Skip to content

Roger Helmer Sums It Up Nicely

September 29, 2013
tags:

 

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Roger Helmer, the UKIP MEP, has neatly summed up everything that is wrong with the latest IPCC report.

He writes:

 

Image courtesy of Benny Peiser, GWPF

 

Like a warming ice sheet, or a fracked rock, the so-called “consensus” on global warming is starting to crack.  The latest IPCC report is in many ways a remarkable document.

Many people will be astonished at the IPCC’s assertion that they are now more certain that climate change is man-made than they were when their last report was published six years ago.  95% certain now, as against 90% certain then.  And this despite the fact that there has been no increase in mean global temperatures in the meantime, and that the predictions of their computer climate models have quite simply failed.

It is perhaps not surprising that if you assemble 1000+ “scientists” and ask them to look for evidence of man-made global warming, they find some — or at least they report that they have found some.  (I put “scientists” in inverted commas, because on their previous report it was found that a significant proportion of the IPCC “experts” were not scientists at all, but green campaigners and eco-activists — and many of the “peer-reviewed papers” quoted by the IPCC turned out to be merely press releases and propaganda from green NGOs.  And of the genuine scientists on the panel, many were from unrelated disciplines, like the Chairman of the IPCC, Ravendra Pachauri, who is a railway engineer).

 

Read the rest here.

4 Comments
  1. September 29, 2013 9:44 am

    During the IPCC press conference, Dr Rajendra Pachauri said the following:

    “Now as far as this particular report is concerned, let me just give you an overview of the kind of response that we got from the scientific community when we sought nominations for authors to work on the fifth assessment report. We got close to 3,000 nominations. Now this, may I say, was well over 50% more than we had got in the fourth assessment report. And we were able to select 831 excellent professionals as authors and review editors.”

    Does anyone know on what basis the 831 were selected?

    Is it unreasonable to suppose that they were probably biased in favour of the link between human activity and climate change, in which case, the outcome was inevitable?

  2. September 29, 2013 10:08 am

    This says it all. The powers that be do not want to hear GOOD NEWS that:

    • all concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
    • it is not essential to disrupt the Western world’s economy to no purpose.
    • if warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for mankind.
    • any extra CO2 has already increased the fertility of all plant life on the planet and will continue to do so.
    • if warming is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development, especially so for the third world.

    see Hansard 13/9/2013

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130910/halltext/130910h0001.htm#13091045000001

    3.50 pm

    The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): I am glad to be able to respond to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has performed a useful parliamentary service in allowing the issue to be aired. Although profound climate scepticism may be only a minority interest, such sceptics voice a view shared by a number of my constituents and people in the newspapers. It is a view heard on the Clapham omnibus and it is right that we hear such views and debate them in the open. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) that a cloying consensus in Parliament does no service to legislation or national debate. However much I profoundly disagree with some of the arguments, it is right that we have the chance to air them in Parliament.

    Steve Baker: We have agreed here that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, so in an attempt not to have a cloying consensus, will the Minister fund some climate scientists who wish to refute the current thesis?

    Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I do not have a budget for that sort of research.

    In spite of the enormous costs and appalling waste it is clear that the powers that be do not want to hear the good news.

    It is now estimated that Climate Change policies in Europe alone will cost ~ £174,000,000,000 annually by 2020 or about 1.5% of European GDP.

    But this figure does not include the attendant losses to Europe of industries already leaving the EU for regions with more rational energy policies.

  3. Stephen WILSON permalink
    September 30, 2013 1:01 am

    Hi Paul,

    I read your blog posts with interest and appreciation.

    All this mention of 90% confidence, now increasing to 95%, has got me wondering: has anyone from the IPCC presented the data and calculation upon which this number rests?

    If not, has anyone asked for it?

    Given that the concept of confidence is clearly defined in statistics (when coupled with a range), it should be no problem to present and explain the data and calculation.

    Kind regards, Stephen Wilson

    Sent from my iPhone

    • September 30, 2013 9:59 am

      No there is no statistical basis behind this.Plenty of scientists such as Judith Curry have complained about this.

      Apparently, the IPCC have set bands of “likely” and “very likely”, and then labelled them 90% and 95% confidence.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: