The Pickering Post
Thursday, 23rd November 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Viv Forbes

Viv has a degree in Applied Science Geology and is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Blog

IPCC is more about Politics than Science


The science debate is over. They lost.

Decades ago they proposed a theory that Earth’s temperature is controlled by the 0.04% trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This theory was used to make predictions by at least 73 computer models.

Thirty years of observations has proven every prediction wrong.

Therefore their theory is wrong. That is how science works.

Now, faced with collapse of their theory and de-funding of their activities, the alarmist crew have switched to politics.

The IPCC Summary document released last week with all the hoopla of a political convention is a political document produced by consensus. It was negotiated by a faceless committee of international bureaucrats for their government masters, most of whom have a vested interest in proving there is a continuing problem needing international taxes and controls.

Consensus is the tool of politics. Public opinion is where the next climate battle will be fought.

They will lose again.



More

Back to Bolted-Down Industries


Party Time for Climateers


“Zero Emissions” will Test the Convictions of Canberrans

Comments

The science debate is over. They lost.
They LOST but they Won't ADMIT IT!

Why is the ABC promoting the privately funded Climate Council? As reported by the ABC, the Climate Council has a 12 month operating budget of $1 million ... which seems an incredible amount of money, but why is it newsworthy? Why doesn’t the ABC report on support given to skeptic organizations such as the Lavoisier Group or the Australian Climate Science Coalition?

Agenda 21 (one world government) had to find a way to unify all countries to a common cause. The idea of global warming was born. Then it became climate change. As the currents of the seas travel around the world so does the air. Unless we have a "dome" over Australia, how can they say that we are one of the greatest polluters. Who can remember the fires in Indonesia where the smoke came across to Australia? Sorry, I am not buying this rubbish.

I have a friend who was once a scientist, his words were such, "if you don't go along with the models they shove on you, no more funding" this gentleman, is not conservative in any way shape or form, what he is, is a realist, who when asked an opinion gave it, and didn't tow the line. Sure enough, funding dried up faster than a speeding bullet, has a different job now. We have to ask all these, so called scientists if they have vested interests. Radio commentators, get in the shit, if they advertise a product they use without notice, maybe these deceivers, need to do the same. Then and only then, will people start believing what they say. Most of these true believers are, non religious, socialists, vested interested player's, on what I believe is the biggest con job of the 21st century. Many players stand to lose big time if this all comes crashing down, sooner rather than later.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published it's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) this week and already it is in crisis with accusations of malfeasance and pleas from climatologists for immunity from prosecution.

A critical backlash against AR5's “junk science” is now in full swing and policymakers in Britain and Australia are already in full retreat from the travesty. The ongoing collapse in the UN's climate cabal's credibility puts a fresh light on why climatogists got in early with their formal request for immunity from prosecution at the Rio de Janeiro UN climate summit of 2012.

Today, prominent statistician Steve McIntye, one of the analysts often credited with exposing past IPCC 'errors', points to why this fiasco may rise to the level of criminality. McIntyre shows how UN officials systematically hid adverse data contained in the final draft review but omitted from the report now issued to the public. The world hasn't seen this kind of orchestrated institutionalized deceit since the world banking crisis of 2008.

The astonishing plea by the world's climatologists for immunity from prosecution was first reported last year when it surfaced embarrassingly during the Rio summit. At the time John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, was quick to question the motives, “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for UN activities is symptomatic of a larger problem.”

This week 'IPCC: Fixing the Facts' McIntyre has already presented evidence as to how UN authors cynically removed from their final report facts that contradicted the propaganda set out in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) issued only last Friday.

I agree. Except that it is 0.04%

Is the world heating or is it just the seasons are moving as the earth travels around the sun? 10,000 year cycle playing it's part in warming and cooling periods. The Earth does not orbit in perfectly round path. It's eliptical which means temps go up and temps go down.

Science fiction for vested interests. Carbon tax, for instance, is theft.

Back in the 80s a bunch of left-leaning politicians who wanted a whole lot more power, came to an understanding with a bunch of corrupt 'scientists' who wanted a whole lot more money. It was an informal arrangement done indirectly, through a complicit media. They would exploit the public's trust in the scientific establishment. The 'scientists' would claim industry and consumption is harming the planet and recommend intense regulation. This gave the politicians more power. The politicians would pay them handsomely. This has been a massive scam that only now is unraveling. It will take many years for the scientific establishment to win back the trust of the public.

"IPCC is more about Politics than Science " I believe it's about the money also. Follow the money in the greatest con of the last 100 years.

Yes, the world is heating up - it has for thousands of years - that's why there are fjords in Norway and glens in Scotland with no ice in them. Yes, man is polluting the atmosphere and causing carbon dioxide to rise. But I don't think any of these clever-dick scientists have proven any link between the two - and there's the lie

My two cents worth ... IT'S EVOLUTION.

1.Climate change is always happening and will continue irrespective of what we do.
2.Even if we were to shut down all CO2 emissions, it would take centuries to have any impact.
3.There seems to be the assumption that the process is reversible. Not so. Once a system goes past a tipping point, it will not come back to its original equilibrium if the factors which caused it to go past the tipping point are reversed.
4.The IPCC are predicting what will happen over several decades but have missed the elephant in the room - there has been no increase in global temperature over the last 15 years.
5.The IPCC relies on consensus science, which is no science at all! If 99 people out of a 100 believe that 1+1 = 3, they are still not right. Also, if you first stack the deck with scientists of a particular view, consensus is automatically built in.
6.If IPCC predictions do occur, there will be winners and losers. The northern countries close to the arctic will benefit. The United States, Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia etc. will all benefit. They have already laid claims and discussed how to share the spoils once arctic ice disappears. Losers will adapt or disappear.
7.Many countries live under very warm conditions, so a few degrees higher will cause discomfort but not necessarily disaster. Any increase in sea levels will be slow and insignificant. Those who try to play King Canute will be disappointed.
8.Now comes the kicker. Ultimately, the IPCC ignores the fact that if there is so much more CO2 then less heat will penetrate the atmosphere and instead of warming we will get global cooling!

Of course the IPCC is about politics, that's where the money comes from to keep these fools living a lifestyle that the rest of us only dream about. The rich get richer, the poor get children.

How exactly does anyone imagine that changing the habits of the Western world, a small fraction of the global population, is going to effect a deceleration in climate change?

The sheep bleat on, as if the rest of the world should listen. It's very tiring. I can't even begin to imagine how it must come across to aspiring Chinese and Indian middle class types. "You can't eat carbon intensive food, drive large vehicles, or power your homes with cheap coal. Never mind that we all did." Sounds pretty ideological to me.

As Viv notes, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is fundamentally quite simple. You develop a hypothesis, based on the hypothesis you make forecasts that you test. If the forecasts are proved wrong, then you reject the starting hypothesis.
The alarmists, who screetch about accepting science, continuously ignore scientific method and its implications, while claiming to be scientists. They are in fact nothing but loud mouthed, ignorant frauds.

Where's the hole in the OZONE LAYER gone? Anyone seen it lately? Oh! You've forgotten? That's OK it only lasted a few months, if it was ever there in the first place. But it took up copy space for a while and sold newspapers and gave AlpBC something to scare us about.

Love the way the warmists have changed their rhetoric to "climate change". At least we are assured they are on the right track. The climate has changed for as long the Earth has been around. And no amount of tax will make one iota of difference to the climate.