Global Warming On Ice?


Reference…Woman’s Hour (10:11)   Woman’s Hour discusses how scientists overblow their research with dramatic claims and how science  journalists often don’t understand the science they are reporting on.


The Great Global Warming Swindle continues…broadcast every week on the BBC at varying times on every channel and medium.

The BBC are picking up the pace in pushing the man made global warming angle.

We are getting puff pieces that continue the alarmist scare mongering as well as subtly trying to undermine the sceptics and the perception, the very real perception, that global warming has stopped.


Matt McGrath is stepping successfully into Richard Black’s rather dodgy shoes with this attack on sceptics:

Climate sceptics claim warming pause backs their view


With quotes like these given prominence you know exactly what McGrath’s intentions are:

Some of what the sceptics are saying is either wishful thinking or totally dishonest”   Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC


Bart Verheggen is an atmospheric scientist and blogger who supports the mainstream view of global warming. He said that sceptics have discouraged an open scientific debate.

“When scientists start to notice that their science is being distorted in public by these people who say they are the champions of the scientific method, that could make mainstream researchers more defensive.

“Scientists probably think twice now about writing things down. They probably think twice about how this could be twisted by contrarians.”


McGrath tells us that ‘There are many different shades of opinion in the sceptical orbit.’

But he doesn’t give any of them any credence….and he doesn’t ask similar questions of the supporters of AGW….for instance those who don’t care about the science but see it purely as an opportunity to push for more Socialism and State control….as well as handing out billions to third world countries.  McGrath isn’t interested in the vested interests of those, including the scientists and politicians, who have a great deal at stake in having AGW ‘confirmed’.



David Shukman follows on faithfully on the same path… this morning on the Today programme (08:41) when a sleight of hand was played with the evidence…or lack of evidence for global warming and the causes of the ‘pause’.

We hear that in the last 100 years the temperature of the oceans has been increasing….according to the Clams as scientists have recently discovered.

Helpful coincidence…the IPCC is trying to explain away the ‘pause’ in global warming..and can’t…but they have come up with a guess that they have all agreed to agree on…to present a common front, a consensus….that the oceans are absorbing the heat and causing a ‘slowdown’ in temperature rises…..and in a timely intervention, miraculously the Clams ‘prove’ it.


Great how Shukman feeds questions to his scientist stooge, knowing the answers already….

Do scientists exaggerate?  No! Climate scientists don’t exaggerate…they are just very, very concerned about the climate….and that concern is for the future…you may be cold now…but…you’re going to fry in 50 years time….act now!

Is there a pause in global warming?  No! You may be cold but someone somewhere is warm and getting warmer…oh yes you may get records that buck the trend for a few years but that doesn’t mean that the globe as a whole is not warming.

Really?  Didn’t the great IPCC itself admit that warming had stalled?




The IPCC has itself released a tricky bit of alarmist propaganda…designed not only to frighten us but to try to undermine any scepticism based on cooler temperatures.

IPCC report: Britain could cool if Gulf Stream slows

Britain’s climate could get cooler over the next 80 years, a major UN report on global warming is to suggest.


It’s a fantastic con trick….if temperatures go up they’ll say we were wrong on the time scale maybe…but we were right about global warming…

and if temperatures go down…they say…look, it’s caused by global warming.


It’s a win win for the IPCC what ever the temperature is.




Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Global Warming On Ice?

  1. Stewart says:

    I posted this on earlier thread but some may have missed it

    I found this on ‘ice age now’ just above it was this
    It seems to me a far more likely explanation than IPPC’s
    new Atlantic conveyor contrivance


  2. Chop says:

    The IPCC have “Clammed up” about “the pause”, it would appear…

    I wonder if this is all some sort of code wording to get any of the pro-AGW scientists to keep their traps shut when questioned about “the pause?”


    • Michele says:

      If it is some sort of code wording it came too late to stop David Susuki making an absolute idiot of himself on the ABC’s Q&A – we Australians are a tad sceptic about the whole thing [after the imposition of a Carbon Tax which, we were told, is not really a tax at all] – and this spectacular own goal merely hardened our stance.

      has more on the subject


      • Ken Hall says:

        I like how Suzuki made a complete arse of himself by admitting that he is utterly clueless about climate change insofar as he showed that he was unaware of the official global climate temperature data sets:

        “BILL KOUTALIANOS: Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory?

        DAVID SUZUKI: Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t…

        BILL KOUTALIANOS: Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the Co2.

        DAVID SUZUKI: No, well, there may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion.”

        How on earth can anyone give the alarmist side any credibility whatsoever, when one of their own “experts” does not even know of the existence of the OFFICIAL climate temperatures data sets? They happen to be the same data sets which categorically disprove the predictions made by the models based on the CAGW hypothesis.


        • johnnythefish says:

          Comical. And just goes to show when they do try to debate the ‘science’, the alarmists fall flat on their face.

          Now you know why the BBC won’t have a proper debate.


  3. Ian Hills says:

    IPCC admits that “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”.


  4. chrisH says:

    Yes folks, even the 6.15 business briefing on the Toady Show managed to shoehorn in the IPCC squauk from Taxpayer Dunghill International.
    Oh God…how will we ever jump the shark every morning and every f*** day as well, if there`s no water for them to swim in?
    So the BBC fill their empty barrels, fill them with patchouli oil, old dope and/or helium,,,then fire them at said shark!
    Without ever thinking how thick, double-sided, double minded and contradictory they are in their musings throughout all their media outlets.
    Exhibit A-the BBC have done a “survey” via their “local radio family”(oh, do tell!)…and it seems that we`re running out of ground to bury us.
    Their Religious Monkey(PBUH) tells us that we`ll all need to get cremated-as if 75% of us is not enough.
    This was followed by the “climate change threat”…you know…all that burning of carbon, with all those horrid greenhouse smellies in `em
    Cue tumbleweed-and absolutely no sense of their continuity , their laughable juxtaposing…let alone their godawful science, stats and use of Radio Goole to worry about reburials at the childrens play area.
    What`s it going to be Jim?…more greenhouse emissions or more land for Milipaed to build those council houses on land held by big Build?
    Oh God…aim another barrel of hot air at the shark…look, an iceberg!
    Still-Jim is interested not in the LibDems pervy types, Sarah`s a bit miffed at Sarah from Aylesbury getting named and shamed by Interpol…and both are sharpening their toothpicks and spats for the Tories maybe wanting dole wallahs to do some work for that dole.
    Maybe digging graves for all those reburials?
    And certainly one vast landfill hole for the credibility and any remaining trust in the vacuous, fatuous and one trick show pony that is the Toady Show!
    Fray Bentos…a phone number anybody?
    Hope when I die, that my ash is thrown into the DGs face…either one would do.
    Yet I reckon they`ll be buried before I am…maybe at sea if Al Gore prevails and we act in time eh?
    He won a Nobel Prize I understand!


  5. London Calling says:

    Even “Pause” is a loaded word: it assumes resumption of a linear process of continued warming. That is a broken theory. They don’t know why it stopped, they don’t know whether it will resume or when, or even if it will go into reverse, the “catastrophic warming crowd” don’t actually know anything. They just hope it is a “pause” so they can get back on board the gravy train of sounding the alarm.


  6. Phil Ford says:

    “…Great how Shukman feeds questions to his scientist stooge, knowing the answers already….”

    Today sees the publication of the discredited IPCC’s latest CAGW propaganda sheet report on climate change – so, predictably, the BBC has been running CAGW scare stories all this week in the run-up to the report’s release, dutifully ‘doing its bit’, as a ship of faithful common purpose trolls, to whip up some interest amongst the proles for the Left’s favourite political project, with daily reports from the usual suspects in the Corporation calling the faithful to their knees before The Holy Consensus.

    Once again we are told that ‘scientists are more certain than ever’ (whatever that means) that ‘man-made’ global warming is the root cause of all evils and will lead, very soon (we are promised), to the The End of Days for all mankind. The BBC knows this, not just because its Summary for Policy Makers tells it, but because it knows it can say anything it likes without ever risking a chance that a dissenting voice will be permitted BBC air time and thus cast doubt on the IPCC’s comedy pronouncements.

    This is the BBC at its most obnoxious – an unprincipled, fetid mouthpiece for the vested interests of its socialist chums working away in the EU and UN to bring about the agrarian-collectivist aims of the shadowy Agenda 21, a political project which makes no bones about aspiring to the total destruction of fossil fuel economies across Western Europe. Pol Pot style, the BBC along with its fellow travellers, wishes to see us all return to the fields, to embrace a simpler, more ‘sustainable’ lifestyle. The scary thing is that such people are (and have been for a long time) hard at work in the bureaucratic corridors of Europe attempting to realise this vision of our New Green Future. Orwell had nothing on these people.

    And the BBC is, as ever, a willing co-conspirator in the Grand Project, a very useful idiot in the propaganda wars – a state-funded broadcaster with enormous reach prepared to say almost anything, as often as required, to help its fellow ‘watermelons’ (green on the outside, red on the inside) achieve their aims.

    Today will be insufferable for those who, like me, take a sceptical view of the CAGW scare. We can take some comfort from the simple scientific fact that all the actual data (as opposed to the IPCC’s laughable climate models) points to a continued lack of global warming, healthy levels of ice at both poles, a booming polar bear population, no connection at all between so-called ‘man-made’ climate change and ‘extreme weather’ events, an all-time low in numbers of US hurricanes and tornados, etc, etc.

    Not that any of these inconvenient truths ever trouble the BBC.


  7. OldBloke says:

    If you tell yourself (and others) a lie often enough you and the others start to believe it is the truth and becomes fact.


    • lojolondon says:

      Goebbels said that, and the B-BBC proves it everyday.


    • The General says:

      “If you tell yourself (and others) a lie often enough you and the others start to believe it is the truth and becomes fact.”

      This is the basis of the Labour Party’s electioneering strategy made more effective by constant repetition by the BBC.


  8. Leha says:

    Seen the spiffy new adverts on the telly for these things yet?

    all the bells and whistles are just a trojan for the gullible, once installed, THEY can micro-manage you life and your electricity consumption.


  9. Roland Deschain says:

    The BBC has been building up to a crescendo over the past few days and on Today around 8:30 we had Harrabin (I think it was he, they all trot out the same guff) telling us the BBC had searched for a sceptical scientist working in the area of climate but couldn’t find even one. I’d have loved to know how it was defined, but presumably he meant working in the area of proving man-made climate change is real and depending for his grant on continuing to prove it. It was a bit rich, given 28-gate and all, but you expect no less.

    That was followed by an interview with two guests about how come we’re all still so sceptical. Two guests, you’d assume, would be so one could tell us why we are wrong to be sceptical and one why we are right. Well, at this point I had to turn the radio off to get from my car to where I’m going, so I can’t be entirely sure. But let’s just say it didn’t get off to a good start, with guest #1 saying it was too difficult politically to do the right thing and guest #2 saying it was all the fault of the media for feeling it needed to provide “balance”. Precious little of that balance appeared evident on Radio 4 but then again the BBC doesn’t appear to count for some reason.


    • chrisH says:

      Loved these two..”push me” and “push me more”.
      The poppet from the City Uni says that the meeja are to blame innit?…they give balance to the bloody deniers…no wonder Indian and China aren`t manning up and turning their countries into windfarms?
      And she`s called in for balance to the EU rapporteur on climate change or whatever?…and wants the BBC/press shut down if the likes of Booker or Delingpole pop along?
      But Mr Rapport worked for both Governments says Jim…balance enough?
      Not when there`s only One Government that works to f*** off any hope of western civilisation returning…the UN, the EU only send their orders down to our placemen, via the BBC more often than not.
      Crap crap…the end of science if this carries on…


    • nofanofpoliticians says:

      Viscount Ridley on the Daily Politics just now said he had a report issued by 47 sceptical scientists today.

      So the BBC can’t have looked very hard.


      • Guest Who says:

        They seem adept at not finding what they don’t want to.
        Luckily, FoI exemptions mean they are protected from explaining why.
        Just another unique.


  10. Ken Hall says:

    The climate models are nothing more than models, or simulations, of the CAGW hypothesis. It is impossible to use a model of a hypothesis, to validate a hypothesis. Anyone claiming otherwise is not acting in the name of science. They are engaging in politics, or religion or selling snake oil.

    The only way to scientifically validate a hypothesis, is through comparing what the hypothesis predicts, with experimental or observational data gathered empirically. In fact the discipline of the scientific method demands it. If the data from real world contradicts the data from hypothesis, then the hypothesis is falsified.

    The CAGW hypothesis claims that increasing CO2 will warm the atmosphere. That warming will, in turn, triggger an increase in water evaporation meaning increased water vapour (a much more powerful greenhouse gas) which will in turn trigger another acceleration in warming as a feedback loop. This will cause increases in methane from the arctic warming which will further accelerate warming, leading to what used to be called “runaway” global warming leading to catastrophe (the C in CAGW) for the earth.

    For such a hypothesis to remain valid, there needs to be (A) increasing temperatures, without a multi-decade pause. (B) increases in atmospheric humidity. (C) Accelerating sea level rise. (D) Tropospheric warming.

    The Empirical evidence shows NONE of those things to be happening.

    The only place that such evidence exists is in Global Climate Models (GCMs) The Global Climate Models are NOT simulations of the climate. That is the big lie. They are ONLY simulations of the CAGW hypothesis, (or variations of it).

    I shall restate that for clarity. The climate models are NOT simulations of the real climate. They are ONLY simulations of the climate change hypothesis, and as such, CANNOT be used to test or validate the hypothesis. It is fair to state that the GCMs explain or demonstrate or model or simulate the hypothesis. They do NOT and CANNOT test the hypothesis and they tell us NOTHING about what is actually happening in the real climate.

    Given that ALL the climate models can do is tell us what the hypothesis predicts, then the only way to validate any of them is to compare the output from the hypothetical models, with empirically gathered data collected from measuring the real world and determine if there is a strong correlation. This does not prove the hypothesis, merely ensures that it remains valid, until disproved by empirical data. If the real world empirical data does not correlate with the hypothesis generated data, then the hypothesis MUST be rejected or amended accordingly.

    The empirical data gathered by the global climate temperature data sets, (UAH, RSS, HADCrut et al…) actually does not correlate strongly with the data generated by models of the hypothesis, and in some ways, is the opposite to what the hypothesis predicts. For example, the CAGW hypothesis predicts that if we do not stop emitting CO2, that warming will accelerate and it is impossible for the temperature to pause. It further posits that if we were to stop all anthropological emissions at once, that warming due to the already emitted CO2 would still continue for between 50 and 3000 years (depending on the model)…

    In reality the opposite has happened over the last 20 years. CO2 has been rising fast worldwide and yet, the earth has stopped warming for almost 2 decades and global sea level rise has slowed significanly. That is a direct contradiction of the CAGW hypothesis.

    The additional fact that all but 2 of the UN IPCC models predicted that the currently measured global temperatures are physically impossible shows how far away from correlation the empirical data and hypothesis data are. Clearly those models (and the underlying hypothesis) is flat out wrong!!! It is falsified, it has passed on! This hypothesis is no more! it has ceased to be! it has expired and gone to meet its maker! It is a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It should be pushing up the daisies! It has kicked the bucket, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!


    (Apologies to Monty Python)

    The scientific method demands that we reject the CAGW hypothesis. I do not care if you are an uneducated road sweeper, or a white-labcoat wearing professor emeritus with hundreds of peer reviewed publications, Nobel awards and seats on the most prestigious scientific panels on earth. If you maintain faithful and disciplined adherence to the scientific method, you are doing science. If you depart from the scientific method, you are doing politics or religion or snake oil sales. It really is as simple and as boolean as that.

    This real world empirical data clearly falsifies the CAGW hypothesis. Only people who are committing scientific fraud would attempt to push the lie that CAGW is in anyway valid.


    • Umbongo says:

      But Ken, surely not. In a friendly discussion with Naughtie on Today, Sir Mark Walport – the government chief shill scientist – told us that whatever the inaccuracies of the predictions produced by the models and the quasi-criminality of climate scientists, “the science is sound”. Apparently, according to Sir Mark, the “warming” exists alright but has, for the time being, been stored in some lock-up garages near Bournemouth: he’s not sure exactly where but, rest assured – the science is “robust” after all – it’s there. Later, on the “news” Harrabin lied to us (again) and conveyed the IPCC’s lies about the increasing confidence levels of the climate “scientists'” predictions.


