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.
Setback for the extremists?
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/019754.html
Edward Sikk says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm
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.
Google Books has a feature called Ngram Viewer, which creates graphs of word frequencies in books, magazines, and journals over time. (The web page only says “books,” but I’ve run searches that have turned up magazines and journals as well. On the other hand, I don’t know how comprehensive is the coverage of magazines and journals.)
Here’s a graph of the frequencies of “global warming” and “climate change” from 1970-2008. (2008 seems to be the latest year that Ngram Viewer covers.)
From 1970 to 1988, “climate change” appeared slightly more frequently than “global warming.” About 1985, both terms began to appear more frequently, and their frequency continued to increase until 2008. “Global warming” caught up with “climate change” in 1988, and the two ran stayed roughly equal until about 1992, when “climate change” got ahead and continued to get further and further ahead, until 2008.
I think most of us have the impression that there was a fairly pronounced switch, and that it occurred far more recently than 1992, but the graph shows that’s not true of books, magazines, and journals. So what is it that happened? I can think of several possibilities:
1. Threshold effect. We didn’t notice that “climate change” was ahead until the difference became great enough.
2. The frequencies in books, magazines, and journals differ from the frequencies in the media, and perhaps there was a fairly recent time when the media suddenly corrected itself to conform to the literature.
3. (2), with the additional feature that the frequency difference is substantially greater in the media than in the literature.
So, Since humans have altered the climate, all weather events can be linked to climate change. What does this tell us about nice weather? AGW is good.
“But the end result, the true genius of the plan, was the fear. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government, and through it, our politician was appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history… ”
– V (from V for Vendetta)
The Norsefire group uses religious zealotry to hide their true motives… the only difference between them and the Greens are the religions they believe in.
Hans Jelbring says:March 31, 2012 at 9:43 am
……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.”
You have to admire the way they can use statistical definitions and in the same sentence advocate blithely ignoring the whole concept.