Peter C. Glover
If you have a phobia about high concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) then you should avoid Durban, South Africa between November 28 and December 9. That’s where the world’s political and celebrity elites, as well as miscellaneous thousands are flying in, mostly in private jets, to prognosticate and pontificate as to how the rest of us are duty bound to stop running up ... er…high concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Bent on further advertising their collective ignorance on a climate science subject no one really understands, with an agenda determined by a report not (as it turns out) written by the world’s leading scientists on behalf of an inept, incompetent and highly politicized organisation with an increasing credibility problem, it should be entertaining.
Did I leave anything that matters out? I don’t think so. But in the event you think you feel you should be better informed pre-Durban 2011, read on.
The Copenhagen summit at 2009 was billed as the last chance saloon to impact the global climate, remember? In advance of the Copenhagen shindig, UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon summed up:“We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.” The summit failed to secure anything, much less the"future of our planet”. It did, however, secure a rather bland joint aspiration: keep the global rise in temperature below 2 deg. C. Perversely, the ‘aspiration’ met with stunning success. Since the 2009 summit—well actually since 1995—Mother Nature saw to it that the average global temperature did not rise at all; best of all, at nil cost to any of us. Now just imagine if the summit had come up with an agreed, multi-billion dollar price-tagged, plan? Phew!
It might therefore seem that the evidence suggests the UN IPCC stated impact of CO2 on global temperatures was, to put it mildly, overstated. However, the IPCC has that angle covered, so Bono, Sir Richard Branson, DiCaprio, Jolie and co, all reportedly jetting into Durban, can rest easy over cocktails. According to the IPCC’s published summary in November ahead of its full report Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters, due in February, climate apocalypse has been deferred—for a couple of decades or more.
In fact, so lacking in imminent alarmist evidence is the upcoming IPCC report it seems, the summary failed to make any of the usual sensationalist headlines. Such is the background to Durban 2011. Not that it will deter the political and celebrity elites from demanding action now, of course.
But it is hard to avoid its key message:“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two or three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability.” This is a signal and critical assertion. The report admits there is unlikely to be any earth-warming for the next 20 or 30 years“because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability.” In short, extreme weather events are not giving any indication of further global warming as natural climate variations have a greater influence. The UN IPCC is throwing in the towel. It is clueless whether the climate will warm or cool over coming decades. Climate case closed you might think. But that would be to underestimate the special interest lobbies with vast sums of cash and reputation—scientific, political and journalistic—at stake.
But at the heart of the Durban conference is the assumption that the most credible voice remains that of the UN IPCC. Unfortunately, the inner sanctum workings and wholesale lack of integrity at the heart of the UN IPCC has just been exposed in a devastating and well-researched new critique.
In summary, Laframboise cites a litany of evidence that debunks core IPCC claims and exposes just how thoroughly dysfunctional the ‘world’s leading forum of climate scientists’ actually is. Reports, we learn, are often written by authors some of whom admit to being"completely out of our depth”, with data often being analyzed by climate activists connected to Greenpeace, the WWF etc. Lafromboise shows how the IPCC regularly ignores its own rules on selection of lead and contributing authors. Unlike other major organisations, the IPCC, we learn, has no Conflict of Interest rules. Which explains why so many UN IPCC report authors—not to mention the head of the IPCC himself, can, as Laframboise reveals, be accused of having exactly that: major conflicts of interests.
But particularly devastating is the revelation (backed by a great deal of evidence)“that many IPCC authors aren’t chosen for their scientific prowess. They’re graduate students, affirmative action selections, activists, and virtual reality climate modelers. That ladies and gentleman, is how the IPCC arrives at its ‘gold standard’ science.” In addition, Laframboise debunks the IPCC’s much-vaunted claim to only referencing peer-reviewed articles in its reports.
Laframboise book has sold in the hundreds of thousands because it reveals an organisation so shambolic that it is hard to credit it has any status at all. Yet,“The Climate Bible (IPCC report) is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.”
Laframboise concludes,“The notion that leaders of wealthy and important nations are proposing to spend trillions of dollars on climate change measures on the say-so of this kind of report makes me think we’ve all lost our minds.”
As the IPCC once again sets the global stage for its latest climate narrative in Durban, an adapted Macbeth soliloquy seems perfectly to capture the occasion:“A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
If you have a phobia about high concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) then you should avoid Durban, South Africa between November 28 and December 9. That’s where the world’s political and celebrity elites, as well as miscellaneous thousands are flying in, mostly in private jets, to prognosticate and pontificate as to how the rest of us are duty bound to stop running up ... er…high concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Bent on further advertising their collective ignorance on a climate science subject no one really understands, with an agenda determined by a report not (as it turns out) written by the world’s leading scientists on behalf of an inept, incompetent and highly politicized organisation with an increasing credibility problem, it should be entertaining.
