Skip to content

Delingpole: ‘Who Drew It?’ Trump Queries IPCC’s $38.4 Trillion Ransom Note

October 16, 2018

By Paul Homewood

Dellers unveils some of the “top scientists” behind the IPCC’s £38 trillion ransom note:

 image

At the beginning of the week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented the world with a $38.4 trillion ransom note: pay us da money or Gaia gets it.

President Trump’s response: “Who drew it?”

That is, “Why should I trust these people?”

Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not hand over sums like $38.4 trillion without doing a bit of due diligence first. (That sum, by the way, is how much the IPCC insists the world must spend – $2.4 trillion per year over the next 16 years – if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. It’s the equivalent of the half the global economy.) And as it turns out he is more than right to be suspicious.

If you believe the Washington Post, the IPCC report was the work of “ninety-one leading scientists from 40 countries who together examined more than 6,000 scientific studies.”

But as Dennis Ambler notes in the damning special report below, very few of the people who compiled the IPCC’s latest Summary for Policymakers could properly be described as climate scientists. Many are geographers, energy analysts, economists, sociologists, engineers, sustainability experts, and eco-psychologists – often with considerable UN and World bank affiliations.

Ambler’s report is a treasure trove of detail revealing the vested interests and groupthink so prevalent among the IPCC’s Lead Authors. These people are not scientists as most of us fondly imagine scientists should be: dispassionate seekers-after-truth. Rather, they are passengers on the global warming gravy train, shills of the Climate Industrial Complex.

Co-ordinating Lead Author of Chapter 1 is physicist Professor Myles Allen of the Oxford Environmental Change Institute –
Professor of Geosystem Science, Leader, Climate Research Programme, ECI
His list of authored and co-authored publications demonstrates his ardent political campaigning perspective and the names of several others of the “1.5 degree team” are also present.

He is a proponent of the Carbon Budget theory, and there is a website with a dramatic countdown clock heading towards  “The Trillionth Tonne”,

He is effectively saying that all anthropogenic CO2 ever emitted is still in the atmosphere and causing warming and catastrophe occurs when the cumulative figure, [from his perspective] hits a trillion tonnes.

He has been pushing “climate litigation” for some time. In 2003 he told the BBC that:

“The vast numbers affected by the effects of climate change, such as flooding, drought and forest fires, mean that potentially people, organisations and even countries could be seeking compensation for the damage caused. “It’s not a question we could stand up and survive in a court of law at the moment, but it’s the sort of question we should be working towards scientifically,”

He was present at the 2012 meeting at La Jolla, when the Union of Concerned Scientists, led by Peter Frumhoff, constructed a strategy to bring prosecutions against fossil fuel companies in the manner of the tobacco class action. A co-strategist was Naomi Oreskes, who has repeatedly attacked non-conforming scientists as “Merchants of Doubt”. Blogger, Shub Niggarath, revealed the story a couple of years ago, complete with photo of the group.

They produced a Climate Accountability Report from that 2012 meeting:

“Myles Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University, suggested that while it is laudable to single out the 400 Kivalina villagers, all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are victims of climate change. “Why should taxpayers pay for adaptation to climate change? That is a sound bite that I don’t hear used. Why should taxpay­ers bear the risk? Perhaps that question alone can help shift public perception.”

Read the full article here:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/12/delingpole-who-drew-it-trump-queries-ipccs-38-4-trillion-ransom-note/

Advertisements
17 Comments
  1. October 16, 2018 1:56 pm

    Reblogged this on HiFast News Feed.

  2. October 16, 2018 2:40 pm

    At some point science discovered marketing, PR and political activism, and abominable statements such as “scientists are concerned about …” started flying around.

    In 2015 the once prestigious Royal Society awarded its annual science book prize to an eco-journalist (Gaia Vince – yes that is really her first name), who traveled the world and found a lot of … people. Shock horror, I must write a book about this, the RS are sure to like it.

    Its not just “learned societies” that have sold their souls, the universities are at it too, very happy to lend their names to any sciency activists with money, who set up “institutes”, essentially just troll factories for Big Green.

  3. Malcolm Bell permalink
    October 16, 2018 3:33 pm

    I am an Engineer and I suggest I can match any “scientist” in rigour and dispassionate analysis. To be dismissed as one of the riffraff as Delimgpole does so casually is a measure of his ignorance which surprises me.

    The complexity of the climate situation is probably only properly understood by Engineers equipped to think broadly and practically across such a broad front. Normal “scientists” have narrow and largely merely academic skills not adequate for global systems understanding.

    Please take care in the future.

    • roger permalink
      October 16, 2018 3:45 pm

      Very touchy and somewhat hubristic.
      Take a deep breath, think broadly and practically and then enlighten us.

      • Up2snuff permalink
        October 16, 2018 8:23 pm

        Malcolm Bell is correct. The same applies for economists. (Economics is a science as well as an art.)

        What should be more concerning to Delingpole and us is the line “ninety-one leading scientists from 40 countries who together examined more than 6,000 scientific studies.”.

        Did the 91 ‘scientists’ sit down together and read every word of 6,000 scientific studies before discussing them (with interpreters provided?), agreeing a conclusion and writing their report on behalf of the IPCC?

        Really?

        Really?

        ‘Do the math!’ as they say.

      • October 16, 2018 10:14 pm

        I don’t think Delingpole is denigrating engineers or economists. He is simply making the point that they are not involved in the climate science sections of the report.

        Instead they are doing things like looking at CCS solutions, or working out the costs involved.

        So the “leading 91 scientists” who are warning about the dangers of 1.5C are not actually 91, but no more than a handful. And then of course we tack on the hangers on, such as “Environmental Sustainability” experts, law lecturers, and a “Professor of Environmental Psychology”.

    • Emrys Jones permalink
      October 16, 2018 3:55 pm

      That is an interesting perspective. The whole Global Warming debate has been claimed by scientists (of sorts) but I think you have a good point in saying that engineers are better placed to judge the overall impact.

      • Up2snuff permalink
        October 16, 2018 9:16 pm

        Emrys, economists will pick holes in any measurement argument and bring a human behaviour element to the proposals, a banker will explain the complexities of dealing with the money, especially worldwide and preventing fraud, an accountant will be able, with the economist, to explain the likely impacts of that sort of taxation on different people groups with a sociologist and an anthropologist weighing in with their advice while the engineer comes back in (especially if a process engineer) together with a scientist to outline the massive CO2 outputs that making the changes demanded by the IPCC in, I heard, twelve years but Delingpole states as sixteen years apparently.

        At which point, the realisation will dawn on ‘the 91’ that the above is a very, very long sentence so they will ignore the bit at the end and dismiss me as a sceptic or denier, even if I know a thing or two about economics and stuff.

        Hopefully, the thinking public around the world will realise that instead of limiting human CO2 output, the spending of $2.4tn annually on the changes demanded by the IPCC Panel will massively increase world CO2 output, not reduce it. The thinking public may, like me, hope that that very long sentence carries a realisation at the end that is a death sentence for the concept of CO2-driven AGW and Climate Change and the IPCC Panel will have to think again.

        Sadly, probably not in both cases.

        The fact remains: you cannot save the world from increasing CO2 while manufacturing huge quantities of solar panels and wind turbines, let alone installing them which requires even more CO2 outputs.

        And that’s before you get around to building new properties or bringing old ones up to the standard necessary to reduce heating & lighting requirements. But before we can install those products we will need to build the hybrid or electric vans and ships to take them to the point of use otherwise there will be yet another increase in CO2.

        Then there are all the electric or hybrid public transport vehicles to be built. What about the new electric or hybrid farm machinery required to grow vast extra crops to feed the world a vegan diet? Should they take precedence over public transport?

        What about getting people to work to earn the $80 trillion (estimated) world GDP from which the $2.4 trillion per annum will come. There’s the need to generate more energy for their workplaces. A large number of them will require cars to get there. So that’s more hybrid and electric vehicles and the disposal of the old fossil fuel ones. Should they take precedence? And some of that $80tn GDP comes from agriculture, farming, er.. umhhh, cattle and sheep for food. Oh dear. That’s got to go. So we really need to be turning over to arable vast swathes of land but we cannot do it with diesel-fuelled machinery. That will require more CO2 to manufacture a new generation of farm machinery. Oh dear!

