52 2 mins 9 yrs

images

It must be a bit embarrassing to produce IPCC reports insofar as so much of their content is plain junk. Today sees another concerted politically contrived effort to push the “man-made” global warming hype.

 

A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s. The report by the UN’s climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change. On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is “unequivocal”, it explained. It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

Ah yes , that pesky business of the world not performing as EVERY IPCC report has predicted and refusing to warm!  If you want a bit of  balance to the eco-cultist tax raising consensus based science junk, try this.

The new NIPCC report – Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science – makes a compelling case that the IPCC hypotheses, models and scares have no basis in reality. The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically debunks IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change – and that its computer models can be relied on as a credible basis for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios.

The NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is illuminating and easy to understand; its 14 pages should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science.

AGW is such a con. Of course the climate changes, it always changes. But to attribute warming since 1950 to 1997 with “95%” certainty to man seems remarkably short sighted since THAT time span itself seems so short, yet the cultists then choose to ignore the subsequent 16 years as being “too short” to take a view on. It’s risible stuff this and should be dismissed as such.

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

52 thoughts on “HOT AIR FROM THE IPCC…

  1. tonight’s forecast Dark, continued dark with widely scattered light at Dawn.

    That is the only forecast that you can ever depend on.

    Computer modeling on the scale that was attempted to get these predictions is beyond our grasp. The proof that they have never gotten the same results twice, or that those damn temperatures haven’t followed their predictions don’t seem to deter the followers of this destructive religion.

  2. As this post and many others like it, not too many people are really that interested in even bothering talking about Global warming, Climate change, Global cooling anymore .. let it die a death.

  3. Yep, they will get bored at some point Troll, they got bored with Acid rain, Bird-Flu, and a whole host of other righteous bandwagons, they will get bored with Global cooling formerly known as Global warming and Climate change soon enough.

    Even the elite rich list at the laughable IPCC are starting to twist themselves in knots, not so long ago the ‘Debate was over’ now .. they are 95% sort of certain it’s man made, only a couple of more trillion wasted Dollars more and that figure will change again, just like the weather 😉

    And we used to joke about the State one day taxing us for the air we breath.

  4. Rightworld denialist echo-chamber!

    Be honest guys, it’s not the scientific case that you really object to, is it? Admit it, even if it was proved 100%, you would still be against doing anything about it, for the simple reason that it involves big government regulation and taxation (hiss) and even worse, international co-operation (double-hiss).

    David, Troll, Harri (and maybe others) – can you join Pete Moore who honestly admitted this a few weeks ago? That way, we can stop pretending that the science is the issue.

  5. Peter –

    I think I honestly admitted, a few times, that even if I accepted the AGW theory fully, I would still oppose any State directives (which would supposedly be) in response.

    (In reality, all actions in response, regardless of the validity of AGW, are designed to enrich the special interests at our expense.)

    But I would oppose State actions for other reasons. One of course is that I don’t recognise the moral right of collective violence over others. I know, I’m odd, I don’t claim to own others!

    But there’s another reason also, and that is that State action will inevitably delay the cleaning and greening of society. Richer societies are cleaner societies. Britain hasn’t been so clean and unpolluted for a few hundred years, and it’s directly down to the miracles of capitalism and free markets, in those fewer places now that they can operate.

    It goes also for carbon. We’ll have carbon-free energies one day, and they’ll arrive quicker the sooner we become richer. All State acts detract from our wealth, so all State acts will delay that future. Everyone who believes the AGW theory really ought to campaign for unfettered capitalism and free markets. They’ll get what they want sooner.

  6. Peter

    The very nano-second the state got involved,(and the now super-rich IPCC elite) .. it all turned to shit dust 😉

    Let it die a death Peter.

    It’s all rather really boring now.

  7. Britain hasn’t been so clean and unpolluted for a few hundred years, and it’s directly down to the miracles of capitalism and free markets

    Really? The car manufacturers fought tooth and nail against state restrictions on lead in petrol and catalytic converters. It was regulation that delivered these gains, just as the clean air act in the 1950s ended the London smogs which killed thousands.

  8. Peter –

    Sorry, only wealth enabled and delivered lead-free fuel and catalytic converters.

    Many poor countries still do not have them, along with office blocks which can’t be trusted to stay upright. If it was simply a case of laws then their governments would simply have to pass laws. They cannot, because their societies are not yet rich enough to bear and sustain these things.

    I’m sorry, if your society cannot afford 10-storey office blocks with the highest standards, you ain’t getting them no matter how many laws there are. Get the wealth, then get the improvements.

  9. Oh Peter, by the way, your comment about lead-free fuel and catylitic converters was in response to my comment that we haven’t been so clean for a few hundred years.

    This is true, and it would still be true even if we still had leaded petrol and no cats. A major reason for disease in the age of the horse was because of the filth and disease caused by horse shit everywhere. Give everyone a horse instead of a motor running on leaded petrol and you’d see death rates shoot up.

  10. Really? The car manufacturers fought tooth and nail against state restrictions on lead in petrol and catalytic converters.

    Absolute bullshit, I work in the industry and let me tell you for fact, those car maunfacturing plants bent over backwards to change to waterbourne paints and VOC freindly processes, (even in China), the problem stems from one set of goal posts being moved everytime the car plants achieve one set of VOC figures, the central goverment allowed the local councils to over-ride the Enviroment agencies and moved the goalposts even further away, the cost to car plants is horrific.

    If you have any evidence to refute that, please show me, as for the fight against leaded petrol, car plants spend billions on Eco-engine design and the Chemical companies in conjunction with the automotive manufacturing plants around the globe have changed all the Electrocoat process plants to ‘Lead and tin free’ waterbourne pigments.

  11. Of course.

    We have far more efficient energy technologies now. That would have happened anyway. Why would we still be shovelling coal into bunkers when we can have better and cheaper central heating?

  12. Peter

    There is not one car plant left on the planet which uses High VOC (Volatile organic compound) high concentrate stack burn off solvent bourne paints, some are still 50/50, granted, but again Peter, I answered your question can you answer mine, show me evidence of any major car plant fighting ‘tooth and nail’ against eco-freindly VOC changesa set out by government.

  13. Oh Peter, by the way, your comment about lead-free fuel and catylitic converters was in response to my comment that we haven’t been so clean for a few hundred years.

    No-one disputes that Pete. But you refuse to accept that regulations (hiss) have contributed anything towards that. Rightworld lala land.

  14. Peter

    I bet you had no idea either that when you purchase a ‘Metallic effect’ paint on your shiny new car, you get charged an extra £350 for VOC burn offs, in reallity it’s actulay cheaper to paint a Metallic painted car with Mica basecoat and clearcoat than it is a Solid painted car ‘Monocoat base over clear’ .. where does that extra money go .. the guvmint of course, in fact you are being conned the £350 extra is a scam. (I have loads of fun with car salesman on this one) I ask them why on technical terms do I have to pay £350 extra for a basecoat and clearcoat when in fact its actually cheaper to produce .. they too have not got a clue.

    Still, never mind if it slows down Global warming eh, it’s worth it 😉

  15. Peter

    The Sience is the issue, it’s junk science

    How is that.

    Now can you answer my question .. or not?

    A yes or no will do.

  16. Harri

    Last time: if AGW was proved beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. like the earth rotates the sun) would you be in favour of action to tackle it or not, given that it will involve governments?

    Yes or no will be fine.

  17. Absolutely

    But If only those dinosaurs had paid that little bit more tax eh 😉

    Peter

    Now can you please answer my question?

    Crap.. now I have asked you again

  18. Peter.

    Do you honestly believe mere man can influence the Climate?

    Peter.

    Do you honestly believe that even if Climate change is real, man can influence that too?

    Peter, have you got any figures available that can calculate how much CO2 is expended when the machines of war are at full flow around the planet?

  19. Thanks Harri, at least we can stop debating the scientific case for AGW since you admit thta for you it is not really the issue.

    Troll?
    David?

    Will you come out and join Harri and Pete Moore?

  20. Do you honestly believe that even if Climate change is real, man can influence that too?

    By that question, I refer to Climate change or whatever the new buzzword is, we can actually reverse what Mother nature is doing.

  21. Harri

    The car-makers fought against seat-belts, lead-free petrol, airbags, yada yada yada…

    Of course they lost. Would you prefer if thay had won?

  22. Peter

    I called it ‘Junk science’ ?

    We are still worlds apart.

    How is it going with answering my question/s to you?

    Not very well I think 😉

  23. Do you honestly believe that even if Climate change is real, man can influence that too?

    Doh! Yes, if man is the cause. No, if we are not. But we are the main cause now.

    As Gore said: An Inconvenient Truth, and boy, aren’t you guys inconvenienced by it!

  24. Harri

    Why do you bother to dismiss AGW as “junk science” when you have admitted that you would not want any action taken even if it was proved 100%?

  25. Peter, on September 27th, 2013 at 9:32 PM Said:
    Harri

    The car-makers fought against seat-belts, lead-free petrol, airbags, yada yada yada…

    Of course they lost. Would you prefer if thay had won?

    No they didn’t?

    ISO9000 costs a fortune, The car plants are the worlds leaders in innovation.

    Todays cars are safe because of the innovation of car manufacturers and there chosen suppliers and not because of any governments, in fact it’s in spite of them.

    If any government department were in charge of any car plant, it would be closed down and out of business within a week or so.

  26. Harri

    Why do you bother to dismiss AGW as “junk science” when you have admitted that you would not want any action taken even if it was proved 100%

    Nothing has been proven as far as I can tell by science.

    It’s junk science … it’s on a par with second, third and now fourth and fifth hand smoke can kill you science 😉

  27. Harri, on September 27th, 2013 at 9:41 PM Said:
    Harri

    Why do you bother to dismiss AGW as “junk science” when you have admitted that you would not want any action taken even if it was proved 100%

    Peter, how about if I told you I was deeply religious and placed all my trust in the good Lord, and I am more than happy to let him sort it all out 😉

  28. Harri

    Stay in your comfort zone, you know better that all those scientists, they are just commie stooges trying to bring about world government, right?

  29. Peter.

    My comfort zone, is questioning everything they (the Government) say and everything they do and are a part of.

    And it is not comfortable, in fact it’s bloody hard work trying to even keep up with the pathological lying corrupt shits 😉

  30. Peter

    I will, and am more than prepared to make sacifrices on the alter of Global warming, just after the elite members of the IPCC stop swanning and jetting about the Globe and living in total opulence asking the rest of us not do the same.

    One more question, just why is the IPCC run by and full of self-righteous arseholes?

  31. Peter, how about if I told you I was deeply religious and placed all my trust in the good Lord, and I am more than happy to let him sort it all out 😉

    Well at least we can agree that’s a crock of shit 🙂

  32. One more question, just why is the IPCC run by and full of self-righteous arseholes?

    No, it’s full of scientists who have spent years studying the climate. Just because you don’t like their conclusions is no reason to smear them. I could just as easily say that Planet Rightworld is full of self-righteous arseholes, but it wouldn’t advance the argument, would it?

  33. Met Office, approx. last week of March 2012: “Hosepipe bans now seem certain this summer, no end in sight to drought conditions”.
    Actual weather, Apr-Jun 2012: reminiscent of the story of Noah’s Ark.

    Met Office, late June 2013: “We have to accept that this period of cool, wet summers looks set to continue for another five to ten years”.
    Actual weather, July/Aug (and most of Sep) 2013…..?

    Comedy gold!