      • Ken Hall says:

        They are increasingly confident alright… Of losing their very lucrative gravy train once this falsified human induced catastrophic climate change hypothesis is shown to be the bulshit that it obviously is. That is why they are lying about it… Claiming that this additional thermal energy (heat) has actually learned how to defy the laws of physics, and sink below cool water, whilst evading detection by thousands of ARGO bouys, to sink in excess of 700 metres, to where it can conveniently hide without detection…

        OR it has been absorbed by the entire ocean, which HAS warmed… Now that raises 2 questions…

        1 if the ocean had had warmed by 4 degrees, we would be in trouble. It hasn’t. If it had warmed by 0.4 degrees, that would be significant across the whole ocean…. But it hasn’t. It has only warmed by 0.04degrees, which is barely measurable and well within a margin of error, indistinguishable from ZERO. So where is the cause for alarm at such a negligable, practically non-existant warming?

        and 2. Why did ALL your models fail to model the heat deciding to take a holiday away from the surface, in order to hide in the ocean, and what is the mechanism for the heat deciding to switch from one, to the other?


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Bereft of life, it rests in peace!

      If only. Unfortunately, dead or not, it is having its strings pulled to sound as if it were alive. Rather like this dead fish.


    • DP111 says:

      Is there a pause in global warming? No! You may be cold but someone somewhere is warm and getting warmer…oh yes you may get records that buck the trend for a few years but that doesn’t mean that the globe as a whole is not warming.

      One can get any emperical result whatever, even an ice age, but the conclusion is always but that doesn’t mean that the globe as a whole is not warming

      Junk science carried on by leftists. Lysenkoism comes naturally to them.


  11. Peter Grimes says:

    When I saw the Toady timeline quoted I initially thought it was the 26th today, having just heard Harabin saying similar things to those Al JaBeeBa were propagandising yesterday. You have to give them 10/10 for effort even if their pet scientists only get 2/10 for their piss-poor projections.

    Still, as clever scientists ( and like social engineers everywhere), if the evidence doesn’t back up what you want to pump out, tell the audience that they either don’t understand or that the audience can’t differentiate between causation and correlation.


  12. George R says:

    BBC-NUJ gives top spot today to its propaganda about ‘climate threat’, but now relegates the Islamic jihad threat as news, excluding reference to Kenya massacre, and to jihadist, Lewthwaite on its ‘World’ and ‘UK’ news pages.

    In contrast. ‘Daily Mail’:-

    “The White Widow’s Lair: The South African safehouse in suburbia where world’s most wanted woman ‘lived for months in hiding while working at halal pie factory ahead of Kenyan mall massacre”


    • chrisH says:

      And what of her carbon footprint BBC?
      No mention…but maybe an offer for her not to miss out on her child benefit, being unavailable for work at this challenging time?
      And the Tories are threatening those spare bedrooms that she`s not in the process of blowing up?…heartless bastards.
      Jizya Seekers Allowance,,thanks Beeb.
      Ah well, as long as she`s paid her TV Licence…if not, THAT`LL be the correct use of Interpol!


    • George R says:

      Of course, in its political predilections, BBC-NUJ does not have online news sections entitled ‘Security,’ or ‘Defence,’ or ‘Law & Order,’ but instead, has a section misleadingly entitled ‘Science & Environment,’ which is BBC-NUJ’s political code for ‘Greenpeace’, etc.


  13. AsISeeIt says:

    Victoria Derbyshire and BBC warmists busily grooming youngsters this morning to ‘fear’ ‘Climate Change’

    A typical BBC groomed youngster: ‘I’m worried the ice caps are melting and polar bears will have nowhere to live’

    This justified by a UN Quango assuring us that 100s of ‘unpaid’ scientists and 195 governments(!) are ‘95% certain’ of the ‘science’.

    Next up BBC Jim Al-Khalili on Isaac Newton’s 95% certain Laws of Motion ?

    BBC Brian Cox on Michael Faraday’s 95% certain discovery of electro magnetism ?


    • Beez says:

      Brian Cox is really starting to get on my tits lately. Everywhere you look, anything you listen to, he’ll be there, pontificating absolute nonsense to agree with his leftist view of the world. No wonder the BBC welcome him with open arms.


      • Ken Hall says:

        I was very interested to see Brian Cox give his view on “climate change”. He referred to the scientific method and how the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropological climate change appears to not be fully supported by the empirical evidence and so it appears that there may not be as much of a human influence as previously thought. Despite much of his personal political stance, he is still enough of a scientist to allow the scientific method decide if the evidence supports, or falsifies, the hypothesis.

        I am even more certain that the evidence falsifies the hypothesis, than is Brian Cox, but his adherence to the discipline of the scientific method, is to be lauded.


        • johnnythefish says:

          Let’s see how long it takes for the lad to go through an Attenboroughesque conversion. Will he sell his soul or risk his big fat BBC contract? Should be interesting.


          • johnnythefish says:

            Sorry, that reads bollocks. I should have said ‘Will he remain true to his scientific principles or will he sell his soul for the big fat BBC contract?’


    • DP111 says:

      Unfortunately neither Newton or Faraday’s seminal work was peer reviewed by hundreds of highly qualified government scientists , or supported by 95 governments, thus their work is dubious.

      Ditto Maxwell and Thompson.


  14. Beeboidal says:

    Reverential tones from Nicky when 5 Live went live to the IPCC’s press conference.

    Afterwards, Nicky said scientists have given the strongest warning ever about climate change. Not true. Back in 1989, The Tata Energy Research Institute ( director R Pachauri) held a conference of scientists and poilticians. The communqué released afterwards stated

    Global warming is the greatest crisis ever faced collectively by humankind, unlike other earlier crises, it is global in nature, threatens the very survival of civilisation, and promises to throw up only losers over the entire international socio-economic fabric. The reason for such a potential apocalyptic scenario is simple: climate changes of geological proportions are occurring over time-spans as short as a single human lifetime.

    So there you are. Pre- IPCC, before adequate research, before acquisition of data and with extremely limited computing power avalable, the science was settled.


    • Oldbob says:

      I saw Pachauri for the first time this week being interviwed. I wondered where I had seen him before, he is that indian priest in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom who fries that kid in the sarny toaster over the flaming pit. That must be where he got the “warming” training then I assume.


  15. Richard Pinder says:

    Imagine an International Panel producing a report that says that we are certain that God is 95 percent responsible for half of Creation and Evolution is responsible for the other half.

    They now predict cooling? This seams to be pseudoscience produced to cover for those Scientists predicting a cooling using Planetary movements to predict the length of the Solar Cycle and its correlation with Cosmoclimatology theory.

    10,000 scientists bribed into all agreeing that man is responsible, and all because the politicians will stop paying their salaries if the do not advise the politicians that “YES MAN IS RESPONSIBLE”

    If only the nutters at the Met office would talk to Henrik Svensmark, then they could solve all their problems out in an afternoon.


  16. ember2013 says:

    It just goes to show how politicised these IPCC press releases have become. They make them months before publishing the actual documents (you know, the things we can scrutanise?)


  17. Gunn says:

    One of the touted problems of AGW is the increase in sea levels which would cause major land loss and mean we’d have to start building rafts like in that dreadful Costner film, Waterworld, right?

    Unfortunately, the science doesn’t really bear this out. If *all* the ice present at the poles today melted, the sea would rise by approximately 70m. This is the ‘doomsday’ scenario that even the most ardent AGW credulist would not even dream of proposing could happen, at least not unless you allowed several thousand years for the changes.

    For anyone curious what the earth would look like, here’s a picture:

    In terms of total land lost compared to today, we’d lose some low-lying land, but we’d gain the continents of the antarctic and greenland. In total, we’d go from 132m to 128m, and we’d actually increase habitable land as currently 16m of land is covered by glaciers.

    The problem with the BBC is that rather than look at the facts such as these, they prefer to play cheerleader for the IPCC, and to paint apocalyptic scenarios which are not just unlikely, they’re actually fantasies.


  18. johnnythefish says:

    So, to summarise…

    CO2 levels have increased by 11% over the past 15 years but there has been no warming.

    This disproves the hypothesis upon which climate models are built.

    The IPCC are more certain ever that mankind is causing this global warming that isn’t there, and re-iterate the most alarmist predictions from the disproved hypothesis.

    Never mind, this report is produced by 1000s of the world’s top scientists, so they must be right.

    But the IPCC is comprised of some scientists, but also post grads and environmentalists, some of whom play key role in producing report chapters. And each of 80 countries has to provide their top climate scientist to – well, you know – make it all egalitarian and stuff, futher diluting the pool of expertise.

    Ah, but it’s all peer-reviewed science.

    Well actually 30% of the literature quoted in non-peer reviwed, much of it taken from environmentalist publications and pamphlets.

    Ah, but it’s still a scientific report.

    We never hear about the detail, much of which is cautious in its statements. That’s because the final summary, the one which the press get their headlines from, is drafted by politicians. For example, Germany wanted any mention of the 15-year temperature standstill to be removed.

    If you can spot anything in the above processes and thinking which remotely represents the scientific method, it’s sheer coincidence.

    Man-made global warming – it’s far too big too fail.


  19. joeb says:

    ‘Today’ was classic this morning. The BBC are 95% certain the man-made global warming scam can continue for at least another 5 years.


  20. Alan Larocka says:

    That well-known well of news ‘Steve Wright in the Afternoon’ – ‘95% certain human activity caused global warming’


    • Phil Ford says:

      The IPCC provided the headlines and the leftist mainstream media gets its magic talisman – the ‘95%’. It’s meaningless as a ‘proof’ of anything, in the same way 9.5% is meaningless, but that won’t stop the msm having a ball.

      The IPCC did what it was paid by governments to do – to come up with the right headline. This is the only reason for the discredited organisation’s existence – it is there to service its paymasters (global governments, funded by you and me). The IPCC was never going to announce that they got it all wrong, that there’s no ‘consensus’, that the planet might even be entering a cooling phase. It can’t. It’s too far down the rabbit hole; there’s no turning back.

      Do turkeys vote for Christmas?


      • johnnythefish says:

        They want to get man-made global warming in the bag asap so they can move into the ‘mitigating actions’ phase i.e. ‘social justice’ (re-distribution of wealth from The West to The Third World) and ‘sustainability’ (outright ban on fossil fuels and de-industrialisation/destruction of capitalism in The West).

        ‘Imagine there’s no country, it’s getting easier by the day…’


      • Amounderness Lad says:

        Yes, the IPCC was not set up to make a honest assessment of Climate Change, it was set up with the instruction that it was to convince Governments that human activity was the cause of all Global Warming and that the Industrialised West were the ones to blame and must take urgent action in order to prevent it continuing.

        The whole scam behind the IPCC was that AGW was an indisputable fact and was beyond question. Those behind it knew it would feed in the indoctrination that Europeans had been, and sill were, responsible for all the world’s evils and should punish themselves for that.

        Third World Countries immediately jumped on that guilt trip and demanded handouts for the supposed problems which AGW was causing them by way of imaginary sea level rises and perfectly normal floods and droughts which have happened on a regular basis since Biblical Times and even earlier.

        Our own Statist inclined politicians jumped on the bandwagon as soon as they realised they could use the scam to extort more tax out of us and to enable them to take ever more control over us. The temptation was too great for them to resist.

        That is why, what ever the facts are, we will continue to have the AGW scam forced down our throats, especially by the Pro-Statist, lefty BBC.


  21. I had to laugh this afternoon on News 24. We’re back to the “warming” logic with the connection of C02 being a gas that raises the temperature of the planet.

    As delivered by their man in Stockholm at the end of September reporting live to camera wearing a scarf and gloves.

    Us British do irony like nobody else on the planet.


  22. uncle bup says:

    Funny, no, how in Droidland the word ‘terrorist’ is deemed ‘judgemental’ – the word ‘deniers’ … meh … not so much.


  23. will says:

    Spin & more spin

    It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

    PAUSE? HTF can it be termed a pause when it has not yet ended?

    I’m not denying – I m just amused at their inability to tell a straight story


  24. Rantmandeux says:

    What amazed me, (not really, as it is par for the course) was this ‘climate scientist’ pro AGW talking on the Today Programme this morning and blaming the medias need for balance, especialy the BBC, for giving air time to sceptics in the name of balance. I wondered if this woman inhabited the same planet as me?


  25. Margaret Patrick says:

    The “pause ” has morphed into a “hiatus”, with the same deliberate verbal manipulation that went on with “global warming”, so that the listeners are subconsciously reminded that “scientists say” it will definitely start warming again.


  26. pah says:

    You do all realise what will happen when it becomes obvious that the world is cooling once more, climate being the variable thing it is, don’t you?

    Correct! It will be Man Made Global Cooling. They were right about AGW after all but now things have change unexpectedly and CO2 will cause the world to cool.

    The have the sheeple by the balls – you don’t expect them to let go do you?


    • Richard Pinder says:

      Climate science is almost unique amongst the sciences in having an assumption at its core, so you are correct, it would have been a Global cooling scare. But with a pause turning into a peak, the pseudoscientific laws of nature could well be changed by the IPCC, and of course the morons at the BBC would have no doubts at all.


  27. George R says:

    “Despite the guff, no proof on man-made climate change”