IPCC now too moderate for professional scaremongers | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
What happened to “listen to the science”?
A GLOBAL lobby group has distributed a “spin sheet” encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
An “action pack” distributed by Global Campaign for Climate Action said members “shouldn’t be afraid to make the connection”, despite the sometimes low level of confidence in the official documents of the IPCC. The action pack, which was produced to coincide with the release of the latest full IPCC report into the link between climate change and extreme weather events, rekindled claims that overstating the case damaged the credibility of the science…
The full report … presented a cautious appraisal and said it was unable to answer confidently whether climate was becoming more extreme.
But GCCA told its member organisations to “use the precautionary principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even if the science doesn’t offer high confidence”.
“Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change, because we have altered the fundamental condition of the climate, that is, the background environment that gives rise to all weather,” the action plan said.
GCCA has about 300 members worldwide including Greenpeace, Oxfam, WWF, Environment America, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Amnesty International and Pew Environment Group.
What’s important to these extremists is not the evidence but the scare.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is amazing how folks like the above can NOT understand what a published paper says.
2+2=5 The new kinda fuzzy warm math.
Well they did the same with nuclear energy and it’s very profitable for them. Germany is as hysterically antinuclear as ever and our greens NEVER debate numbers – dosages, halflife, risk assessments, it’s NEVER a factual debate and ALWAYS a TOTAL rejection, so they will do the same with CAGW and refuse ANY… wait for it… COAL fired plant or SHALE GAS drilling (but, and they will be very silent about this, they will not protest against NatGas plants running on imported Russian NatGas…)
Does the lightbulb go on yet?
Is the BBC part of the Global Campaign for Climate Action because the once great Horizon programme has just aired “Global Wierding”
Despite the fact that hurricane increase claim is not supported by the facts
A great thread!
Congratulations for taking personal responsibility about climate change/political topics where you have strong comptetence. Stay on that path and get the charlatans out of the way so you can go back to science.
It took me a while, but I found the source document:
http://tcktcktck.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TckTckTck-SREX-Full-Report-Action-Pack.pdf
Of course, the precautionary principle would indicate the release as much GHGs as possible, to avert a possible ice age. An ice age is demonstably more destructive than a few degrees of warming…..
Oxfam? Amnesty I.? I thought they were working toward feeding the hungry (CO2 good) and springing dissidents out of prison.
CAGOW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Good Old Weather
Les,
from your link March 31, 2012 at 9:01 am
“These SREX findings are presented with RATHER HIGH LEVELS OF SCIENTIFIC CONFIDENCE. Other findings
are presented with lower or medium levels of confidence. However, it is important to note that low or
medium scientific certainty don’t always mean low risk, and we should use the PRECAUTIONARY
principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even IF THE SCIENCE DOESN´T OFFER HIGH CONFIDENCE.”
This is to say that IPCC asks all nations in the world to return to superstition as a guiding principle for all societies.
Les Johnson: Thank you for the link I was just looking for that so called Action Pack. I always read their rubbish. Also I like a good laugh.
Know the enemy.
Who enables this climate hoax, amongst others the state sponsored media and the left wing press?
I would like to see all state sponsored broadcaster Like the BBC in the UK. ABC in Australia. CBC in Canada and other public broadcaster else were de funded and no longer supported by taxpayers. Let them go out into free market broadcasting and see if they are competitive and can they bring a product that the public really want? Of course they can’t they are over staffed by socialist elite that pontificate from on high. They would not exists without Public/government money, much like Wind power and solar grants and artificial per Kwh rates. It’s all one big scam!!!!
Hilarious. Exactly what the Heartland Institute was accused of doing in the forged memo.
Using their execrable logic then someone could say that since al-Qaida is a threat we should nuke all the islamic countries to ensure our safety. Precautionary principle right? When fanatical faith allows you to lie to support your beliefs you’ve lost all claims being treated with anything but contempt.
From the BBC quote above: “In the past few years we have shivered through two record-breaking cold winters and parts of the country have experienced intense droughts and torrential floods. It is a pattern that appears to be playing out across the globe.”
I’m in my mid sixties and I can tell you that compared to the winters we used to have in the fifties and sixties, any recent ones have been pretty mild – and certainly no record-breakers in any sense. We had a few very cold snaps, most of them pretty short, and barely enough to kill bugs inc mosquitos.
But the BBC long ago lost any semblance of impartiality – it puts out propaganda pure and simple. The shocking thing is that it’s still so trusted round the world, not least by Americans
Slowly but surely, some of the CAGW promoters are conducting a tactical retreat.
DaveG says: March 31, 2012 at 10:03 am
“Who enables this climate hoax, amongst others the state sponsored media and the left wing press?”
IMO you got it wrong. Being a Swede I can assure you that the support of CAGW are massive from all parties from the left to conservatives (who are now in power in Sweden). It is a similar situations in all Europe. The Party lines are not what´s most important. To scare to obedience is far more important to secure the ruling by the politcal class and tohave the option to rise taxes on behalf of an imaginary threat and accepted by guilt. State employed scientists have to be obedient to keep their jobs also in US.
In US there is one polititican that I respect about climate politics and that is senator Inhofe. He has been fighting for years to inform about what science tells about CAGW but he seems quite alone.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
“shouldn’t be afraid to make the connection”, is code for ignore the science and write up our narrative anyway.
“Despite the sometimes low level of confidence in the official documents of the IPCC,” is code for we don’t know how the climate will change, and we don’t even know if any change will be deleterious.
And despite this, they wish to instruct their members to carry on regardless and make up complete fabrications upon something that they know next to nothing about. And then there’s this little gem: “Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change, because we have altered the fundamental condition of the climate, that is, the background environment that gives rise to all weather,”
Say what? So what the “science” comes down to then, is a sort of Pythonesque parody of Parmenedian logic (who famously tried to prove that motion is impossible because of an infinite number of ever decreasing distances). Weather is, ehrm connected to climate and thus extreme weather is connected to climate change, which is our fault because we have altered the “fundamental condition of the climate,” or something. No room for doubt there then – fundamental. And I thought it was all a matter of degree. After all, CO2 was there before us.
And in a moment of unintended irony, they call us “anti-science.” Who’s anti-science now?
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Alter the facts, spin the results, ignore the inconvenient, exaggerate a non-problem and then scare, scare, scare………………..
‘Climate scientists’ mantra #1.
How many more times does this have to be demonstrated?
Does anyone know who authorized the change from global warming to climate change by the alarmist group?I find it hard to accept that the change was just spontaneous.
The precautionary principle is not a scientific principle because it is based on possibility rather than probability.
I propose that all true believers should hereby lose the right to use electricity in any way shape or form or to benefit from it in any way whatsoever.
That is after all what theyre ultimately proposing for the rest of us is it not?
A life of feral existence?
So, lets see them as the first wave and show us how its done.
Cmon guys, you believe in all of this, so its money where your mouth is time.
Ok, hand over your phones, ipad/pods, watches, laptops? sorry hand it over, Tv? nooo no tv for you guys, books? yes you can take books with you, dont forget lights out at dusk though.
Yes i know you need a hot bath, shame to break a lifetimes habit though, boil some water on a fire…oh the irony of doing that.
You know if there was a village idiot contest running theyd all win it because they didnt enter their names. Duh!
“But GCCA told its member organisations to “use the precautionary principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even if the science doesn’t offer high confidence”.”
Ooo! Such tonic invocation of principle in human affairs lays ground for a renaissance based upon a rekindling of the principle that genocidal rationing lately termed “statistical murder” is a punishable sin worthy of tar and feathering. Best use of resources, all around boys, cheer it on! Let a beacon of diamond sharpness point all around in full circle fashion, revealing the flow of money, er “resources”, away from vital hope down into pits of festering grubby handed skullduggery that forces the poor to prostitute their kids and chomp bushmeat instead of blog their stories and inventions.
Les Johnson says:
March 31, 2012 at 9:01 am
…..Of course, the precautionary principle would indicate the release as much GHGs as possible, to avert a possible ice age. An ice age is demonstably more destructive than a few degrees of warming…..
_________________________
Yes and there is even a PEER REVIEWED PAPER warmist scientists to support that view point.
Not to mention a report from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
A few years ago Joe Romm over at Climate Progress stated:
“Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…”
Joe Romm maybe rooting for the next Ice Age but I rather have it nice and warm with lush plant growth.
They don’t just say to make the connection, they go on to brazenly say “Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change”, so even as they continue by saying “That makes climate change one of the contributing factors to extreme weather trends, along with natural variation and other drivers.”, the emphasis is on the ‘climate change’ part, implicitly meaning anthropogenic. This is re-enforced by the first ‘proactive talking point’, “Talking about links between extreme weather events and climate change”, i.e. nothing about natural drivers here, or the relative sizes of CC and natural!
They also insist “that the IPCC report confirms”, yes, their prejudices and bias. No doubt they are looking at the SPM, which, yet again, is different to the actual report. Same old, same old.
When will they learn?
Some time ago (probably over a year) I listened to a ABC radio “Science Show” that had a scientist who was basically saying increased impact of weather events was not because of more extreme weather but because of more dense populations meaning that such disasters have more impact. I have gone back and tried to find the story, however it appears to have vanished (obviously didnt meet the agenda). Does anyone recall the story and can they find it? If it has indeed vanised – makes me even more skeptical…