Monday, 16 September 2013

Facts vs scare tactics

So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climte Change ("IPCC") got it wrong. Well, their computers did. So they say.

A leaked final draft report from the IPCC reportedly admits that they have overestimated rising global temperatures over the last 60 years by twice as much as actual. That is, the global temperatures have risen by half the rate the IPCC claimed in 2007. The IPCC are blaming their computer estimations.
To be precise, the IPCC's  2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Apparently the actual figure is closer to 0.12 degrees Celcius since 1951, according to the leaked draft report, which is due to be released on 27 September.

Yet the IPCC is still holding on to the belief that climate change is real and man made. It is understood the report claims the IPCC now have greater confidence that climate change is man made, is real and is having a catastrophic effect on the planet.

Compare this to comments made by the Wall St Journal, in which they claim they have had a glimpse of the draft report. Does the Wall St Journal think climate change is having a "catastrophic" effect on the planet? From the Wall St Journal: 
" is [the IPCC draft report] significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet".
A positive change? So why is the IPCC still claiming that man made climate change is catastrophic for the planet?

The IPCC admit they are 95% certain climate change is due to greenhouse gases. That's less than what you hear in the media and from various politicians...

 "...climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time." - Kevin Rudd.
The Age have missed the point again on this issue. While the public need facts, the first two lines of their article dated 19 August are as follows: 
"Climate scientists are surer than ever that human activity is causing global warming, according to leaked drafts of a major UN report..."
The article waffles on without delivering any real stats about the leaked report. I couldn't help laughing halfway through the article when I read the following: 
"The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations." 
Maybe that's because greenhouse gas concentrations aren't linked with rising global temperatures? By the way, if you need facts in the absence of any in this article, global temperatures have risen so slightly since 1998 they are not statistically significant. 

While we are talking facts, here are some more:
  • Global warming has only been studied for roughly 120 years;
  • The world is 4.54 billion years old;
  • There has been no statistical significant rise in global temperatures since at least 1997;
  • Scientists have admitted large parts of the world were as warm now as they were for roughly 300 years between 950 and 1250
  • The level of ice in the Arctic is increasing, not decreasing;
  • There is no solid proof that carbon emissions are the root cause of climate change; and
  • The carbon tax was introduced by arguably the most incompetent government in Australian history.
Ok, the last point isn't really a fact, but it's close enough to.

The IPCC should take responsibility for their gross inaccuracy (not to mention getting everyone in an over-hyped tizz about saving our planet) and admit THEY got it wrong, not their computer system. How can they claim man made climate change is having a catastrophic effect on the planet if the planet is cooling and they have admitted this?

Maybe now, people will understand this is an embarrassing scare tactic on a global scale. Anyone care to remember Climategate??

Yes, we can drive our cars to work rather than ride a bike. No, we don't need to slug businesses with a useless carbon tax. No, we don't need a multi-billion dollar desal plant because of an apparent lack of rain. No, not every corporate business needs to implement a politically correct "green footprint" initiative.

Look at the facts and tell me climate change is real. 

All the best,
Dom Meese


  1. Two considerations;

    Scientists like all humans are infected with their own biases - they need to demonstrate why they should be trusted - their 'white coats' don't automatically establish that. Then their work should be peer reviewed, checked for false absolutes, and their conclusions debated openly from all perspectives - unlike the selective editing in various journals which goes on now. The scientific process is often tainted by research dollars and the political correctness of the system, including a biased media.

    Secondly, global airflows tend to keep particulate matter in one hemisphere or the other. Therefore if man induced global warming is real and significant, there should be greater global warming in the northern hemisphere -- is there? If so then what are the reasons for it? (Assuming that temperature heuristics are the same for both hemispheres of course)

    1. Good point Grova. Just because a "scientist" says global warming is real doesn't give the assertion any guaranteed credit in my book.

      I'm not following your second point. Why do you say it has to be greater in one hemisphere than the other and why the north not the south?

    2. Re the second point, the natural wind flow patterns through to the upper levels of the atmosphere, mean that the most significant wind flows tend to isolate air in the 2 hemispheres .. so each hemisphere's pollution is handled by that hemisphere system/ oceans etc.

  2. the last question is puzzling.. the article that you quote from says climate change is real but less radical than thought. Also diesel plant?

  3. Sorry, just to clarify your comment, are you referring to my question on climategate?
    Desal plant. The desalination plant in Victoria that was built to recycle water because the Victorian Government believed climate change was having such an effect on the environment, rainfall alone wouldn't sustain our water demands.

  4. i think the basis to Dom's last question is the realisation that computer modelling can be made to show anything you like depending on relatively small tweaks of the input data.
    There's clearly been a real loss of objectivity especially when the IPCC admit such serious failures. IMHO MM Climate Change may be real, but certainly not because of anything the IPCC et cabal have said.