In the beginning was the Warming

No investigation was ordered, no scientific survey was done, no public debate was held, there was no waiting around for the results of a Royal Commission of Inquiry and there were certainly no tiresome disputes over the interpretations of any actual experiments.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change written by these geniuses bypassed all that inconvenient and unnecessary process. They weren’t going to ask for proof for something so important as determining the welfare of mankind, because it was obvious what had to be done. They cut to the chase. So the Convention begins:

“… human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, … these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and … this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind”

Otherwise, we could say: in the beginning was a scientific inquiry.

Change climate change climate change climate change climate change

The mother of the IPCC was the UNFCCC, set up in 1992. Nobody knows the father, and since the IPCC is becoming more and more a badly-behaved fatherless child, a confession to fatherhood seems unlikely.

The mother’s parents were the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

Those grandparents clearly set out in the IPCC founding documents that what they called “climate change” really was happening (they earnestly assure us that “change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind”) and they were anxious to change it. They wanted to change climate change, or even stop it. They were blind fools.

Climate change was defined then, and it still is, as:

“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Heroic ignorance of English

So the climate naturally “varies” but when it “changes” it means we did it. Got it?

Simple, huh? No tiresome inquiry, no negotiating differences of scientific opinion, no waiting. It’s done and dusted, so now we’ll take your money to set up our new world government to fix it.

If our responsibility for global warming, or climate change, rests on an undefined and undetectable semantic difference between “vary” and “change”, I don’t believe it exists. It cannot exist. In arguing that nature makes the climate “vary” but mankind makes the climate “change”, the IPCC is against science, ignores reason, assumes men and women are morons and displays an heroic ignorance of the English language—it is telling us that two synonyms are actually different. It’s incredible that the IPCC sponsors this illogic.

Watch out, you authors of this nonsense and you who follow them: this is written down for all to see.

All the attendees of the UNFCCC conferences of the parties at those wonderfully varied venues around the world are either morons for agreeing to this stupid argument, or lazy morons for not having detected it when they first got the assignment. Remember, as the first principle expressed in the Convention, it supports all that follows, so it had better be good—but it stinks.

We’ll cope, always have

Humanity has no responsibility for climate change, for we’re given no evidence of it and it’s introduced under the witless pretext that “vary” is different from “change”. The bureaucratic leviathan founded on this pretense is steeped in deception and is a demented squandering of scarce resources.

It is time to consign the useless IPCC to the dustbin of history.

Then what of climate change? As it isn’t going away, we will return to coping with climate change as we have always coped with it—as best we can. As we did during the last ice age.

Visits: 74

20 Thoughts on “In the beginning was the Warming

  1. Australis on 16/01/2012 at 2:20 am said:

    But after all the huffing and puffing at Rio, the resolution which finally emerged was this:

    The ultimate objective of this Convention .. is to achieve .. stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

    So there was no obligation to reduce or minimise emissions. The game-plan was to figure out what level would be “dangerous” and to stabilise at that level.

    Over the next decade or so, a vague assumption grew that the “dangerous” level was likely 560ppm. That would be double the pre-industrial levels of about 750, and there was a 1979 paper suggesting that this could raise levels about 3°C (including positive feedbacks).

    Then, in 2007, PM Tony Blair decided to make climate change the hallmark of his year as chairman of the G8. He insisted that an exact figure had to be put upon “dangerous”. At that time, there was a meeting of climate science modellers in Exeter, so DECC asked that group if they could fabricate an answer. They couldn’t, but they had to tell the PM something, so they essayed a figure of 450pmm.

    That’s how Government science works!

    • “That’s how Government science works!” Precisely. Which is why I propose that the fathers of the IPCC are the various governments who decided on the agenda of CAGW in order to find and fund the Next Big Scare to the masses and set up an enormous international taxation/trading scam complete with an army of expensive rent-seeking bureaucrats. – Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, America, and various bandwagoners like the Maldives. No science necessary. NIWA – we need a home-grown hockey stick – make it happen.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 16/01/2012 at 6:43 am said:

    … human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, … these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect” – FCCC.