Did I leave anything that matters out? I don’t think so. But in the event you think you feel you should be better informed pre-Durban 2011, read on.
The Copenhagen summit at 2009 was billed as the last chance saloon to impact the global climate, remember? In advance of the Copenhagen shindig, UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon summed up:“We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.” The summit failed to secure anything, much less the"future of our planet”. It did, however, secure a rather bland joint aspiration: keep the global rise in temperature below 2 deg. C. Perversely, the ‘aspiration’ met with stunning success. Since the 2009 summit—well actually since 1995—Mother Nature saw to it that the average global temperature did not rise at all; best of all, at nil cost to any of us. Now just imagine if the summit had come up with an agreed, multi-billion dollar price-tagged, plan? Phew!
It might therefore seem that the evidence suggests the UN IPCC stated impact of CO2 on global temperatures was, to put it mildly, overstated. However, the IPCC has that angle covered, so Bono, Sir Richard Branson, DiCaprio, Jolie and co, all reportedly jetting into Durban, can rest easy over cocktails. According to the IPCC’s published summary in November ahead of its full report Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters, due in February, climate apocalypse has been deferred—for a couple of decades or more.
In fact, so lacking in imminent alarmist evidence is the upcoming IPCC report it seems, the summary failed to make any of the usual sensationalist headlines. Such is the background to Durban 2011. Not that it will deter the political and celebrity elites from demanding action now, of course.
IPCC’s new report
Clearly, the battering the IPCC has had recently from Glacier-gate to Climate-gate to the latest release of 5,000 emails, Climate-gate 2.0, with burgeoning calls for its scrapping or reformation, has had its effect. The new report appears to allow more latitude for"uncertainty” in its substance, but not, apparently, in its headline findings.But it is hard to avoid its key message:“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two or three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability.” This is a signal and critical assertion. The report admits there is unlikely to be any earth-warming for the next 20 or 30 years“because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability.” In short, extreme weather events are not giving any indication of further global warming as natural climate variations have a greater influence. The UN IPCC is throwing in the towel. It is clueless whether the climate will warm or cool over coming decades. Climate case closed you might think. But that would be to underestimate the special interest lobbies with vast sums of cash and reputation—scientific, political and journalistic—at stake.
But at the heart of the Durban conference is the assumption that the most credible voice remains that of the UN IPCC. Unfortunately, the inner sanctum workings and wholesale lack of integrity at the heart of the UN IPCC has just been exposed in a devastating and well-researched new critique.
IPCC busted
Inept. Secretive. Politicized. Incoherent. Corrupt. The negative epithets offer themselves thick and fast as one read’s Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. In it Laframboise deftly exposes the rotten heart of the operation that is the UNIPCC. Let’s be clear. This book does not deal with the climate science. It deals squarely with something that should matter deeply to us all: the competence and integrity of an organisation that purports to be the world’s leading voice in setting the global agenda on climate.In summary, Laframboise cites a litany of evidence that debunks core IPCC claims and exposes just how thoroughly dysfunctional the ‘world’s leading forum of climate scientists’ actually is. Reports, we learn, are often written by authors some of whom admit to being"completely out of our depth”, with data often being analyzed by climate activists connected to Greenpeace, the WWF etc. Lafromboise shows how the IPCC regularly ignores its own rules on selection of lead and contributing authors. Unlike other major organisations, the IPCC, we learn, has no Conflict of Interest rules. Which explains why so many UN IPCC report authors—not to mention the head of the IPCC himself, can, as Laframboise reveals, be accused of having exactly that: major conflicts of interests.
But particularly devastating is the revelation (backed by a great deal of evidence)“that many IPCC authors aren’t chosen for their scientific prowess. They’re graduate students, affirmative action selections, activists, and virtual reality climate modelers. That ladies and gentleman, is how the IPCC arrives at its ‘gold standard’ science.” In addition, Laframboise debunks the IPCC’s much-vaunted claim to only referencing peer-reviewed articles in its reports.
Laframboise book has sold in the hundreds of thousands because it reveals an organisation so shambolic that it is hard to credit it has any status at all. Yet,“The Climate Bible (IPCC report) is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.”
Laframboise concludes,“The notion that leaders of wealthy and important nations are proposing to spend trillions of dollars on climate change measures on the say-so of this kind of report makes me think we’ve all lost our minds.”
As the IPCC once again sets the global stage for its latest climate narrative in Durban, an adapted Macbeth soliloquy seems perfectly to capture the occasion:“A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment