda and it pursues it ruthlessly, if lucratively.

As far as I can see, the real objective of this report is to assist Government’s in hiking taxation and on in controlling what we do. The REALTHREAT from this environmentalism is to our freedom. The IPCC is such a shoddy third rate political instrument that only the biased MSM give it any credence.

Just for starters, read this from Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007…

"As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters (The Hill Times, May 28, 2007). I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.

 

I would further politely ask Mr. Boucher to do a simple reality check regarding the earth’s temperature change. Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human-added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimetres of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918!"

 

We can rely on the media to parrot the junk science coming from the IPCC, and I am sure our political masters will appreciate the alarmism it invokes. If there is one good excuse for curtailing our liberties, why it is to save the world!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

34 thoughts on “MORE IPCC ALARMISM….

  1. It’s quite simple: anyone who disagrees with the ‘consensus’ is side-lined and then there is ‘consensus’ once more.

  2. The end is nigh! They aren’t doing themselves any favours by being alarmist IMHO because of the backlash – as we see here with Davids post.

    It would however be nice to walk down the road and not have to breathe in lead and ozone, I do live near a main road, with a lot of traffic. Pumping lead and ozone in to the air cannot be a good thing. Would you agree David?

    David, also, wouldn’t you prefer that cars emitted nothing more than water vapour? Wouldn’t you like to help maintain our green and pleasant land? Could we see some acknowledgement that polluting the environment with chemicals toxic to mammals and plant life is not a particularly good thing?

  3. Well yes, but I asked you.
    Do you think there are some urgent environmental issues and what are they?

    Something I read recently on the issue( don;t know what or who it was) but it struck me when the article agreed that there are some urgent issues but we should be seeing them as an opportunity rather than a threat. The opportunity of course is for the economy. Like the computer age, the article was arguing that through scientific innovation, discovery, development and of course mucho investment, this ‘crisis’ can be turned into the next economic revolution.
    Rather than sitting in think tanks and other bodies issuing warnings, the energy would be better spent facing the ‘crisis’ in that manner.

    I agree.

  4. Pinky,

    Don’t think there is much argument between us on this one, I agree with what you posted. My beef is with those who use genuine concerns to advance their political agenda. I’m writing an exclusive article on this for Pajamas Media and it should hopefully be published in a few days.

    I have two teenage kids and I want a great future for them and that means a clean and healthy environment.

  5. My beef is with those who use genuine concerns to advance their political agenda.

    Like who?

    Keep an eye on what has developed in Silicon Valley ( usually the site of the world’s next great wave of development).
    Most start-ups there are green. Even the hedge funds, private equity groups etc., have set up there en masse, and are beginning to put a lot of dineros into environmental/green development.
    Your favourite ( Gore) has (belatedly I think) taken a partnership/director position there recently, giveing 50% of his earnings to some green group. But your feelings about Gore should not drive you away- this is where the money is going, and if you have a few bob left after your holiday, it is where you should look for some investment opportunites.

    How many times have many of us said, Oh I wish I had a stake in Microsoft- well don;t be left wishing in the future- follow the money!

  6. From the original post:

    Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human-added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years.

    Really? So that’s why the huge Larsen B ice-shelf collapsed in Antarctica in 2002? It was because the temperatute was falling?

    "During 2002-01-31–2002-03-07 the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed and broke up. 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick broke off."
    See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf

    LOL!

  7. David.
    Absolutely agree with this. I too smell a rat.
    In this over-extended global economy, the rich, developed countries are getting desperate for more tax revenue and have a mind to get it, by hook or by ‘crook’.

  8. If AGW is junk science then why are the pages of major peer reviewed science journals such as "Nature" (journal of the Royal Society) and "Science" journal of the American AAAS) crammed with "alarmist" articles about climate change?

    Come to think of it why did the National Science Academies of the G8 countries release a joint statement warming of the dangers of climate change?
    Junk science is stuff like astrology, biblical creationism or alchemy…these 3 mumbo jumbo beliefs are not taken seriously by scientists.

    They do however take global warming seriously and if these people do then so should we.

  9. That snowfall in Buenos Aires wasn’t hardly anything. It was only notable because it normally doesn’t snow here but this isn’t the tropics. Indeed, the intense pollution encapsulating Buenos Aires for most of the 20th century is probably why it doesn’t snow here more often. But really the "snowfall" was just what people in the U.S. would call a flurry. Fun for people who have never seen any snow in the city but it’s certainly not scientific evidence that things down here in South America are getting colder.

  10. >>The IPCC is a politically appointed body, so let’s drop the pretense that it is somehow "neutral" on the topic of global warming. It’s not – it has an agenda and it pursues it ruthlessly, <<

    Hardly, David, as the scientists are government appointed, incûding by the US government. What agenda are the Americans pursuing here?

    And those two paragraphs by Khandekar, which is your main counterargument, would perhaps be more convincing if they weren’t mutually contradictory!

  11. in the 70s the next Ice age was going to kill us now we are going to burn…

    The planet drifts in it’s orbit, the arogance of man to believe that he is a a major factor in planetary weather fluctuations causes god to laugh…

  12. Michael.
    No-one really disagrees with global warming.
    It’s the breast-beaters that say us humans are causing it;…that is the controversy.

  13. I can’t help but think all this talk of global warming, of is it us or isn’t it all a bit of a moot point.

    Let’s just sensibly work to reduce pollution, reduce the output of things toxic in to the environment. There’s no need to get in a panic. And if some people want to panic about it, let them. I mean it’s technically possible that they are right, that we are coming close to global catastrophe.

    Let’s just cut pollution. The thing this planet needs is the elimination of oil as a fuel and commodity.

    Eliminate the oil, and find renewable sources of energy for the worlds billion or so motor vehicles. This would single handedly create political, economic and social reform in the middle east, and at the same time help to reduce man’s polluting impact on planet earth.

  14. "No-one really disagrees with global warming.
    It’s the breast-beaters that say us humans are causing it;…that is the controversy."

    No it isn`t contraversial at all any more. The National Science Academies of the G8 countries issued a joint statement saying they largely backed the IPCC`s conclusions that it is very likely that humans are adversely affecting the climate.

    http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222

    I think their opinions about this count for more than the opinions of the fossil fuel industry. Even Bush now accepts publically that anthropogenic global warming is real, despite the fact that the current US administration has in the past covered up or downplayed the findings of their own publically employed scientists (EPA). Never trust a politition over scientists over scientific issues.

  15. Very sensible comment Marvin. Cutting pollution should be seen as a worthwhile activity in it’s own right regardless of whether it has the slightest effect on the world’s temperatures.

  16. David, if someone tells you that your star sign determines your lot in life or…

    …tarot cards work or

    ….the Earth is only a few thousand years old and everything including people were made in the space of 6 literal days instead of slow evolution over billions of years THEN..

    you can dismiss their claims as pure fantasy. But the idea of real anthropogenic global warming has alot of weight behind it in the scientific community and thus should be taken seriously.

  17. Colm.
    "Cutting pollution should be seen as a worthwhile…" etc.
    Nobody disputes that, but CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a naturally occurring gas and without it life would cease on this planet. (Plants need it for photosynthesis).
    No thought is given to real pollutants like sulphides/nitrides/hydro-carbons/soot and the like, but scientists seem hung up on CO2 as the bogeyman, whereas it has been sky high in the past, but life still carried on.

  18. The denialists fall into three camps:

    1. The climate is not warming. (LOL)
    2. The climate is warming, but carbon emissions have nothing to do with it. (LOL, LOL)
    3. The whole thing is a giant conspiracy to bring about world government. (LOL, LOL, LOL)

    It would help if the many denialists on ATW could confirm which camp they belong to. I know they tend to drift from one to the other, but their main loyalty is surely to one of the three?

  19. It’s interesting to see the usual lip-service to the idea of cutting pollution coming from the usual suspects. But when it comes to concrete steps to do just that, they are invariably up in arms, in the name of their sacred individual freedom to pollute as much as they please. Recent examples seen on ATW include:

    1. An attack on Marks & Spencer for charging for plastic bags.
    2. Attacks on any steps to encourage us to use lower pollution cars.
    3. Attacks on the London congestion charge.
    4. Attacks on any restrictions or taxes on flying.
    5. Attacks on the whole concept of recycling, and proud boasts that they ignore it completely.

    Talk is cheap, actions count. These guys (occasionally) talk the talk, but they totally fail to walk the walk.

  20. The planet drifts in it’s orbit, the arogance of man to believe that he is a a major factor in planetary weather fluctuations causes god to laugh…

    even if our planet warms and cools because of oscillation of our solar orbit (or increased solar activity) you still fail to grasp the fact!! that increases in atmospheric carbon adds a positive offset factor to any heating or cooling regardless of outside influence. ie if our solar position causes temperature increases then the increasing atmospheric carbon will amplify the effect due to increased rentention.

    sooner or later you are going to have to accept that the science is infact "in". the only debates we should be having are on possible effects and mitigation. i personally can separate the two issues and feel comfortable with the scientific communities results. I do though have concerns about just how the worlds leaders and governments intend to implement change.

    what really gets me going though is the fantasy that this is some sort of perfect oppurtunity for socialist reform. that just flies in the face of how our world functions. thats not to say their are environmental ideologues who would like to see a social paradise of global symbiosis, but they are not the rulers of the world. infact we know its all right wing paranoid hooey when we look at arch-nemesis al gore. far from trying to effect radical social change he is infact seeing it as a market oppurtunity. or in other words a tremendous gold mine. thats gores true progressive nature, not progressiveness for the people but progressiveness in the markets. in the same way the modern conservatives arent particularly concerned about conservative principals for the people but conservative markets. its an elitist schism of sorts.

    They will seek austerity from the majority, while their tiny majority will be unaffected. i find it difficult not to merge this with the current assaults on the western (or worlds) middle/lower classes, the "war on terror" and recent conflicts. Quite how the plebs of rightworld manage to separate the need for change while continuing to effectively support the same caste who unleash all this on us will continue to mystify me for an eternity. you cant have it both ways !!!

  21. DT

    I think I get your drift, but you don’t make it easy to follow your argument.

    The AGW theory will be as solid as the theory of evolution in less than ten years from now, but both theories will continue to be denied, often by the same people.

    The only question is will we act in time to prevent catastrophe. My feeling is that we won’t, and that future generations will hate us for our supine selfishness, as they struggle with a hostile climate.

  22. see. another demonstration of how the "war on terror" little more than an ideological truncheon.

  23. As the only contributor here who is not qualified to analyse the science I think the political implications are easier to understand. People in general have goodwill towards low-level environmental measures. The plastic bag tax in Ireland is 22c and there is no opposition to it. We all knew we were using too many of them and the Supermarkets insisted on handing them out for free.

    The government will also get away with taxing flights and petrol at a level that does not really interfere with our plans.

    But if the alarmists are right that will be far from enough. The kinds of measures they imply are needed are simply impossible politically.

    So have we any agreed timeframe for making a call on who was right. 10 years? 20 years? Will we be under water? Or under Islamic rule.

    Or will we still be arguing about which is more likely?

  24. But if the alarmists are right that will be far from enough. The kinds of measures they imply are needed are simply impossible politically.

    Rubbish. If we make a determined start NOW, we need not suffer significant changes to our way of life. But the longer we leave it the tougher it will be.

    Here’s a start:

    1. Carbon sequestration fitted to all coal fired power stations, by 2020.

    2. A big investment in nuclear power.

    3. A big push on renewable energy, to include a "manhatton project" on research and development.

    4. A big push on energy efficiency, including vehicle emissions, buildings insulation, phasing out incandescent electric light bulbs etc.

    None of the above means the end of life as we know it, despite the alarmism of the denialists.

  25. I think I get your drift, but you don’t make it easy to follow your argument.

    sorry, but this issue gets to the very heart of the age old debate of reason versus irrationality. its a classic progressive v conservative problem. its just a pity the conservative foot soldiers dont realise that they are, as usual, on the wrong side. pick any major issue of the past few centuries years and the divide was the same. the enlightenment, slavery, voting rights, workers rights, womens rights, civil rights, air pollution or water pollution the list goes on.

    its a fundemental and core issue. and the reason i raise the spectre of "the elites" is because it is their decisions that will decide the path we take. unless, as with all those other historical examples, the people dont stand up together and be counted. its going to happen one way or the other anyway. because the current system is bordering on failure (for the people).

    The only question is will we act in time to prevent catastrophe. My feeling is that we won’t, and that future generations will hate us for our supine selfishness, as they struggle with a hostile climate.

    Personally i just get on with it. i dont use plastic bags any more and ive changed all my bulbs to low energy. if everyone changed did even this it would have a significant effect. and if i was in a position to effect change id just ban the old style bulb and be done with it. they did it with ALL electronics (RoHS/Lead Free) and nobody even noticed. Not even the markets. As usual it just proves that most conservatism is just an excuse for ignorance.

    Cue cries of "communist"

  26. Henry,

    "As the only contributor here who is not qualified to analyse the science
    […]
    But if the alarmists are right that will be far from enough"

    Just to clarify, who do you refer to as the ‘alarmists’ and on what basis?

    Do you mean the likes of the IPCC or those who say that the IPCC is too optimistic?

Comments are closed.