Doomsday had to be postponed for five months, but ‘pausing’ IPCC writers have finally delivered another ‘Net Zero or Else’ report highlighting increasingly improbable climate change scenarios. Every IPCC report ramps up the desperation, and this latest ‘Synthesis Report‘ known as SYR is long on opinions, attributions and modelled results, but somewhat shorter on actual scientific facts.
The latest document collates the IPCC’s sixth assessments reports (AR6) into a short format that was originally scheduled to ramp up fears ahead of last year’s COP27 meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh. But in May and June last year, the planet-saving authors seem to have gone on strike. A few details about the incident are referred to in recently published IPCC minutes, which record how attempts were made with the writers to “rebuild the trust required to have them end their pause in writing, and to engage in the SYR production process”. Not before time, since IPCC reports need to be agreed with large numbers of interested parties, including almost 200 member governments. ‘Settled’ science, it need hardly be added, demands a lot of happy and settled funders.
Current global temperatures are said by the IPCC to be the highest for 125,000 years, an astonishing claim given the many scientific surveys that show much higher temperatures in the recent past. It is also claimed that temperatures will rise by 0.4°C in around a decade, an interesting opinion, based presumably on surface records that can be retrospectively adjusted, but an unlikely scenario given global warming ran out of steam over two decades ago. By 2100, the IPCC says global warming could rise to 4.4°C, although things need to be moving on a bit smartish given barely 0.1°C warming in the first two decades of the century.
There have been one or two concerns of late that the IPCC’s scare tactics have sent half the world doolally with climate fear, especially the impressionable young. These criticisms seem to have been taken on board. UN Secretary General Antonio ‘Code Red’ Guterres hailed SYR as a “survival guide to humanity”. All we need to do, continued the Left-wing Portuguese radical, is for all countries to bring forward their Net Zero plans by a decade. Dr. Friederike Otto from Imperial College specialises in so-called ‘attribution’ studies and the pseudoscience of claiming specific weather events are caused by the activities of humans. She helped write the latest report and was also in optimistic mood telling the BBC: “If we aim for 1.5°C and achieve 1.6°C, that is still much better than saying, it’s too late and we are doomed and I’m not even trying. And I think what this report shows very, very clearly is there is so much to win by trying.”
Back on Planet Reality, it might be noted that there are a number of possible disadvantages connected to removing fossil fuels, a reliable, inexpensive energy supply that powers 80% of global needs, within less than 17 years. Starvation, death, widespread warfare, societal and economic breakdown and rampant disease being just a few that come immediately to mind.
It is not difficult to see why the IPCC continues to claim current global temperatures are the highest for 125,000 years, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that shows this is untrue. The rebound rise of about 1°C seen over the last 200 years is very small, and similar changes have obviously occurred countless times in the historical and paleo past, sometimes over even shorter time periods. It is difficult to worry too much about something that seems natural and in fact is beyond the control of humans. Placing the rise in the longer context of 125,000 years and adding all manner of invented weather event attribution and ‘tipping’ point stories adds some firepower to a political narrative ultimately designed to move society towards the collectivist Net Zero agenda.
The Daily Sceptic has reported on a number of science papers that track the higher temperatures in the past, in particular the period since the last ice age started to lift about 12,000 years ago. A sample can be read here, here and here. Earlier this year, a group of European scientists published a paper analysing tree remains that suggested there was a much warmer climate in the Alps during most of the last 10,000 years.
‘Settled’ science, it might be observed, needs consensus from the world and his wife. The recent IPCC minutes, for instance, noted that the SYR team, “should ensure policy relevance and usefulness for policymakers”. Needless to say this is not to the taste of some independent-minded scientists, especially those retired with no need to hustle for state research or Left-wing foundation funds. In fact they can be quite disobliging about the entire IPCC process. In a recent paper titled ‘Challenging “Net Zero” with Science‘, Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively called Net Zero “scientifically invalid and a threat to the lives of billions of people”. In fact they have previously dismissed the peer review system around climate change as a “joke” – pal review, not peer review, they quipped. The IPCC is “government controlled and only issues government-dictated findings”.
“Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence,” they added.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Braverman seems like one of the better ministers – not that the competition is fierce
If only Braverman had a position of authority
Toby, I believe you’re a good guy, but please get off the fence. It was only a few weeks ago that you were insisting a multicultural Britain was a good thing because, as far as I understood it, there were more culinary options. I believe that a multicultural Britain could work, but only if those adopting Britain as their home integrated into our culture – the one you say doesn’t exist, but also say does. We are in a multitude of wars and we need people like you – intelligent, decent, articulate, honest – to come off the fence before it really is too late.
The state has no business recording “non crime hate incidents”. Chinese social credit score anyone?
What else can it be if not a form of social credit?
They want to turn us (even more) into domesticated pets.
I think the government and other political parties urgently need to clarify what they mean by “hate” and “protest”. If I pray silently, I don’t consider that I am protesting or harassing anyone or committing a thought crime. If I politely suggest that men, regardless of how in touch with their feminine side they may be, should nonetheless stay out of women’s toilets and women’s refuges and women’s prisons, I don’t consider I am being hateful towards anyone, and I would suggest that most sensible people would agree.
It is absolutely not good enough for our lawmakers to simply say that if anyone says that they feel harassed by someone then (so long as their accuser is on the favourite’s list) that person is guilty of harassment. I’d go so far as to say that this country risks becoming a tyranny if this isn’t sorted out.
I don’t think the police should be involved at all in policing “hateful” behaviour. It’s either criminal or it’s not. If not then their role should be limited to keeping the peace so for example if there are two groups obviously about to kick off violently send them away in opposite directions.
I don’t want to read only about Braverman’s thoughts on this outrage, nor that she is writing a couple of letters, I want to know what she will actually do.
She could start by hauling in some senior plods and having them put out statements confirming any more of this sharia nonsense and the perps will be arrested.
If we do not put a stop to this Sharia crap we are on a very dangerous path, not that the current trajectory is not already exceedingly dangerous.
Furthermore, the Christian churches need to see if they can find a pair and start to speak out in favour of the nominally majority religion, and that does not include the Satanic, treasonous Jelly Welby.
Good on Toby for getting the FSU on the case. The response from West Yorkshire’s finest should be interesting.
I would argue that it is the very establishment of the Church of England that sends out the wrong message in a country that is a long way towards secularism, it’s a long time past the point at which we should disestablish the church and then there would be a level playing field with no apparent bias towards any religion.
You mean the church of Darwin, shit happens, nominalism and relativism I assume.
I am not interested in a level playing field. I am not interested in Islam. We are supposedly a Christian country and it’s about time it was reasserted.
Provide a level playing field for Muslims and before we know it there will be sharia sheriffs on every street corner. No thanks.
Our Constitution is rooted in Christianity, hence we are a Christian country even if many of the folk who live here aren’t practising Christians. The rhythms of our culture are based on Christianity.
Exactly.
I must admit I’m a supporter of antidisestablishmentarianism. It’s not like the Church is dictating our law, and I think it is important that voices outside of the political parties are heard. To just disestablish and not replace with anything of substance so that the stranglehold of the established political parties further increased wouldn’t help anyone. Very easy to knock something down, much harder to build something up, and I tend to be cautious about radical constitutional change which can often have unintended consequences. Just look at the “supreme court”, and the state of the House of Lords, which is more a tool of the establishment than it has ever been since they reduced the hereditary peers.
Stop Press 2: According to the Mail on Sunday, the 14 year-old autistic boy had to move out of his home last week following arson threats.
I wonder, is it too much to ask to start deporting foreign nationals who make such threats in these circumstances?
I wonder, is plod investigating the arson threats.
I maintain that Welby is ‘treasonous’ by virtue of him being a gnostic, not a Xian.
“The lodestar of our democracy is freedom of speech.”
Depends on the topic, apparently…
All topics can be spoken about freely, but some can be spoken about more freely than others.
Yes, good point Marcus.
That was the most impressive, morally unambiguous and and courageous statement by a major politician that I have come across in decades
Those who have viewed the Daily Sceptic as fertile ground for attacking and undermining liberal democracy (whether from a pro-Russian Federation / CCP or generally fascistic / marxist basis) take note.
No matter what the temporary setbacks cooperative and tolerant coexistence will always win out over bullying tyranny.
To be more explicit, this is magnificent (although I would replace the nationalistic localised terminology with universal alternatives):
“We do not have blasphemy laws in Great Britain, and must not be complicit in the attempts to impose them on this country. There is no right not to be offended. There is no legal obligation to be reverent towards any religion.
The lodestar of our democracy is freedom of speech. Nobody can demand respect for their belief system, even if it is a religion. People are legally entitled to reject – and to leave – any religion. There is no apostasy law in this country. The act of accusing someone of apostasy or blasphemy is effectively inciting violence upon that person.
Everyone who lives here has to accept this country’s pluralism and freedom of speech and belief. One person’s freedom to, for example, convert from Islam to Christianity is the same freedom that allows a Muslim to say that Jesus was a prophet but not God Incarnate.
This freedom is absolute. It doesn’t vary case by case. It can’t be disapplied at a local level. And no one living in this country can legitimately claim that this doesn’t apply to them because they belong to a different tradition.”
Power speaks truth.
Yes. My comment is awaiting approval from the censor committee, in which I point out that Braverman is at last speaking the silent part out loud – that we live under Cultural Pluralism, not Multiculturalism.
Everyone who lives here has to accept this country’s pluralism and freedom of speech and belief.
Pluralism. I hope this is a nod to cultural pluralism. As in “Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, whereby their values and practices are accepted by the dominant culture, provided such are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. [wikipedia]
There is cultural pluralism is this country, not multiculturalism. It seems various minority groups may be operating under this confusion?
Quite right, Toby, there is no blasphemy law, not should there be, nor is there a right not to be offended, not should there be. But it’s not a bad thing to have respect for other people and their beliefs, and it’s entirely appropriate for an institution such as a school to censure what they consider to be bad taste. Would you defend the free speech of critics of Judaism in the same way as critics of Islam, or would you be more delicate?