The Carbon Sense Coalition called today on the Australian government to stop wasting money on IPCC activities.
“No submissions, no delegates, no funds”.
The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the repeated failures of the IPCC theories and climate models shows that the money spent on these activities would be better spent on disaster-proofing public infrastructure: whatever we spend on IPCC activities is too much.
Decades ago the IPCC proposed a theory that Earth’s temperature is controlled by the 0.04% trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This theory was used to make predictions by about 70 computer models.
Thirty years of observations has proved every prediction to be wrong.
Therefore the theory is wrong. That is how science works.
Now, faced with collapse of their theory and de-funding of their activities, the alarmist crew has switched to politics.
The IPCC Summary document released last week with all the hoopla of a political convention is a political document produced by consensus. It was negotiated by a committee of bureaucrats for their governments, most of whom have a vested interest in proving there is a continuing problem needing international taxes and controls.
Consensus is the tool of politics. Public opinion is where the next climate battle will be fought.
They will lose again. It is time to stop wasting money on a lost cause.
Last Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 36-page document. It was called the Summary for Policymakers and it summarized 14 chapters of new material.
These 14 chapters were reduced to a summary by 65 selected IPCC personnel.
The Summary was only drafted by these people. When they finished their task in June this year, the resulting document was 31 pages long and contained 15,589 words. At the press conference about a week ago, the IPCC presented to the world a different version:700 fewer words and 5 pages longer.
The changes were made behind closed doors over four days by politicians and bureaucrats from 100 countries.
In spite of this, journalists around the world have told us that the summary is "science" rather than "politics".
Geoffrey Lean, in the Daily Telegraph, called the summary “the most important analysis yet” of climate change. He described the summary as mind-bogglingly thorough.
He did not mention that political operatives had worked on it for four days.
|Fuel to Electricity|
| Wind -
| Wind -
|Low Energy Bulbs|