The Forum > Article Comments > What (if anything) can be done about the IPCC? > Comments
What (if anything) can be done about the IPCC? : Comments
By Don Aitkin, published 8/8/2014Although it has lost some of the status it once had, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change is still a formidable body, and acts as a dead weight on attempts to change the nature of the 'climate change' debate.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
-
- All
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 8 August 2014 9:10:27 AM
| |
"What (if anything) can be done about the IPCC?"
Allow it to die a slow death. Starve it of attention. Don't give it the attention it seeks. Starve it of funds. It's in terminal decline anyway. ClimateGate revealed how corrupt the whole process is. There is no end to the politics and ideological bias that drices the selection bias in the contents of its reports. But it really doesn't matter anymore. The vast majority of people have moved on from being scared spitless about Catastrophic AGW. They realise that economic development is far more important and is the best treatment and best preparation for dealing with whatever risks the world faces. The policy analysists are now starting to say more clearly what they've known all along - e.g. the utter stupidity of the policies the Greenies have been promoting for the past 25 years: Kyoto. carbon pricing, renewable energy, anti-nuclear, etc). Here's an excellent article from a week ago in the Economist on: "Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought" http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and And here is 'TheEnergyCollective' on "Can Nuclear Make a Substantial Near-Term Contribution?" http://theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/448701/can-nuclear-make-substantial-near-term-contribution Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 8 August 2014 9:29:02 AM
| |
Surely this must be a joke.
Aitkin urges us to ignore the overwhelming evidence for man made climate change by thousands of scientists from all over the world because 2 politicians urge caution. Yes Don, of course we all realise how much more objective politicians are compared to scientists and how much rigour (dare I say 'scientific' rigour?) they bring to their decision making processes. Why on Earth would we not give more credence to 2 politicians over 2000 scientists? The simple and obvious answer to the “it's natural” argument is clearly that, if what's happening today is natural, then what happened yesterday was also natural. And what happened last year, and a hundred years ago, and ten thousand years ago... 10,000 years ago the human population was about 1 million. Today, over 7,000,000,000. In flatulence alone, you'd reckon that would have to make an impact. 10,000 years ago, around 50% of land area was covered in forests. Today, less than 25% 10,000 years ago, the amount of fossil fuels being dug up and deliberately being converted into atmospheric gases approximately... nil. Today, burning of fossil fuels creates more than 21,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 every singe year. And (Don would have us believe) the indisputable fact that the world is getting warmer is just a coincidence, and nothing needs to be done. Despite everything we've done, it's not our fault; or if it is our fault, it's not our responsibility to do anything about it, or if it is our responsibility, there's nothing we can do about, or if there is something we can do it will cost too much anyway. If you detect a suspicious smell, I'm sure it wasn't Don. Posted by Grim, Friday, 8 August 2014 9:44:51 AM
| |
Absolutely agree with GRIM! Commonsense is arguably the most rare commodity.
If all we did, was just select our energy options, on the lowest to us possible price, we'd prefer cheaper than coal thorium, and very local micro-grids, that then more than would halve the cost of industrial energy, and indeed, have the energy dependent, high tech industries queuing to relocate here! Currently, we Aussies waste around 8 billion dollars worth of food PA, which invariably finds its way to landfill, and from where it can generate methane. A greenhouse gas, that per unit is worth 21 units of carbon! When we could just shove it into insinkerators, that then allows this waste to be fed into bio-digestors, along with other biological waste; that then produces methane; that then is scrubbed and fed into storage bladders; that then can be fed into super silent ceramic fuel cells, that then power our homes, office buildings, hospitals and what have you, 24/7! And do so whether the wind blows, the river do or don't run and whether or not the sun shines! And for far less than the cheaper than coal, thorium option, all while providing endless free domestic hot water, and a range of other useful products, just one on which is high carbon, nitrate and phosphate rich, perfectly sanitized organic fertilizer! I mean who cares if the IPCC are right wrong or over/underselling the risks! It just doesn't matter! When all we need worry about is the cheapest possible energy options, and then just let copycats and the least expensive options take care of any element of man made climate change! Absolutely nothing else is needed or useful! Wake up! We just don't need this debate or the quite massive time wasting it creates! I mean, and lets face it, it's the economy stupid! Rhrosty Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 8 August 2014 10:23:00 AM
| |
Dear Don, You may not like the conclusions the IPCC have come to and you are entitled to your opinions. For my money climate change is most certainly occurring driven by massive population increases which in turn are pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Australia will be one of the worst countries to be effected. We certainly need a policy, something that has now been abandoned altogether.
Posted by Yug, Friday, 8 August 2014 10:50:48 AM
| |
Good article Don.
Keep up the good work, at least for as long as you can. I know it gets tiring trying to talk to dills, or confirmed greenies, who are not interested in the science, or simply can't understand it, even when laid out in words of one syllable. One thing I find hard to understand is the left right divide on global warming. I can see no reason why those of the left all believe. Are there no people with enough IQ on the left to understand, or are the left minded people prepared to grab any lie to gain a political advantage. Yes I know the UN agenda is to try to ride the cause to a global government, designed to bring the west down, but can all the left leaning folk of Australia really want to see that, or do they just not understand. I often wonder just how cold it will have to get before the greenies finally admit they were wrong. Anyway, do keep up the good work. Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 8 August 2014 11:09:12 AM
|
Poor Don do the real scientist not want to listen to you....Do they laugh when you tell them their wrong, because they know how ignorant of the subject matter you are...What was it again political science well i can see how they would equipment to evaluate climate modelling.