Consensus Science - even their own people:
I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate.
How have they got away with it?
Attempts to "simulate" their unreliable and manipulated past climate "data" have been failures, yet are claimed as successes, But even if the "data" were genuine and the simulation successful it does not prove anything. Correlation, however convincing is not evidence of causation. The only way you can demonstrate the success of any theory is successful prediction of future climate over the whole range it is intended to be used, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. This has already been done with Newton’s Laws of motion and Darwin’s theories of evolution. It has not been done with the "global warming" theory. There has been no successful attempt to predict any future climate event. They do not even pretend they can do it, as they only provide "projections" from their models, not "predictions": .
How have they persuaded us that they are able to predict future climate?
They operate a system called "attribution". This is a combination of "simulation" (correlation), and "assessment" by "experts". The "experts" are all paid to provide the models that they are assessing. These assessments are therefore an elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest.
They apply a whole series of "likelihoods" to each "assessment" and apply a fake "statistical significance" which, unlike those normally applied to genuine science, have no background of actual experimental observations.
I recently wrote to the DECC regarding the Climate Change Act and the need for it to be repealed. The following is an extract of the reply that I have received from a Mr McCulley, whoever he might be :
“The vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that warming over recent decades is mostly a result of human activities. They also agree that climate change is a major threat to global security, prosperity and equity. The sooner we act, the more potential we have to manage those threats. The Government is therefore acting now.” and :
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report concluded that there is a more than 90% probability that most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. The IPCC’s conclusions are based on their comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, which is presented in detail in Chapter Nine of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.” and :
“..whether or not you accept the science of climate change, there are a number of benefits of shifting to low carbon. It can reduce our dependency on finite fossil fuels, taking us towards a cleaner, quieter, more energy secure and fairer society. A transition to low carbon can also create high quality jobs in new industries and ensure we live in better insulated, more comfortable homes.”
I replied to this rubbish thus :
“I do not accept anything that you say. Particularly, that there is any global warming or that it is caused by man. However many times this is repeated does not make it true. And no matter how many people sign reports to say it is so, also does not make it true. I would suggest that the Christopher Booker book “The Real Global Warming Disaster” should be required reading for all who work in the governement on the subject of climate change because there is ample evidence that the whole movement is a scam. And we are paying horrendous amounts of money to support the views and plans of charlatans.” and :
“And whether the move to a ‘low carbon’ economy, whatever that might be, is a good thing or not, it would be a refreshing change if those in authority took the time to actually ask us, the people who have to keep funding this nonsense, whether we are content for you to spend our money in this way. There are many of us who don’t think it is money well spent. Wind power is a joke, or rather it would be if it wasn’t costing so much. If the alternatives to properly developed means of power generation were so effective there would be no need for all the taxpayer money to be thrown at it so that it can be implemented. If we lived in a proper free market economy, better, less costly and more effective decisions would have been made years ago on how to protect our national interests regarding security of supply for our energy requirements. And all the green movement luddites would have been marginalised as they should be in a normally functioning economy; they are but one, very small, voice in the greater scheme of things and don’t deserve to have the influence that they have accreted to themselves with the active or passive government encouragement.”
Not that any of this will make a difference because they have decided on the path they will follow regardless of what we might think.
JiC,
You quoted an authority, and a load of personal opinions, just as he did.
When dealing with matters of science the only thing that matters is the data, and that is what you should have hit him with. Demonstrate how every major forecast by the ‘climate scientists’ of the IPCC has failed to eventuate and demonstrate to him straight out that the real world data has falsified the hypothesis.
That is all easy enough. and any scientist who puts theory ahead of observable data is a charlatan.
Cats,
It is beyond science - it’s policy so John’s opinions are as valid as anyone else. Personally it is the job-creation aspect I think we ought to hammer on about. That is twisted economics. It is beyond Keynesian insanity.
The people that bother me the most are the “it doesn’t matter crowd” as in “it doesn’t matter whether any of this is true as it wouldn’t hurt to stop using fossil fuels anyway.”
@JiC, don’t dignify bastards like that with a reasoned or informed response. They’re not interested and you merely feed their sense of self importance and gratification; remember, their satisfaction comes from knowing that they have produced such a response from you, because that shows you who’s boss.
Edward Lud,
I would argue otherwise. Many of these people are decent individuals, albeit stuck in a statist mindset, who simply don’t get exposure to the competing arguments.
Present them with data and provide short arguments which demonstrate their position is both factually wrong and logically fallacious, and who knows? They may start thinking…..
At this point, this is all about money. Every single one of the IPCC computer models are predicated on a direct relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and rising temps, not a single one can explain the lack of warming over the past 15 years, and it seems that the whole global warming scam now hangs on Kevin Trenberth’s hypothesis - generated by a computer model of course - that all of the missing heat has transferred to the deep oceans. That would be the only place where we have far too little data to verify. Assuming that Svensmark’s sun hypothesis is correct, its going to get even cooler over the next decade, and at some point the warmies will be, hopefully, all be hung from the tree by their own intestines for this scam.
As to a “low carbon” world the warmies embrace, let me suggest that you go to visit The Filthy Engineer’s blog on your side of the pond. He has a superb post up that is just about directly on that topic. http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2012/03/i-think-im-now-officially-troll.html