Why the IPCC should never be taken seriously

This is an edited version of a lecture delivered to The Australia Club in September 19, 2013

I propose to consider the hypothesis that, unless our governments take urgent action to reduce ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases -- usually limited to mentioning only CO2 emissions -- ever-higher temperatures will destroy life and plants, even threaten human existence.  No substantive evidence exists to support this dangerous-warming thesis.

Read on: Via quadrant.org.au

Comments

[Allan]

1.

With the IPCC being pretty much blown out of the water there is much talk of their shonky predications but nobody is asking why the IPCC decided in the first place to replace real science with consensus science.

I wonder if it had anything to do with this statement from the United Nations:

“in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." They went on to say, "It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or one invented for the purpose.”

[Jim Witt]

2.

Just do some research on UN Agenda 21 folks and you will see that most of what has been done in relation to climate is a giant socialist scam to centralize power.

[kraka]

3.

I'm not sure why we are even having this debate-it's over. The science is not settled and the evidence says co2, specifically human emitted co2, has fuck all to do with the climate.
All we should be doing now is concentrating our efforts into research for the best most economical and viable clean energy, while also debating the mitigation/adaption method as the best way forward.
The climate is changing but it would do so even if we weren't here and there is no concrete evidence to suggest it's rate would be faster or slower without us.

[Allan]

4.

kraka, are we sure that the debate if over? After all our own climate minister agrees with the IPCC and believes in AGW and the illogical concept that by imposing a tax on CO2 man can control the climate.

If we are to progress beyond that point in a sane and sensible manner then surely the Minister has to change his way of thinking. Or, as I have asked previously, is their an ulterior motive?

[Allan]

5.

Correctin: there an ulterior motive?

[Richard]

6.

And these people carry weight internationally what a crock of you know what.
I have a question for these nutters what do they propose to do about the volcano in Indonesia that was (Krakatowa) when that lets go again. Apparently when it blew in the late 1800s it emitted more polution in one week that Industry world wide plus two world wars did in the 20th centery.