IPCC too moderate for scaremongers

The Australian

A warmist lobby group has issued instructions to its adherents that the IPCC can be ignored and they they should continue to scaremonger away:

A GLOBAL lobby group has distributed a “spin sheet” encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An “action pack” distributed by Global Campaign for Climate Action said members “shouldn’t be afraid to make the connection”, despite the sometimes low level of confidence in the official documents of the IPCC. The action pack, which was produced to coincide with the release of the latest full IPCC report into the link between climate change and extreme weather events, rekindled claims that overstating the case damaged the credibility of the science.

“What this leaked document shows is again we have groups out there promoting more extreme situations than the report actually warrants because the latest report shows there are degrees of uncertainty,” said Institute of Public Affairs climate spokesman Tim Wilson.

“When the claims don’t correlate it undermines the confidence that people can actually have in climate science.”


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Salacious T Crumb

    Come on greenies. Time to face up to it. The science ISNT settled. You were wrong.

  • Stamper

    I read the following recently, which sort of sums up the science:
    From an experienced geologist and scientist:

    1 Throughout geological time there have been regular ice-ages with
    several warm periods (interglacials) within them, often warmer than present.

    2  Around 1500AD the temperature
    of Britain was higher than now, as was the Neolithic period.

    3  In 19th century there
    was the “little Ice Age”. Climate change data often starts at this
    low point so recent rebound warming appears dramatic.

    4  If Arctic sea ice melted
    the sea level would not alter because it is covering water. Melting ice from
    land has raised sea levels for the last 10000 yrs since the end of the last
    phase of ice. The North Sea was land then.

    5  CO2 has only recently
    risen from 330ppm to380ppm. It has been higher over geological time, nearly


    Many factors probably play
    a part in the regular cycles of climate change. Focusing on one by picking
    evidence to fit is bad science and stops serious debate.

    So if you can’t bend the science try to scaremonger them into submission and try to get at their taxes that way.

    I would say another 5 years and “carbon footprints” will be as common as dodos.

    • Peter Wilson

      From an experienced geologist and scientist:

      Not sure if your friend would appreciate your description of him…..geologist AND a scientist!

  • Super_Guest

    Even if AGW is real (doubt it), so what? Human beings have survived an Ice Age, we can survive a little more sunshine.

    • parorchestia

      Very few of us survived the Ice Age – 8,000 to 10,000 or so!

  • Patriot

    Claiming  ” Climate Change ” is very different,  to Claiming AGW or manmade Co2 causes —  tornados- Rainfall – Hurricanes  – drought  in extreme or bif doses of those events .

    There is Zero evidence that Co2 – of the manmade variety – not the natural Co2  —  causes RAIN.
    If Co2 did causes RAIN or extreme Rain — then dump a load of manmade Co2 in Sudan to make Rain and grow crops / food
    RAIN cannot be created by increasing Co2 into an area — otherwise I would be selling rainmaking Co2 gas to any Country in drought .

    ” Roll up Roll up — Co2 gas , extreme Rain , for sale ”
    BOLLOCKS — ipcc are trying to make money – scientists are trying to get paid for crap ” science ”

  • Boss Hogg

    Y’All probably stop here:


    to get some balance against the Climate Religion Zealots.  I make it part of my morning reading to ensure the propaganda is not getting to me from the “Believers”.

    And I work in the renewables sector but am sick to death of science by bullshit conensus…

  • parorchestia

    There is also the belief when the warmist alarm started (following an equally fraudulent ice age alarm in the ’70s)  that carbon dioxide caused Venus to be extremely hot due to the glass house effect.  Thus the correlation was drawn between increasing CO2 and global heating.
    But it was then discovered that Venus rotates very slowly, too slowly to establish a magnetosphere, so all the sun’s radiation penetrates the atmosphere and heats up the planet. This is what caused the out-control-heating on Venus, not CO2. The same thing would happen to us if the magnetosphere failed and cosmic rays etc got through.  Warmists do not seem to realise that CO2 is a weak optical gas (totally absorbed in 10 m of air), and they pin their hopes on very positive feedbacks.  But these have yet to be demonstrated (they are guessed at in the models), and the evidence that is coming to light suggests feedbacks are very weak and may, in fact, seriously weaken whatever effect CO2 may have.
    So folks, we are not going to a hot hell tomorrow.

  • Mr_Blobby

    What a load of Bullshit. Even if true there is nothing we can do about it, as the population continues to increase. Let’s just get on with life. If the answer to a problem is to TAX it then it is a Con.

  • Peter Wilson

    Probably we need to be looking at new terminology. “Global warming deniers” now have the facts on their side. Beside being charlatans, what does this now make the scientists?