At the beginning of the week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented the world with a $38.4 trillion ransom note: pay us da money or Gaia gets it.
Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not hand over sums like $38.4 trillion without doing a bit of due diligence first. (That sum, by the way, is how much the IPCC insists the world must spend – $2.4 trillion per year over the next 16 years – if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. It’s the equivalent of the half the global economy.) And as it turns out he is more than right to be suspicious.
Only government intervention in the free market will enable Britain to meet its carbon emissions reductions obligations, Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has warned.
Interviewed in the Guardian, Stark can barely contain his revolutionary fervour as he prepares to push the UK government into line with Monday’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The report, the most alarmist ever produced by the IPCC, calls for $2.4 trillion a year to be spent every year until 2035. Stark is relishing the “challenge”.
In its latest hysterical bulletin, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has urged that we need to spend $2.4 trillion a year between now and 2035 to avoid the potentially catastrophic consequences of ‘climate change.’
But the truth is that ‘climate change’ – at least as perceived by the IPCC – is bunk and all that expenditure (which, added up, amounts to a sum greater than the entirety of global GDP) would be a complete waste of money.
Or, as Professor Richard Lindzen, arguably the world’s greatest expert on the subject rather more elegantly put it in a lecture in London last night:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued its latest Summary for Policy Makers – and it’s the usual farrago of dubious science, wailing hysteria and worryingly eco-fascistic policy prescriptions.
Sea levels are rising. [As they have been, by the way, at the same harmless pace, for centuries]
The crisis is so dire that even if all the countries stick to their Paris Accord commitments, it still won’t be enough to stop the planet heating by 2 degrees C or more.
Drastic lifestyle changes must be made, drastic carbon emissions cuts must be implemented to stave off further disaster
$2.4 trillion must be spent by 2035 on sustainable energy projects such as wind and solar
Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase as the planet warms
Vector borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever will likely increase
One observer – Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – describes it as the IPCC’s “Hail Mary”: its last, desperate shot at trying to scare a world which just doesn’t care any more.
Giuseppe Ciccia/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors that it is effectively useless.
HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.
But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.
“It’s very careless and amateur,” he says. “About the standard of a first-year university student.”
In the U.S. – thanks largely to Donald Trump – the skeptics are winning the climate argument.
But in the rest of the Western world, skeptics are losing big time because, increasingly, their voices are being censored. Nowhere is this more painfully true than in the UK, where the BBC has now officially been reprimanded by a state watchdog for telling the truth about climate change.
No really. It sounds absurd to the point of lunacy. But this is what Ofcom – Britain’s state regulator of broadcast media – has done in its latest ruling.
The BBC had run a radio interview in August 2017 with a climate skeptic – Lord Lawson (formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher). Lord Lawson made several statements about climate change, all but one of them entirely accurate.
These included:
“We do have in this country, in England, one of the highest energy costs in the world”
and
[in response to interviewers’ “The point Al Gore makes is that we subsidise all energy, including fossil fuel energy”] “No we don’t. That’s not true. We tax fossil fuel energy. Anyway, we subsidise renewable energy”.
Complaints were made by a person or persons unknown and Ofcom investigated. It decided, grudgingly, that the above claims were defensible.
Why do so many apparently informed, intelligent, educated people still believe in ManBearPig?
For the same reason that the U.S. underestimated the Japanese threat before Pearl Harbor; that General MacArthur stupidly advanced north of the 38th parallel in Korea; that JFK got embroiled in the Bay of Pigs disaster; that LBJ dragged the U.S. deeper and deeper into the Vietnam War.
A phenomenon known as ‘groupthink’.
Though the name dates back to a 1952 article in Fortune magazine by William H Whyte, it wasn’t popularized for another twenty years when a Yale research psychologist called Irving Janis used it in the title of his influential 1972 Victims of Groupthink.
Little did he know it – Janis was looking to past events like the ones mentioned above, not the future – but his book would anatomize with unerring accuracy the perverse mindset which would lead to the creation of the biggest, most expensive junk science scam the world has ever witnessed: the great global warming scare.
Though it’s quite a long read, I do recommend you have at least a dip because it contains so many pertinent answers to that question you so often hear from global warming true believers: “What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist would you have to be to think that so many experts from science, politics, business, the
media, even the oil industry would lie to us about the scale of the problem?”
Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.
This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.
The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C – concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.
In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.
Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.
— and created a £1TRILLION-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures.
The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally come clean. The planet has stubbornly refused to heat up to predicted levels.
I’VE just discovered the hardest word in science.
Not pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (inflammation of the lungs caused by inhalation of silica dust). Nor palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (a lipid bilayer found in nerve tissue).
The earth hasn’t heated up anywhere near as much as it was supposed to. Image credit: ALAMY
No, the actual hardest word — which scientists use so rarely it might as well not exist — is “Sorry”.
Which is a shame because right now the scientists owe us an apology so enormous that I doubt even a bunch of two dozen roses every day for the rest of our lives is quite enough to make amends for the damage they’ve done.
Thanks to their bad advice on climate change our gas and electricity bills have rocketed.
So too have our taxes, our car bills and the cost of flying abroad, our kids have been brainwashed into becoming tofu-munching eco-zealots, our old folk have frozen to death in fuel poverty, our countryside has been blighted with ranks of space-age solar panels and bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, our rubbish collection service hijacked by hectoring bullies, our cities poisoned with diesel fumes . . .
And all because a tiny bunch of scientists got their sums wrong and scared the world silly with a story about catastrophic man-made global warming.
New York Times readers are deserting in droves in protest that its new columnist, Bret Stephens, thinks incorrect thoughts about man-made global warming.
In his first column Stephens committed the cardinal sin of suggesting that maybe climate change isn’t quite the major existential threat that liberals have cracked up to be; and that maybe the environmentalists’ rabid zealotry is doing their cause more harm than good.
Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.
Mighty has been the progressives’ wrath.
According to Soros attack dog Joe Romm, it could scarcely have been worse if the New York Times had given the column to the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.
According to the Guardian‘s Dana Nucitelli, the most charitable thing you could say about Stephens’s piece is that it’s “ignorant and wrong.”
So too has German climate professor Stefan Rahmsdorf, who wrote to complain:
My heroes are Copernicus, Galilei and Kepler, who sought the scientific truth based on observational evidence and defended it against the powerful authority of the church in Rome, at great personal cost.
Had the New York Times existed then – would you have seen it as part of your mission to insult and denigrate these scientists, as Stephens has done with climate scientists?
