Even the Fonz only got to jump the shark once. But every day is a happy day for the IPCC, seemingly intent on plumbing new depths of climate alarmist gimmickry with every passing report. Its ‘now or never’ latest offering comes in a long line of sci-fi fantasy episodes, guaranteed to run for many more seasons.
The Guardian reports that scientists have said it is a final climate warning for governments. According to the BBC, scientists say carbon dioxide must peak within three years, and even then we must invent machines to suck the gas out of the atmosphere. The IPCC says diets and lifestyles must change. Having the right policies in place will enable the changes in our lifestyles and behaviours to take place, co-chair of the latest report Priyadarshi Shukla told the BBC.
Mr. Shukla was an interesting choice to co-chair the report. Until August 2017, he was Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, specialising in energy and environment modelling. Amongst his published work is a contribution to Fair Weather? Equity concerns in climate change.
Sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere is typical fantastical IPCC. The technology is expensive, largely untried and uses huge amounts of energy. Maybe, with the face mask fetish still going strong in many parts of the world, humans could be persuaded to wear some kind of attached breathing receptacle to trap the three billion tonnes of CO2 they emit each year. Two figures always missing from IPCC reports are what temperature and CO2 level they consider most suitable for the Earth’s atmosphere.
At the heart of IPCC catastrophising is the prediction of a large rise in the global temperature. The BBC sums it up well: “First, the bad news – even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world would still warm by 3.2°C this century.”
This improbable temperature leap arises from the notion that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a 6°C warming. There is no credible scientific proof for this guess, but it accounts for years of inaccurate ‘Garbage In, Gospel Out’ climate model forecasts. The detachment of forecasts from reality is clearly shown by the Remote Sensing Systems graph below.
The thick green line shows the actual global satellite temperature as measured at the University of Alabama. The forecasts started to soar upwards about 20 years ago, at a time when the science was declared ‘settled’, and green activists took complete control of the climate change agenda. As we have seen in previous articles, and is confirmed in the graph, global warming started to run out of steam a couple of decades ago, and has been at a standstill for the last 90 months. The suggestion that the green line will suddenly shoot up vertically is an invention of these activists. In order to accommodate the predicted now less-than-80-year rise, the graph would have to double in height.
Why is this IPCC stuff – deeply flawed at best, political propaganda in reality – being continuously produced? As we did with the last IPCC report, let’s look at the people who write it and see if we can spot any actual scientists. By scientists I mean physicists and chemists, people who analyse empirical data and spend their lives trying to prove and disprove scientific hypotheses. One of which, of course, is the still unproven hypothesis that humans cause all or most global warming.
This exacting definition of scientist must necessarily not include those who sign up to notions of post-normal science, where an extended community adds local knowledge and value judgements. As before, we will select a small representative group. There are 239 listed authors including 20 British contributors. We will look at the areas of expertise of the first 10 in that latter group.
Michael Grubb is Professor of Energy and Climate Change at UCL. At masters level he is said to teach a course on the economics and political economy of energy and climate mitigation policy. The home page of Professor Chukwumerije Okereke notes that he is “globally recognised leading scholar” on matters including climate governance and international development, with expertise in climate justice and busines climate strategies. Jason Lowe is Head of Climate Services at the Met Office. Robert Matthews leads the Forest Mensuration Modelling and Forecasting Science Group at Forest Research. Julia Steinberger is Professor of Societal Challenges of Climate Change at the University of Lausanne. Patrick Devine-Wright is a Professor of Human Geography at Exeter University. According to his home page he has been ranked in the world’s top 1% of social science by citation in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Frank Geels is Professor of Systems Innovation at Manchester University. Yacob Mulugetta is Professor of Energy and Development Policy at UCL. Nicholas Eyre is Professor of Energy and Climate Policy at Oxford University. On his LinkedIn page, Smail Khennas is described as a “senior energy expert Energy and Climate Change”.
All these people are no doubt expert in their fields. But it is surely reasonable to ask, where, in what is billed as a scientific report written by scientists, are the scientists?
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.
The phrase “saving the planet” should always be in inverted commas because it is the most ridiculous of many in the eco lexicon. The planet is 4.5 billion years old and has been through a heck of a lot more in its history than we can ever throw at it. It will be here for several billion years more until the sun expands to swallow it. It doesn’t need to be “saved”, it will be fine.
The phrase that grates with me is ‘we need to…’
(i.e. YOU need to)
And saving it for what… a rainy day?
I suspect Louise Haigh’s stunningly attractive hair dye was probably made from petroleum products. Will Miliband please ban petroleum-based hair dyes?
Greta Thunberg’s day without fossil fuels – Part 1 by John A. Shanahan – Issuu
… the car-makers will tell the [our clown-world government] that thousands of jobs in the industry will soon be lost because of the unrealistic targets to sell Electric Vehicles. …
I imagine that their response would go something like this: “Industry, you say? Jobs in manufacturing, you say? Where people make things … with their hands? Good lord! Are these jobs by any chance for oiks and the other deplorables? Are they [shudder] for the white working class?”
All well and good, but once these facilities are shuttered and gone, and the economic cluster around the is done for, with at least as many jobs again exported to China, THERE IS NO WAY BACK.
England will be a pathetic shell economy.
I don’t think anybody certainly in government can imagine how bad it’s going to be.
I told those of my family who would listen, when the Scamdemic started that there would be blood on the streets. I see no reason to revise that opinion.
It won’t be a civil war. It will be a negotiation and the unions will be bought off in some way… at the expense of everyone else.
The union leaders might well be bought off. The union membership won’t be.
Slightly Off-T but worth posting…
https://off-guardian.org/2024/11/18/explained-how-uk-inheritance-tax-is-part-of-the-war-on-food/
Kit Knightly making the same points I have been making about Labour’s IHT land grab.
We are in a war with our government and people need to wake up.
I think the IHT fiasco is just another example of incompetent politicians not understanding what they are dealing with and the unintended consequences of their actions. Some think that not using land for farming is a good idea https://ukinvestormagazine.co.uk/why-increased-farm-inheritance-tax-will-be-good-for-the-uk-economy/?mc_cid=532a006992&mc_eid=abc92e5fcd Try this rubbish for example.
Off topic but highly important while everyone is talking about the farmers.
Dutch official reveals Covid was a military operation by NATO. I’m sure this is news to nobody who is aware that the US and the DOD runs (before Trump gets in) NATO.
But this is the first I have heard of an ‘official’ on Western Government admitting this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqv2YMn0q2o
It was the response to the pandemic that might have been but not the origin of Covid. It came from one of two labs in Wuhan.
Yes. I deduced that a while ago. In Europe, it was NATO and 5 Eyes countries which imposed the Covid Tyranny; Sweden didn’t.
Why? Because until very recently, Sweden wasn’t in NATO so didn’t have to follow Orders. It was an American Military Operation.
Labour – red in hair and tie!
It seems Farage is a sell-out to Islam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0KoQ4Fot4&list=WL&index=2
What people miss is that Car Makers do not actually make the cars from scratch, but assemble pre made component items into a finished article. If a car plant shuts and the jobs are lost, so will the effects be felt by the component suppliers. The ripple effect goes onto, shops, cafes, all the places that those once employed by the car industry go to spend their money. 1 job loss can morph into dozens.
The decline in employment effects a decline in the economics of all areas concerned with life and all it entails.
Sunderland (Nissan) could have voted for a Reform MP; they voted Labour. Like the Welsh, who also continually vote for their own destruction, I have little sympathy.
I’m in Wales and voted Reform, though not sure I would again the way Nigel seems to capitulate to Islam. Anyway, it is mostly in the S Wales Valleys that they are hardened Labour supporters because of the Mining history. But compare the voting to a few years ago, Labour is not as popular as it was.
The UK a global leader??? The UK accounts for approximately 0.164% of the global land area, and not forgetting land is only 30% of the global surface area, with the oceans being a major (temperature dependent) CO2 sink/source. Some leader!
Nothing done in the UK’s Net Zero drive will reduce atmospheric CO2 by one molecule. This is not only because our emissions are minuscule but also because we are not reducing them but are merely offshoring them.
Net Zero is about setting an example for the big emitters to follow. But India and China, who each out more new CO2 every year than our entire annual output, cannot follow. Where are they supposed to offshore their emissions to?
The true Net Zero agenda is not about going green but about going extinct, or at least pre-industrial. It is rooted not in environmentalism but in misanthropy, pessimism, and mental illness.
Strikes, power cuts, inflation, high taxes, capital flight, brain drain, general gloom and doom, soaring debt and public spending, Labour Government.
Yup, that was 1974. Described to a tee.