    “In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC” – Dr Ferenc Miskolczi.

  3. Andy on 16/01/2012 at 9:35 am said:

    Completely off topic (sorry) but I thought you should see this petition

    which is to stop an Oregon wind turbine operator being granted legal rights to kill Golden Eagles.

  4. Andy on 16/01/2012 at 10:16 am said:

    Continuing the biblical (in the beginning) theme, Fenbeagle is brilliant as always

  5. Andy on 16/01/2012 at 9:56 pm said:

    Again off topic but much mouth-foaming in evidence from Cindy Baxter at Hot Topic who appears to be annoyed that “climate denial” has had so much coverage in the media over the hols

    It’s a real shame that these “caring environmentalists” are so worried about a few snails on the west coast but seems happy to condemn a few thousand Golden Eagles to their death, sanctioned by the US government.

  6. bulaman on 19/01/2012 at 12:57 pm said:

    This is worth a read and back refence to earlier wind discussion and the PWC document

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 20/01/2012 at 9:27 am said:

    Hilarious that AR5 is being lambasted already:-

    “Unless you are a climate scientist, you would probably not describe the paleoclimate reconstruction as cohering particularly well with the various models, but that’s a story for another day.

    In the running text of the draft AR5, Neukom et al is cited on several occasions, including as authority for the observation that SH summer temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period (you know, the one that is supposedly regionally restricted to Greenland and a few counties in England) were “mostly warmer than the 20th century climatology”:”

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 20/01/2012 at 10:21 am said:

    Seen at HT (Cranking it out):-

    Dappledwater January 19, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Bill -“I’m constantly amazed by how often I’m told we’re ‘losing the debate’. Not in f’ing science we’re not!”

    I’m sure those living in La-la land truly believe it Bill. Sad isn’t it? And yet everyday I read dozens of new peer-reviewed papers which reveal global warming is here, it’s bad, and only likely to get much,much worse.

    1) Are there really “dozens of new peer-reviewed papers which reveal global warming is here” published “everyday”?

    2) Is Rob Painting actually able to read “dozens of new peer-reviewed papers” “everyday”?

    3) If he is able, a) he either has a lot of time on his hands and/or b) he has an exceptional capacity (Waaay more time and waaaay more capacity than most folks I’m sure).

    4) Is global warming really “bad” right now?

    5) By “much,much worse”, does he mean the lack of global warming this century (“here” now)?

    6) Is that the correct use of “which” (“which reveal”)? Shouldn’t it be “that reveal”?

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 20/01/2012 at 5:14 pm said:

    “renewable guy” is championing some bogus AGW support at Climate Change Dispatch ‘That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect’.


    Humidity/CO2 residency

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Hansen’s mechanism (undefined) for a GHG effect being the “dominant role” in OHC build-up as he states in H11 and a mechanism (unscientific) as espoused by Peter Minnett (RSMAS) at RealClimate and Rob Painting at SkepticalScience

    A GHG figure minus water vapour that SkS gives prominence to

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/01/2012 at 6:04 pm said:

      The RealClimate GHG ocean heating mechanism is particularly nutty:-

      ‘Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean’

      Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS) 5 September 2006

      Deflates his case somewhat with a magnificent example of foot shooting in the second to last paragraph “Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship” [and the cloudiness “relationship”?]

      And Rob Painting’s mechanism, adapted from the RC post, takes the nuttiness to a whole new level:-

      ‘How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean’

      by Rob Painting 18 October 2011

      Steadfastly confuses heat and radiation, conflates the normal cool-skin effect with a bogus GHG skin effect and also does some foot shooting “Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans” [GHG LWIR interacts effectively at 0.01mm]

      renewable guy completes the nuttiness:-

      “With an ever increasing co2 being emitted into the air, this surface layer insulation helps to force heat into the lower oceans” [a thermal insulator does not “force heat”, especially one only 0.01mm thick on a turbulent ocean surface]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation