ICSC: IPCC focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral

Ottawa, Canada, November 2, 2014: “IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was right to advocate “a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change” when he spoke to delegates tasked with approving the IPCC Synthesis Report, released on Sunday,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The new direction governments should follow must be one in which the known needs of people suffering today are given priority over problems that might someday be faced by those yet to be born.”

“Yet, exactly the opposite is happening,” continued Harris. “Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance, only 6% of it is devoted to helping people adapt to climate change in the present. The rest is wasted trying to stop improbable future climatic events. That is immoral.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor remarked, “U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon often makes unjustified statements about climate change and extreme weather. However, in their still unanswered November 29, 2012 open letter to the Secretary General, 134 scientists from across the world asserted, ‘The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 [now 18] years. During this period…carbon dioxide concentrations rose by nearly 9%…The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”

“Although today’s climate and extreme weather are well within the bounds of natural variability and the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, there is, most definitely, a climate problem,” said Carter. “Natural climate change brings with it very real human and environmental costs. Therefore, we must carefully prepare for and adapt to climate hazards as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide controls in a futile attempt to stop natural climate change impoverishes societies and reduces our capacity to address these and other real world problems.”

“The heavily referenced reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that, scientifically speaking, the global warming scare is over,” concluded Harris. “It is time to defund the IPCC and dedicate our resources to helping solve today’s genuine humanitarian problems.”


The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change. 

 

ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.


For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org,

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “ICSC: IPCC focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral

  1. “It is time to defund the IPCC and dedicate our resources to helping solve today’s genuine humanitarian problems.”
    Not without some prosecutions. Fortunes have been won and lost.

    • It’s political. Give up on any hope of accountability. The fact is that careers have been made on this swindle (as on many others before) and only the fools (eg, Mann) will get their fingers caught.

  2. Unfund, Defund Excommunicate – call it what you will just stop giving all these shysters any more public funds – NOW!

  3. “During this period…carbon dioxide concentrations rose by nearly 9%…The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction.”
    Just had to check to see if The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report actually said that and here it is verbatim:
    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
    So, in 2008 they were 95% confident there would not be more than 15 years without warming and in 2014 they’re 95% confident that …. (Whatever) Stop listening. They’re obviously suffering from overconfidence syndrome.

    • So since the Zero trend only exists in the Blogoshere and in the real world a warming trend has continued, the whole discussion is pointless, head in the sand claptrap.

      • The IPCC AR5:
        ”rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade.”
        The IPCC AR4 stated:
        ”For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

      • Sorry, threading doesn’t make it clear, but my comment was addressing the person commenting as JoNovace.

  4. ***u have to laugh! creating jobs, lifting people out of poverty is anathema to the folks at the UK Independent:
    2 Nov: Independent Editorial: Filthy lucre, dirty fuel: The latest IPCC report on climate change will have little impact due to global economic and security concerns
    ***If scientists ruled the world, we would all be safe, at least so far as climate change is concerned…
    Nations with plentiful and cheap, though still dirty, fossil fuels under their feet such as China, Australia and Russia will continue to burn them to power their cities and heat their homes, to be competitive in world trade. Their push for growth has created jobs, a new middle class and lifted millions out of poverty, but at great cost to the wider world and the quality of the air they breathe themselves…
    Plenty of fruitless summits and conferences and declarations have come and gone.
    The global environment is the ultimate “common good” issue for the world, the property of everyone and no-one. Worse still, the effects of trashing it will not become critical for decades, long after most people alive today have departed a steadily more degraded Earth. Thus the decision makers have little incentive to change much. As the IPCC implies, the outlook is about as grim as can be.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/filthy-lucre-dirty-fuel-the-latest-ipcc-report-on-climate-change-will-have-little-impact-due-to-global-economic-and-security-concerns-9834525.html

    • “The global environment is the ultimate “common good” issue for the world, the property of everyone and no-one.”
      Exactly. So no extremist organization has the right to treat it as a propaganda plaything.

  5. There is no “climate problem”. There are weather events, but that has always been the case. Most of man’s problems are caused by man himself, and they have zero to do with climate.

