Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Climate Change IPCC Must Use Science

The recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) failures which includes admitting that they got the figures wrong on the Himalayan glaciers proves how important it is to use science. If you don't have science to back up your claim then don't make the claim, commission more research instead.

These recent failures of the IPCC to get the figures right on climate change has increased the scepticism in the public see the figures on Letters from a Tory blog Bye bye climate change consensus?. See the poll below says it all really;

People think there is some massive Left conspiracy to tax us all. I still believe that is just a crazy idea, as they will be found out if it was true.

There is also talk amongst Greens of going back the old mantra of reducing fossil fuels and fuel security and power. This would really just fuel the fire of the conspiracy believers as it would simply be viewed as a change of tack and then IPCC reports would appear to be some kind of dodgy dossier. If you have the proof of climate change and believe it then stick with it unless proven otherwise.

Andrew Neil is fast becoming a good source on climate change as he is covering both sides of the story with a skeptical eye. Andrew is being fair in this developing story and reporting on both the sceptical debate and the details of recent rising temperatures in January accross the world see here and the dam is cracking here.

So because Andrew Neil is being fair to both opinions, im going to read with interest on what he reports. The problem with climate change is there are too many people on both sides who appear to have agenda's personally im only interesting in find out the truth of the matter.

So please in future IPCC when you say its based on science, make sure it is otherwise you will lose all credibility and the stats will move further away from a public consensus on climate change.


  1. It is becoming common to say there are agendas on both sides but is this true or merely a false attempt to look impartial?

    It is the normal 2nd line of defence in such arguments - eg on Yugoslavia, one of my hobbyhorses, we got years of being told we had to bomb the Serbs because they were Nazis & our allies represented "western civilisation". Now that it has come out that our allies were WW2 Naizs & now organleggers the mantra changes to "both sides equally bad" again without evidence.

    I have seen alarmists saying that all the sceptics are massively funded by Big Oil/Tobacco/Cars/Airlines etc but it simply isn't true, though the emails show Jones' links to BP. I do not believe there is any significant person on the sceptical side who has an "agenda2 other than the truth & none who has made a profit on this. I am, of course, open to evidence but have so far seen only accusations. Onn the other hand I have asked thousnads of people for the names of any alarmist scientists who aren't paid by government & have been given only 1.

    I think you are also niave to say that once found out all the regulations will be automatically repealed & Al Gore will have to hand back his money. We have had dozens of eco-catastrophe stories, most of which have resulted in more regulation & tax. All of them have turned out to be untrue but the costs aren't removed & the "environmentalists simply move on to another scare fraud. All the "China Syndrome" & nuclear waste scares have been proven false but the vast majority of costs of that industry remain the restrictions brought in as a result.

  2. "they got the figures wrong"

    They got the figures wrong? Are you kidding? These figures you refer to prove that the AR4 released in 2007 was propaganda. It was not a statement of the climate change art as was claimed at the time. It is climate change propaganda.

    What is amazing is that climate scientists remained silent for 3 years, until Copenhagen was a failure, before they felt it was safe to speak up and criticize the AR4. No true science does that. Only science with an agenda does that. This is unprecedented.

  3. I wish it were entirely unprecedented. Wdehave had 3 decades of AIDs alarmists claiming that if we didn't invent a vaccine for this "infectious disease" we would have millions dying in Britain. American courts paid out $26 billion in damages on breast implant scares which turned out to be frauduklent. Most seriously of al - the world has been & still is impoverished by many trillions because of an anti-nuclear scare based on the provably false claim that low level radiation is harmful.

  4. Neil, I dont know how you do it but you manged to get the Nazis stuff in again.

    you may want to sign this


    also I agree that there is often too much alarm, im not alarmed myself just concerned.