Are we finally seeing the death knell for AGW and the IPCC?
Bookworm on Feb 10 2010 at 10:01 am | Filed under: Climate change
I’d like to think that Climategate, this extraordinary winter, and myriad other evidence about the fraud that is Anthropogenic Global Warming will finally de-Gore-ize a scarred world. In a logical place, change should come about given information distributed in posts such as this one, at American Thinker, attacking IPCC methodology and myriad climate frauds; or in this one, in which AJ Strata catches an IPCC admitting what we all know, which is that the IPCC is a non-scientific body that exists to redistribute wealth.
I’m not so sanguine, though, that the world is going to get off this insane track. While we ordinary people have figured out what’s going on, whole bureaucracies have sprung up that exist only to redistribute wealth to “battle” this imaginary AGW. As we all know, old bureaucracies never die or fade away. They exist in perpetuity, sucking away at wealth and expanding themselves at the expense of freedom. Too much is already invested in AGW for governments, especially in Europe, to back down. Add to this the fact that many of these governments desperately want wealth redistribution, and AGW theory may be here to stay, all contrary facts notwithstanding.
Related posts:
- Climate change hysteria may finally be peaking
- Britain, with Communist medicine, has Communist health outcomes: lots of death
- Finally, the teachers and administrators have gotten something right
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “Are we finally seeing the death knell for AGW and the IPCC?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
<B> As we all know, old bureaucracies never die or fade away.</b>
Sure they do. You just have to conduct a 99% purge.
The Republican party also needs to be purged. And coincidentally there’s a bunch of Tea Party officials that can replace the holes.
Dream on…!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html
[...] H/T to Bookworm for this excellent review of the IPCC by S Fred Singer at AT- a great read once the above context [...]
I’m afraid nothing will change. Several generations have been indoctrinated with the idea we are destroying our world.
Warming or cooling, it’s all the same and we have to do penance. It’s going to take more than the revelation of doctored documents to change that.
The beauty of being a liberal is you don’t have to be concerned with petty things like facts. Reality is whatever you wish it to be.
We’re all manchurian candidates.
I believe that the most potent and effective response to the Global Warminist Gaia worshippers is well-merited laughter and derision.
I see that Lord Monckton has committed his reputation to predicting that IPCC head Pachauri will end up in jail. Goreand his crew should be pursued for securities fraud and manipulation.
The IPCC’s purpose was never to decide whether or not man-made global warming was occurring. It’s charter assumed it was and it was only tasked with determining the extent to which it was occurring. With “experts” claiming that the harsh winters and record snows we’re experiencing are consistent with “global warming”, it’s clear that AGW cannot be disproved by any observed phenomenon in nature and has ceased to be a science for all practical purposes. If the IPCC was disbanded and the government got out of subsidizing AGW research, the scientists might achieve the independence necessary to find out the real truth of the matter. But I have no expectation that will happen, there is too much money and power at stake to let the facts get in the way.
In related news, get ready for more nanny-state activism on smoking, LBL has just released a study warning of the dangers of third-hand smoke. My prediction is that there will be further restrictions proposed on smoking in your own home or car, this time without even the gloss of being “for the children”.
The smoking thing drives me nuts. I’m a non-smoker and I do not like being in places that are smoky. But, I value liberty, and I can see that the private sector is perfectly capable of delivering me from the nasty side-effects of living in a society with those who choose to smoke — see motels, car-rental companies, etc.
If someone would go after the “research” into the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, it would blow up in everyone’s faces in precisely the way that the IPCC executive summaries have. There is FAR MORE credible scientific evidence for the cancer threat to women who have early abortions than there is for ANY negative effects of second-hand smoke, with the single exception (or which I’m aware) of small children with respiratory problems living in a home with smokers who smoke indoors.
(Sigh……)
Shoot, Earl, (#8) … I’m a heavy smoker, and if *anyone* with respiratory problems lived or even visited in my home, I’d be smoking outside. It’s just obvious.
The problem with Global Warming is that it is a political crusade masquerading as science. Sometimes I think it’s all really just about the money: They’ve got their gravy train of global warming funding all set up and regularly flowing, and they don’t want anything to upset the money that is endlessly flowing to them. Never mind silly things like facts – we’re talking about the almighty dollar here, and my $800,ooo mansion that is only 1/4 paid for! The flow must go on!!!
No one really knows if or to what extent global warming is actually occuring. Would the global climate cold spell that began 1998-2000, and continues now, be WORSE were it not for global warming? Who knows? All the scientific data is compromised and severely flawed by the “dedicated scientists” who subverted and perverted their science, all in the name of The Cause.
How much does Man really contribute? What’s the real effect of CO2, especially compared to plain old water vapor? There’s mounting evidence that water vapor is the real controlling factor…
The abandonment of scientific methodology has been devastating. And it’s too bad, because though the science of climate research is really in its infancy, it would be useful to try to figure out what’s really going on.
I liked the line in suek’s link about one cold winter not disproving global warming. just a a hot summer does not prove it. Why then haven’t the climate scientists contradicted the idiots and NGOs who make the latter type of claim all the time? Why don’t they protest the funding of research on ridiculous hypotheticals: If the climate warms by ???, in 2050 there will be a plague of flies in middle England? Why don’t they tell the legislature to hold it on light bulb legislation and content themselves with encouraging the use of curlies in situations where it makes sense? Why don’t they recommend a sensible flexible energy policy instead of allowing us to be bombarded with toilet paper limits and similar nonsense? Why do they give tacit approval to grand schemes like cap and trade when they know litttle about finance and economics?
Another one:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/02/time-magazine-uproarious-laughter.html
The AGW crowd are basically a secular apocalyptic cult. It usually takes a long time for believers in The End to realize that it’s not coming on schedule.