        Choices, choices, choices.

        It should be then back to the economists on the IPCC Panel to explain in detail what those choices and their priority are for politicians around the world to put to their electorates. The decisions will have to be made pretty soon. Or someone will have to tell the IPCC not to be so silly and that we will have to instead save that money and think instead about adaption measures.

        In the meantime, the world will go on turning as before.

      • Up2snuff permalink
        October 18, 2018 8:24 pm

        Paul, then we have to divide 6000 papers by a figure of less than 91 unless all the economists & engineers and the hangers on read the papers, too. That makes it even less likely to have been done thoroughly.

        It would be good to have a detailed explanation behind the methodology of the IPCC. Or is this another computer search generated 97% Scam?

  4. October 16, 2018 3:36 pm

    For this sort of money we can build an orbital ring and habitats moving the entire population off the Earth to live in relative prosperity whist the planet is restored to pre human standards and we could probably afford to lift off most of the architecture including the pyramids.

  5. October 16, 2018 3:49 pm

    If the UN really believe that people are responsible for climate change and that it’s an existential threat to our species, why are they not actively and vigorously pursuing a policy of population control and reduction? Their insistence on paying the poorest people to have children either means that their conclusions are wrong or that they are actively encouraging the destruction of our species. Either way, there is definitely “something fishy in the state of Denmark”

  6. Tom O permalink
    October 16, 2018 3:59 pm

    This was an incredibly stupid statement –

    ““Myles Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University, suggested that while it is laudable to single out the 400 Kivalina villagers, all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are victims of climate change. “Why should taxpayers pay for adaptation to climate change? That is a sound bite that I don’t hear used. Why should taxpay­ers bear the risk? Perhaps that question alone can help shift public perception.”

    Myles, WHO do you think is going to pay for YOUR accommodations, the tooth fairy? What YOU want will be born by the same taxpayers whose minds you want to change. Which way then, Miles, are they likely to go if not for the less costly route of adaptation, should warming continue and it proves to be an issue. Are you REALLY as IGNORANT as this statement makes you sound?

    • jasg permalink
      October 18, 2018 1:38 pm

      We’re talking about 13 degrees Allen here. It isn’t ignorance, just PR for the unpopular notion of deindustrialization. Some might call it barefaced lies. He is obviously aware that public perception is against him and will remain so.

  7. Dave Ward permalink
    October 16, 2018 7:10 pm

    “Why should taxpayers pay for adaptation to climate change?”

    But we already are (in the form of levies added to our energy bills), thanks to the policies being enforced as a result of lunatics like the IPCC Lead Authors…

  8. Athelstan permalink
    October 17, 2018 1:33 pm

    there’s no need to panic, elon musk will either drive us all to the moon or, he’s got a new battery up his sleeve and it’ll only cost the earth.

  9. Gerry, England permalink
    October 17, 2018 1:59 pm

    As the book The Deniers points out in the final chapter, NONE of the IPCC crew have achieved anything of note (including a Nobel prize) and are not the pre-eminent person in their field. All the real scientists quit the IPCC about 3 reports ago because the summary was a misleading piece of political rubbish, unrepresentative of the report, and they sued to have their names removed from the report.

  10. October 18, 2018 2:41 pm

    I would require at least one course in paleobotany. The earth, over millions of years, has gone through periods with NO CO2 (prior to land habitation of plants and then animals); much more CO2 and less CO2. All of this took place prior to man’s existence.

    Continents have been together as one huge landmass. That had major effects on climate. The continents had broken apart. That had major effects on climate. Continents have moved around. That had major effects on climate. Continents have bumped into one another causing major orgenies which formed mountain ranges, caused the folding and faulting of rocks, and metamorphism with the intrusion of of molten rock, and volcanic eruptions. That had major effects on climate. These actions not only moved continents in relation to the poles and the equator, but led to internal deserts or jungles.

    Recently, President Trump was almost universally misquoted when he said climate changes and referred to millions of years. He did not acknowledge that it was man-caused. In fact, he said we were no longer going to have our pockets picked. When he referred to “hoax” some time ago, he referred to the efforts by such as the IPCC.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: