Free Markets, Free People

Answering the IPCC

In the past couple of weeks we’ve all been “treated” to climate change alarmist screeds calling for the arrest of “deniers.”   Hey, just because you have a bi-line in a publication doesn’t mean you’re particularly smart.  In fact, I’ve always found that “true believers” who voice no skepticism about much of anything to be, well, not the brightest bulb in the room.

However, I’m not sure there’s anyone out there “denying” climate change.  The climate of the world is in constant flux and few if any deny that.  The denial is of the claims – the assertions – that trace gas CO2 is the major culprit and that man is the major reason for all the CO2.    That man’s activities are driving climate change, not natural forces.

Of course all this recent alarmist activity has been designed to coincide with the UN’s IPCC report on climate change.  As you might imagine, they’ve become a little gun shy at the IPCC after so many of their previous claims have been found to be either groundless or wrong.  So this report is couched in a mountain of qualifiers like “could”, “may”, “might” etc.  They still claim they’re right, but they aren’t quite as specific about it as previously.  Instead they use the qualifiers to help put fear in people without really having to take responsibility for their claim.

It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book for those who perceive themselves to be on very shaky ground but still have an agenda to fulfill.

Thankfully there are a few “denier” organizations (skeptical is the word most normal folks would use) who are monitoring the IPCC and the screechy alarmists and answering even their caveated claims.  For instance:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

Etc, etc., etc.  What it seems you get from the IPCC is pseudo-scientific and blatantly political claims.  The UN has decided that “climate change” is a huge and threatening problem (and a grand method of redistributing national wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world).  Consequently it has decided to make “science” bend to the political agenda they’ve put forward.  And compliant “scientists” are apparently willing to do their bidding.

Meanwhile, as Anthony Watts has pointed out, no one among that group of IPCC “scientists” can answer the most basic and troubling question.  Why hasn’t it warmed, as predicted, in 17 years and 6 months in the face of higher CO2 levels, and, in fact, is trending toward being cooler? One chart points the the alarmist problem in a nutshell:

So tell us again, oh ye Chicken Littles of the alarmist creed, why we should believe a single thing you claim about climate change when you and your predictions (and models) have been so awfully wrong for almost 2 decades?


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

18 Responses to Answering the IPCC

  • “Scream LOUDER” is not part of the scientific method.
    It IS, however, very typical of the druid religion of teh Collective.
    Remember: they want you colder, hotter, sicker, less traveled, less educated, sitting in the dark hungry.

    • They already tried the exploding children video, and that didn’t work as well as they’d hoped either.

  • Thank you for being clear-headed on the issue.  You are valued.

  • … but I am a “denier”
    You see, I’ve been told that “everybody who eats tomatoes is going to die”. Since I can’t prove or disprove this assertion, I will deny it.

    • “Everybody who eats tomatoes is going to die.” That’s true.
      “Everybody who does not eat tomatoes is going to die.” That’s true.
      The alarmist stops after the first statement and declares that tomatoes cause death. The second statement is heresy and proof that you think tomato eaters are immortal, and thus a crazy nut who should never be allowed to be heard in public fora.

  • In a study released early Wednesday, the Massachusetts-based Partnership for Policy Integrity said wood-fired plants are not as clean as advocates claim, putting more carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere than coal or natural-gas plants when judged on the ratio of pollution to energy produced.
    For example, biomass plants emit nearly 50 percent more carbon dioxide — a gas that is used by plants which will cause the extinction of all life on Earth — per megawatt hour of electricity produced than coal plants, the study concluded.

    Read more here:

    • Well, sheeeet.
      Burning wood releases about the same exact CO2 as letting it rot.  The rate is different, of course.
      Chemistry is a bitch.

    • carbon dioxide — a gas that is used by plants which will cause the extinction of all life on Earth

      WTF does that mean??

  • When I read the FAQs of alarmists criticizing “skeptic” arguments, besides the frequent misrepresentations and cherry picking the weakest of arguments (which many “skeptics” reject themselves), there is the non sequitur about the pause.
    In response to the factual statement that the climate has not warmed for over a decade, the “debunking” is basically to state that a given year was the hottest on record.  Yes, a “pause” does not mean the climate cools.  It only means that the warming is minimal.  Saying that a point a few yards from the edge of a plateau is the highest reached so far does not magically make the plateau a steep mountainside.

    • A pause in the warming suggests the positive feedback loops models are wrong. If they are wrong, the argument for AGW is essentially dead.
      Direct warming due to additional CO2 is not enough to cause problems.

  • Why hasn’t it warmed, as predicted, in 17 years and 6 months in the face of higher CO2 levels, and, in fact, is trending toward being cooler?
    Easy. We elected Obama. Problem solved. It was all Bush’s fault anyway.
    If you don’t understand this, it is only because you didn’t attend Scott Erb’s lectures, or read his insightful blog.

    • No, no.  The EEEEEEeeeevile warmth is hiding someplace, and will spring on us in its warm-monger ghilley suit.
      THEN, boy, are we gonna hear it from the model-makers…!!!

  • The bottom-line is that AGW is an excuse to transfer $100 billion annually from the 1st world to the 3rd world. “Follow the money.”

  • More goodness from Coyoteblog on the IPCC.

  • The author of the Twilight of Abundance, David Archibald, sent an email a few days ago, saying “there is a whole new world coming.” Archibald, who’s an Australian, warns in his book that the world is running out of food, energy and security. Where he differs from Malthus, however, is in arguing that the shortages are the consequence of policy, rather than the inherent limitations of the universe. The world is doing everything it can to run in the opposite direction of abundance because we think we have too much. The West dreads warmer weather, even though warmer weather might allow more crops to grow; it discourages energy production. And its leaders are working feverishly to throw away the residual security of the post Cold War world.
    If you aren’t reading Fernandez, you should treat yourself.
    Of course, this is right; the Collective HATES people, and they HATE modernity.