Dr Bill Johnston
www.bomwatch.com.au
Australia’s contingent to the circus of COP28 is led by the Government’s top climate-clown Christopher Bowen. But for what precise benefit to Australia?
Bowen’s game-plan is to make promises that can’t be kept; promises that wreck our reliable coal-based energy networks; that export another generation’s-worth of manufacturing jobs off-shore ensuring that we import stuff we once made here, or food we once grew ourselves. Promises of shortages where none should exist, and, with the aid of WWF and their friends in the NGO-sponsored Climate Institute, and the Australian Academy of Science, promises to frighten the Dickens out of millions of Ozzie children with climate horror-stories that will never come to pass.
Background
Following a review of their 2002 book International Environmental Policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Aynsley Kellow made the point in reply to reviewer Dr John Zillman that “Governments decided to establish an intergovernmental panel to produce a consensus in advance of any significant evidence of global warming for the political purpose … of assisting the development of a climate convention”. (Article link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2003.10648590.) As Zillman advocated for the IPCC, and was one of a select group that drafted its terms of reference and oversaw its initial structure and operation, he had both feet in one camp.
Zillman was also Director of the Bureau of Meteorology, a position which gave him considerable leverage within the upper echelons of Australia’s scientific community. From 1978 to 2004 he was Australia’s permanent representative on the World Meteorological Organisation, First Vice President from 1987 to 1995 and then President from 1995 to 2003. The WMO and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) set-up the IPCC in 1988. Its First Assessment Report (FAR) was published in 1990.
However, the IPCC was set up only to endorse, synthesise and report on the science in the context of “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”. It was beyond its remit to question or verify that the science was sound (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles.pdf).
Boehmer-Christiansen and Kellow outlined the “important ways in which (the IPCC) falls short of normally accepted scientific standards of conduct: lead authors acting as editors; lead authors inviting contributions; lead authors selecting reviewers; lead authors deciding whether and how to respond to criticisms; the absence of a non-publication option; self-citation; citation of yet-to-appear work….” Then there was Kyoto, then Paris and on it goes like an out-of-control juggernaut.
The Executive Summary of Chapter 8 of the FAR entitled Detection of the greenhouse effect in the Observations, concluded thus: “The fact that we are unable to reliably detect the predicted signals today does not mean that the greenhouse theory is wrong or that it will not be a serious problem for mankind in the decades ahead”. From that time, finding data that supported the models, and models that fitted the warming hypothesis became the focus of the science and all that followed.
Despite decades of data-fiddling, five more IPCC reports each more strident than the last, and 27 COPs there can be little doubt that the main topic of discussion over canapés and Champagne at COP28 will be: Are we there yet, when will we be there?
I’m better by far, than a silly galah, they squeak and squawk and try to talk … (inspired by John Williamson’s Old man Emu)
About:
Bill Johnston is a retired natural resources senior scientist, and experienced weather observer. Interests include agronomy, ecology, climatology, hydrology and soil science. Recent studies relating to temperature data homogenisation are available at www.bomwatch.com.au.
The IPCC has a case of “special prosecutor syndrome”, organized to find some wrongdoing. It is very rare for a special prosecutor to admit there was nothing to find.
Just the remember the underlying tenant of all of them globally– “it doesn’t matter if it’s wrong”.
“The fact that we are unable to reliably detect the predicted signals today does not mean that the greenhouse theory is wrong or that it will not be a serious problem for mankind in the decades ahead”.
These “decades” may end around 2030
World’s Top Arctic Scientist Warns Climate Crisis Is a ‘Globalist Scam’
found at Notrickszone
When will the COPs end .. never!! They like the Champagne and canapes too much. Carbon Footprint with 400,000 attending .. Mehhh, when’s dinner??
The GHE theory is correct in principle. First experimentally shown by Tyndall in 1859.
BUT its magnitude and therefore significance is very uncertain. The alarmists base their future alarm on climate models that are provably ‘off’ and do not account for natural variation. So far, all the ‘happened by now’ predictions based on those models have NOT happened—‘off’.
COP28 is failing. Third world wants to hijack first world money bigly for ‘loss and damage’ that doesn’t exist. Greenies want to phase out fossil fuels with NO other solution for renewable intermittency. China and India won’t play Kerry’s ‘no coal’ game.
Attendance went from ~40k last year in Glasgow to ~70k this year in Dubai. Maybe the host venue amenities? Glasgow is rather damp and very chilly this time of year, Dubai rather dry and warm but over its summer heat. A global warming conference better attended where it is warmer. What could that mean?
Scientific fraud has become the gold standard for climate research. Bias, false assumptions, cherry picked data and circular reasoning dominate.
The top image appears to be missing a couple of blades. Could be a COPtical illusion.
The best analysis of global warming/climate change consequences that I have ever seen is on this youtube by Viscount Christopher Monckton, with whom I have had the pleasure to meet.
It is lengthy, but it is so easy to understand and so important that I encourage all to read it and spread it.
Also recommended required reading for understanding the science is Dr Bill Johnston’s BomWatch blog. If you do not know of his studies, you are missing a vital part of the story that shakes its foundations.
Geoff S
“But for what precise benefit to Australia?”
The answer should be obvious. Bowen and his friends in government and political allies get a tax-payer paid holiday to a luxury vacation in Dubai at the finest of hotels and best of cuisines.
This is as bad as Sharm El-Shaikh last year. Does anyone expect any work being done at a party town with thousands of private jets parked at the airport, thousands of Europe’s most skilled whores present to serve the aristocrats and a mob of more than 70,000 attending the world’s biggest party?
If anyone thinks this is about any serious work being done, well, there’s a bridge over the East River in New York I can sell you.
Speaking of the billionaire’s club here’s Twitty Forrest getting in on the act-
COP28 Summit is ‘billionaires’ telling the rest of the world ‘what to do’ (msn.com)
Made a motzah out of iron ore and now it goes to his head that he should be a big wheel saving the world from global boiling. So much for the Sun Cable fantasy powering Singapore and now he’s off rubbing shoulders with the usual suspects subsidy mining. Stick to your remit Twitty flogging iron ore to China to cook it up with coal.
“The Executive Summary of Chapter 8 of the FAR entitled Detection of the greenhouse effect in the Observations, concluded thus: ‘The fact that we are unable to reliably detect the predicted signals today does not mean that the greenhouse theory is wrong or that it will not be a serious problem for mankind in the decades ahead’.”
That tells us all we need to know. Imagine a prosecutor explaining to a judge that “Well sure, in the absence of any reliable evidence, we haven’t proven the defendant guilty of mass murder and all other forms of evil, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be guilty and he might well do enormous harm to little children in future. We entreat the court to remove his head in the swiftest and bloodiest manner possible.”
Neither science nor justice are meant to work this way. An opinion, a belief, a hunch, or a gut feeling are not objective evidence of anything. The point of science is to insulate ourselves from those ingrained tendencies to reach conclusions based on anything other than objective evidence. The point of the IPCC is to reinforce those belief systems regardless of objective evidence.
The author reports:
…the IPCC was set up only to endorse, synthesise and report on the science in the context of “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”. It was beyond its remit to question or verify that the science was sound (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles.pdf).
A couple years ago I found this:
6 December 1988
43/53 Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind
The General Assembly, “…Conservatism of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind.”
Concerned that human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially economic and social consequences.
Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmosphere concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce (sea level rise).
Comment
We climate realists are critical of the IPCC, but an argument can be made that their alarmism is due to their Charter. They’re just doing their job: Scrounging around for any possible risk, regardless of the unlikeliness of a threat or the need “for adaptation and mitigation”.