The IPCC Rabid Rebuttal Service

 

If you are onboard with the climate consensus you can say what you like to alarm the public:

The costs of inaction on climate change will be “catastrophic”, according to US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Mr Kerry was responding to a major report by the UN which described the impacts of global warming as “severe, pervasive and irreversible”.

He said dramatic and swift action was required to tackle the threats posed by a rapidly changing climate.

Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the report says.

 

or this by ‘economist’ Nicholas Stern:

Climate change is here now and it could lead to global conflict

Extreme weather events in the UK and overseas are part of a growing pattern that it would be very unwise for us, or our leaders, to ignore, writes the author of the influential 2006 report on the economics of climate change

 

No reaction from the IPCC  to counter the alarmist claims there.

 

However should you not adhere to the new religious orthodoxy and dare to voice concerns about such alarmism the IPCC will instantly spring into action to correct your mis-aprehensions…via Bishop Hill:

 

“No sexing up here” says IPCC

The IPCC has issued a statement disputing some of the claims about the sexing up of the Summary for Policymakers made in the Mail on Sunday yesterday. This is the guts of it:

The Mail on Sunday also quotes some passages from the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers on migration and refugees, wars and conflicts, famine, and extreme weather, which it claims are “sexed up” from statements in the underlying report. In doing so it misleads the reader by distorting the carefully balanced language of the document.

For instance, the Mail on Sunday quotes the Summary as saying climate change will ‘increase risks of violent conflicts’. In fact the Summary says that climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying factors such as poverty and economic shocks. The Mail on Sunday says the Summary warns of negative impacts on crop yields, with warming responsible for lower yields of wheat, maize, soya and rice. In fact the Summary says that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts, with wheat and maize yields negatively affected in many regions and effects on rice and soybean yields smaller in major production regions.

The references to the underlying report cited by the Mail on Sunday in contrast to the Summary for Policymakers also give a completely misleading and distorted impression of the report through selective quotation. For instance the reference to “environmental migrants” is a sentence describing just one paper assessed in a chapter that cites over 500 papers – one of five chapters on which the statement in the Summary for Policymakers is based. A quoted sentence on the lack of a strong connection between warming and armed conflict is again taken from the description of just one paper in a chapter that assesses over 600 papers. A simple keyword search shows many references to publications and statements in the report showing the opposite conclusion, and supporting the statement in the Summary that “Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence…”.

 

 

And look…here’s the BBC’s very own Matt McGrath doing the same for the IPCC…earning his nickname ‘Fido’…..I might have made that up….but a conclusion based upon analysis of the facts….

 

Climate report: Creating a sense of urgency or alarm?

Don’t be fooled…this isn’t McGarth doing real journalism and looking at the real science…it’s raising the usual straw man only to burn him later.

The staw man being poor old Dr Tol who seems to keep McGrath tapping away at his keyboard relentlessly…..

 

So is this [report] an alarmist step? asks McGrath.

Don’t be silly….it merely ” adds to the urgency rather than the alarm.”

 

McGarth tells us ‘The issue of alarmism was raised before the meeting by Prof Richard Tol, an economist who has long been a firm favourite of those who question the scale of climate impacts.’

Note the inclusion of ‘economist’….hmm…like Stern then….so quite qualified to talk about outcomes and scenarios then just as Stern is?  And a bit snide that ‘long been a firm favourite of those who question the scale of climate impacts.’

Tol is also professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam….no mention of that?

Tol specialises in energy economics and environmental economics, with a particular interest in climate change, such as the economics of global warming. Previously, Tol was a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute. Before that, Tol was the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change and director of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences and board member of the Center for Marine and Climate Research at the University of Hamburg. Tol was a board member of the International Max Planck Research Schools on Earth System Modeling and Maritime Affairs and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment.[2] From 1998-2008 he was an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University‘s Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and from 2010-2011 an adjunct professor at Trinity College, Dublin‘s Department of Economics.

 

Anyway…to continue:

How do you reconcile the world of purple embers with the one of warming benefits?

According to Dr Chris Field  “We can use approaches to managing climate change as a way to build a better world, a world that is more robust, more secure, more vibrant…..and one of the things we need to do is open our eyes to the balances.

“If we’re dumb, it’s a serious, serious problem, and if we are smart it a serious problem, but one that we can manage.”

 

‘If we’re dumb?’   So McGrath is quite happy to ‘report’ someone’s abusive remarks about sceptics as being ‘dumb’ then?

 

 

Just remember Stern (and Bob Ward) is the paid for by Jeremy Grantham….you know the one who although he campaigns for a green planet and spends millions to attack climate sceptics and to push the AGW message says:

“Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”

Nicholas Stern is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The IPCC Rabid Rebuttal Service

  1. George R says:

    Reminiscent of BBC?:-

    “‘GIVE ME 10 MINUTES OR I’M LEAVING’ – ENVIRONMENTALIST HAS MELTDOWN ON AIR”

    By Raheem Kassam.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/07/Environmentalist-has-meltdown-on-air

       17 likes

  2. Phil Ford says:

    Creating a continuous state of fear and alarm is par for the course with liberal fascists. Its all about ‘calls to action’ and ‘collective urgency’ and ‘global threats’ with them. CAGW is a handy tool in the arsenal – as a political mechanism for ‘nudging’ the proletariat into their preferred version of the future.

    The IPCC is a UN/EU bought-and-paid-for report writing outfit (they are not a ‘governmental’ panel for nothing, after all). The £billions of taxpayer money that gets poured into this ‘green’ agitprop ultimately goes towards the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. This is the important bit – the ‘science’ (such as it is) comes a very poor second place.

    Its the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers that politicians get to wave about in the faces of their electorates, it’s the thing which enables them to claim that ‘the science tells them’ CAGW is the world’s no1 threat, etc. But even more importantly, this is a SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS. This should be ringing alarm bells everywhere, when one considers just how unproven, unreliable, inaccurate and sometimes plain untrue this ‘science’ actually is.

    In reality, the Summary is a political document – and one which, to date, has cost (and is costing) each and every one of us in our energy bills – those subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy come directly from the machinations of the IPCC and the EU, acting on the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers.

    And still, to this day, there is not one climate scientist in the world who has yet proven the hypothesis of CAGW. This is why the fear must be maintained, at all costs. In a sense, ‘proving’ CAGW is now relatively unimportant, perhaps even unhelpful to the cause. Fear is a better tool.

    Enter, the BBC. You know the rest.

       21 likes

  3. pah says:

    The State of Fear by Michael Crichton. All you need to know about the subject.

    NB The negative reviews by environloons on Amazon are fun.

       12 likes

  4. George R says:

    “CLIMATE CHANGE WORSE THAN NUCLEAR WAR, MASS MURDER OR ANYTHING, REALLY, CLAIMS GUARDIAN AUTHOR UNHYSTERICALLY”

    By James Delingpole.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/07/Climate-Change-Worse-Than-Nuclear-War-Mass-Murder-Or-Anything-Really-Claims-Guardian-Author-Unhysterically

       15 likes

  5. johnnythefish says:

    ‘In 2010, IPCC insiders answered a questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a collection of the world’s science academies). Their anonymized answers paint an unflattering picture of these meetings……

    While those who answered the questionnaire expressed a range of views about whether the final version diverged dramatically from the one drafted by the scientists, many individuals expressed serious concern:

    “The requirement of unanimous line-by-line approval of the summary for policy makers by member states…can undermine the scientific process… (p. 73)

    …often we see in the discussion that scientific merit gives way to political priorities. (p. 109)

    This is an awful procedure and should be changed. It has far too much politics and the final version has little relation to the one suggested by the scientists… (p. 139)’

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/26/why-the-ipcc-meeting-isnt-being-televised/

       11 likes

  6. Philip says:

    Plus ca change (whats changed at IPCC). Not a lot but the UN greeny lefties disaster agenda – the last push at the ‘panic button’ to save the great lesser spotted Marx is underway (again).

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-pierre-darriulat-calls-un-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/

       7 likes

  7. regag says:

    My thought for the day, a prayer to the BBC.
    Dear BBC,
    This morning was beautiful, crisp and frosty, much as April mornings have been, on occasions, for the last 60 years or so … and, would you believe it, earlier this year March came in ‘like a lion and went out like a lamb’ exactly as predicted by the ages-old proverb. Personally, I’m looking forward to the temperatures warming up this month (even if you try to tell me they are ‘higher than they should be’) because, if I’m lucky, perhaps the weather will be as clement and memorable as it was during that April over 50 years ago, the late sixties, when I was fortunate enough to be able to hike around the Lake District enjoying the lakes, hills and the burgeoning spring warmth.
    BBC, with regard to the WEATHER, as on so many other issues, please don’t try to foist your self-loathing, globalist mantra of shame and misery onto me because my country, and perhaps the world, would, in all probability, be a happier and more contented place without you, as, I pray, it yet may be.

       9 likes

  8. chrisH says:

    The Life Scientific featured one Dame Julia Slingo (9.30 am Radio 4 8/4/14).
    The science only takes us so far apparently re “climate change”…no increase in surface temperatures of the earth these last few years is no proof that their models are shite.
    No sirree.
    Turns out that all that heat is stirring the oceans deep-MH370 will be warm as toast when we find it in that case.
    Absolute crap-and this from a trained physicist who was all upset at Nigel Lawson calling her “that Slingo woman!”
    Sexist-hate crime-personal abuse-send for Polly!
    Laughable self harm from the Global Bunny Boilers here on this programme…crap science , no proof, more computers please and if you criticise it`ll be a hate crime sexist, homophobic or what have you.
    THIS is the level of science from our top unis then?…bring back Bert Ford who at least knew something about weather.
    Oh-and if you want to hear “that Slingo lady” tell us why a “prediction” is not a “projection”-and why this matters when they can`t tell tomorrows weather but see the end of the planet in twenty years time-do have a listen.
    My thinking is that a “prediction” is wrong and liable to make you all look like oafs at the Met(and the due scorn of your neighbours who know you`re a fraud with a piece of seaweed)…a “projection” gets you more computers, more research grants and a blessing from Miliband and Davey…and by the time you`re shown to be an oaf then, you`ll have retired with a nice pension.
    Woman is every inch the new breed of Scientific she-priest-and surely Slingo is a fruit fizzy drink from Connaught.
    I`ll refer myself to the hate police now.

       9 likes