  6. Someone here pointed me to research showing that 37,000 extra people die each each year in the winter in the UK. That’s twice as high as the figure that Age Concern have been using of around 23,000.
    And yes it is immoral, because the UK politicians and academics are intent on increasing that number as high as they can first by preventing any warmer temperature and secondly by so increasing the cost of heating our homes that those most at risk will not be able to.
    There has never been such a morally corrupt group of people as the IPCC.

    • “There has never been such a morally corrupt group of people as the IPCC.”
      I disagree. Socialists of various stripes, from National Socialists to Marxist Socialists, murdered some 200, 000, 000 people in the 20th Century. Of course, this century is young and the CAGW cult may very well murder just as many. Or is the CAGW cult just an extension of the Socialist cult??
      I was always more or less an agnostic. But, if you learn a little history and see what these people have done, their actions are so horrific, so beyond comprehension, that they must be the work of something evil. There is nothing else that can explain it. That kind of evil indicates an active force for evil, the Devil?? That would imply the existence of a force for good. God??
      A couple of years, at the age of 67, I started going to church.
      Regards,
      Steamboat Jack (JonJewett’s evil twin)

      • “Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.”
        “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
        —-
        Take your pick.

      • Sorry to hear that we’ve lost you to the ranks of the embarrassingly credulous. At least, with the choice you made they won’t be looking to do you in, should you change your mind.
        I do agree that the IPCC are not the most horrible bunch we’ve ever seen.

  7. Tom Harris must be ridiculed and character assassinated immediately.
    The money spigot must not be shut down. Reality be damned. The gravy trains must run on time.

  8. “unscientific and immoral”, but political:
    24 Oct: RTCC: Ed King: US and UK call on UN science panel to stress climate risks
    Over 2,000 comments on the UN’s flagship climate science report have been submitted ahead of a week of negotiations that will determine the final text in Copenhagen…
    The UK wants the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study to focus more the “risks of delaying action” as well as the “co-benefits of action”.US comments say the study should stress how richer countries could be affected by future extreme weather events. “There are very few references to the vulnerability of wealthier countries to climate change,” they write. The US also says the final IPCC synthesis report, which pulls together three 1,000+ page studies released in the past 12 months, needs to be more accessible to readers without deep technical knowledge of climate issues.“This document should be prepared so as to be effective for the people who will only read the gray boxes. This report is a story, of what happens if we don’t act, and what can happen if we do… it should be an effective story.”…
    Not all comments are political. “I have zoomed 150% in the pdf and have a huge monitor. The [Figure SPM 4] figure has a low resolution which makes it hard to read on paper,” a Danish official writes…
    ***Leo Hickman, WWF-UK’s chief climate change adviser, who will be in Copenhagen as an observer, tells RTCC the synthesis will likely be the “go-to document” governments use when seeking evidence for their climate and energy policies…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/10/26/us-and-uk-call-on-un-science-panel-to-stress-climate-risks/
    just as BBC’s Richard Black is now the Director, Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), the Guardian’s Hickman has found a new CAGW home:
    ***Wikipedia: Leo Hickman
    Leo Hickman was a journalist with The Guardian, writing The Eco Audit blog within the Guardian environment group of blogs. From September 2013 he will work for the UK branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Hickman

  9. Great turn around!, but it seems the IPCC’s function may be nearing the end of its useful life for the UN.
    The damage has been done.
    Using the AGW crisis, the UN, through ICLEI, http://www.iclei.org local governments have been infiltrated by UN Agenda 21’s concept of “sustainability”. UNESCO has gained its grip on culture and implanted the UN’s imprint on “sustainability” in education.
    In my country our own government has an ETS, (of which some of the “emitters” must be rejoicing as the amount they charge the consumer is based on the pre deflated cost of CO2), and we have UN type anti capitalism and Agenda 21 “sustainability” culture taught in our schools.
    We even have the worlds first purposed designed Agenda 21 “sustainable” plan for a city. So far the government hasn’t got too far.though, has had difficulty ripping the land from the private owners and is still looking for finance – not to mention squabbling over miniscule details.
    A lot of this is illustrated in my blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
    God only knows where else the UN has infiltrated but like all unchecked bureaucracies, the UN has a life and ambitions of its own which include power for the un-elected executives and others who control it.
    It looks like the AGW battle is being won but the war is barely under way.
    Cheers
    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

    • Change the terms, bring some colors.
      Global warming faded, not scientifically sustainable.
      Change to Climate Change, this also now is fading, not scientifically sustainable.
      Well, change to Sustainability.
      So now, try to prove against sustainability.
      Good luck.
      Yes, you are correct. “Sustainability” is now “IN”
      However, more is involved, download the IPCC Summary just published.
      Look at it, 33 pages.
      Place this report in the hands of high school science teachers.
      This Summary Report is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS.
      Simply SPECTACULAR design. Place this report in the hands of High School Students.
      Forget about science; the pictures, figures, tables look GREAT and I don’t care about the facts!

  10. Bob Carter has always been an objective and sober voice in the AGW era. Glad he’s still on the frontline.

  11. I was watching ABC news tonight (the American ABC), because the Broncos-Patriots game was turning into a beatdown. The top story was about the extreme cold. The next story was about global warming with videos of nuclear power plants. It was about this IPCC report. Wasn’t that awful convenient. The message was “you may be freezing cold, but trust us places where you aren’t are getting warmer”. Propaganda at its finest.

  12. I have a question. If you add a constant amount of a substance every year that has a half-life, aren’t you just adding exactly the amount lost through half-life from what’s already there resulting in a nil effect?
    So if we’re adding 10GT of CO2 which has a 4 year half life for man-made CO2 and we’ve been outputting this for more than say 20 years, aren’t we losing ~10GT per year anyhow via its half-life?
    I know we’re increasing the output somewhat, but it seems that the logarithmic effects of CO2 on temperature isn’t the only thing about CO2 that has diminishing returns.

    • Hi from Oz. Sorry, Mrx, you are using logic against propaganda, which never works, because propaganda is not meant to be answered, it’s meant to be heard over and over again until resistance is understood to be useless. I agree with you, and also make the point that the IPCC itself acknowledges the only 3 percent of atmospheric CO2 is caused by human activity, the other 97 percent being natural ( e.g. 60 percent due to sea out gassing etc.). So how the heck can a small rise in this 3 percent cause anything? Once again, propaganda is not meant to answered! I believe that the economic side- effects of this AGW nonsense will be its undoing, not scientific rebuttals. Unfortunately, this will take a while, and do untold damage in the meantime. Cheers,

  13. I know that weather is not “climate”, but today’s Nor’Easter that coincided with the IPCC warnings this week are pretty ironic. Read the story:
    “Up to 21 inches of snow has fallen in parts of Maine from a storm system that earlier brought an unprecedented early-season snow to parts of South Carolina on the first day of November.
    “The Aroostook County town of Cary, Maine, near the Canadian border, reported 21 inches of snow just before 7 p.m. EST Sunday. Farther south in the state, Hampden reported 15.5 inches of snow while nearby Bangor reported 14.5 inches. Including these reports, 16 different locations in Maine have recorded at least 12 inches of snow so far.
    “Snow and wind had knocked out power to more than 110,000 customers in Maine alone as of Sunday afternoon as the heavy wet snow and 40-mph gusts brought down tree limbs and power lines. The counties of Penobscot, Hancock, Knox and Lincoln have been hardest hit thus far. The state governor declared a state of emergency and one power utility declared a “system emergency” due to the damage. Scroll down for the latest snow forecast for Maine.
    “Record Southern Snow
    Snow was observed Saturday as far south and east as Charleston, South Carolina, the earliest flakes on record in the city. This occurred less than three days after a string of four straight days in the mid-upper 80s. Places like Folly Beach and downtown Charleston picked up a trace of snowfall.”
    IT IS SORT OF PAYBACK FOR WHEN HANSON HAD THE AIR CONDITIONING TURNED OFF WHEN HE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS ON A HOT SUMMER DAY IN THE 1980s. Hehehehehehehehe.

  14. “US secretary of state John Kerry targeted climate change deniers: “Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids.” ”
    I’m not disputing the science. Even with ‘ adjustments ‘ the temps have remained flat while co2 levels have pushed ever higher. Where is the causation that is so perfectly evident in the hockey stick graph? That’s the science, Dear John.

  15. This is a new social paradigm regarding climate: Help people today. And not help people get rich off of climate fear, but help people facing, water and energy shortages *today*. I like it.

  16. The IPCC says the the end of our world is upon us! They are right! Their world is at an end as cooling is opon us and it is so great that they can no longer fudge the record enough. Real people on the street know that it is getting colder. The Ecoloons should be claiming that they have saved the world already and their work has been successful.
    The Ecoloons are doubling down and will destroy all credibility of their argument, hopefully the UN as well. pg

  17. The reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. The primary greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere is H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to charges in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect they might have on climate. The climate change we are experiencing today has happened before. The IPCC’s plethora of models based on the idea that an increase in CO2 causes warming have all failed to predict today’s global temperatures. They have predicted global warming that has not occurred. They are wrong. Models have been generated that are based on the idea that climate change is caused by the sun and the oceans that have corrected predicted today’s global temperatures. These models do not include any CO2 effects. The IPCC’s political statements are in deference to the science. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

  18. Moon and Holdren need to grow spines and balls and just come out and say that China, India and Brazil are required to cull 500,000 humans per year and USA 30,000 per year above deaths otherwise or else face nuclear destruction.
    Oh, … from where and when did the UN get its nuclear arsenal for the indiscriminate killing of the human race, Moon’s and Holdren’s most hated of enemies?
    “Oops,” Bon Ki Moon is often to say.
    No spines or ball apparent on these two.

    • Oops, you used Mr. Ban’s first name, Ki-Moon, er, only half of it. I think he doesn’t even ponder how to go about the culling. He just does what he deems to be fashionable. One needs friends when one wants to re-apply for the good job.

  19. “Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance, only 6% of it is devoted to helping people adapt to climate change in the present.”
    Trenberth, Santer are pulling down at least $150,000/year, probably more. GISS director Gavin Schmidt is certainly pulling in $225,000/yr in NYC (with housing comp), maybe up to $250,000.
    GISS, LLNL Climate Modeling Section, NCAR, …they all should be defunded. Divert the money and spend it on Pell Grants or anything more productive than useless Climate Change GIGO.

    • Excellent.
      I keep pointing this fact out and haven’t had the graph to point to.
      I’ll just link to it on another thread, thanks.

  20. That comment from the US secretary of state John Kerry is worth re-reading a dozen times.Despite the massive global consensus, the might of national governments,and the power of the all-knowing UN ,he feels compelled to warn the world about the sinister and insidious danger posed by a tiny group of uninformed climate deniers.Apparently they are a threat,not only to everyone and their children,but to everyone and their grandchildren as well.(Wow,I never felt so powerful!! My therapist is going to love this.)
    So what should be done about these evil people who are such a grave threat to the future of humanity?Should they be interned,put to hard labour,and re-educated?Yes,maybe.But what if their thought crime could result in the deaths of hundreds of millions?Surely they forfeit their lives in that case?Food for thought Mr Kerry.

  21. It bears saying again: The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html.
    The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve a worldwide disorientation away from the actual UN/EU/IMF/IPCC aims of global monetary and energy helotization – and bringing a whole, if not all of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society, inter alia, has become Lysenkoist. viz. http://tinyurl.com/ptgrz34
    Besides, an elementary order-of-magnitude calculation – relying on the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics – shows that, even when allowing the IPCC calculation of man-mad global warming by 2100 reputedly be caused by CO2, is so trivial when compared to solar input variability alone, as to be totally irrelevant to ‘climate’, viz.
    http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html

  22. IPCC, what a pack of liars. The truth is a lie and lies are truth. Jets have crisscrossed the world so the prophets of doom could shout warnings of coming catastrophe. EPA, NASA, NOAA, CIA, our military, UN, IPCC, ex-presidents, ex-vice presidents, actors, lawyers, judges, weathermen, slick operators and fools all preached “Save the Planet!” It is over IPCC, you tried to take normal climate variation to fascist extremes and you have failed. Good riddance.

  23. First time I had seen the financial numbers with a source. One billion dollars per day spent by the USA alone on this charade. $365 billion per year. And that’s just in the US. The worldwide figure is likely over a trillion $ a year. No wonder the proponents will lie, cheat, defame, fabricate, corrupt data bases, and attack true scientists like frenzied zombies. The truth is a threat to this enormous fund pipeline and this ain’t beanbag.

  24. “…Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance…”
    It is a lot more than that…right now it is $600 billion a year and growing. But even this will be dwarfed when the legal and financial structures for global carbon trading is set up and running.

Comments are closed.