IPCC climate science based on flimsy ground, ignoring sun, cosmic rays, clouds, oceans
“There has been a shameful failure by the grandees of the Royal Society who should have been the guardians of scientific integrity”
“Maybe we should revert to the original slang meaning of the word “green”; to be hopelessly naïve, stupid and sophomoric”
The ConDem coalition will ruin our economy and force millions of our citizens on to the dole and permanent poverty unless we insist they stop their climate policy madness. Ironically, CO2 limits won’t have any effect on the weather.
What is truly deranged about the policy is that it will achieve absolutely none of their climate aims by unilaterally slashing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. All that will happen is that the British will appear virtuous and poverty stricken. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary Chris Huhne will be able to parade their green purity and piety on the international stage. Yes, we will have slashed CO2 by 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. But if nobody else does, all that will be achieved is British penury. Maybe we should revert to the original slang meaning of the word “green”; to be hopelessly naïve, stupid and sophomoric.
“The U.K. produces only two to three per cent of world CO2 emissions (and) can have only a minimal effect on the global warming outcome. If we push too hard on decarbonisation by raising the price of carbon, we will suffer double jeopardy. Energy using industries will migrate and, if the climate pessimists are right, we will still have to pay to adapt, by raising our flood defences,” said Andrew (Lord) Turnbull, author of a report on climate change policy report and former Cabinet Secretary.
The policy to virtually end CO2 generation might make sense if the green nutters were right about the climate being ruined by human activity. But the report, published this week by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, shows that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change edicts are based on flimsy ground. The IPCC ignores many other worthy theories to explain fluctuating temperatures including activity from the sun, cosmic rays, clouds and the oceans.
The report points out that there is little correlation between rising CO2 levels and global temperature. Between 1940 and 1970, CO2 production rose remorselessly, but temperatures dipped. Over the last 12 years, temperatures have leveled out as CO2 levels accelerated. Warmist scientists have been guilty of skullduggery too, with bent researchers at Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (Climategate) conspiring to fix the numbers to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period from about 1,000 to 1,400 to make it look as though recent warming was unprecedented. This is known as the hockey stick scam, because the numbers were doctored on graphs to look as though they were almost level for a 1,000 years until suddenly spurting into a hockey stick blade at the end.
The IPCC is frequently selective, exaggerates propositions and is often open to corruption by officials who go along with the consensus to hang on to government research grants and handouts.
“The propositions of the IPCC do not bear the weight of certainty with which they are expressed,” the report says, begging the question –
“Why (does) the U.K. government place such heavy bets on one particular source of advice?”
Warmists and their co-conspirators in the media and science often talk about a scientific consensus.
“What is frequently described as a “consensus” is no such thing. There is huge controversy at each level of the analysis,” the report said.
Institutions which should know better have tarnished their reputation by jumping on the Warmist bandwagon.
“There has been a shameful failure by the grandees of the Royal Society who should have been the guardians of scientific integrity, upholding its motto “Nullius in verba” – no one has the final word. Instead we have seen scientists become campaigners, trying to close down the debate by claiming that the science is settled, and failing to review rigorously the Climategate e-mails affair,” the report said.
The Labour Party has to take some responsibility too. After all, it was responsible for the demented Climate Change Act which imposes legal duties on the British, regardless of what other countries do.
The report also says the government is ignoring recent energy discoveries which make it possible to extract gas from shale, which has dramatically widened the geographic availability of gas, has produced a massive upgrading of gas reserves and is decoupling gas prices from oil.
“Gas has the advantage that it produces less than half the CO2 that coal produces. So we face a happy prospect that we can replace a lot of coal burning with gas, reduce energy prices and make a big reduction in CO2 emissions, albeit not the complete decarbonisation sought by some,” the report said.
The report doesn’t examine the motives of Warmists pushing the conventional wisdom, or point out that in fact, both sides of the argument might well agree at the core. Surely every fair minded person knows that oil will run out sooner or later (the recent shale gas discoveries weaken my argument there) and everybody has a motive to conserve scarce resources while investing heavily in new technology like nuclear fusion that might produce clean, cheap energy in the future. We don’t have to go back into caves to save the world, where the left’s policies will drive us and our children. But lefties, having lost all the economic arguments in the second half of the 20th Century about the counterproductive cul-de-sac that is government intervention, see their chance to reimpose controls on economies by way of CO2 regulations. When you add in spineless, eager-to-please politicians like David Cameron, joined by massive high-technology corporations who see that wind farms and the “green” economy can make them a fast buck, you have a combination that will be hard to dislodge.
(The Really Inconvenient Truth Or “It Ain’t Necessarily So” http://www.theglobalwarmingfoundation.org/)