95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel

© LifeWise

95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel
Sept 25, 2013 | LifeWise | James Delanpole

Experts 95 per cent certain ‘humans are responsible for global warming’.

Well, of course they are. If there is one overriding prerequisite of every new IPCC Assessment report, it’s to sound even more scary and urgent and certain than its predecessor.

Professor Bob Carter noted this progression in his excellent book Climate: the Counter Consensus:

First Assessment Report (1990) – “The observed [twentieth century] temperature increase could be largely due…to natural variability.”

Second Assessment Report (1996) – “The balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate.”

Third Assessment Report (2001) – “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last fifty years is attributable to human activities.”

Fourth Assessment Report (2007) – “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-twentieth century is very likely [= 90 per cent probable] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

The irony is, of course, that the third, fourth and fifth assessment reports were all produced in a period of rising CO2 levels in which there has been no “global warming” whatsoever. You’d imagine that, had the scientific method been more highly valued by the IPCC, this rather glaring flaw in AGW theory might have been afforded more prominence. But this is not the IPCC Assessment Reports’ job. As Christopher Bookerand others have often noted, the IPCC’s reports are essentially political artefacts rather than scientific ones. This is why some governments – including Germany’s and Belgium’s – have been manoeuvring behind the scenes to have the new IPCC report “sexed up”. The scientific reality – that global warming has paused for 15 years; that climate sensitivity appears to be far smaller than the scaremongering computer models predicted – cannot be allowed to derail all the expensive and intrusive programmes (from wind farms to green investment banks to hideous, flickery, dull low energy light bulbs) which have been introduced in order to “combat climate change.”

I don’t think many of my colleagues in the Fourth Estate have exactly covered themselves in glory in exposing what looks, increasingly, like the biggest pseudo-scientific scam in history. (Lysenkoism, for all its faults, at least confined itself to the Communist bloc. This one has affected the whole world). On the contrary, they have acted as its cheerleaders, reporting each new report as uncritically as Pravda journalists diligently covering the dazzling brilliance, humanity and insight of Comrade Stalin’s latest five hour speech on improved wheat yields and tractor production.

Andrew Bolt has been facing similar problems in Australia, especially with the irredeemably left-wing state broadcaster ABC.

For years, most in the mainstream media didn’t just refuse to question the great global warming scare, but howled down the few who dared to.

Journalists became propagandists, even witch-hunters. And the biggest cabal of them gathered in the ABC.

Four years ago,for instance, I was a panellist on the ABC’s Insiders program and mentioned the warming pause.

Fellow panellist David Marr asked me not to refer to it again and then ostentatiously buried his head in a newspaper. La la la la, not listening.

Marr, of course, was a former host of the ABC’s Media Watch, which for years, under various hosts, hounded warming sceptics and gave the Flannerys a free pass.

The other panellist was ­Annabel Crabb, now an ABC host. She, too, demanded we talk about something else, and on another Insiders show, mocked my quoting of scores of studies which showed the warming theory wasn’t working out as the likes of Flannery claimed.

“You put a million posts on your blog about some new study from the University of East Bumcrack,” she scoffed.

Then, of course, there is the Guardian/Observer, whose relentlessly hysterical, unfailingly uncritical coverage of the global warming scare is sharply analysed here by Ben Pile. Here’s how it begins:

In today’s Observer, Robin McKie channels scientists…

Climate change: IPCC issues stark warning over global warming

Call to ‘stop dithering about fossil fuel cuts’ as expert panel warns entire globe is affected

This is now part of the ritual established by the Guardian whenever the routine, scheduled, planned, expected, and timetabled publishing of IPCC assessment reports or UNFCCC COP meetings occur. These events are in every case presented as always new, more comprehensive, deeper, and more ‘stark’ than previous pronouncements on climate change, even when the reports say very little or nothing at all that is new, and even suggest that things aren’t as bad ‘as previously thought’.

By James Delingpole – writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

Source.