  34. Man has completely altered the health of land, lakes and rivers, and it is entirely plausible that 7 billion people, burning huge amounts of coal, oil, gas, wood, and other things, etc etc , will impact the climate of the planetary ecosystem.

  35. You know, an interesting thought strikes me.
    Say we are presently using 6 million barrels of oil per day in order to power our vehicles and other things. (I don’t know what the actual figure is, this is just an example). Now, we can “see” that there exist 6 million barrels per day less of this liquid. It’s easy to count, or visualise this loss, as it involves an actual substance, of which there is some finite amount in existence.
    But say that instead of oil, we used wind, or tidal power to generate the same daily amount of energy. Because we cannot “see” the wind, nor can we “see” where the waves of the sea are coming from, we have this tendency to imagine that we would not be “using anything up” if we employed those sources. But the law of conservation of energy says otherwise. We can convert mass to energy and vice-versa, but we cannot simply create energy from nothing. Therefore, neither could we use wind/tides to produce our energy, without affecting/depleting the ecosystem which produces these sources, in some way.
    When a windmill converts the wind into the motion of blades, does the wind still blow in the same way, or with the same strength, behind that mill? Of course not, how can it? Now multiply that windmill by the number it would take to completely replace crude oil – there is going to be some effect, some weird kind of depletion in total global wind energy. It stands to reason. It’s not a self-perpetuating motion model; there’s no such thing.

  36. There’s an awful lot of wind and tidal power worldwide.

    I imagine that it’s a vast , too large to be calculated, multiple of the voal and oil burned today.

  37. Yes of course there’s a huge lot, but the point is, we cannot expect to draw energy out of any source without depleting that energy. And the overall effect would have to be exactly equivalent to the depletion of oil/gas reserves.

  38. Maybe…I suspect though that it would be only depleting that day’s wind energy available locally.

  39. I think I get what you are saying, Phantom, but I think (might be wrong, but I think) you are incorrect, I’ll try and explain further:
    We know that it’s the gravitational pull of the moon which creates the energy that makes tides in the sea. And nobody can stop the moon from spinning round the earth, therefore tidal energy is renewable and effectively un-depletable?
    OK, but consider this, the moon keeps rotating around the earth, yet tides are not getting stronger and stronger every year, therefore all its energy is being used up just keeping tides going as they are.
    Now, say a giant barrier was erected all the way from the north pole to south pole, to capture the tidal energy and convert it into electricity. As the waves hit the barrier, they are converted, and thus, beyond the barrier, the sea is motionless.
    In order to get those tides moving again, the moon now has to exert its energy upon a still ocean. How can it possibly keep the tides going at the same speed/pressure as before, when it was already only just achieving that amount of energy before the barrier was erected? Something (frictional energy) has been lost. The system might seem to be eternally renewable, but it’s an impossibility.

  40. //Something (frictional energy) has been lost. The system might seem to be eternally renewable, but it’s an impossibility.//

    Interesting question. Winds are caused by the heat of the sun on air and the motion of the earth. The source of both is constant and renewable. When air warms up it expands and rises, causing cold air to rush in from the sides, which leads to wind.
    Winds affect the environment, the seas and each other, and any use of wind necessarily slows it down and so reduces these effects.

    However, while there is around 200,000 TWh of wind power p.a. on earth, which would more than satisfy man’s total energy needs (150,000 Twh), only about 10 pc of total wind potential can ever be economically harnassed, so the effect would be slight.

  41. oil is not finite. it is an abiotic chemical that is created by the thermal geophysics of the planet.

    we couldn’t use it all up if we wanted to.

    right now no other eficient fuel exists, nor will it ever if you try to force a fuel that is not ready to replace it onto the market.

    Pump as much oil and coal as we can for the next 100yrs and we will discover a replacement. A forced choking of energy will and has limited our natural development tothe next stage.

  42. Oh Dear …

    Global warming, Climate change, Global cooling it is then 😉

    And now it’s global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
    BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
    Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2gDHuek8a
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Comments are closed.